Moves against abortion could help the Dems in the midterms – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.0 -
It isn't. For a start the concept of "race" among humans has a large measure of bollocks in it - given the originators of the various racial classifications, that would only be expected.Farooq said:
I'd be surprised if it was at all simple.Malmesbury said:
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
But you can, fairly reliably, tell if someone has ancestry in one of the Native American tribes. For example. There is actually a fair bit of law on this in the US, since the invention of the Indian Reservation Casino loophole/advantage. Which has meant quite a few people claiming to belong to various tribes.1 -
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.Sandpit said:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.TimT said:Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
https://twitter.com/Villager1244/status/1522230180894457857/photo/1
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.1 -
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.1 -
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.1 -
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.0 -
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.0 -
That was what I told them at the time….Scott_xP said:
The interesting line is thisLostPassword said:I get the impression that, unless Cummings can claim credit for it, anything that Johnson does must now be wrong as far as he is concerned.
"Only point of 🛒 as PM was to act as spokesman for the Vote Leave agenda while we pushed everything in a different direction"
In other words
We did everything we could to ensure BoZo would be PM, on the basis that he wouldn't do anything as PM.
That seems stupid. Really, really, really stupid.
0 -
See Adam Rutherford's book.Gardenwalker said:
I actually don’t know.Malmesbury said:
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If pushed, I’d say they could be informative but only to a certain level.
I’m assuming then that you’re ok with these kind of invasive tests?
"HOW TO ARGUE WITH A RACIST dismantles outdated notions of race by illuminating what modern genetics can and can't tell us about human difference."1 -
Good question, to which I don’t know the answer in terms of equipment. Wiki claims that there have been 30 deaths and 40 injuries among the belligerents, so not many tanks likely to have been blown up there.LostPassword said:
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.Sandpit said:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.TimT said:Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
https://twitter.com/Villager1244/status/1522230180894457857/photo/1
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_border_crisis0 -
It goes towards the whole philosophical concept of identity and the legal consequences thereof.Gardenwalker said:
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Once you try and divide humans into neat little packets - well, the blighters keep on scattering themselves about and mixing themselves together. And inventing new identities, almost as if they own their own identity. And borrowing other people's like a t-shirt in charity shop....
As Putin is finding out....3 -
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.1 -
Do Māori typically lean more to the left or right than other New Zealanders? It looks like an attempt to stitch up the political balanceGardenwalker said:
You can self-identify.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
NZ has long had “Māori seats”.
There are now 7 (out of 72).
You can choose whether to enrol in them or not, if you do so you cannot enrol in the general seats.
In practice about 1/3 of Māori vote in the general seats.
When NZ moved to PR it was recommended that the Māori seats be scrapped, but they have stayed and are pretty much a permanent fixture. There are more Māori in Parliament as a percentage than in the general population.
The above is pretty uncontroversial.
It has started to be reproduced at a local government level, which is more controversial.
What Ardern tried to do in Rotorua goes further. It proposed that 3 Māori seats be elected by 22,000 Māori voters, and 3 general seats be elected by 56,000 voters.
It has been found to contravene the Bill of Rights Act and Ardern/Labour have now withdrawn support.0 -
Miserable day for US stocks0
-
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense. Plus the promotion of identity politics is a bad idea.Gardenwalker said:
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.2 -
The only potential comparable loss rates I can think of would be the Yom Kippur war, or Iraq 1991.LostPassword said:
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.Sandpit said:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.TimT said:Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
https://twitter.com/Villager1244/status/1522230180894457857/photo/1
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.0 -
...how does that work??Richard_Tyndall said:A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband
8 -
As I mentioned below, the Casinos and the resultant payouts (in the US) has "found" a whole raft of shady characters, liars and scumbags.MattW said:
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense.Gardenwalker said:
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID.0 -
Left.StillWaters said:
Do Māori typically lean more to the left or right than other New Zealanders? It looks like an attempt to stitch up the political balanceGardenwalker said:
You can self-identify.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
NZ has long had “Māori seats”.
There are now 7 (out of 72).
You can choose whether to enrol in them or not, if you do so you cannot enrol in the general seats.
In practice about 1/3 of Māori vote in the general seats.
When NZ moved to PR it was recommended that the Māori seats be scrapped, but they have stayed and are pretty much a permanent fixture. There are more Māori in Parliament as a percentage than in the general population.
The above is pretty uncontroversial.
It has started to be reproduced at a local government level, which is more controversial.
What Ardern tried to do in Rotorua goes further. It proposed that 3 Māori seats be elected by 22,000 Māori voters, and 3 general seats be elected by 56,000 voters.
It has been found to contravene the Bill of Rights Act and Ardern/Labour have now withdrawn support.
Up until 1993 they voted consistently for Labour.
That fascinating figure, Winston Peters (a kind of Māori Nigel Farage), managed to convert most of them to his populist party, but it only lasted one term.
Nowadays the only rival for them is the Māori Party, who these days can perhaps be described as far left.
Under First Past the Post, they were considered necessary to protect Māori interests given that Māori votes would otherwise be drowned out by Pakeha ones.
Under our version of PR, it doesn’t matter so much as seats in Parliament are ultimately determined by the Party Vote which pretty much ignores how constituencies are divided up.1 -
I don't agree.Gardenwalker said:Personally I think the Met’s purdah is appropriate. Comey was indeed an example of spectactular incompetence.
The point of purdah rules is to stop the party which controls the government (national or local) from using that to influence an election by stacking major positive announcements into the immediate pre-election period. It's a bit of levelling for those who don't control the machinery of the state.
Police investigations are not like that - they are not in the control of the party in office. Clearly, great care is needed in presenting developments. But there is no reason why proceedings should be stayed, or major developments not announced in the usual way. If there was, then Parliament could legislate on that - but it has not seen fit to do so, with good reason.0 -
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.0 -
I love these guys, this sketch
Is well worth two mins of your time…
https://twitter.com/larryandpaul/status/1522244451330142211?s=21&t=0PZ9oDtA1RGFZPCxT1IZJA1 -
It already has, in some ways.MattW said:
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense.Gardenwalker said:
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID.
Some children are doing their last year (or part year*) of A-Levels, nominally at Sixth Form college or local state school. In reality they actually are being heavily tutored in all subjects.
So they can claim to be state school pupils when applying to go to university.
*One enterprising parent moved her daughter 1 month before the exams. In her private school, they had finished the syllabus and were just revising. So she kept the tutors they were using and signed her up to do her A-levels at the local FE.1 -
So much of the American discourse especially, would be improved if more people understood that social class, rather than race, is the key determinant of life chances. If everyone focussed their efforts on the lower income groups, irrespective of race, then things might improve for those at the bottom. But instead, the activists see race everywhere and can’t let it go.MattW said:
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense. Plus the promotion of identity politics is a bad idea.Gardenwalker said:
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.0 -
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?1 -
I found out recently that I have a Ukrainian relative. Rather distant to be sure, but genetic nonetheless.
This may or may not perpetuate BR's myth about trolling
0 -
I wonder how the question is usually worded. Ask are you 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' (?) and you'll get one split. Ask do you support a legal ban on abortion (?) and I can imagine you might get a quite different one.Nigelb said:
I don't know that those figures hold if and when abortion gets banned.Jim_Miller said:Here's the Gallup data on American attitudes on abortion: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Note that the numbers describing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been quite close for years.
(Some years ago, Gallup looked at the voters who would vote on the abortion issue. The numbers were small on both sides, less than 10 percent, as I recall, but the pro-life voters outnumbered the pro-choice voters by about 3-2.)
That would radically change the motivations.
Eg you feel abortion is a moral wrong, therefore identify as 'pro-life', but you wouldn't seek to impose this view upon those who don't share it, therefore would not support a ban on abortion.
There must be plenty of people like this. I certainly know a few.0 -
The loss rates resemble the projection for peer-on-peer combat. Iraq 1991 was staggeringly one-sided. This isn't - the Ukrainians are taking heavy loses as well.MattW said:
The only potential comparable loss rates I can think of would be the Yom Kippur war, or Iraq 1991.LostPassword said:
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.Sandpit said:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.TimT said:Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
https://twitter.com/Villager1244/status/1522230180894457857/photo/1
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.2 -
It is also much easier for capitalism to focus on colour, gender, and sexuality because to do so doesn’t ultimately disturb the making of money.Sandpit said:
So much of the American discourse especially, would be improved if more people understood that social class, rather than race, is the key determinant of life chances. If everyone focussed their efforts on the lower income groups, irrespective of race, then things might improve for those at the bottom. But instead, the activists see race everywhere and can’t let it go.MattW said:
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense. Plus the promotion of identity politics is a bad idea.Gardenwalker said:
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.Malmesbury said:
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.Gardenwalker said:
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.BartholomewRoberts said:
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .Gardenwalker said:
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.
A focus on class implies redistribution, which is far too awkward for everyone.2 -
No, you're right that it isn't. But I found myself on very sticky ground with a white South African. You can imagine how that argument was developing. He, probably correctly, pointed to people movements into southern Africa and then white European settlers.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.0 -
Yes FTSE doing well before US markets opened. Pity those who topped up before US markets opened and blasted the gains away!ping said:Miserable day for US stocks
0 -
No, it's being there before Evil Whitey.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?0 -
It is true that white South Africans have been around for a very long time. Long enough ineeed to be considered indigenous by some measures.Heathener said:
No, you're right that it isn't. But I found myself on very sticky ground with a white South African. You can imagine how that argument was developing. He, probably correctly, pointed to people movements into southern Africa and then white European settlers.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.
I’d have more sympathy with them though if they hadn’t embarked on a project of white supremacy.0 -
I don’t know him. Relation of Evil Knieval?Applicant said:
No, it's being there before Evil Whitey.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?0 -
The non-nutty version(generally) is the white South Africans who describe themselves as African - they think of themselves as just the nth arrivals in a long list. Which is ongoing.Heathener said:
No, you're right that it isn't. But I found myself on very sticky ground with a white South African. You can imagine how that argument was developing. He, probably correctly, pointed to people movements into southern Africa and then white European settlers.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.0 -
Lukashenko just gave an interview calling for the war to end.0
-
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
0 -
@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020170 -
The equivalent set weren't at the height of May's unpopularity - 2019 was the real nadir for her, although Labour also did poorly. I agree with your broad point that 800 losses is obviously heavy expectation management, but four years ago wasn't terrible for the Tories.nico679 said:The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .0 -
Point of order: It is next year's elections that were last held at the height of May's unpopularity.nico679 said:The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .0 -
Cousin of Snow Whitey, who went to university with Michael Gove.Gardenwalker said:
I don’t know him. Relation of Evil Knieval?Applicant said:
No, it's being there before Evil Whitey.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?2 -
The media are only there to constantly churn out Tory propaganda, so its obvious what they are up too, its difficult to really find out where the partys are popularity wise after tonight, I can see lib dems doing well, but doubt that it will be a true reflection of where they stand nationallynico679 said:The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .0 -
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
0 -
If this polling is in anyway correct I don’t really see SLab regaining largest party status in Glasgow.
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1522224142275203076?s=21&t=KnCvt3bbalksr5U7FL20KA
1 -
The last time comparable elections were held, Labour gained 46 councillors.nico679 said:The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .0 -
Gardenwalker said: "A focus on class implies redistribution, which is far too awkward for everyone."
You may want to learn about the Earned income tax credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_creditIn 1969, Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which included a guaranteed minimum income in the form of a negative income tax. The House of Representatives passed this plan, but the Senate did not. During his 1972 Presidential campaign, George McGovern proposed a demogrant of $1,000 for every American. Critics during this time complained about implying people don't have to work for a living, and saw the program as having too little stigma; during this time, Hawaii had an established residency requirement for public aid, which one Hawaii State Senator suggested was necessary to discourage "parasites in paradise".[9]
If I recall correctly, the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that the introduction of the EITC resulted in a net shift of 25 percent for poor families. Before it, they paid about 10 percent of their income in taxes; after it was fully implemented, they got about 15 percent back. I haven't seen recent numbers.
Proposed by Russell Long and enacted in 1975, the EITC provides benefits to working recipients with earned income, but not to non-working recipients. The initially modest EITC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely publicized Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, 2001, and 2009, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).[10] In 1993, President Clinton tripled the EITC.[11] Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States.[12] Also, the EITC is mainly used to "promote and support work."[11] Most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit.
0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKGbguoildABartholomewRoberts said:
Cousin of Snow Whitey, who went to university with Michael Gove.Gardenwalker said:
I don’t know him. Relation of Evil Knieval?Applicant said:
No, it's being there before Evil Whitey.Gardenwalker said:
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook.Heathener said:
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.Gardenwalker said:
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.Carnyx said:
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?0 -
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .2 -
Which is a little under 1%, I think.Applicant said:
The last time comparable elections were held, Labour gained 46 councillors.nico679 said:The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .0 -
Lebanon like Northern Ireland has a consociational system. Israel does not (but does have a deliberately very proportional/low threshold system that allows parties representing a specific community to do well).MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon are pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
In NI, Assembly members at the start of a session choose to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other. They are allowed to change once per session. AMs identify per party; I'm not aware of any party's AMs identifying other than as a block, although they're allowed to.
Lots of other countries have small-scale measures to ensure minority representation, e.g. Germany has a lower electoral threshold for parties identifying with the Danish, Frisians, Sorbs or Romani minorities.0 -
500 would, I think, be more than a third of seats being defended. That's quite a bit more as a proportion than May lost in 2019. I don't really expect that level - that would be catastrophic.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .0 -
Thanks.bondegezou said:
Lebanon like Northern Ireland has a consociational system. Israel does not (but does have a deliberately very proportional/low threshold system that allows parties representing a specific community to do well).MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon are pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
In NI, Assembly members at the start of a session choose to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other. They are allowed to change once per session. AMs identify per party; I'm not aware of any party's AMs identifying other than as a block, although they're allowed to.
Lots of other countries have small-scale measures to ensure minority representation, e.g. Germany has a lower electoral threshold for parties identifying with the Danish, Frisians, Sorbs or Romani minorities.1 -
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020170 -
Everyone plays the expectations management game.Applicant said:
The last time comparable elections were held, Labour gained 46 councillors.nico679 said:The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
Having said that, the 800 losses was utterly ludicrous from even a cursory glance at the figures.1 -
Just one note.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The Māori seats were invented in 1867 because at the time there was a property qualification for general seats which rendered most Māori ineligible.
Yes I think it’s a fine line between what works and what doesn’t, but I don’t think it’s an “admission of failure”.0 -
I reckon 200 is about a par score tbh. That's what I'll be looking out for.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .1 -
Interesting. Also pretty much a tie between indy and union parties - a win for indy if you allow for the split within Labour voters, not so much if you allow for the fact that most 'independents' are tulchan Tories. No wonder the official Tories are campaigning on greenery and dog shite on street corners.Theuniondivvie said:If this polling is in anyway correct I don’t really see SLab regaining largest party status in Glasgow.
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1522224142275203076?s=21&t=KnCvt3bbalksr5U7FL20KA0 -
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020170 -
If I recall correctly, the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that the introduction of the EITC resulted in a net shift of 25 percent for poor families. Before it, they paid about 10 percent of their income in taxes; after it was fully implemented, they got about 15 percent back. I haven't seen recent numbers.Jim_Miller said:Gardenwalker said: "A focus on class implies redistribution, which is far too awkward for everyone."
You may want to learn about the Earned income tax credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_creditIn 1969, Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which included a guaranteed minimum income in the form of a negative income tax. The House of Representatives passed this plan, but the Senate did not. During his 1972 Presidential campaign, George McGovern proposed a demogrant of $1,000 for every American. Critics during this time complained about implying people don't have to work for a living, and saw the program as having too little stigma; during this time, Hawaii had an established residency requirement for public aid, which one Hawaii State Senator suggested was necessary to discourage "parasites in paradise".[9]
Proposed by Russell Long and enacted in 1975, the EITC provides benefits to working recipients with earned income, but not to non-working recipients. The initially modest EITC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely publicized Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, 2001, and 2009, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).[10] In 1993, President Clinton tripled the EITC.[11] Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States.[12] Also, the EITC is mainly used to "promote and support work."[11] Most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit.
Russell Long had a personality and political career quite different from his daddy's. The earned income tax credit testifies to the fact that Huey Long's son did share his commitment to economic justice for working people: "share our wealth".0 -
Well that’s me done my public duty. I voted Conservative. And Lib Dem. And Labour. But principally Conservative so I voted for them twice.
Whether these other choices do any good heaven alone knows. It’s far too complicated for the likes of me.2 -
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
0 -
Did you ever find out how many people died in the attack on the Mariupol theatre? Or work why it might take them so long to count the dead?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/1522246787209302017
https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS1 -
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?1 -
You get 10 marks for the public declaration.DavidL said:Well that’s me done my public duty. I voted Conservative. And Lib Dem. And Labour. But principally Conservative so I voted for them twice.
Whether these other choices do any good heaven alone knows. It’s far too complicated for the likes of me.
5 marks off for voting Tory and then pretending it’s because “stuff is too complicated”.
Still, I don’t think we’ve had that excuse before, so one mark can be restored.0 -
More on the BoE's forecast
2023: No growth, possible recession
2024: No growth.
Unemployment: to rise from 3.8% to 5.5%.
These are nightmare numbers for the tories
Inflation?
The tories better hope sterling doesn't tank too badly and that stops inflation coming down like the BoE predicts.
Otherwise, well...
0 -
Yes, and I think New Zealands rather unique founding treaty establishes Maori as full citizens with equal rights, a very different position to indigenous peoples in other colonies. Indeed I recall that Australian Aboriginies only got counted in the census as citizens in 1967.Gardenwalker said:
Just one note.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The Māori seats were invented in 1867 because at the time there was a property qualification for general seats which rendered most Māori ineligible.
Yes I think it’s a fine line between what works and what doesn’t, but I don’t think it’s an “admission of failure”.
While the treaty was not always implemented fairly, generally race relations in NZ seemed pretty relaxed when I was there, and biculturalism uncontroversial.
1 -
To be fair there have been local elections (we don’t have any this time), where I’ve had to scratch my head and think “hang on, I’d have to vote for everyone”.Gardenwalker said:
You get 10 marks for the public declaration.DavidL said:Well that’s me done my public duty. I voted Conservative. And Lib Dem. And Labour. But principally Conservative so I voted for them twice.
Whether these other choices do any good heaven alone knows. It’s far too complicated for the likes of me.
5 marks off for voting Tory and then pretending it’s because “stuff is too complicated”.
Still, I don’t think we’ve had that excuse before, so one mark can be restored.0 -
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.Malmesbury said:
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020172 -
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.biggles said:
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....3 -
Sandpit said:
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.Malmesbury said:
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/1522246787209302017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLaCqrisEacSandpit said:
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.Malmesbury said:
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020170 -
So based on its average forecasting performance, steady growth and full employment?MISTY said:More on the BoE's forecast
2023: No growth, possible recession
2024: No growth.
Unemployment: to rise from 3.8% to 5.5%.
These are nightmare numbers for the tories
Inflation?
The tories better hope sterling doesn't tank too badly and that stops inflation coming down like the BoE predicts.
Otherwise, well...
1 -
Just wtf is going on in Putin's inner circle? Why would Lavrov have gone way out on a limb like this and changed overnight Russian middle eastern policy if Putin had no idea?Sandpit said:
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.Malmesbury said:
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020170 -
As I understand it, when meeting FSB veterans, it is best to decline the tea.Sandpit said:
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.Malmesbury said:
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020175 -
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.Malmesbury said:
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.biggles said:
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
2 -
Mitt Romney predicts Trump will be nominee if he runs.
0 -
Well recently they have missed by being far too optomistic. Lets hope that is not still the case!biggles said:
So based on its average forecasting performance, steady growth and full employment?MISTY said:More on the BoE's forecast
2023: No growth, possible recession
2024: No growth.
Unemployment: to rise from 3.8% to 5.5%.
These are nightmare numbers for the tories
Inflation?
The tories better hope sterling doesn't tank too badly and that stops inflation coming down like the BoE predicts.
Otherwise, well...1 -
And that China isn't locked down so long that supply chains become an absolute nightmare.MISTY said:More on the BoE's forecast
2023: No growth, possible recession
2024: No growth.
Unemployment: to rise from 3.8% to 5.5%.
These are nightmare numbers for the tories
Inflation?
The tories better hope sterling doesn't tank too badly and that stops inflation coming down like the BoE predicts.
Otherwise, well...1 -
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:Malmesbury said:
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"0 -
Yeay a pass mark. Or was that out of 100?Gardenwalker said:
You get 10 marks for the public declaration.DavidL said:Well that’s me done my public duty. I voted Conservative. And Lib Dem. And Labour. But principally Conservative so I voted for them twice.
Whether these other choices do any good heaven alone knows. It’s far too complicated for the likes of me.
5 marks off for voting Tory and then pretending it’s because “stuff is too complicated”.
Still, I don’t think we’ve had that excuse before, so one mark can be restored.0 -
This is at the level of a "well, duh!" statement. The leader of the party will indeed lead the party if he chooses to lead it.rottenborough said:Mitt Romney predicts Trump will be nominee if he runs.
0 -
I can’t think why anyone would look at either the BoE’s forecasts, or indeed the IMF’s, and then at the government’s tax and fiscal policy, and say, “yes - this is why I vote Tory”.0
-
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?0 -
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?biggles said:
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.Malmesbury said:
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.biggles said:
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.2 -
Exactly right. It was attempted in a myriad of big and small ways. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean a fresh attempt could not.kjh said:I find it deeply troubling how several on here are so blasé about Trump and what he nearly achieved and are not fearful of the possibility of that happening again in the future and even being successful and with comments like the constitution or congress wont allow it. It is not as if this sort of stuff hasn't happened elsewhere.
If I survive a gunshot wound by wearing body armour, dodging, and getting medical treatment, it doesn't mean I am immune to bullets - I still need to take precautions.2 -
If Tories get up to 34 in these places in these conditions that will be an excellent outcome for them. 😕Scott_xP said:Local Elections in England – Survation for Good Morning Britain 22–26 April - recap.
In areas of England where there are local council elections in May 2022, our polling for Good Morning Britain has Labour on 47% of the vote, with the Conservatives at 34%: https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1522224147362992129/photo/1
All the boring things from electionologists have been pointing to a Meh result for the last two weeks to be honest. Maybe it’s just the set of elections this year following high tide for anti Tory vote last time they are up, it can’t just be as much fun as hoped?
Us Libdems can still have fun at Labours expense though, taking Hull off Starmer 😈0 -
The important news is too important to be left to subject matter specialists.Sandpit said:
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?biggles said:
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.Malmesbury said:
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.biggles said:
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
The Cult of The Generalist.
1 -
He wouldn't. They know they will piss off a lot of people with the tone they strike (never mind the invasion, which most nations can happily ignore, we all ignore a lot of stuff in the world after all), and on rare occasions they may need to walk it back if it is someone whose opinion actually matters to them.rottenborough said:
Just wtf is going on in Putin's inner circle? Why would Lavrov have gone way out on a limb like this and changed overnight Russian middle eastern policy if Putin had no idea?Sandpit said:
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.Malmesbury said:
Meeting without chair?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very bad day at the office for Lavrov.williamglenn said:@AAhronheim
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/15222467872093020171 -
And will Romney back him if he does win? You'd think not, he's voted to impeach him twice, but then a lot of people kowtowed in the end last time.rottenborough said:Mitt Romney predicts Trump will be nominee if he runs.
0 -
Being a generalist does necessarily involve basic numeracy though.Malmesbury said:
The important news is too important to be left to subject matter specialists.Sandpit said:
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?biggles said:
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.Malmesbury said:
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.biggles said:
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.nico679 said:Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
The Cult of The Generalist.
The problem is basic fact-checking has been binned.1 -
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.Malmesbury said:
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.1 -
Could LDs really take Hull?
Amazing if true, they don’t seem likely elderly liberal crypto-Tory nimbys in the East Riding.3 -
And is it even still fit for purpose?Gardenwalker said:
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.Malmesbury said:
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.0 -
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibblingAlistair said:
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:Malmesbury said:
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
https://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/degrees-and-programs/postgraduate-pharmacy-residency-program/news-events-and-publications/curbside-consult-volume-17-issue-1-first-quarter-2019/best-two-drug-antihypertensive-combinations-black-african-patients
0 -
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.6 -
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.kle4 said:
And is it even still fit for purpose?Gardenwalker said:
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.Malmesbury said:
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.3 -
We shall find out Friday.kle4 said:
And is it even still fit for purpose?Gardenwalker said:
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.Malmesbury said:
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.0 -
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).Leon said:
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibblingAlistair said:
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:Malmesbury said:
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
https://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/degrees-and-programs/postgraduate-pharmacy-residency-program/news-events-and-publications/curbside-consult-volume-17-issue-1-first-quarter-2019/best-two-drug-antihypertensive-combinations-black-african-patients0 -
The issues of indigenous and minorities occur in all types of societies, not just majoritarian democratic ones.Gardenwalker said:
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.Malmesbury said:
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.MattW said:
I think that's an interesting comment.Gardenwalker said:
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.Sandpit said:
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.BartholomewRoberts said:
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?Gardenwalker said:
What’s that got to do with the question?BartholomewRoberts said:
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.Gardenwalker said:
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?Malmesbury said:
There's always genetics...Gardenwalker said:
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.Malmesbury said:
Dunno.Gardenwalker said:
How do you propose to test?Malmesbury said:
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.Taz said:
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?Gardenwalker said:The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders.
Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now,
- at least one must be female
- at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
Cranial measurement?
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
Usually, in the non-democratic ones, they get some version of the "square peg, round hole" treatment.0
