Sauce for the goose – politicalbetting.com

JohnLilburne said:

eek said:

Lennon said:

MattW said:

Archiepiscopal Charitable Betting Post - Offer.

It's that time again.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.

Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice.
Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.

Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.

(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)

Any takers?

No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'

(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)

The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...

Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop

Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?

viewcode said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

MattW said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lennon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kjh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.

Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.

I cannot even blame auto-correct.

Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?

Yes, but they love me.

Erroneously....

Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?

If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.

Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.

Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.

The average is very low according to the average person...

I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?

(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)

I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?

You sure you didn't get slipped one at school? Plus: to some folk, not doing one would make you just plain nonexistent. Or so one would guess from the way they talk about IQs and their genetic constituent.

I don't think so. I don't remember ever doing anything that looked like (what I think) an IQ test looks like. Although, to be fair, my idea of what an IQ test looks like is from snippets I've seen online.

It is a problem, to be sure. How can I judge myself and my relative value in society?

Ask a cat. Works for me

We've recently got two kittens. I'm sitting alone on the bed typing, whilst Mrs J is up in the study on a conference call. The kittens are currently occupying my chair as Mrs J strokes them. I have been relegated from my own chair.

I know my place in the hierarchy...

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

I think we might be on the verge of major crisis in football refereeing:

https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952

Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020

The anti Klopp/Liverpool bias of the refs was known for years, glad more and people are finding out.

So would it be fair to say that with unbiased refereeing, Klopp and Liverpool would have won several more trophies and dominated the premier league?

I think we need a Cyclefree post on this.

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

Do you mean like jailing a criminal for his crimes? What 'retribution'! The fiends!

TimS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

I think we might be on the verge of major crisis in football refereeing:

https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952

Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020

The anti Klopp/Liverpool bias of the refs was known for years, glad more and people are finding out.

So would it be fair to say that with unbiased refereeing, Klopp and Liverpool would have won several more trophies and dominated the premier league?

I think we need a Cyclefree post on this.

David Coote missed a red card offence as VAR because he didn’t realise he could send the player off.

Darren England using VAR missed a clear onside goal.

Twice Liverpool lost the title by one point, don’t tell me the rubbish refs didn’t contribute.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

I think we might be on the verge of major crisis in football refereeing:

https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952

Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020

The anti Klopp/Liverpool bias of the refs was known for years, glad more and people are finding out.

So would it be fair to say that with unbiased refereeing, Klopp and Liverpool would have won several more trophies and dominated the premier league?

I think we need a Cyclefree post on this.

David Coote missed a red card offence as VAR because he didn’t realise he could send the player off.

Darren England using VAR missed a clear onside goal.

Twice Liverpool lost the title by one point, don’t tell me the rubbish refs didn’t contribute.

Every team has bad calls against them. They normally average out.

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

Camilla Long in The Times (££)

https://x.com/jennmgreenberg/status/1856295331367211067?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

I think we might be on the verge of major crisis in football refereeing:

https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952

Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020

The anti Klopp/Liverpool bias of the refs was known for years, glad more and people are finding out.

So would it be fair to say that with unbiased refereeing, Klopp and Liverpool would have won several more trophies and dominated the premier league?

I think we need a Cyclefree post on this.

David Coote missed a red card offence as VAR because he didn’t realise he could send the player off.

Darren England using VAR missed a clear onside goal.

Twice Liverpool lost the title by one point, don’t tell me the rubbish refs didn’t contribute.

Maybe with perfect referees they'd have missed the title by five points, or ten points. Mistakes aren't just in one direction.
ISTR the last sort of study of this of any credibility I saw concluded that big clubs gets the rub of the green more often than small clubs. Presumably Liverpool are in the former category.

Which was the game from last season where the ref called it and the VAR operator was going wait, wait, wait, hold on...and the game carried on?

Found it...

PGMOL releases VAR audio from Liverpool's disallowed goal against Spurs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhpgelkcnJ8

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

I think we might be on the verge of major crisis in football refereeing:

https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952

Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020

The anti Klopp/Liverpool bias of the refs was known for years, glad more and people are finding out.

So would it be fair to say that with unbiased refereeing, Klopp and Liverpool would have won several more trophies and dominated the premier league?

I think we need a Cyclefree post on this.

David Coote missed a red card offence as VAR because he didn’t realise he could send the player off.

Darren England using VAR missed a clear onside goal.

Twice Liverpool lost the title by one point, don’t tell me the rubbish refs didn’t contribute.

Maybe with perfect referees they'd have missed the title by five points, or ten points. Mistakes aren't just in one direction.
ISTR the last sort of study of this of any credibility I saw concluded that big clubs gets the rub of the green more often than small clubs. Presumably Liverpool are in the former category.

The problem with VAR is that the number of errors is reduced, and therefore those that remain are more consequential. There aren't enough to even it out over the course of a season.

JohnLilburne said:

eek said:

Lennon said:

MattW said:

Archiepiscopal Charitable Betting Post - Offer.

It's that time again.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.

Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice.
Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.

Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.

(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)

Any takers?

No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'

(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)

The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...

Not sure I understand that in retrospect, he was obviously Bishop of Durham before Canterbury.

You also have to define your terms. Lanfranc, for example, was Abbot of St Stephens, Caen

Though Welby was a very junior bishop when he got the Canterbury gig- he'd been in Durham for just over a year. George Carey didn't spend that long eating babies in Bath and Wells before getting promoted.

Suspect that being quite junior and under-the-radar makes preferment more likely. Partly because having a higher profile generates enemies and you don't need many enemies to scupper your progress, but also because it really is one of those jobs where nobody sane and thoughtful enough to do the job well is sane and thoughtful enough to want it.

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

Camilla Long in The Times (££)

https://x.com/jennmgreenberg/status/1856295331367211067?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

(££) means I cannot read it.

I personally know kids that have been castrated/sterilised by this trans insanity

I also know kids that “thought” they were trans but their parents patiently waited out the teenage madness and now the kids are 18 and normalising and physically intact, fertile, and not surgically mutilated

FrancisUrquhart said:

Which was the game from last season where the ref called it and the VAR operator was going wait, wait, wait, hold on...and the game carried on?

Found it...

PGMOL releases VAR audio from Liverpool's disallowed goal against Spurs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhpgelkcnJ8

Blatant bias against Liverpool, again.

MattW said:

Lennon said:

david_herdson said:

JohnLilburne said:

eek said:

Lennon said:

MattW said:

Archiepiscopal Charitable Betting Post - Offer.

It's that time again.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.

Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice.
Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.

Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.

(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)

Any takers?

No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'

(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)

The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...

Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop

Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?

Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.

Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.

That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.

Extra:

At one time there was quite credible talk about Desmond Tutu becoming ABC.

Tutu actually served in the Dioceses of London and Guildford (I think - Bletchingley parish) from ~1960 to 1966. That was as part of an informal project to prepare black priests for senior leadership positions in South Africa. He came via Trevor Huddleston's Community of the Resurrection.

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

It's not that implausible: some of the tables that are bandied around have numbers that are larger than that. Although it has to be stated which the American definition of a "child" is being used: under 18 or under 21?

As I believe I have said here before, discourse on this matter in the UK is complicated by the fact that practice in the UK (illegal to do genital operations under 16, other child surgery non zero but low) is radically different from practice in the USA (thousands if not tens of thousands of child surgeries). I've promised @MaxPB to try to do a modified CONSORT diagram for the Tavistock before year end, since I think the data is online now. Perhaps that will add more light than heat.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Which was the game from last season where the ref called it and the VAR operator was going wait, wait, wait, hold on...and the game carried on?

Found it...

PGMOL releases VAR audio from Liverpool's disallowed goal against Spurs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhpgelkcnJ8

Blatant bias against Liverpool, again.

However......a couple of weeks later...more VAR issues...

Howard Webb responds to Merseyside Derby VAR controversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNH4htpcKps

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I predict that Sue Gray will eventually return in an even more powerful role as Sue White.

Keir Starmer is planning to withdraw the offer to his former chief of staff Sue Gray of the post of nations and regions envoy amid concerns over what exactly the role would entail, the Guardian understands.

Sources said Gray, who is on a “short break” between roles after standing down almost six weeks ago, has been warned that the prime minister is likely to rescind the job offer before she has even taken it up.

Downing Street insiders are also believed to be concerned about the media attention that would follow Gray, which could make it more difficult for her to carry out the role effectively behind the scenes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/12/keir-starmer-poised-to-withdraw-sue-gray-job-offer

Tr: even the people who made up this ridiculous load of crap couldn't work out what it would entail.

Wish I could get a 'short break' of six weeks.

Now that the dragon of Scottish nationalism has been killed stone dead by Starmer it was always a non job.

Polling still to catch up with this stunning revelation obviously.

Polls, schmolls.

Who'dyo think you are, Yougov?

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

I think we might be on the verge of major crisis in football refereeing:

https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952

Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020

The anti Klopp/Liverpool bias of the refs was known for years, glad more and people are finding out.

That Klopp is a c*** and anyone who comes across him thinks he is one is priced in. The issue here is if the PGMOL knew about this years ago and sought to deal with it privately, they've now been caught in a lie by pretending that they've only just found out.

The Justin Welby approach to crisis management...

As well as people having to be dragged into resignation these days, they don't actually face the media when they do it. Welby clearly thought he was going to get an easy hearing doing Ch4 news last night, then crashed like Verstappen and now just resigns via statement.

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

I personally know kids that have been castrated/sterilised by this trans insanity

I also know kids that “thought” they were trans but their parents patiently waited out the teenage madness and now the kids are 18 and normalising and physically intact, fertile, and not surgically mutilated

I don't believe you.

I personally know these kids. But you do you

I don't believe you.

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House.
Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.

rkrkrk said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House.
Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.

For some people, lack of favouritism is impossible to distinguish from retribution.

rkrkrk said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House.
Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.

The Dems don't respect the rule of law. See "sanctuary cities" for details.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

The break down would be very interesting. 14k is ~0.02% if 'children' is under 18s. Prevalence of gender dysphoria in children the UK was ~0.08% a few years back according to one estimate I've seen. Most of that's end-loaded, here at least. Depending on the age profile, the numbers could certainly be plausible if puberty blockers/x-sex hormones are both included in 'chemical castration'.

This is interesting on a break down of numbers: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/ although I'm not sure what the coverage of the source (Komodo Health) is relative to the population.

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

You mean like the massive order the Democrat White House gave SpaceX a week before the election?

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

Camilla Long in The Times (££)

https://x.com/jennmgreenberg/status/1856295331367211067?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

(££) means I cannot read it.

https://archive.ph/k8SjL

Thanks.

From the article - is this true?:

"Tim Walz, had turned Minnesota into a “trans refuge”. He signed a law saying children could be taken away from their parents if the parents didn’t agree their child should receive “gender-affirming care”."

Stuartinromford said:

JohnLilburne said:

eek said:

Lennon said:

MattW said:

Archiepiscopal Charitable Betting Post - Offer.

It's that time again.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.

Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice.
Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.

Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.

(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)

Any takers?

No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'

(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)

The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...

Not sure I understand that in retrospect, he was obviously Bishop of Durham before Canterbury.

You also have to define your terms. Lanfranc, for example, was Abbot of St Stephens, Caen

Though Welby was a very junior bishop when he got the Canterbury gig- he'd been in Durham for just over a year. George Carey didn't spend that long eating babies in Bath and Wells before getting promoted.

Suspect that being quite junior and under-the-radar makes preferment more likely. Partly because having a higher profile generates enemies and you don't need many enemies to scupper your progress, but also because it really is one of those jobs where nobody sane and thoughtful enough to do the job well is sane and thoughtful enough to want it.

Quite new, but Durham is traditionally a fairly high-powered Bishopric. Michael Ramsey also ended up in Canterbury via Durham. So that is two from ~the last eight.

The one who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop in the CofE was Rowan Williams, who was Bishop of Monmouth (+ Archbishop) in the Church of Wales.

The last one before that was John Tillotson in 1694, who was Dean of St Pauls previously. He was quite sound, and wrote a "Discourse against Transubstantiation."

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

There are around 12 million children between 15 and 17 years old in the US.
These numbers suggest around 150 actual surgeries each year.

Which compares with around 2500 annual gun deaths for children.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/biden-administration-transgender-surgeries-minors
.. “Transition-related surgery for youth is exceedingly rare, though it is within the standards of care,” Heng-Lehtinen pointed out. “For the patients who do have surgery, it’s important for them, and it’s based on seeing many specialists and really tailored treatment with the supervision of multiple doctors and their families. So it’s rare and when it does happen, it’s because of a really, really thoroughly investigated course of action.”

This conclusion is supported by a new study from Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, which researchers say is the first-ever quantitative comparison of gender-affirming surgery utilization between cisgender and trans/gender-diverse minors.

The research found that gender-affirming surgeries are extremely rarely performed on trans youth, with zero on youth ages 12 and younger, and 2.1 per 100,000 for teens ages 15 to 17 in the study year..

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

You mean like the massive order the Democrat White House gave SpaceX a week before the election?

Are you referring to the Commercial Cargo contract?

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

There are around 12 million children between 15 and 17 years old in the US.
These numbers suggest around 150 actual surgeries each year.

Which compares with around 2500 annual gun deaths for children.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/biden-administration-transgender-surgeries-minors
.. “Transition-related surgery for youth is exceedingly rare, though it is within the standards of care,” Heng-Lehtinen pointed out. “For the patients who do have surgery, it’s important for them, and it’s based on seeing many specialists and really tailored treatment with the supervision of multiple doctors and their families. So it’s rare and when it does happen, it’s because of a really, really thoroughly investigated course of action.”

This conclusion is supported by a new study from Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, which researchers say is the first-ever quantitative comparison of gender-affirming surgery utilization between cisgender and trans/gender-diverse minors.

The research found that gender-affirming surgeries are extremely rarely performed on trans youth, with zero on youth ages 12 and younger, and 2.1 per 100,000 for teens ages 15 to 17 in the study year..

It's like people who pretend to care about women by getting very ANGRY about 'trans' people, whilst supporting banning abortions and limiting contraception.

I bet the number of women who will be hurt and die from lack of access to abortions will be orders of magnitude greater than the number of women hurt by trans people.

But you know, hate's gotta hate.

rkrkrk said:

williamglenn said:

rkrkrk said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House.
Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.

The Dems don't respect the rule of law. See "sanctuary cities" for details.

Sanctuary cities aren't illegal. They certainly aren't locking up your political opponents for being opponents or giving contracts/money to your mates because they're your mates. There's an obvious difference but if you can't see it, I can't help you.

A question of state vs federal jurisdiction.
Which I thought the GOP were quite keen on ?

rcs1000 said:

Selebian said:

MattW said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lennon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kjh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.

Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.

I cannot even blame auto-correct.

Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?

Yes, but they love me.

Erroneously....

Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?

If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.

Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.

Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.

The average is very low according to the average person...

I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?

(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)

I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?

I don't think that is necessarily an "or" question.

We had to do them all the time when I was at the top of primary school. The idea was that the more you practised the better you'd do at them.
Mind, that was nearly 80 years ago.

OldKingCole said:

Totally o/t everyone but you never know. Someone here might have the info.
An ancestor mine..... not a direct one I hasten to add ...... is in the 1891 census as a solicitor, and from various newspapers of the time seems indeed to have been one. In 1896 he was sentenced to 16 months for fraud.
However he's in the 1901 Census as a solicitor again.
No way he's get back now, would he? But could he then?

Maybe he lied on the Census?
He had form after all.

MattW said:

Stuartinromford said:

JohnLilburne said:

eek said:

Lennon said:

MattW said:

Archiepiscopal Charitable Betting Post - Offer.

It's that time again.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.

Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice.
Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.

Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.

(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)

Any takers?

No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'

(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)

The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...

Not sure I understand that in retrospect, he was obviously Bishop of Durham before Canterbury.

You also have to define your terms. Lanfranc, for example, was Abbot of St Stephens, Caen

Though Welby was a very junior bishop when he got the Canterbury gig- he'd been in Durham for just over a year. George Carey didn't spend that long eating babies in Bath and Wells before getting promoted.

Suspect that being quite junior and under-the-radar makes preferment more likely. Partly because having a higher profile generates enemies and you don't need many enemies to scupper your progress, but also because it really is one of those jobs where nobody sane and thoughtful enough to do the job well is sane and thoughtful enough to want it.

Quite new, but Durham is traditionally a fairly high-powered Bishopric. Michael Ramsey also ended up in Canterbury via Durham. So that is two from ~the last eight.

The one who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop in the CofE was Rowan Williams, who was Bishop of Monmouth (+ Archbishop) in the Church of Wales.

The last one before that was John Tillotson in 1694, who was Dean of St Pauls previously. He was quite sound, and wrote a "Discourse against Transubstantiation."

Don't open up another trans front, please.

They're evacuating the cats.
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1856052144400683229

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/1856357133299671371


ALASTAIR CAMPBELL
@campbellclaret
Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that
@JustinWelby
is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.

Because Al is always so understanding of others....he is literally the first one in the queue to normally hit the airwaves from his back bedroom to demand somebody has to go. And of course Welby didn't, only last night he will doing everything but accept institutional responsibility, he was saying no, the institution has rules and process and it will sort itself out in due course, that isn't for me to do.

It would have been more true if he had resigned as soon as the report came out.

The 🇫🇷French now write that the Air Force of 🇺🇦Ukraine will receive six Mirage 2000-5F in the first tranche instead of three as previously reported
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1856260865533603876

Leon said:

Stocky said:

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

Camilla Long in The Times (££)

https://x.com/jennmgreenberg/status/1856295331367211067?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

(££) means I cannot read it.

https://archive.ph/k8SjL

Thanks.

From the article - is this true?:

"Tim Walz, had turned Minnesota into a “trans refuge”. He signed a law saying children could be taken away from their parents if the parents didn’t agree their child should receive “gender-affirming care”."

Certainly looks close to the truth


https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/01/nx-s1-5103113/minnesota-trans-refuge-walz-vance-transgender-rights

Your linked article states (emphasis mine): 'In Arizona earlier this month, Vance falsely claimed the “trans refuge” law Walz signed allows the state to “take children away from their parents if their parents don’t want to do sex changes”'
and links to this https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/27/jd-vance/jd-vance-misrepresents-minnesota-law-on-kids-seeki/ which clarifies things a little - TLDR is that it gives the state jurisdiction over gender affirming care disputes that also involve other states, so it's not nothing, but it's not what was claimed.

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

“At least 14,000 children have had their ovaries or penises removed, breasts removed, or been surgically or chemically castrated in America in the past 5 years.”

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1856137706863997287?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

In 15 years we will look back on this insane era with a mixture of bewilderment and rancid shame

Where's that data come from, and what were the reasons?

I went to school with a lass who had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so it'd be interesting to know if that sort of op would be included in those figures.

There are around 12 million children between 15 and 17 years old in the US.
These numbers suggest around 150 actual surgeries each year.

Which compares with around 2500 annual gun deaths for children.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/biden-administration-transgender-surgeries-minors
.. “Transition-related surgery for youth is exceedingly rare, though it is within the standards of care,” Heng-Lehtinen pointed out. “For the patients who do have surgery, it’s important for them, and it’s based on seeing many specialists and really tailored treatment with the supervision of multiple doctors and their families. So it’s rare and when it does happen, it’s because of a really, really thoroughly investigated course of action.”

This conclusion is supported by a new study from Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, which researchers say is the first-ever quantitative comparison of gender-affirming surgery utilization between cisgender and trans/gender-diverse minors.

The research found that gender-affirming surgeries are extremely rarely performed on trans youth, with zero on youth ages 12 and younger, and 2.1 per 100,000 for teens ages 15 to 17 in the study year..

It's like people who pretend to care about women by getting very ANGRY about 'trans' people, whilst supporting banning abortions and limiting contraception.

I bet the number of women who will be hurt and die from lack of access to abortions will be orders of magnitude greater than the number of women hurt by trans people.

But you know, hate's gotta hate.

I'm not even going to bother with the rampant transphobia in this thread.

People talking about subjects on which they have no experience, twisting stats to justify their hate.

Sad.

MattW said:

Is the Transformation real, in substance and essence, or only in appearance, or in representation !

Yes

(ducks )

Nigelb said:

The 🇫🇷French now write that the Air Force of 🇺🇦Ukraine will receive six Mirage 2000-5F in the first tranche instead of three as previously reported
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1856260865533603876

Trump's election puts more pressure on Putin. Contrast this with Kamala Harris telling Zelensky to stop attacking Russian oil refineries:

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992

Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:

"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/1856357133299671371


ALASTAIR CAMPBELL
@campbellclaret
Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that
@JustinWelby
is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.

That would have been a thoughtful and compassionate post except for the last line...

The man is a nasty piece of work who just can't ever stop seeing everything through the lens of being party political. Normally as time goes on, people who were in politics can step away, become less partisan and bridge many divides they had.
(Snip)

Agreed. That last line is very telling: the post isn't about Welby, it's about Campbell, and it hints at the shadowy 'ultra conservative forces' who obviously forced Welby to make those mistakes all those years ago...

Actually, if Welby and Campbell are friends, then that's another black mark in Welby's book.

MattW said:

Lennon said:

david_herdson said:

JohnLilburne said:

eek said:

Lennon said:

MattW said:

Archiepiscopal Charitable Betting Post - Offer.

It's that time again.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.

Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice.
Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.

Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.

(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)

Any takers?

No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'

(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)

The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...

Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop

Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?

Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.

Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.

That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.

Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.

For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:

1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman)
2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down)
6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward
5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now)
3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)

That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.

Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).

For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

(Me: about 150 last time I did a test, which was some time ago ;-) .)

My IQ is so low I cannot remember what it was when I last did a test.

(Though memory != IQ)

Many simple IQ tests have a maximum score of 150, though IQs can, of course, be higher.

Interestingly, people with IQs above 150 tend not to score exactly 150 on these basic tests - typically because they've analysed things on a more complex level beyond the expected answer and come up with entirely valid internal challenges to the logic the respondent is 'supposed' to apply.

It has been theorised that there may even be a bell curve away from the theoretical maximum, and beyond a certain level a typical IQ test score will start to consistently fall as the actual IQ increases, but there's unlikely to ever be enough solid data to prove this because there are just too few hyperintelligent people and too many uncontrollable variables amongst them.

Selebian said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Today I delivered a VOTE KAMALA leaflet from the Florida Democrats

It was the first one I’ve delivered, and will almost certainly be the last

you mean you posties cost her the election with your delayed deliveries?

I didn't bring it all the way from Florida

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

The 🇫🇷French now write that the Air Force of 🇺🇦Ukraine will receive six Mirage 2000-5F in the first tranche instead of three as previously reported
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1856260865533603876

Trump's election puts more pressure on Putin. Contrast this with Kamala Harris telling Zelensky to stop attacking Russian oil refineries:

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992

Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:

"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."

We will see.

So far, there's nothing other than a couple of names to suggest what Trump might, or might not do, once in office.

In the meantime, Europe (some of it at least) is starting to do what it ought to have done sooner.

Europe delivered nearly 1,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine this year, and aims to deliver another half million rounds by January, per the EU's Josep Borrell.

On track for roughly 4,000 shells per day from the EU alone in 2024.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1856355154456367155

To put that into perspective: Russia has been firing 60,000 to 70,000 artillery shells per day in the past. It's apparently slowed down a great deal recently (lack of shells? lack of tubes?)

But Russia is making 3,000,000 a year, or over 8,000 a day, and they are also getting many from North Korea.

Nigelb said:

The 🇫🇷French now write that the Air Force of 🇺🇦Ukraine will receive six Mirage 2000-5F in the first tranche instead of three as previously reported
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1856260865533603876

The leader of the opposition in Norway has proposed tripling their support for next year. (I see you have that in the very next post!)

Starmer needs to be challenged to do likewise.

williamglenn said:

rkrkrk said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

LostPassword said:

Pulpstar said:

Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ?
I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !

Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.

“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”

A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.

Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.

The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.

Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House.
Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.

The Dems don't respect the rule of law. See "sanctuary cities" for details.

There are two issues with this comment.

Firstly, it is very lazy to say "all", when you mean to say "some Democrats", given many Democrat run cities that have not passed sanctuary type laws.

Secondly, the cities in question have passed laws. And when I say passed laws, I mean that the voters elected representatives who passed these laws. And these laws limit the cooperation of local law enforcement with Federal immigration authorities. In June 2020, the Supreme Court (with its conservative majority) rejected the Trump challenge to California's sanctuary laws. In March 2021, said Supreme Court went further, and prevented the Federal Government from withholding funding from jurisdictions that passed sanctuary city law.

So, when you say "don't respect the rule of law", what law do you think these democratically elected lawmakers are breaking? And why is it that the Supreme Court - which is hardly full of left wing idealogues - disagrees with you?