Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
Yes, interbreeding is a problem. But surely we can find a wildcat species sufficiently different from domestic cats that they can’t hybridise?
Failing that, SNOW LEOPARDS
Why not? Let’s be imaginative. Dwarf rhino on Dartmoor
Nice thought! But nonnative species are a big no-no. You're stuck with Felis sylvestris sylvestris (Scottish Wildcat) or nothing. Apart of course for lynx. Lynx will do very nicely indeed for a wild cat.
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Well, being annoying in that way certainly got Socrates his jar of hemlock.
When Leon gets back from the Acropolis, I must ask him if he got to see the Assembly on the Pnyx hill.
Midday drinkies seem to be impeding the grand tour somewhat.
You’ll be relieved to hear I made it up and down the Acropolis and am now having a ‘refreshing’ ouzo overlooking the Ancient Agora, which I intend to visit next. Probably.
Why is ouzo delicious and welcoming in Greece. Yet repulsive if drunk anywhere else?
Very true, see also Goldwasser, Pastis, Grappa etc. I actually like vodka but not straight, however if I ever get to Russia I'm sure I'd be knocking it back with gay abandon after going a round with the birch twigs.
Yes! I actually invented a new grappa cocktail in Venice, one summer. Grappa and Red Bull. I called it “Grapple”
One night I had so many Grapples I decided I HAD to swim across the Grand Canal and had to be physically restrained by my girlfriend along with some locals
As for vodka, I barely touch it anywhere but in Russia, but during the White Nights in St Petersburg the wife and I went slightly insane after about 13 shots on the trot.
'Remember that time we stormed the Winter Palace?'
'Or that rather nice Austin-Putilov I climbed on top of and gave a speech off?'
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Hard to imagine a worse advertisement for unfettered democracy than Athens. It lurched from one judicial murder to another on a kind of "The Sun says: String 'em up!" basis. Exactly this happened to Pericles' son https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles_the_Younger before anybody starts giving it large about that bloody funeral oration. Pericles himself was a grade A c--t who paid for the Parthenon out of money extorted out of Athens' "allies" by barefaced imperialism (which is why it's fun to troll the modern Greeks by pointing out that if we return their marbles it's only fair to return a substantial proportion of them to the cities of Western Turkey which paid for them in the first place). In the same year as he made that tedious oration, he got a decree passed which had the remarkable rider that anyone proposing the repeal of the decree (in the same assembly as passed it in the first place) should be put to death - probably still the single most barefaced and cynical abuse of democracy in the history of the institution at least till 2016. And his response to the Spartan invasion of Attica was the utterly insane zero-Lacedaimonian, permanent lockdown policy of evacuating the entire country into the city of Athens, with the inevitable financial ruin, depression and plague that you'd expect. And the final outcome of the war he started, well after his death, was the utter destruction of Athens. A real Boris Johnson of a leader.
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Well, being annoying in that way certainly got Socrates his jar of hemlock.
When Leon gets back from the Acropolis, I must ask him if he got to see the Assembly on the Pnyx hill.
Midday drinkies seem to be impeding the grand tour somewhat.
You’ll be relieved to hear I made it up and down the Acropolis and am now having a ‘refreshing’ ouzo overlooking the Ancient Agora, which I intend to visit next. Probably.
Why is ouzo delicious and welcoming in Greece. Yet repulsive if drunk anywhere else?
Very true, see also Goldwasser, Pastis, Grappa etc. I actually like vodka but not straight, however if I ever get to Russia I'm sure I'd be knocking it back with gay abandon after going a round with the birch twigs.
Yes! I actually invented a new grappa cocktail in Venice, one summer. Grappa and Red Bull. I called it “Grapple”
One night I had so many Grapples I decided I HAD to swim across the Grand Canal and had to be physically restrained by my girlfriend along with some locals
As for vodka, I barely touch it anywhere but in Russia, but during the White Nights in St Petersburg the wife and I went slightly insane after about 13 shots on the trot.
'Remember that time we stormed the Winter Palace?'
Have you done the White Nights? They are incredible. I’d read that the mixture of endless light, vodka, music, water, auroras, fires, and beautiful St Petersburg induces a kind of bacchanalian madness, a hedonic state of hallucination, tinged with violence
Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
I’m doing the Pnyx tomorrow tho there are rumours it might be shut because fire risk….
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Well, being annoying in that way certainly got Socrates his jar of hemlock.
When Leon gets back from the Acropolis, I must ask him if he got to see the Assembly on the Pnyx hill.
Midday drinkies seem to be impeding the grand tour somewhat.
You’ll be relieved to hear I made it up and down the Acropolis and am now having a ‘refreshing’ ouzo overlooking the Ancient Agora, which I intend to visit next. Probably.
Why is ouzo delicious and welcoming in Greece. Yet repulsive if drunk anywhere else?
Very true, see also Goldwasser, Pastis, Grappa etc. I actually like vodka but not straight, however if I ever get to Russia I'm sure I'd be knocking it back with gay abandon after going a round with the birch twigs.
Yes! I actually invented a new grappa cocktail in Venice, one summer. Grappa and Red Bull. I called it “Grapple”
One night I had so many Grapples I decided I HAD to swim across the Grand Canal and had to be physically restrained by my girlfriend along with some locals
As for vodka, I barely touch it anywhere but in Russia, but during the White Nights in St Petersburg the wife and I went slightly insane after about 13 shots on the trot.
'Remember that time we stormed the Winter Palace?'
Have you done the White Nights? They are incredible. I’d read that the mixture of endless light, vodka, music, water, auroras, fires, and beautiful St Petersburg induces a kind of bacchanalian madness, a hedonic state of hallucination, tinged with violence
I'm not very au fait with the incel stuff, but a snippet I saw featured a guy who had a strange sense of entitlement, and corresponding confusion and anger when things weren't working out.
But then, I also know men online (not super well, but a bit) who have simply sworn off women. Not in an angry or misogynistic way, just not interested in romantic relationships.
I know quite a few married men where from the outside it looks very much though that it is the wives are supremely dominant. In a number of cases the sort of language the women use towards their partners is verbal abuse. If the genders were reversed then it would cause an outcry. As it is women doing it though and men are the recipients it is not seen as a problem.
Middle aged men though have been trained to not complain and certainly never to do anything back. My personal belief is that there are a large number of middle-aged men who are in abusive relationships (vast majority probably solely verbal) but cannot see a way out. I would not be surprised if they do manage to get out of such a situation that they have no desire to go back!
I would concur with your belief. Domestic abuse of men is definetly something that happens. And the thing is: women can be prosecuted in the same way as men are, if the authorities are bought in; as the legislation is gender neutral. I suspect that the probability of the authorities being bought in is much lower where men are the victims, as men don't see what is happening as abuse; and there is definetly a cultural tendency to view women as victims. In the end the reality is that relationships are just rather complex and expressions of power are not completely reducible to gender, as some people would like us to believe.
Weird how there wasn’t this criticism of the Welsh and Scottish governments when they made this change a week ago.
It’s almost as if the argument is political.
Dr Zubaida Haque @Zubhaque This was one of the busiest weekends in the whole pandemic and as Sept approaches it will only get busier. This is possibly the *worst time* with #DeltaVariant wave AND incomplete vaxx rollout to tell vaccinated people that their behaviour doesn't matter
Yes, to be fair to Bolton the neocons are now totally out of power in the Biden-Harris White House and the Congress and indeed are not close to Trump either. The neocons are now the foreign policy opposition not the foreign policy government.
As Liz Cheney said yesterday there are consequences from non intervention as much as intervention, those who have been pushing for withdrawal for years now have in the White House one of their own. If it goes wrong they have nobody to blame but themselves
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
You could be right. If it's seen as a humiliation then it could feed into a second MAGA narrative etc.
Much depends on the Taliban, probably. If they keep things fairly low profile then it could well be forgotten by 2024. If they commit high profile atrocities and/or encourage/allow overseas terror using Afghanistan as a base then it could be a hot issue.
I'm not very au fait with the incel stuff, but a snippet I saw featured a guy who had a strange sense of entitlement, and corresponding confusion and anger when things weren't working out.
But then, I also know men online (not super well, but a bit) who have simply sworn off women. Not in an angry or misogynistic way, just not interested in romantic relationships.
I know quite a few married men where from the outside it looks very much though that it is the wives are supremely dominant. In a number of cases the sort of language the women use towards their partners is verbal abuse. If the genders were reversed then it would cause an outcry. As it is women doing it though and men are the recipients it is not seen as a problem.
Middle aged men though have been trained to not complain and certainly never to do anything back. My personal belief is that there are a large number of middle-aged men who are in abusive relationships (vast majority probably solely verbal) but cannot see a way out. I would not be surprised if they do manage to get out of such a situation that they have no desire to go back!
I would concur with your belief. Domestic abuse of men is definetly something that happens. And the thing is: women can be prosecuted in the same way as men are, if the authorities are bought in; as the legislation is gender neutral. I suspect that the probability of the authorities being bought in is much lower where men are the victims, as men don't see what is happening as abuse; and there is definetly a cultural tendency to view women as victims. In the end the reality is that relationships are just rather complex and expressions of power are not completely reducible to gender, as some people would like us to believe.
Maybe the "cultural tendency to view women as victims" exists because, er, women nearly always are the victims, particularly of violent and sexual abuse?
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
Australia's broken through the 500 daily cases barrier. It will be a very difficult decision to relax the lockdown, even when their vaccination rate improves.
Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
Yes, interbreeding is a problem. But surely we can find a wildcat species sufficiently different from domestic cats that they can’t hybridise?
Failing that, SNOW LEOPARDS
Why not? Let’s be imaginative. Dwarf rhino on Dartmoor
Nice thought! But nonnative species are a big no-no. You're stuck with Felis sylvestris sylvestris (Scottish Wildcat) or nothing. Apart of course for lynx. Lynx will do very nicely indeed for a wild cat.
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
The definition of ‘native’ is confounding tho, as you surely know. Species here for a thousand years? Are rabbits (introduced by the Romans) non-native? Species here when Britain became an island? Species here at the end of the ice age? When? What is native?
Relatedly, I note that Athens is now infested with parakeets, just like London. Jimi Hendrix has a lot to answer for
Weird how there wasn’t this criticism of the Welsh and Scottish governments when they made this change a week ago.
It’s almost as if the argument is political.
Dr Zubaida Haque @Zubhaque This was one of the busiest weekends in the whole pandemic and as Sept approaches it will only get busier. This is possibly the *worst time* with #DeltaVariant wave AND incomplete vaxx rollout to tell vaccinated people that their behaviour doesn't matter
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
Yes, to be fair to Bolton the neocons are now totally out of power in the Biden-Harris White House and the Congress and indeed are not close to Trump either. The neocons are now the foreign policy opposition not the foreign policy government.
As Liz Cheney said yesterday there are consequences from non intervention as much as intervention, those who have been pushing for withdrawal for years now have in the White House one of their own. If it goes wrong they have nobody to blame but themselves
As I understood it, the neo-cons are closer to Biden than to Trump. They tolerate the former, but they simply cannot abide the latter.
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Well, being annoying in that way certainly got Socrates his jar of hemlock.
When Leon gets back from the Acropolis, I must ask him if he got to see the Assembly on the Pnyx hill.
Midday drinkies seem to be impeding the grand tour somewhat.
You’ll be relieved to hear I made it up and down the Acropolis and am now having a ‘refreshing’ ouzo overlooking the Ancient Agora, which I intend to visit next. Probably.
Why is ouzo delicious and welcoming in Greece. Yet repulsive if drunk anywhere else?
Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
Yes, interbreeding is a problem. But surely we can find a wildcat species sufficiently different from domestic cats that they can’t hybridise?
Failing that, SNOW LEOPARDS
Why not? Let’s be imaginative. Dwarf rhino on Dartmoor
Nice thought! But nonnative species are a big no-no. You're stuck with Felis sylvestris sylvestris (Scottish Wildcat) or nothing. Apart of course for lynx. Lynx will do very nicely indeed for a wild cat.
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
The definition of ‘native’ is confounding tho, as you surely know. Species here for a thousand years? Are rabbits (introduced by the Romans) non-native? Species here when Britain became an island? Species here at the end of the ice age? When? What is native?
Relatedly, I note that Athens is now infested with parakeets, just like London. Jimi Hendrix has a lot to answer for
Berlin has a raccoon problem which I only discovered after seeing one. I was a bit pished at the time so it was definitely one of those cartoonish rubbing your eyes moments.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
Yes, to be fair to Bolton the neocons are now totally out of power in the Biden-Harris White House and the Congress and indeed are not close to Trump either. The neocons are now the foreign policy opposition not the foreign policy government.
As Liz Cheney said yesterday there are consequences from non intervention as much as intervention, those who have been pushing for withdrawal for years now have in the White House one of their own. If it goes wrong they have nobody to blame but themselves
As I understood it, the neo-cons are closer to Biden than to Trump. They tolerate the former, but they simply cannot abide the latter.
Trump is the ultimate non interventionist. That's when he has a coherent thought at all.
Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
Yes, interbreeding is a problem. But surely we can find a wildcat species sufficiently different from domestic cats that they can’t hybridise?
Failing that, SNOW LEOPARDS
Why not? Let’s be imaginative. Dwarf rhino on Dartmoor
Nice thought! But nonnative species are a big no-no. You're stuck with Felis sylvestris sylvestris (Scottish Wildcat) or nothing. Apart of course for lynx. Lynx will do very nicely indeed for a wild cat.
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
The definition of ‘native’ is confounding tho, as you surely know. Species here for a thousand years? Are rabbits (introduced by the Romans) non-native? Species here when Britain became an island? Species here at the end of the ice age? When? What is native?
Relatedly, I note that Athens is now infested with parakeets, just like London. Jimi Hendrix has a lot to answer for
Oh, quite. General consensus seems to be what fits into the extant ecosystems and lived here at one time. So European beaver OK albeit extinct here for several centuries, American species not acceptable. Woolly rhino were native, but no tundra left (never mind woolly rhino), so scratch that. And IIRC the kind of elephant you had in the warm periods of the ice ages was a different kind from the surviving ones, so none to introduce, ditto woolly mammoth from the cold periods.
"Nothing more clearly indicated what the mullahs thought of women than their early decision to reduce the age of consent to 9. Why do men – especially religious / revolutionary men – feel so threatened by women deciding for themselves what to do with their lives?"
I admire Cyclefree a lot, but here we see woke ideology infiltrating the minds of even solid liberals. The fault for such a disgusting decision is being laid at "men" rather than "Islam" because the former have been tagged as "privileged" and the latter are seen as "oppressed".
The vast majority of men in the West are as disgusted at the thought of relations with nine year olds as women are. But the problem here is that a certain 7th Century Prophet married a six year old and consummated that marriage at nine. The religion he founded holds up this marriage as the most esteemed of all. You will not find an Imam in good standing anywhere in the world that condemns this act. This is true for Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi, Twelver, Ismaili, and Zaidi thought.
THAT is the problem. Not the fragility of men. And yet we have got ourselves tied up in this simplistic ideology of seeing everything in terms of identity groups with varying scores of "marginalization" that blinds us to the obvious. When what we should be doing is seeing the world in terms of individuals and competing ideas. And ideas are not all equally valid as different people's "my reality". Some ideas are good and make the world better, some ideas are bad and make it worse. Criticism of bad ideas should not be seen as "bigotry" because the bad ideas are held by a "marginalized" group.
I very much do see what the mullahs and the Taliban did as an issue with Islam. But without wishing to derail the thread there are other issues going in the world right now - in this country even - which show that it is not just Muslim men who think that women primarily exist to serve men.
Might I remind you, for instance of the Incel movement?
The incel movement, along with the woke movement and the increasing emphasis on transgender rights, could perhaps be seen as evidence of how much our society has become feminist in outlook. But this comes at a point where other societies become more patriarchial and traditional in outlook: Afghanistan is just one example of this trend.
The question this poses is how stable is such a modern society in the face of external threats. We are mocking the men at Kabul airport for not wanting to fight the taliban but really, who is willing to fight to defend our own society? If men feel alienated and excluded from society, they are less likely to fight to defend it.
The incel movement and transgender rights are not evidence of feminism. Quite the opposite. They are male movements which will harm women. Old wine in new bottles. One believes that men are owed sex by women. The other believes that it knows better than women what womanhood is. Neither are remotely feminist.
And now I must be off.
The answer to the question in my header is no.
Have a nice day all.
The point is that there are lots of men who want nothing more to do with women - how can this be reconciled with the assertion that we live in a patiarchial society?
Transgender rights - this at least partially (but not exclusively) about men wanting the ability to renounce their biological sex and identify as women.
To me this is evidence that society has become more feminist (or feminine) in terms of its dominant values and outlook.
I might be mis-reading you here, but are you saying Incels want nothing to do with women? Surely that's not right. A defining feature of Incels are that they *do* want sexual (and romantic) relationships with women and are angry/bitter at their inability to do so. They aren't an abstinence movement.
I known little about the incel movement - but my understanding is the same as yours - IE men voluntarily withdrawing from interactions with women on the basis that they are experiencing continuous rejection, for which they blame the dominant values of society. My point is that the mere existence of this group is evidence that we are not living in a particularly effective patriarchy. Furthermore, rather than seeing these people as being worthy of sympathy and help, the emerging policy approach seems to be to try and criminalise such expressions as hate speech. None of this is going to solve the problem of division in society, which contributes to the overall decline in coherance and social stability.
There's probably an issue with men joining the Incel 'movement' for a wide variety of reasons. IANAE either, but I do think the patriarchy plays an important role in it.
Many men in this country and raised with a rather (ahem) old-fashioned view of women and relationships. To exaggerate: men have to be Phil Mitchell-style hardmen, telling 'their' women what to do, and expecting dinner on the table when they get home from work or the pub. This is a very patriarchal view, and it is a massive turn-off for large numbers of women.
Vast numbers of women are (rightly IMO) not willing to fulfil traditional female roles in the manner they once expected to. Relationships are often now more partnerships than subservient - and I think too many men, even young ones, want control, not partnerships.
(Some women want control as well: but I think the issue is much more pronounced amongst men, who have lost a power they once had. Good riddance to that power IMO.)
I don't think this is right actually, except at the margins.
I think most simply want a girlfriend and have no clue how to go about it, and largely only get angry and misogynistic when they fail and withdraw, and meet like-minded people online who radicalise them.
Much online porn is based on guys treating women like objects to be subjugated. Control, not erotica is what marks out most of it. If this is what they are seeing whilst still virgins, it doesn't augur well for them when these virgins do get a woman into bed....
True, but the vast majority of guys watch porn like this.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
Perhaps Biden was just bored of it.
Perhaps he mixed it up with somewhere else.
I wonder how much he's influenced by settling scores from the Obama era when his opinion was ignored.
"Nothing more clearly indicated what the mullahs thought of women than their early decision to reduce the age of consent to 9. Why do men – especially religious / revolutionary men – feel so threatened by women deciding for themselves what to do with their lives?"
I admire Cyclefree a lot, but here we see woke ideology infiltrating the minds of even solid liberals. The fault for such a disgusting decision is being laid at "men" rather than "Islam" because the former have been tagged as "privileged" and the latter are seen as "oppressed".
The vast majority of men in the West are as disgusted at the thought of relations with nine year olds as women are. But the problem here is that a certain 7th Century Prophet married a six year old and consummated that marriage at nine. The religion he founded holds up this marriage as the most esteemed of all. You will not find an Imam in good standing anywhere in the world that condemns this act. This is true for Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi, Twelver, Ismaili, and Zaidi thought.
THAT is the problem. Not the fragility of men. And yet we have got ourselves tied up in this simplistic ideology of seeing everything in terms of identity groups with varying scores of "marginalization" that blinds us to the obvious. When what we should be doing is seeing the world in terms of individuals and competing ideas. And ideas are not all equally valid as different people's "my reality". Some ideas are good and make the world better, some ideas are bad and make it worse. Criticism of bad ideas should not be seen as "bigotry" because the bad ideas are held by a "marginalized" group.
I very much do see what the mullahs and the Taliban did as an issue with Islam. But without wishing to derail the thread there are other issues going in the world right now - in this country even - which show that it is not just Muslim men who think that women primarily exist to serve men.
Might I remind you, for instance of the Incel movement?
The incel movement, along with the woke movement and the increasing emphasis on transgender rights, could perhaps be seen as evidence of how much our society has become feminist in outlook. But this comes at a point where other societies become more patriarchial and traditional in outlook: Afghanistan is just one example of this trend.
The question this poses is how stable is such a modern society in the face of external threats. We are mocking the men at Kabul airport for not wanting to fight the taliban but really, who is willing to fight to defend our own society? If men feel alienated and excluded from society, they are less likely to fight to defend it.
The incel movement and transgender rights are not evidence of feminism. Quite the opposite. They are male movements which will harm women. Old wine in new bottles. One believes that men are owed sex by women. The other believes that it knows better than women what womanhood is. Neither are remotely feminist.
And now I must be off.
The answer to the question in my header is no.
Have a nice day all.
The point is that there are lots of men who want nothing more to do with women - how can this be reconciled with the assertion that we live in a patiarchial society?
Transgender rights - this at least partially (but not exclusively) about men wanting the ability to renounce their biological sex and identify as women.
To me this is evidence that society has become more feminist (or feminine) in terms of its dominant values and outlook.
I might be mis-reading you here, but are you saying Incels want nothing to do with women? Surely that's not right. A defining feature of Incels are that they *do* want sexual (and romantic) relationships with women and are angry/bitter at their inability to do so. They aren't an abstinence movement.
I known little about the incel movement - but my understanding is the same as yours - IE men voluntarily withdrawing from interactions with women on the basis that they are experiencing continuous rejection, for which they blame the dominant values of society. My point is that the mere existence of this group is evidence that we are not living in a particularly effective patriarchy. Furthermore, rather than seeing these people as being worthy of sympathy and help, the emerging policy approach seems to be to try and criminalise such expressions as hate speech. None of this is going to solve the problem of division in society, which contributes to the overall decline in coherance and social stability.
There's probably an issue with men joining the Incel 'movement' for a wide variety of reasons. IANAE either, but I do think the patriarchy plays an important role in it.
Many men in this country and raised with a rather (ahem) old-fashioned view of women and relationships. To exaggerate: men have to be Phil Mitchell-style hardmen, telling 'their' women what to do, and expecting dinner on the table when they get home from work or the pub. This is a very patriarchal view, and it is a massive turn-off for large numbers of women.
Vast numbers of women are (rightly IMO) not willing to fulfil traditional female roles in the manner they once expected to. Relationships are often now more partnerships than subservient - and I think too many men, even young ones, want control, not partnerships.
(Some women want control as well: but I think the issue is much more pronounced amongst men, who have lost a power they once had. Good riddance to that power IMO.)
I don't think this is right actually, except at the margins.
I think most simply want a girlfriend and have no clue how to go about it, and largely only get angry and misogynistic when they fail and withdraw, and meet like-minded people online who radicalise them.
Much online porn is based on guys treating women like objects to be subjugated. Control, not erotica is what marks out most of it. If this is what they are seeing whilst still virgins, it doesn't augur well for them when these virgins do get a woman into bed....
True, but the vast majority of guys watch porn like this.
Controversial opinion: the Parthenon is disappointing
OK I’ve seen it before. But that was 35 years ago. OK it’s much more restricted now, you have to walk a certain circuit, blah blah. But covid also means I saw it with relatively few tourists - like a weekday at Conwy Castle - not the usual hordes
Yet still, meh. It is not moving. There is no soul there any more. Too many destructions and restorations? They’ve mucked about with it so much they might as well rebuild the whole damn thing and admit it’s fake, like newgrange or Knossos
Or just give what’s left to the British Museum. We’ve already got the best bits (we really have). We can rebuild it on Parliament Hill, complete with marbles. I shall start a popular campaign for this, tonight
Yes, to be fair to Bolton the neocons are now totally out of power in the Biden-Harris White House and the Congress and indeed are not close to Trump either. The neocons are now the foreign policy opposition not the foreign policy government.
As Liz Cheney said yesterday there are consequences from non intervention as much as intervention, those who have been pushing for withdrawal for years now have in the White House one of their own. If it goes wrong they have nobody to blame but themselves
As I understood it, the neo-cons are closer to Biden than to Trump. They tolerate the former, but they simply cannot abide the latter.
They were, now he has abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban he is no better than Bernie Sanders as far as they are concerned.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
I agree that the lack of a draft for Iraq/Afghanistan means that there is less strong opposition here compared to Vietnam, but I still feel that overall most Americans wanted out and do not want to go back in at any price, so I don't think overall there will be no net impact on Biden's position: for the withdrawal itself.
Where Biden could be seriously damaged is if the evacuation results in any significant American casualties, or worse, hostages taken. In that case, the Republicans will turn it into Benghazi on steroids and if they regain the House next year will open the mother of all inquiries, but it will be purely on the actual evacuation, not the decision to withdraw itself. If there are no casualties or hostages, and they take the House, then there will not be an inquiry into the withdrawal as Trump would attract the most blame for the actual decision.
Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
Yes, interbreeding is a problem. But surely we can find a wildcat species sufficiently different from domestic cats that they can’t hybridise?
Failing that, SNOW LEOPARDS
Why not? Let’s be imaginative. Dwarf rhino on Dartmoor
Nice thought! But nonnative species are a big no-no. You're stuck with Felis sylvestris sylvestris (Scottish Wildcat) or nothing. Apart of course for lynx. Lynx will do very nicely indeed for a wild cat.
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
The definition of ‘native’ is confounding tho, as you surely know. Species here for a thousand years? Are rabbits (introduced by the Romans) non-native? Species here when Britain became an island? Species here at the end of the ice age? When? What is native?
Relatedly, I note that Athens is now infested with parakeets, just like London. Jimi Hendrix has a lot to answer for
Berlin has a raccoon problem which I only discovered after seeing one. I was a bit pished at the time so it was definitely one of those cartoonish rubbing your eyes moments.
Didn't know that. A quick check shows that fried raccoon is a thing:
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
70+% support for pulling out, I believe. Pretty overwhelming. Probably would have been less if Trump hadn't made "no more foreign wars" one of his MAGA themes over the last several years.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
Perhaps Biden was just bored of it.
Politico thinks he was bored of it as far back as 2010.
Controversial opinion: the Parthenon is disappointing
OK I’ve seen it before. But that was 35 years ago. OK it’s much more restricted now, you have to walk a certain circuit, blah blah. But covid also means I saw it with relatively few tourists - like a weekday at Conwy Castle - not the usual hordes
Yet still, meh. It is not moving. There is no soul there any more. Too many destructions and restorations? They’ve mucked about with it so much they might as well rebuild the whole damn thing and admit it’s fake, like newgrange or Knossos
Or just give what’s left to the British Museum. We’ve already got the best bits (we really have). We can rebuild it on Parliament Hill, complete with marbles. I shall start a popular campaign for this, tonight
Not one I'll be joining you on. Have you been to the Acropolis museum ? The copies that are up there on the top floor, against the backdrop of the Parthenon, show where I think the marbles should be, in the right physical context.
It also has a great restaurant, with a great view out onto the balcony area.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
70+% support for pulling out, I believe. Pretty overwhelming. Probably would have been less if Trump hadn't made "no more foreign wars" one of his MAGA themes over the last several years.
There’s ‘pulling out’ and then there’s ‘pulling out in a way which is catastrophically inept and mortally embarrassing and produces future enormous problems’. Cf coitus interruptus and our newly Catholic PM
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
Essentially no-one of any influence in America wants to invest in Afghanistan. Biden won't be blamed for getting America out of a country of no importance to it. But he might be blamed for America being humiliated by Afghanistan, which is different. Particularly if it turns out to be a pattern of muck-ups
The Saigon damage would have fallen on Nixon, not Ford, but by that time Nixon was permanently damaged for other reasons.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
My impression is Americans were fed up with Afghanistan, but there was no huge pressure from the public to pull out. Unlike Vietnam, casualties were modest, and the Taliban had been contained.
Perhaps Biden was just bored of it.
Politico thinks he was bored of it as far back as 2009.
I am not sure he can even remember 2009, as he doesn't even seem to remember where his own front door is.
You could be right. If it's seen as a humiliation then it could feed into a second MAGA narrative etc.
Much depends on the Taliban, probably. If they keep things fairly low profile then it could well be forgotten by 2024. If they commit high profile atrocities and/or encourage/allow overseas terror using Afghanistan as a base then it could be a hot issue.
This article in The Times is the best I've seen on the Taliban as it is today:
In a nutshell, rather like ISIS was in Iraq, but politically smarter: internet-savvy, utter ruthless, well-funded, happy to profit from opium and ransom-kidnappings, and more dangerous than the 2001 version. Of course the situation is further complicated by Chinese ambitions in the region. It's hard to see how this can be anything other than bad news for the West, especially now that the Taliban has achieved total victory so has no need to compromise on anything. The high-profile atrocities are inevitable.
Absolutely yes. And more wildcats. And wolves. And aurochs. Why not.
Bears maybe only in Wales
Wildcats a bit difficult to organise without castrating all the local domestic mogs, which does not go down well with some folk. And we have plenty of Sevco Bears around around Glasgow, so quite right to treat Wales.
Have a nice time in the agora.
Yes, interbreeding is a problem. But surely we can find a wildcat species sufficiently different from domestic cats that they can’t hybridise?
Failing that, SNOW LEOPARDS
Why not? Let’s be imaginative. Dwarf rhino on Dartmoor
Nice thought! But nonnative species are a big no-no. You're stuck with Felis sylvestris sylvestris (Scottish Wildcat) or nothing. Apart of course for lynx. Lynx will do very nicely indeed for a wild cat.
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
The definition of ‘native’ is confounding tho, as you surely know. Species here for a thousand years? Are rabbits (introduced by the Romans) non-native? Species here when Britain became an island? Species here at the end of the ice age? When? What is native?
Relatedly, I note that Athens is now infested with parakeets, just like London. Jimi Hendrix has a lot to answer for
Berlin has a raccoon problem which I only discovered after seeing one. I was a bit pished at the time so it was definitely one of those cartoonish rubbing your eyes moments.
Taking a love of Guardians of the Galaxy a little TOO far.....
Controversial opinion: the Parthenon is disappointing
OK I’ve seen it before. But that was 35 years ago. OK it’s much more restricted now, you have to walk a certain circuit, blah blah. But covid also means I saw it with relatively few tourists - like a weekday at Conwy Castle - not the usual hordes
Yet still, meh. It is not moving. There is no soul there any more. Too many destructions and restorations? They’ve mucked about with it so much they might as well rebuild the whole damn thing and admit it’s fake, like newgrange or Knossos
Or just give what’s left to the British Museum. We’ve already got the best bits (we really have). We can rebuild it on Parliament Hill, complete with marbles. I shall start a popular campaign for this, tonight
Not one I'll be joining you on. Have you been to the Acropolis museum ?
Tomorrow. The Acropolis museum, the pnyx, plato’s academy and the old red light district.
Athens is brilliant right now. Enough tourists to give it a buzz, but about 10% of the normal hordes. Probably what it was like in the 60s or 70s
I'm not very au fait with the incel stuff, but a snippet I saw featured a guy who had a strange sense of entitlement, and corresponding confusion and anger when things weren't working out.
But then, I also know men online (not super well, but a bit) who have simply sworn off women. Not in an angry or misogynistic way, just not interested in romantic relationships.
I know quite a few married men where from the outside it looks very much though that it is the wives are supremely dominant. In a number of cases the sort of language the women use towards their partners is verbal abuse. If the genders were reversed then it would cause an outcry. As it is women doing it though and men are the recipients it is not seen as a problem.
Middle aged men though have been trained to not complain and certainly never to do anything back. My personal belief is that there are a large number of middle-aged men who are in abusive relationships (vast majority probably solely verbal) but cannot see a way out. I would not be surprised if they do manage to get out of such a situation that they have no desire to go back!
I would concur with your belief. Domestic abuse of men is definetly something that happens. And the thing is: women can be prosecuted in the same way as men are, if the authorities are bought in; as the legislation is gender neutral. I suspect that the probability of the authorities being bought in is much lower where men are the victims, as men don't see what is happening as abuse; and there is definetly a cultural tendency to view women as victims. In the end the reality is that relationships are just rather complex and expressions of power are not completely reducible to gender, as some people would like us to believe.
Maybe the "cultural tendency to view women as victims" exists because, er, women nearly always are the victims, particularly of violent and sexual abuse?
Maybe. But there are certainly people who would dispute your assumption that women are 'nearly always' the victims.
I'm not very au fait with the incel stuff, but a snippet I saw featured a guy who had a strange sense of entitlement, and corresponding confusion and anger when things weren't working out.
But then, I also know men online (not super well, but a bit) who have simply sworn off women. Not in an angry or misogynistic way, just not interested in romantic relationships.
I know quite a few married men where from the outside it looks very much though that it is the wives are supremely dominant. In a number of cases the sort of language the women use towards their partners is verbal abuse. If the genders were reversed then it would cause an outcry. As it is women doing it though and men are the recipients it is not seen as a problem.
Middle aged men though have been trained to not complain and certainly never to do anything back. My personal belief is that there are a large number of middle-aged men who are in abusive relationships (vast majority probably solely verbal) but cannot see a way out. I would not be surprised if they do manage to get out of such a situation that they have no desire to go back!
I would concur with your belief. Domestic abuse of men is definetly something that happens. And the thing is: women can be prosecuted in the same way as men are, if the authorities are bought in; as the legislation is gender neutral. I suspect that the probability of the authorities being bought in is much lower where men are the victims, as men don't see what is happening as abuse; and there is definetly a cultural tendency to view women as victims. In the end the reality is that relationships are just rather complex and expressions of power are not completely reducible to gender, as some people would like us to believe.
Maybe the "cultural tendency to view women as victims" exists because, er, women nearly always are the victims, particularly of violent and sexual abuse?
You're reducing a large category of behaviour (abuse) to two smaller (but very important) types of abuse. And even for those categories, it may not be 'nearly always'. Abuse, and even rape, is vastly more complex than that.
Controversial opinion: the Parthenon is disappointing
OK I’ve seen it before. But that was 35 years ago. OK it’s much more restricted now, you have to walk a certain circuit, blah blah. But covid also means I saw it with relatively few tourists - like a weekday at Conwy Castle - not the usual hordes
Yet still, meh. It is not moving. There is no soul there any more. Too many destructions and restorations? They’ve mucked about with it so much they might as well rebuild the whole damn thing and admit it’s fake, like newgrange or Knossos
Or just give what’s left to the British Museum. We’ve already got the best bits (we really have). We can rebuild it on Parliament Hill, complete with marbles. I shall start a popular campaign for this, tonight
Not one I'll be joining you on. Have you been to the Acropolis museum ?
Tomorrow. The Acropolis museum, the pnyx, plato’s academy and the old red light district.
Athens is brilliant right now. Enough tourists to give it a buzz, but about 10% of the normal hordes. Probably what it was like in the 60s or 70s
Yup. Plaka is great for a meal out on the neoclassical cobbled streets, particularly a restaurant called 'o psaras' with a view of the parthenon, and Psiri for a view of the super-trendy, down-at-heel and up-and-coming areas.
Good header. The political decisions made by the US and UK will reverberate for decades.
For anyone interested in getting an inside view of what this means the Iranian directed film 'Kandahar' is really worth watching. I saw it ages ago but the cloying claustrophobia of being a female under that regime is something I still remember.
Ashes going to be 5-0 Aussie whitewashing job aren't they.
Root averages only 38 in Australia with no centuries in 9 Tests. Anderson's record there also isn't great. Aside from them the team isn't that good.
Unless someone comes from nowhere to put in an exceptional performance (Vaughan 2002/3 style) it looks likely to be the weakest England performance in Australia in my memory (90s onwards).
Ashes going to be 5-0 Aussie whitewashing job aren't they.
If they take place at all...
Just like Australia wouldn't come here for the Rugby League, in the interests of safety (and obviously nothing to do with likelihood of getting absolutely pounded into the ground) ECB should say they can't risk it.
You could be right. If it's seen as a humiliation then it could feed into a second MAGA narrative etc.
Much depends on the Taliban, probably. If they keep things fairly low profile then it could well be forgotten by 2024. If they commit high profile atrocities and/or encourage/allow overseas terror using Afghanistan as a base then it could be a hot issue.
This article in The Times is the best I've seen on the Taliban as it is today:
In a nutshell, rather like ISIS was in Iraq, but politically smarter: internet-savvy, utter ruthless, well-funded, happy to profit from opium and ransom-kidnappings, and more dangerous than the 2001 version. Of course the situation is further complicated by Chinese ambitions in the region. It's hard to see how this can be anything other than bad news for the West, especially now that the Taliban has achieved total victory so has no need to compromise on anything. The high-profile atrocities are inevitable.
Are the Taliban happy to do business with the Chinese because Uighurs are the "wrong type" of Muslims and they don't care or could the disgraceful treatment of the Uighurs cause issues in this new lovely relationship?
My main take from the whole thing is that a few of the Boris dislikers are using "we" to criticise Biden/the West . My money would be on them using "Biden" if "we" had pulled off a major coup
I'm not very au fait with the incel stuff, but a snippet I saw featured a guy who had a strange sense of entitlement, and corresponding confusion and anger when things weren't working out.
But then, I also know men online (not super well, but a bit) who have simply sworn off women. Not in an angry or misogynistic way, just not interested in romantic relationships.
I know quite a few married men where from the outside it looks very much though that it is the wives are supremely dominant. In a number of cases the sort of language the women use towards their partners is verbal abuse. If the genders were reversed then it would cause an outcry. As it is women doing it though and men are the recipients it is not seen as a problem.
Middle aged men though have been trained to not complain and certainly never to do anything back. My personal belief is that there are a large number of middle-aged men who are in abusive relationships (vast majority probably solely verbal) but cannot see a way out. I would not be surprised if they do manage to get out of such a situation that they have no desire to go back!
I would concur with your belief. Domestic abuse of men is definetly something that happens. And the thing is: women can be prosecuted in the same way as men are, if the authorities are bought in; as the legislation is gender neutral. I suspect that the probability of the authorities being bought in is much lower where men are the victims, as men don't see what is happening as abuse; and there is definetly a cultural tendency to view women as victims. In the end the reality is that relationships are just rather complex and expressions of power are not completely reducible to gender, as some people would like us to believe.
Maybe the "cultural tendency to view women as victims" exists because, er, women nearly always are the victims, particularly of violent and sexual abuse?
You're reducing a large category of behaviour (abuse) to two smaller (but very important) types of abuse. And even for those categories, it may not be 'nearly always'. Abuse, and even rape, is vastly more complex than that.
I do wonder if there are a number of relationships where both parties/spouses are abusive, both verbally and physically.
I suspect men are more likely to be physically abusive and women more likely to be verbally abusive. Both can be very harmful. I would suggest however that spotting someone who is subjected to a great deal of verbal abuse is much harder to spot than one subjected to physical. Given the tendency that we have to teach men to be stoic then they are also far less likely to say anything to anyone. In my view domestic abuse on men is massively under-reported. I think it is likely more men are subject to verbal domestic abuse than women subject to physical domestic abuse.
Ashes going to be 5-0 Aussie whitewashing job aren't they.
If they take place at all...
Just like Australia wouldn't come here for the Rugby League, in the interests of safety (and obviously nothing to do with likelihood of getting absolutely pounded into the ground) ECB should say they can't risk it.
I get the impression the Rugby League decision was taken because the domestic season back at home shortly afterwards was worth more money.
The Ashes must be worth a huge amount of money. I'd be very surprised if a way isn't found to make it happen.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
If China gets dragged into conflict with the Taliban regime two birds might be wounded by one stone.
Yes, but China has absolutely no interest or reason to get involved. Even if the Taliban decided to prioritize helping the Uighurs, China has already shown that it is ruthless enough to suppress them to a degree that would be unacceptable for any Western country to attempt against ISIS or AQ, let alone with any minority at home. It's hard to see what the Taliban could do to provoke the Chinese in the first place.
Ashes going to be 5-0 Aussie whitewashing job aren't they.
If they take place at all...
Just like Australia wouldn't come here for the Rugby League, in the interests of safety (and obviously nothing to do with likelihood of getting absolutely pounded into the ground) ECB should say they can't risk it.
I think the issue is more the familes/isolation requirements. I think the players (or some players) would put up with the isolation, but will not inflict that on the families, so without an exemption, they won't tour.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
I don't think this will enhance Biden's standing, so the likelihood of keeping Trump out is not improved. Biden's rating is now down to 50%, and I'd expect it to go down a few points now.
Ashes going to be 5-0 Aussie whitewashing job aren't they.
If they take place at all...
I can't see it happening, the ECB want assurances of quarantine exemptions for players, staff and family members of players and staff who want to travel with the team as long as they are fully vaccinated. I don't see the Australian government allowing it, I mean they made their own Olympic team quarantine for 21 or 28 days on returning from Japan. They've completely lost the ability to function as a nation that interacts with other countries in a reasoned and sensible manner. Both Australia and NZ have lost the plot in recent months.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
I don't think this will enhance Biden's standing, so the likelihood of keeping Trump out is not improved. Biden's rating is now down to 50%, and I'd expect it to go down a few points now.
Neither option provided a means of enhancing Biden's standing which is why it was done as quickly as possible so that it's mainly forgotten by the time the 2022 elections come around.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
If 9/11 2 happens on US soil as a result of this it doesn't matter what happens, Trump probably will be back in 2024 no matter how hypocritical it looks another major terrorist attack on US soil would still have happened on Biden's watch not Trump's
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
I don't think this will enhance Biden's standing, so the likelihood of keeping Trump out is not improved. Biden's rating is now down to 50%, and I'd expect it to go down a few points now.
Unless, and I grant that this unlikely, Biden can hand some at least of the blame onto Trump.
If China gets dragged into conflict with the Taliban regime two birds might be wounded by one stone.
Yes, but China has absolutely no interest or reason to get involved. Even if the Taliban decided to prioritize helping the Uighurs, China has already shown that it is ruthless enough to suppress them to a degree that would be unacceptable for any Western country to attempt against ISIS or AQ, let alone with any minority at home. It's hard to see what the Taliban could do to provoke the Chinese in the first place.
Yes, China won't keep to any arbitrary rules of war based on human rights. They will simply bomb Afghanistan into the stone age, civilians (will) be damned. The Taliban are back because they know the west is too weak to live with the idea of the level of destruction required to really beat them.
I'm not very au fait with the incel stuff, but a snippet I saw featured a guy who had a strange sense of entitlement, and corresponding confusion and anger when things weren't working out.
But then, I also know men online (not super well, but a bit) who have simply sworn off women. Not in an angry or misogynistic way, just not interested in romantic relationships.
I know quite a few married men where from the outside it looks very much though that it is the wives are supremely dominant. In a number of cases the sort of language the women use towards their partners is verbal abuse. If the genders were reversed then it would cause an outcry. As it is women doing it though and men are the recipients it is not seen as a problem.
Middle aged men though have been trained to not complain and certainly never to do anything back. My personal belief is that there are a large number of middle-aged men who are in abusive relationships (vast majority probably solely verbal) but cannot see a way out. I would not be surprised if they do manage to get out of such a situation that they have no desire to go back!
I would concur with your belief. Domestic abuse of men is definetly something that happens. And the thing is: women can be prosecuted in the same way as men are, if the authorities are bought in; as the legislation is gender neutral. I suspect that the probability of the authorities being bought in is much lower where men are the victims, as men don't see what is happening as abuse; and there is definetly a cultural tendency to view women as victims. In the end the reality is that relationships are just rather complex and expressions of power are not completely reducible to gender, as some people would like us to believe.
Maybe the "cultural tendency to view women as victims" exists because, er, women nearly always are the victims, particularly of violent and sexual abuse?
You're reducing a large category of behaviour (abuse) to two smaller (but very important) types of abuse. And even for those categories, it may not be 'nearly always'. Abuse, and even rape, is vastly more complex than that.
I do wonder if there are a number of relationships where both parties/spouses are abusive, both verbally and physically.
I suspect men are more likely to be physically abusive and women more likely to be verbally abusive. Both can be very harmful. I would suggest however that spotting someone who is subjected to a great deal of verbal abuse is much harder to spot than one subjected to physical. Given the tendency that we have to teach men to be stoic then they are also far less likely to say anything to anyone. In my view domestic abuse on men is massively under-reported. I think it is likely more men are subject to verbal domestic abuse than women subject to physical domestic abuse.
Perhaps. A good friend of mine's wife is generally lovely, but every so often she verbally explodes at him: including in public. Occasionally she says things that are pretty unforgivable to, and about, him. He's the calmest person I know, and it just washes over him - which I think annoys her more than if he screamed back at her.
And getting more personal. I am over six feet tall. A few decades ago, whilst in my late teens, I had a girlfriend who was much shorter than me.
She hit me twice. Once with an iron; it was plugged in, and the cord stopped it hitting my face, but it smashed under may arm, which I had raised to protect my face. On another occasion she hit me with a Tom Clancy hardback. Aimed for the privates, but missed. The muscles around where the iron hit still gives me discomfort every few years or so.
People can believe this or not, but I had done nothing to provoke the 'attacks', aside from not wanting to move in with her (a wise decision, methinks). I never raised a finger against her, and not against anyone else, either. The damnable thing is that I blamed myself for a few years.
So yes, some women can be physically violent. Even short and lovely ones.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothinealg more important than that.
I don't think this will enhance Biden's standing, so the likelihood of keeping Trump out is not improved. Biden's rating is now down to 50%, and I'd expect it to go down a few points now.
Neither option provided a means of enhancing Biden's standing which is why it was done as quickly as possible so that it's mainly forgotten by the time the 2022 elections come around.
This. Do it just after the previous election and well before the next one. On this, Biden and Trump were aligned. Biden has been very hard headed, cynical even. But he was caught out by the speed of the previous regime's collapse. If he had known that earlier he would be even more determined to get it out the way.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
Wow now we have it in writing. Now we have it in writing.
The left will sacrifice anything, anything, to prevent some loudmouth upstart President challenging their precious shibboleths. Race theory. Climate change. Lockdowns. Mass immigration. Gender fluidity.
Those sacrifices include consigning hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of Afghan women literally into a life of medieval slavery. Thousands more Afghans of both sexes will be tortured and executed.
All these people are completely expendable if it means we on the left don't have to heed Donald Trump any more.
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Kinabalu was correcting your fundamental misreading of Kinabalu's point in the exchange he was having with fruity Leon.
Well that was fair enough.
I think I just thought it an interesting, though probably rather tangential, point that 'rationalism' is kind of a western (though not exclusively) philosophy rather than necessarily a universal one.
Could be the case, I don't know enough to opine really. I was more thinking of it at the individual level. Is your typical Westerner a more logical thinker than the global average in this regard? And that sounds wrong to me. Any case the cross purposes arose because you were trying to PB at the same time as cooking a roast dinner. So I just hope your Yorkshires weren't ruined. 🙂
One of the reasons I got a little irritated by you, in that argument, is because YOU deliberately or stupidly misread my original opinion - such is your tedious determination to sniff out unwoke attitudes which you can then laboriously denounce, and thereby feel smug
Don’t believe me? Go back and find it
It's in memory.
A poster opined that the Taliban wouldn't attack fleeing Americans because it'd risk retribution and they only needed to wait a few days for untrammeled power.
You replied that you were less sure of this because that sort of "Western logical thinking" may not apply with them.
I queried this. I said, "So you think logic is a Western owned trait?" Just that. A gentle probe of an arresting sentence is all.
Back for my trouble came 7 words only: "Oh fuck off you tedious woke twit."
If China gets dragged into conflict with the Taliban regime two birds might be wounded by one stone.
Yes, but China has absolutely no interest or reason to get involved. Even if the Taliban decided to prioritize helping the Uighurs, China has already shown that it is ruthless enough to suppress them to a degree that would be unacceptable for any Western country to attempt against ISIS or AQ, let alone with any minority at home. It's hard to see what the Taliban could do to provoke the Chinese in the first place.
" Pakistan must now fear that the next regime in Kabul will give sanctuary and support for the Pakistani Taliban. There may be poetic justice in this, but the prospect of fundamentalist forces destabilizing a regime with an estimated 160 nuclear warheads is an unparalleled global nightmare."
" Pakistan must now fear that the next regime in Kabul will give sanctuary and support for the Pakistani Taliban. There may be poetic justice in this, but the prospect of fundamentalist forces destabilizing a regime with an estimated 160 nuclear warheads is an unparalleled global nightmare."
NYTimes
I'm not sure about their analysis on this. The Afghan Taliban has strong links.to the Pakistani ISI, whereas the Pakistani Taliban doesn't.
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Kinabalu was correcting your fundamental misreading of Kinabalu's point in the exchange he was having with fruity Leon.
Well that was fair enough.
I think I just thought it an interesting, though probably rather tangential, point that 'rationalism' is kind of a western (though not exclusively) philosophy rather than necessarily a universal one.
Could be the case, I don't know enough to opine really. I was more thinking of it at the individual level. Is your typical Westerner a more logical thinker than the global average in this regard? And that sounds wrong to me. Any case the cross purposes arose because you were trying to PB at the same time as cooking a roast dinner. So I just hope your Yorkshires weren't ruined. 🙂
One of the reasons I got a little irritated by you, in that argument, is because YOU deliberately or stupidly misread my original opinion - such is your tedious determination to sniff out unwoke attitudes which you can then laboriously denounce, and thereby feel smug
Don’t believe me? Go back and find it
It's in memory.
A poster opined that the Taliban wouldn't attack fleeing Americans because it'd risk retribution and they only needed to wait a few days for untrammeled power.
You replied that you were less sure of this because that sort of "Western logical thinking" may not apply with them.
I queried this. I said, "So you think logic is a Western owned trait?" Just that. A gentle probe of an arresting sentence is all.
Back for my trouble came 7 words only: "Oh fuck off you tedious woke twit."
That's where we left it - and there it was left.
By your own admission the important thing is that Donald Trump should not get into power again to challenge your wokery.
If the lives of millions of Afghans are utterly destroyed, well that's a price that is worth paying to preserve your completely fake moral rectitude.
Why would the UN prevent Pakistan from speaking in the debate
Because if you had to choose one country that was most to blame for Afghanistan's travails it wouldn't be the US, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran (or even Britain) - it would be Pakistan.
I blame whoever mentioned incels. Was it @Cyclefree , who when wisely ran off?
On a betting angle (because what more is there to be said on Afghanistan? It's a massive failure) does this have any impact on Biden? Not sure that it does. He looks a bit silly for the things that were said, but it's not his failure - neither he, nor the Democrats, took the US in to Afghanistan. His predecessor had committed to withdrawal and done some interesting deals with the Taliban, it seems. Not a great deal of mud that can be thrown that won't splatter back on the Republicans.
The one thing that could make a difference is if Afghanistan does once again become a terrorist breeding ground and that leads to attacks on US soil. Biden then might get the blame for actually taking the troops out in that case (attack ad: Bush did what was needed and kept us safe for 20 years, Biden threw it all away).
(Disclosure: I'm on Biden for a small amount for 2024 and a few of the more likely Dem outsiders at long odds as trading bets if he looks like he'll stand down)
It's always hard to judge during the thick of things, but my hunch FWIW is that this will damage Biden. The utter chaos, the humiliation, the crude attempts to blame Trump, and the increasingly ludicrous statements made by US government spokesmen, are a pretty damaging combination.
Some people have said that the fall of Saigon didn't damage Ford, but I don't think that's the same. The US was utterly fed up with Vietnam, with large numbers of casualties and with a generation of young men traumatised by it. Sure, they're fed up with the role in Afghanistan as well, but at a much lower level. They probably thought it was time to leave and no great harm would come from doing so; just a quiet end to a completed mission. The reality is going to be something of a shock.
But would it have hurt Biden as much as the other option which was Trump continually saying he would have left now as American soldiers arrived back injured / killed.
I don't think Biden had any decent options, just 2 really bad ones...
That's right. And he judged that other option as worse for him domestically. Perfectly rational and imo objectively justifiable too. It's a badly bungled final exit but his predecessor made the weather on this and he still looms large in US politics. For all the embarrassment of what's happening here, and the potentially malign consequences, the prospect of Donald Trump winning back power is the ultimate horror and Biden's first and foremost duty is to minimize the chances of it happening. There is nothing more important than that.
Wow now we have it in writing. Now we have it in writing.
The left will sacrifice anything, anything, to prevent some loudmouth upstart President challenging their precious shibboleths. Race theory. Climate change. Lockdowns. Mass immigration. Gender fluidity.
Those sacrifices include consigning hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of Afghan women literally into a life of medieval slavery. Thousands more Afghans of both sexes will be tortured and executed.
All these people are completely expendable if it means we on the left don't have to heed Donald Trump any more.
Quite breathtaking. Really.
Donald Trump returning threatens the very continuation of western democracy itself, as we saw in January, so I don't find it hard to agree with Kinabalu personally.
I always think Turkey an interesting case, as a bellwether of democracy and religion. It has some of the characteristics of what might be described as a fundamentally religious culture, but also had a dictator and a cult of personality for a hundred years who tried to eradicate or restrict this. On the east side, a society not too far dissimilar from Afghanistan's, and on the west and north-west coasts, a large metropolitan secular population, a proportion of whom are also in fact curiously descended from the very first progenitors of democracy, as muslim-converted greeks from Ionia and the surrounding areas. It's moved broadly with the political-religious trends of the 80's and 90's, of the rest of the Muslim world, but where it goes next will be significant.
Coincidentally I am writing this at a cafe directly underneath the Parthenon. Sipping a decent but not brilliant Cretan white
If I look up from my iPad I can see the chiselled golden pillars of the famous temple, the birthplace of western democracy
Poignant
Athens the birthplace not only of western democracy but of the Socratic method. @kinbalu was having a bit of a dig yesterday about whether 'logical thinking' was a purely western characteristic. I would argue that 'logical thinking' stems from the philosophy of ancient Athens, and particular Socrates and his successors, in which no question was off limits; in which every statement could be met with 'why?'. This is not a way of looking at the world held everywhere, even in the west, and certainly hasn't always been held in the west. But I would argue that those cultures which are free to ask why (like the west, at its best) are better than those which are not (like Wahabbi Islam).
Kinabalu was correcting your fundamental misreading of Kinabalu's point in the exchange he was having with fruity Leon.
Well that was fair enough.
I think I just thought it an interesting, though probably rather tangential, point that 'rationalism' is kind of a western (though not exclusively) philosophy rather than necessarily a universal one.
Could be the case, I don't know enough to opine really. I was more thinking of it at the individual level. Is your typical Westerner a more logical thinker than the global average in this regard? And that sounds wrong to me. Any case the cross purposes arose because you were trying to PB at the same time as cooking a roast dinner. So I just hope your Yorkshires weren't ruined. 🙂
One of the reasons I got a little irritated by you, in that argument, is because YOU deliberately or stupidly misread my original opinion - such is your tedious determination to sniff out unwoke attitudes which you can then laboriously denounce, and thereby feel smug
Don’t believe me? Go back and find it
It's in memory.
A poster opined that the Taliban wouldn't attack fleeing Americans because it'd risk retribution and they only needed to wait a few days for untrammeled power.
You replied that you were less sure of this because that sort of "Western logical thinking" may not apply with them.
I queried this. I said, "So you think logic is a Western owned trait?" Just that. A gentle probe of an arresting sentence is all.
Back for my trouble came 7 words only: "Oh fuck off you tedious woke twit."
That's where we left it - and there it was left.
By your own admission the important thing is that Donald Trump should not get into power again to challenge your wokery.
If the lives of millions of Afghans are utterly destroyed, well that's a price that is worth paying to preserve your completely fake moral rectitude.
Stopping Trump from getting anywhere power again is a laudable aim, wokery or not!
" Pakistan must now fear that the next regime in Kabul will give sanctuary and support for the Pakistani Taliban. There may be poetic justice in this, but the prospect of fundamentalist forces destabilizing a regime with an estimated 160 nuclear warheads is an unparalleled global nightmare."
NYTimes
I'm not sure about their analysis on this. The Afghan Taliban has strong links.to the Pakistani ISI, whereas the Pakistani Taliban doesn't.
The more errrr.. interesting types in the ISI sponsored the Taliban (and associated fundis) as weapons in their ongoing conflict with India.
IIRC It was PJ O'Rourke who commented that while they had these characters in their pockets, it was a bit like having a Gila monster in your pocket.....
The various extreme groups they sponsored turned out to have some interesting ideas for Pakistan as well.
It was known since 2016 that nearly 200k of the Afghan army’s purported 350k troops were non/existent “ghost soldiers” with the money for them vanishing into corruption.
Why would the UN prevent Pakistan from speaking in the debate
Because if you had to choose one country that was most to blame for Afghanistan's travails it wouldn't be the US, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran (or even Britain) - it would be Pakistan.
Looking at the latest numbers covid-wise, there was an unusually big spike of numbers in hospital in England this morning.
We've been wobbling around the 5,000 (+/- a couple of hundred) for about three weeks. We've leapt from 4,973 to 5,429 in two days, with more than three hundred of the increase coming this morning. Number in mechanical ventilation beds hasn't previously been over 800 in England since mid-March and didn't go over even following the cases peak (the cases peak is now a month ago, so hospitalisations and ICU admissions should have had ample time to filter through and drop back down).
Hopefully it's just a random fluctuation (Delta burning through a group of unvaxxed or highly vulnerable), but the hospital numbers seem to have gone up noticeably in every single region of England.
Ashes going to be 5-0 Aussie whitewashing job aren't they.
If they take place at all...
I can't see it happening, the ECB want assurances of quarantine exemptions for players, staff and family members of players and staff who want to travel with the team as long as they are fully vaccinated. I don't see the Australian government allowing it, I mean they made their own Olympic team quarantine for 21 or 28 days on returning from Japan. They've completely lost the ability to function as a nation that interacts with other countries in a reasoned and sensible manner. Both Australia and NZ have lost the plot in recent months.
Yep. Formula 1 binned off Australia too, after being asked to quarantine 1,500 people for a fortnight before their race - despite them continuing to travel around the world with very few issues during the pandemic, because they put a lot of time, effort and money into keeping everyone in bubbles.
The genie is out of the bottle anyway now, they have 500 cases today. They need to get everyone vaccinated quickly.
These are the people that Kinabalu and Co are happy to sacrifice just so their precious bullshite values don't get challenged.
Oh but Trump's the enemy right?
What would be different in Afghanistan just now if Trump, rather than Biden, was in the White House?
Genuine question - I understand that what has happened regarding US actions to be broadly in line with what Trump was planning to do had he won. If not, I'm happy to learn. So it seems to me we get a shit situation in Afghanistan either way, but one scenario also has Trump in the White House.
Looking at the latest numbers covid-wise, there was an unusually big spike of numbers in hospital in England this morning.
We've been wobbling around the 5,000 (+/- a couple of hundred) for about three weeks. We've leapt from 4,973 to 5,429 in two days, with more than three hundred of the increase coming this morning. Number in mechanical ventilation beds hasn't previously been over 800 in England since mid-March and didn't go over even following the cases peak (the cases peak is now a month ago, so hospitalisations and ICU admissions should have had ample time to filter through and drop back down).
Hopefully it's just a random fluctuation (Delta burning through a group of unvaxxed or highly vulnerable), but the hospital numbers seem to have gone up noticeably in every single region of England.
Sadly I think this relates to those whose stay will be long and possibly without a good outcome. Its noticeable how the numbers in hospitable did not drop that much when the cases did (allowing for lags). If what @Foxy says for his ICU is true, its mostly unvaccinated across the land that are in ICU (I think he implied that some had good reasons, presumably medical related).
To me this is how this plays out - the unvaccinated are going to get this, and lots of them will have big issues. The vaccinated will probably get this, and may have a few nasty days.
Why would the UN prevent Pakistan from speaking in the debate
Because if you had to choose one country that was most to blame for Afghanistan's travails it wouldn't be the US, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran (or even Britain) - it would be Pakistan.
Yep. A penny for Imran Khan’s thoughts this week. He needs to step up. A lot.
REAKING: A German Defense Ministry spokesperson on its responsibility to get local Afghan support staff and translators out of the country: "It's not like we forced them to cooperate with us."
America also considering restricting flights out to US citizens only [ no locals
Why would the UN prevent Pakistan from speaking in the debate
Because if you had to choose one country that was most to blame for Afghanistan's travails it wouldn't be the US, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran (or even Britain) - it would be Pakistan.
Yep. A penny for Imran Khan’s thoughts this week. He needs to step up. A lot.
He might not be entirely upset with situation.....
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s net approval rating stands at -9%, an increase of 2% from last week. This week’s poll finds 44% disapproving (down 2%) of his overall job performance, against 35% approving (no change).
Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at -14%, a 1% decrease from last week. 38% disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance (up 1%), while 24% approve (no change). Meanwhile, 31% neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer’s job performance (down 1%)."
Trump seems to retain his crown as the big danger. Why? He's old, in line for a coronary, and it's a toss-up who dies first. Him or Biden. I may be cruel but I'm being realistic. Joe is edging towards dementia and Trump can't get much worse anyway.
Ms Harris ticks boxes but that's about all. Surely someone, more versed in US politics than me, has ideas about who's up and coming now that Cuomo is persona non grata?
REAKING: A German Defense Ministry spokesperson on its responsibility to get local Afghan support staff and translators out of the country: "It's not like we forced them to cooperate with us."
America also considering restricting flights out to US citizens only [ no locals
Boris' comment about nations not engaging with the Taliban wasn't aimed at China and Russia, it was always aimed at Germany.
Comments
Happily reports last week show beaver are now v. prevalent. Numbers now being locally controlled.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/10/wild-beaver-numbers-surge-to-1000-across-scotlands-southern-highlands
It’s true.
https://www.stowefamilylaw.co.uk/blog/2018/04/17/22-year-old-becomes-first-woman-convicted-of-coercive-behaviour/
It’s almost as if the argument is political.
Dr Zubaida Haque @Zubhaque
This was one of the busiest weekends in the whole pandemic and as Sept approaches it will only get busier. This is possibly the *worst time* with #DeltaVariant wave AND incomplete vaxx rollout to tell vaccinated people that their behaviour doesn't matter
https://twitter.com/ThatRyanChap/status/1427250714443665411?s=20
As Liz Cheney said yesterday there are consequences from non intervention as much as intervention, those who have been pushing for withdrawal for years now have in the White House one of their own. If it goes wrong they have nobody to blame but themselves
Much depends on the Taliban, probably. If they keep things fairly low profile then it could well be forgotten by 2024. If they commit high profile atrocities and/or encourage/allow overseas terror using Afghanistan as a base then it could be a hot issue.
Relatedly, I note that Athens is now infested with parakeets, just like London. Jimi Hendrix has a lot to answer for
Similarly with Pernod.
OK I’ve seen it before. But that was 35 years ago. OK it’s much more restricted now, you have to walk a certain circuit, blah blah. But covid also means I saw it with relatively few tourists - like a weekday at Conwy Castle - not the usual hordes
Yet still, meh. It is not moving. There is no soul there any more. Too many destructions and restorations? They’ve mucked about with it so much they might as well rebuild the whole damn thing and admit it’s fake, like newgrange or Knossos
Or just give what’s left to the British Museum. We’ve already got the best bits (we really have). We can rebuild it on Parliament Hill, complete with marbles. I shall start a popular campaign for this, tonight
Where Biden could be seriously damaged is if the evacuation results in any significant American casualties, or worse, hostages taken. In that case, the Republicans will turn it into Benghazi on steroids and if they regain the House next year will open the mother of all inquiries, but it will be purely on the actual evacuation, not the decision to withdraw itself. If there are no casualties or hostages, and they take the House, then there will not be an inquiry into the withdrawal as Trump would attract the most blame for the actual decision.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/racoon-caused-explosion-at-berlin-siemensstadt-power-station-lkq0n3jwk
It also has a great restaurant, with a great view out onto the balcony area.
The Saigon damage would have fallen on Nixon, not Ford, but by that time Nixon was permanently damaged for other reasons.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-taliban-are-back-richer-more-powerful-and-even-more-dangerous-rmd0p8shw (£££)
In a nutshell, rather like ISIS was in Iraq, but politically smarter: internet-savvy, utter ruthless, well-funded, happy to profit from opium and ransom-kidnappings, and more dangerous than the 2001 version. Of course the situation is further complicated by Chinese ambitions in the region. It's hard to see how this can be anything other than bad news for the West, especially now that the Taliban has achieved total victory so has no need to compromise on anything. The high-profile atrocities are inevitable.
Athens is brilliant right now. Enough tourists to give it a buzz, but about 10% of the normal hordes. Probably what it was like in the 60s or 70s
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/help-for-men-who-are-being-abused.htm
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/
When it comes to domestic abuse, women in the UK are about twice as likely as men to be victims. But that still means 4-6% of 16-59 year old males have suffered domestic abuse in the last year. They should not be forgotten in the conversation.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020
I do wonder if there are a number of relationships where both parties/spouses are abusive, both verbally and physically.
For anyone interested in getting an inside view of what this means the Iranian directed film 'Kandahar' is really worth watching. I saw it ages ago but the cloying claustrophobia of being a female under that regime is something I still remember.
Unless someone comes from nowhere to put in an exceptional performance (Vaughan 2002/3 style) it looks likely to be the weakest England performance in Australia in my memory (90s onwards).
- China intends to stay well clear of the country.
- There is some point scoring against America, but China would much rather America was in Afghanistan - takes the pressure off China
- China is not on the Taliban's side in a dispute with America
- Not stated, but also usefully tied America down. Now America has resource to direct at China.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1231544.shtmlThe Ashes must be worth a huge amount of money. I'd be very surprised if a way isn't found to make it happen.
And getting more personal. I am over six feet tall. A few decades ago, whilst in my late teens, I had a girlfriend who was much shorter than me.
She hit me twice. Once with an iron; it was plugged in, and the cord stopped it hitting my face, but it smashed under may arm, which I had raised to protect my face. On another occasion she hit me with a Tom Clancy hardback. Aimed for the privates, but missed. The muscles around where the iron hit still gives me discomfort every few years or so.
People can believe this or not, but I had done nothing to provoke the 'attacks', aside from not wanting to move in with her (a wise decision, methinks). I never raised a finger against her, and not against anyone else, either. The damnable thing is that I blamed myself for a few years.
So yes, some women can be physically violent. Even short and lovely ones.
The left will sacrifice anything, anything, to prevent some loudmouth upstart President challenging their precious shibboleths. Race theory. Climate change. Lockdowns. Mass immigration. Gender fluidity.
Those sacrifices include consigning hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of Afghan women literally into a life of medieval slavery. Thousands more Afghans of both sexes will be tortured and executed.
All these people are completely expendable if it means we on the left don't have to heed Donald Trump any more.
Quite breathtaking. Really.
A poster opined that the Taliban wouldn't attack fleeing Americans because it'd risk retribution and they only needed to wait a few days for untrammeled power.
You replied that you were less sure of this because that sort of "Western logical thinking" may not apply with them.
I queried this. I said, "So you think logic is a Western owned trait?" Just that. A gentle probe of an arresting sentence is all.
Back for my trouble came 7 words only: "Oh fuck off you tedious woke twit."
That's where we left it - and there it was left.
NYTimes blog
NYTimes
If the lives of millions of Afghans are utterly destroyed, well that's a price that is worth paying to preserve your completely fake moral rectitude.
IIRC It was PJ O'Rourke who commented that while they had these characters in their pockets, it was a bit like having a Gila monster in your pocket.....
The various extreme groups they sponsored turned out to have some interesting ideas for Pakistan as well.
It was known since 2016 that nearly 200k of the Afghan army’s purported 350k troops were non/existent “ghost soldiers” with the money for them vanishing into corruption.
https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1427294956260151307
We've been wobbling around the 5,000 (+/- a couple of hundred) for about three weeks.
We've leapt from 4,973 to 5,429 in two days, with more than three hundred of the increase coming this morning.
Number in mechanical ventilation beds hasn't previously been over 800 in England since mid-March and didn't go over even following the cases peak (the cases peak is now a month ago, so hospitalisations and ICU admissions should have had ample time to filter through and drop back down).
Hopefully it's just a random fluctuation (Delta burning through a group of unvaxxed or highly vulnerable), but the hospital numbers seem to have gone up noticeably in every single region of England.
The genie is out of the bottle anyway now, they have 500 cases today. They need to get everyone vaccinated quickly.
These are the people that Kinabalu and Co are happy to sacrifice just so their precious bullshite values don't get challenged.
Oh but Trump's the enemy right?
Genuine question - I understand that what has happened regarding US actions to be broadly in line with what Trump was planning to do had he won. If not, I'm happy to learn. So it seems to me we get a shit situation in Afghanistan either way, but one scenario also has Trump in the White House.
To me this is how this plays out - the unvaccinated are going to get this, and lots of them will have big issues.
The vaccinated will probably get this, and may have a few nasty days.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1427250837664014336
REAKING: A German Defense Ministry spokesperson on its responsibility to get local Afghan support staff and translators out of the country: "It's not like we forced them to cooperate with us."
America also considering restricting flights out to US citizens only [ no locals
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1427299142666174465?s=19
https://twitter.com/KateWilton1/status/1427271051294167044?s=20
Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at -14%, a 1% decrease from last week. 38% disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance (up 1%), while 24% approve (no change). Meanwhile, 31% neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer’s job performance (down 1%)."
Ms Harris ticks boxes but that's about all. Surely someone, more versed in US politics than me, has ideas about who's up and coming now that Cuomo is persona non grata?