I've been watching Gary W. Gallagher, a prominent historian, and his Great Courses lecture series on the American Civil War recently. It's comprehensive 48-lecture course that covers the political, social, and military aspects of the war all recorded in the year 2000.
One thing he keeps saying in his lectures is how important it is not to apply the values and judgements of today to the people of the time, if we really want to understand what they did and why they did it, but to read what they actually said and actually did in the context of their own time. He does this repeatedly with analysis of the war, the roles played on the war front, home front, and civilian front and displays no judgement or bias in any analysis he delivers on any of it.
Struck me as what an utterly radical point of view that would be today, simple academic objectiveness, and how we truly have gone backwards.
Sorry, but that really is complete tosh. I've spent a lot of time listening to The Rest Is History podcasts by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook recently (while exercising), and they repeatedly make exactly the same point.
I was taught that before CR was even born, I suspect.
But to defend CR’s point, they may say it’s best to do that, but do they actually practice it? And the US Civil War is I think the best example of something only seen these days through modern eyes. Lincoln’s always seen as the saviour, who freed blacks from slavery. But he wanted them all deported back to Africa once freed, didn’t he? Like that’s no different than Trumps position. 🤷♀️
No, he didn’t.
In his early years, he was an advocate of Colonisation - the *voluntary return* of freed slaves to Africa.
After he met the leaders of free African Americans (such as Frederick Douglass) who were opposed to this, he changed his mind.
Feels like the media has been trying to warn people Ukraine could lose a lot more territory (not just face an endless stalemate) in the last few weeks. Not sure enough people are listening, or if it would matter to the practical decision making taking place.
I've been watching Gary W. Gallagher, a prominent historian, and his Great Courses lecture series on the American Civil War recently. It's comprehensive 48-lecture course that covers the political, social, and military aspects of the war all recorded in the year 2000.
One thing he keeps saying in his lectures is how important it is not to apply the values and judgements of today to the people of the time, if we really want to understand what they did and why they did it, but to read what they actually said and actually did in the context of their own time. He does this repeatedly with analysis of the war, the roles played on the war front, home front, and civilian front and displays no judgement or bias in any analysis he delivers on any of it.
Struck me as what an utterly radical point of view that would be today, simple academic objectiveness, and how we truly have gone backwards.
Sorry, but that really is complete tosh. I've spent a lot of time listening to The Rest Is History podcasts by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook recently (while exercising), and they repeatedly make exactly the same point.
I was taught that before CR was even born, I suspect.
But to defend CR’s point, they may say it’s best to do that, but do they actually practice it? And the US Civil War is I think the best example of something only seen these days through modern eyes. Lincoln’s always seen as the saviour, who freed blacks from slavery. But he wanted them all deported back to Africa once freed, didn’t he? Like that’s no different than Trumps position. 🤷♀️
Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union, not to end slavery.
But, the Southern leaders were definitely fighting to uphold slavery. Their Articles of Secession made that clear.
Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery, but he wanted there to be no more slave States. Because cotton is a thirsty crop, the planters had to keep breaking new ground, moving Westward. A bar on new slave States would ultimately have finished the South’s cotton-based economy.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Agree. Just been watching Rylance in Wolf Hall and he is absolutely mesmerising in an apparently effortless way. I can't quite put my finger on why he's so good, but even when he's silent you can't take your eyes off him.
You actually have put your finger on it. His silence; a stillness that is utterly mesmerising.
Is it any good?
I tried reading Wolf Hall and found the artificiality of Mantel's style insufferable. I guess that's not an issue with the film production, so maybe I should try it?
The first series is superb. The current one I'm not such a fan of - the dialogue isn't as considered as the first series, and the soundtrack is deeply irritating.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
David Tennant has played time lords, detectives, serial killers and a Danish prince.
On topic, I like the idea of the opinion polling pause for a while before voting.
There’s something to be said for and against, which your header doesn’t do TSE. But voters minds shouldn’t be casting their votes based on what the polls are telling us the result will be, but casting votes based on the issues that matter to each voter, without thinking you know the result as distraction.
And would the ban and bit more not knowing what’s going on, not help the political betting, creating nicer odds?
Voters should be casting their vote for all sorts of reasons, yet won't. Nick Palmer I believe has told the story of someone saying they would vote for him as he was tall. We cannot control how people will come to their decision with that kind of desired precision.
I'm skeptical of how big an effect is from people changing their minds about how to vote because of what the polls might say anyway, feels like a post election justification.
I understand two people voted for NP because of his prowess in bed.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
David Tennant has played time lords, detectives, serial killers and a Danish prince.
He’s very good. For the new generation i would put a vote in for Ben Whishaw as one with a commanding aura
BREAKING: The UK will scrap five warships, dozens of military helicopters and a fleet of drones to save money despite growing threats from Russia and a war raging in Europe. John Healey, the defence secretary, announced the dramatic move in parliament on Wednesday, saying it would save up to half a billion pounds over the next five years. The defence secretary described the equipment being axed as “outdated” and said the “common sense” decision to retire them was long overdue. He signalled the decision was part of a plan to restructure and modernise the armed forces, which have already been significantly reduced in size following decades of cost-saving cuts, with new capabilities due to come on line to replace the gaps.
It makes sense to scrap useless assets. I hope they looked long and hard at the aircraft carriers - they seem entirely pointless to me as neither of them actually work. Shoddy old Gordon Brown.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
David Tennant has played time lords, detectives, serial killers and a Danish prince.
I liked him as John Knox, though my memory of the performance is it basically amounted to him saying 'harlot' a lot.
And I've just discovered he played the Lord Commander in the rather weird sci-fi cartoon Final Space. Quite versatile.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
David Tennant has played time lords, detectives, serial killers and a Danish prince.
He’s very good. For the new generation i would put a vote in for Ben Whishaw as one with a commanding aura
I've been watching Gary W. Gallagher, a prominent historian, and his Great Courses lecture series on the American Civil War recently. It's comprehensive 48-lecture course that covers the political, social, and military aspects of the war all recorded in the year 2000.
One thing he keeps saying in his lectures is how important it is not to apply the values and judgements of today to the people of the time, if we really want to understand what they did and why they did it, but to read what they actually said and actually did in the context of their own time. He does this repeatedly with analysis of the war, the roles played on the war front, home front, and civilian front and displays no judgement or bias in any analysis he delivers on any of it.
Struck me as what an utterly radical point of view that would be today, simple academic objectiveness, and how we truly have gone backwards.
Sorry, but that really is complete tosh. I've spent a lot of time listening to The Rest Is History podcasts by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook recently (while exercising), and they repeatedly make exactly the same point.
I was taught that before CR was even born, I suspect.
But to defend CR’s point, they may say it’s best to do that, but do they actually practice it? And the US Civil War is I think the best example of something only seen these days through modern eyes. Lincoln’s always seen as the saviour, who freed blacks from slavery. But he wanted them all deported back to Africa once freed, didn’t he? Like that’s no different than Trumps position. 🤷♀️
No, he didn’t.
In his early years, he was an advocate of Colonisation - the *voluntary return* of freed slaves to Africa.
After he met the leaders of free African Americans (such as Frederick Douglass) who were opposed to this, he changed his mind.
I continually state that we should judge historical figures by the social mores of their time. Colston is seen as a demon now, judged by 21st century people. But at the time he would have been doing nothing out of the ordinary. Some people like to think that if they were born in previous times they would have the same sensibilities as they do today, but we are moulded by our upbringing.
I've been watching Gary W. Gallagher, a prominent historian, and his Great Courses lecture series on the American Civil War recently. It's comprehensive 48-lecture course that covers the political, social, and military aspects of the war all recorded in the year 2000.
One thing he keeps saying in his lectures is how important it is not to apply the values and judgements of today to the people of the time, if we really want to understand what they did and why they did it, but to read what they actually said and actually did in the context of their own time. He does this repeatedly with analysis of the war, the roles played on the war front, home front, and civilian front and displays no judgement or bias in any analysis he delivers on any of it.
Struck me as what an utterly radical point of view that would be today, simple academic objectiveness, and how we truly have gone backwards.
Sorry, but that really is complete tosh. I've spent a lot of time listening to The Rest Is History podcasts by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook recently (while exercising), and they repeatedly make exactly the same point.
I was taught that before CR was even born, I suspect.
But to defend CR’s point, they may say it’s best to do that, but do they actually practice it? And the US Civil War is I think the best example of something only seen these days through modern eyes. Lincoln’s always seen as the saviour, who freed blacks from slavery. But he wanted them all deported back to Africa once freed, didn’t he? Like that’s no different than Trumps position. 🤷♀️
No, he didn’t.
In his early years, he was an advocate of Colonisation - the *voluntary return* of freed slaves to Africa.
After he met the leaders of free African Americans (such as Frederick Douglass) who were opposed to this, he changed his mind.
I continually state that we should judge historical figures by the social mores of their time. Colston is seen as a demon now, judged by 21st century people. But at the time he would have been doing nothing out of the ordinary. Some people like to think that if they were born in previous times they would have the same sensibilities as they do today, but we are moulded by our upbringing.
I think Richard Dawkins referenced Lincoln when talking about what he called the shifting moral zeitgeist. I think we can judge people for things that were normal in their times to some extent - there may have been people then who did not share those views - but we do have to understand the context of those times and if it was indeed unexceptional, and a sense of proportion is needed if we're going to, IDK, cancel roman emperors for being slavers or something.
My solution is we put labels on any historical works that state 'the person who produced this will have had different views from today, and there's a decent chance they were racist, sexist, or homophobic by our standards, so let's assume that and move on'.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
It makes sense to scrap useless assets. I hope they looked long and hard at the aircraft carriers - they seem entirely pointless to me as neither of them actually work. Shoddy old Gordon Brown.
The carriers themselves work just fine, within the limitations of their design. It's everything around them that's a problem.
There are not enough Type 45 destroyers to reliably provide escorts for even one carrier. There are not enough F-35s to equip a complete air wing on one carrier when training and maintenance are taken into account. No effort was ever made to develop a VTOL radar aircraft (which is the only kind the QEs can launch) so they depend on helicopters to do that job, with severely reduced performance.
If we'd got the originally promised 12 Type 45s and 138 F-35s the carriers would be significantly more useful.
But that said, being able to field a carrier with stealthy fighters aboard is a huge deal. That puts us in a league where the only other players are the US and (kind of) China.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
So, just to be clear, he thinks that invading a sovereign country to show that the President has a penis longer than one inch should be solved by talking to the invader?
I would put Harris 24 above Hillary, despite the worse result. The bad result for Harris wasn't her fault. It was inflation and Joe not stepping down sooner.
I think this is absolutely right: Harris was not a great candidate, but she was not as bad as Hillary.
Do you think Clinton would have lost to John McCain in 2008?
Yes. And I think she would have lost to Romney in 2012. And I'm certain she would have been defeated by Trump in 2016.
(Actually, maybe not. The reality is that the incumbent administration was very unpopular in 2008. Maybe even Hillary could have won then.)
Counterfactual time: either Clinton or McCain would have been much tougher on Russia than Obama was.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
So, just to be clear, he thinks that invading a sovereign country to show that the President has a penis longer than one inch should be solved by talking to the invader?
Being charitable, the impression I get from the Corbyns of the world is that they are so worried about overreacting to events, that they decry any attempt to actually react in the first place.
There are nuances to this whole affair, and some cold hard practicalities as well no doubt, but he alway seems to suggest anyone who doesn't agree that wanting peace is itself enough (that action besides talking might be needed) is a warmonger. British tanks and other weapons have already been used, why would a missile landing in Russia make much additional difference? The Kremlin will say it does, and get traction from the predictable quarters of twitter, but is it really that different?
He's probably a believer in the old 'NATO expansion caused the war' nonsense.
So, since everyone hates inheritance taxes, I propose we ditch IHT altogether and replace it & CGT with a wealth tax. In fact, lets go the whole hog & bundle Council Tax in there too!
Guaranteed to be politically popular with no pushback whatsoever. /ahem/.
(It probably is the right thing to do economically - if you’re going to have CGT & IHT then really what you’ve done is implement a very lumpy wealth tax.)
Nope. Just beef up CGT. Tax at the point the profit is realised
& if the profit is never realised?
I used to work in the IT department of a Life and Pensions company, supporting their Investments department. I maintained the code for, and ran, their "Deemed Disposal" process. I (together with a work colleague in case one of us got hit by a bus) went into the office on New Years Day and ran the process. Unit Trusts and similar assets would be notionally sold, and then notionally bought back (bed and breakfasting) to realise any gains through the year. There would be a tax liability for these gains, to be met by selling assets for real, not notionally the next day. This could be tens of millions £, so no pressure!
This was done because, with the regular monthly investments from employer, employee, and personal pension schemes into the funds, actually selling something was rare and the funds were always growing.
But this only works for easily priced, liquid assets. For un-priced, illiquid assets such as property or land, there is a problem.
I would put Harris 24 above Hillary, despite the worse result. The bad result for Harris wasn't her fault. It was inflation and Joe not stepping down sooner.
I think this is absolutely right: Harris was not a great candidate, but she was not as bad as Hillary.
Do you think Clinton would have lost to John McCain in 2008?
Yes. And I think she would have lost to Romney in 2012. And I'm certain she would have been defeated by Trump in 2016.
(Actually, maybe not. The reality is that the incumbent administration was very unpopular in 2008. Maybe even Hillary could have won then.)
Counterfactual time: either Clinton or McCain would have been much tougher on Russia than Obama was.
Yes, Obama wasn't actually that good. Although better than every candidate either party has put forward since 2016 by an absolute country mile.
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position. https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
BREAKING: The UK will scrap five warships, dozens of military helicopters and a fleet of drones to save money despite growing threats from Russia and a war raging in Europe. John Healey, the defence secretary, announced the dramatic move in parliament on Wednesday, saying it would save up to half a billion pounds over the next five years. The defence secretary described the equipment being axed as “outdated” and said the “common sense” decision to retire them was long overdue. He signalled the decision was part of a plan to restructure and modernise the armed forces, which have already been significantly reduced in size following decades of cost-saving cuts, with new capabilities due to come on line to replace the gaps.
It makes sense to scrap useless assets. I hope they looked long and hard at the aircraft carriers - they seem entirely pointless to me as neither of them actually work. Shoddy old Gordon Brown.
No, we need aircraft carriers as a P5 UN Sec Council member and still with overseas territories. They have at least made clear 1 will be kept regardless
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It is fair to question what can be gained by this move now. Will it push Russia back? Or is it a rather dangerous escalation aimed at starting WW3 before Trump can get in? I don't see how objectively it can be deemed good foreign policy. And that's aside from my objection to our policy being choreographed to within an inch of its life by the Biden administration. We used to at least give the impression of being a sovereign nation.
BREAKING: The UK will scrap five warships, dozens of military helicopters and a fleet of drones to save money despite growing threats from Russia and a war raging in Europe. John Healey, the defence secretary, announced the dramatic move in parliament on Wednesday, saying it would save up to half a billion pounds over the next five years. The defence secretary described the equipment being axed as “outdated” and said the “common sense” decision to retire them was long overdue. He signalled the decision was part of a plan to restructure and modernise the armed forces, which have already been significantly reduced in size following decades of cost-saving cuts, with new capabilities due to come on line to replace the gaps.
It makes sense to scrap useless assets. I hope they looked long and hard at the aircraft carriers - they seem entirely pointless to me as neither of them actually work. Shoddy old Gordon Brown.
No, we need aircraft carriers as a P5 UN Sec Council member and still with overseas territories. They have at least made clear 1 will be kept regardless
Surely the Airfix variety would be cheaper and less of a liability.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
David Tennant has played time lords, detectives, serial killers and a Danish prince.
I liked him as John Knox, though my memory of the performance is it basically amounted to him saying 'harlot' a lot.
And I've just discovered he played the Lord Commander in the rather weird sci-fi cartoon Final Space. Quite versatile.
Magnificent as Drostan in CoD Zombies, and very sweary.
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position. https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
Ukraine needs to get its own nuclear weapons if it wants to secure its sovereignty
One expert even says Trump will give Ukraine nuclear weapons if it stays out of NATO
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It is fair to question what can be gained by this move now. Will it push Russia back? Or is it a rather dangerous escalation aimed at starting WW3 before Trump can get in? I don't see how objectively it can be deemed good foreign policy. And that's aside from my objection to our policy being choreographed to within an inch of its life by the Biden administration. We used to at least give the impression of being a sovereign nation.
The move is about two years too late, but better late than never.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It is fair to question what can be gained by this move now. Will it push Russia back? Or is it a rather dangerous escalation aimed at starting WW3 before Trump can get in? I don't see how objectively it can be deemed good foreign policy. And that's aside from my objection to our policy being choreographed to within an inch of its life by the Biden administration. We used to at least give the impression of being a sovereign nation.
There are certainly good questions to be asked. Whether it is effective as a measure is certainly one of them (I doubt it, if only because I don't see how we can have sent all that many missiles over in the first place, as we don't have many). Escalation as I've noted is a legitimate concern, and I've given my surface level opinion on why I don't see how it would be one - not least because Russia has 'escalated' many times, and I don't think not responding is de-escalation. Corbyn, however, is a particularly bad person to be asking these questions, given his stances. and how he employs way less critical thinking on his own positions than even me as an armchair warrior on the internet. It's nothing more than peace=good moralising from him.
I accept your sincerity in taking a skeptical view of these things way more than I do with Jeremy Corbyn.
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position. https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
Ukraine needs to get its own nuclear weapons if it wants to secure its sovereignty
One expert even says Trump will give Ukraine nuclear weapons if it stays out of NATO
The lesson, very sadly, that many countries will feel they have to learn from Ukraine, should it be allowed to lose, is that it never should have given its nukes up when Clinton was around in mid 90s.
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position. https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
Ukraine needs to get its own nuclear weapons if it wants to secure its sovereignty
One expert even says Trump will give Ukraine nuclear weapons if it stays out of NATO
The lesson, very sadly, that many countries will feel they have to learn from Ukraine, should it be allowed to lose, is that it never should have given its nukes up when Clinton was around in mid 90s.
Certainly any nation neighbouring Russia or China will learn that
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It’s clear there are people on right and left who think that big injustice was done to Russia, when parts of the USSR became independent.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position. https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
Ukraine needs to get its own nuclear weapons if it wants to secure its sovereignty
One expert even says Trump will give Ukraine nuclear weapons if it stays out of NATO
If they could be safe from (or free of) Russia, I doubt they'd need to join NATO, but that seems to suggest that Ukraine joining NATO was a primary cause of things and so that resolved Russia would be satisfied, and I am skeptical of that - Russia obviously would not have wanted that, but there was an active conflict going on in Ukraine/Russia, NATO would surely not have let them join anyway. And in fact the invasion just led to more people joining NATO.
BREAKING: The UK will scrap five warships, dozens of military helicopters and a fleet of drones to save money despite growing threats from Russia and a war raging in Europe. John Healey, the defence secretary, announced the dramatic move in parliament on Wednesday, saying it would save up to half a billion pounds over the next five years. The defence secretary described the equipment being axed as “outdated” and said the “common sense” decision to retire them was long overdue. He signalled the decision was part of a plan to restructure and modernise the armed forces, which have already been significantly reduced in size following decades of cost-saving cuts, with new capabilities due to come on line to replace the gaps.
It makes sense to scrap useless assets. I hope they looked long and hard at the aircraft carriers - they seem entirely pointless to me as neither of them actually work. Shoddy old Gordon Brown.
No, we need aircraft carriers as a P5 UN Sec Council member and still with overseas territories. They have at least made clear 1 will be kept regardless
Surely the Airfix variety would be cheaper and less of a liability.
I've been binge watching the last few nights* - 'Warship' - about our new carrier. Very interesting. But I expect navy traditionalists in the shires were spluttering themselves to sleep after viewing the modern navy in action: women, black lives history month events, on board relationships, grown men crying about missing their kids growing up etc.
* note - I am late to this one - it was first shown a year or so ago.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It is fair to question what can be gained by this move now. Will it push Russia back? Or is it a rather dangerous escalation aimed at starting WW3 before Trump can get in? I don't see how objectively it can be deemed good foreign policy. And that's aside from my objection to our policy being choreographed to within an inch of its life by the Biden administration. We used to at least give the impression of being a sovereign nation.
None of us here have enough info to declare whether this is a sensible move or not. But the motivation would be a) to help Ukraine defend its Kursk foothold, b) to deter further DPRK deployments, c) a ratchet in pressure to raise the stakes for Putin going into 2025 negotiations.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It’s clear there are people on right and left who think that big injustice was done to Russia, when parts of the USSR became independent.
Their beliefs are essentially that there are first class people who should have agency (Russians, for example) and second class people who should not.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
It is fair to question what can be gained by this move now. Will it push Russia back? Or is it a rather dangerous escalation aimed at starting WW3 before Trump can get in? I don't see how objectively it can be deemed good foreign policy. And that's aside from my objection to our policy being choreographed to within an inch of its life by the Biden administration. We used to at least give the impression of being a sovereign nation.
The move is about two years too late, but better late than never.
Yanks always enter wars two or three years late...
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Agree. Just been watching Rylance in Wolf Hall and he is absolutely mesmerising in an apparently effortless way. I can't quite put my finger on why he's so good, but even when he's silent you can't take your eyes off him.
You actually have put your finger on it. His silence; a stillness that is utterly mesmerising.
Is it any good?
I tried reading Wolf Hall and found the artificiality of Mantel's style insufferable. I guess that's not an issue with the film production, so maybe I should try it?
Thank God it's not just me. Awful writer - unreadable IMO.
if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.
Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?
If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.
While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.
Few people are bothered about job gains unless they're gaining one of the jobs.
steve richards @steverichards14 · 12m K Starmer has made a big and potentially dangerous call in allowing UK weapons to be fired on Russian territory. He needs to make a Commons’ statement and be questioned about his thinking . When leaders hide behind ‘operational’ secrecy terrible mistakes can be made.
if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.
Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?
If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.
While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.
Few people are bothered about job gains unless they're gaining one of the jobs.
It is beyond ridiculous to be polling Dem primary for four years away.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Agree. Just been watching Rylance in Wolf Hall and he is absolutely mesmerising in an apparently effortless way. I can't quite put my finger on why he's so good, but even when he's silent you can't take your eyes off him.
You actually have put your finger on it. His silence; a stillness that is utterly mesmerising.
Is it any good?
I tried reading Wolf Hall and found the artificiality of Mantel's style insufferable. I guess that's not an issue with the film production, so maybe I should try it?
Thank God it's not just me. Awful writer - unreadable IMO.
Nope. The books are sublime. But - and this may be crucial - the 2nd and 3rd are much better than 1st.
I started the first about three times before I clicked with it and went with the flow.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
steve richards @steverichards14 · 12m K Starmer has made a big and potentially dangerous call in allowing UK weapons to be fired on Russian territory. He needs to make a Commons’ statement and be questioned about his thinking . When leaders hide behind ‘operational’ secrecy terrible mistakes can be made.
I’ve said harsh things about SKS, but credit where it is due.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.
Chomsky is at least a scholar, alone in that list of worthies.
if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.
Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?
If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.
While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.
Few people are bothered about job gains unless they're gaining one of the jobs.
It is beyond ridiculous to be polling Dem primary for four years away.
The answers are based on name recognition.
Its the same reason why Hillary and Michelle were ridiculously short odds for Dem candidate this year.
if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.
Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?
If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.
While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.
Few people are bothered about job gains unless they're gaining one of the jobs.
I don't think that's entirely true. If jobs are scarce, and unemployment rife, then people get nervous. So, maybe it's fair to say that after a certain level, job gains aren't that good, but job losses make everyone feel more... nervous.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.
That's a very generous way of saying "total piece of shit".
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.
Chomsky is at least a scholar, alone in that list of worthies.
That fact makes his intellectual dishonesty worse.
It’s like Ann Coulter saying awful things, not because she’s stupid, but because she’s extremely intelligent and knows what she’s doing (you have to be very gifted to edit the Michigan Law Review.)
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
steve richards @steverichards14 · 12m K Starmer has made a big and potentially dangerous call in allowing UK weapons to be fired on Russian territory. He needs to make a Commons’ statement and be questioned about his thinking . When leaders hide behind ‘operational’ secrecy terrible mistakes can be made.
I’ve said harsh things about SKS, but credit where it is due.
It's due to Biden. Sir Echo was quite happy with the ban until Biden lifted it. Attributing any independence to his foreign policy decisions is risible.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.
Chomsky is at least a scholar, alone in that list of worthies.
That fact makes his intellectual dishonesty worse.
It’s like Ann Coulter saying awful things, not because she’s stupid, but because she’s extremely intelligent and knows what she’s doing (you have to be very gifted to edit the Michigan Law Review.)
It's possible the school are celebrating his groundbreaking work in linguistics.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.
That's a very generous way of saying "total piece of shit".
That's no way to talk about the next Democratic Presidential nominee.
In the last few weeks, two of my friends have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and one with colon cancer.
FUCK.
Sorry to hear that, hope they both pull through. My dad has a pancreatic cancer scare just last month, he didn't tell anyone about it until he got the negative biopsy result back.
The current situation is that there is assisted dying for people with money, but not for the poor.
I'm not sure that's morally justifiable.
There are very many things that are available to the rich and not the poor, nearly all of which are morally unjustifiable. The question we need to urgently answer is - Is the proposed change to this particular instance going to help or harm?
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
He's been my inspiration on how to be subtle and nuanced.
The current situation is that there is assisted dying for people with money, but not for the poor.
I'm not sure that's morally justifiable.
There are very many things that are available to the rich and not the poor, nearly all of which are morally unjustifiable. The question we need to urgently answer is - Is the proposed change to this particular instance going to help or harm?
I think that is likely, but not certain. Things could also stay the same.
if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.
Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?
If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.
While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.
Few people are bothered about job gains unless they're gaining one of the jobs.
I don't think that's entirely true. If jobs are scarce, and unemployment rife, then people get nervous. So, maybe it's fair to say that after a certain level, job gains aren't that good, but job losses make everyone feel more... nervous.
That's true.
People are concerned about jobs when either they haven't got one or they're afraid of losing the one they have and not being able to get another.
When those situation don't apply what they prefer is a good pay rise.
Now we're currently in an era of full employment, for that to change to a period of high unemployment would likely require a severe recession.
Which would certainly be not electorally favourable for the current government especially if compounded with tariff induced inflation.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
He's been my inspiration on how to be subtle and nuanced.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.
He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.
My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.
Chomsky is at least a scholar, alone in that list of worthies.
That fact makes his intellectual dishonesty worse.
It’s like Ann Coulter saying awful things, not because she’s stupid, but because she’s extremely intelligent and knows what she’s doing (you have to be very gifted to edit the Michigan Law Review.)
It's possible the school are celebrating his groundbreaking work in linguistics.
TBF, the school has been around for some time, and in the not too distant past (say 1992) one could ignore his politics and focus on his linguistics.
But the school would not, I suspect, have a room named after a Confederate leader, irrespective of their other academic achievements.
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position. https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
Ukraine needs to get its own nuclear weapons if it wants to secure its sovereignty
One expert even says Trump will give Ukraine nuclear weapons if it stays out of NATO
The lesson, very sadly, that many countries will feel they have to learn from Ukraine, should it be allowed to lose, is that it never should have given its nukes up when Clinton was around in mid 90s.
I think its time for realpolitik. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. A wider war where its chunks of Nato + Ukraine vs Russia could defeat Russia, but it seems very likely that Putin would push the button with his back against the wall.
So peace talks are inevitable as is a deal which will see chunks of Ukraine not won back. If they can keep them out of Russia's hands that would be something - a demilitarised buffer zone perhaps.
Ukraine's nukes? Kept at the end of the USSR? Ukraine had Soviet ICBMs and a fleet of heavy bombers - all of which used warheads controlled by Russia. Even if that control had been got around, had Ukraine kept those nukes then what would they have done - fired an ICBM at Moscow? A long range strategic weapon used to settle a border dispute over a shorter distance?
In the last few weeks, two of my friends have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and one with colon cancer.
FUCK.
Bleak. Sorry to read this.
So sorry to hear this. My mother died of pancreatic cancer. They gave her 6-12 months, and she lasted 15, 14 of them quite well most of the time. We had some fantastic times, great trips to Colombia and Poland, opera at Covent Garden and went to see the Grand National. The prognosis is often very poor but you can be quite well for most of the short time left and do some nice things.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
He's been my inspiration on how to be subtle and nuanced.
He was great as Augustus, along with Sian Philips as Livia. And Gimli as Macro.
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
I prefer Suzzane Fields performance in 1974 film Flesh Gordon
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Agree. Just been watching Rylance in Wolf Hall and he is absolutely mesmerising in an apparently effortless way. I can't quite put my finger on why he's so good, but even when he's silent you can't take your eyes off him.
You actually have put your finger on it. His silence; a stillness that is utterly mesmerising.
Is it any good?
I tried reading Wolf Hall and found the artificiality of Mantel's style insufferable. I guess that's not an issue with the film production, so maybe I should try it?
Thank God it's not just me. Awful writer - unreadable IMO.
Nope. The books are sublime. But - and this may be crucial - the 2nd and 3rd are much better than 1st.
I started the first about three times before I clicked with it and went with the flow.
I liked Wolf Hall but found the long spoken passages with no indicator of which character was speaking a distraction. I think she received criticism for this and changed her style in the second, to things like ‘he, Cromwell, thought’ to make it clearer. I have not finished the last book yet. In a sense I don’t want to. The Cromwell she has created is such a ‘person’ that you want him to win, and of course, in the end, he loses, ironically just after his greatest triumph and reward . Is her version accurate? We can never know, but his is mesmerising and Rylance has him, to an absolute T.
if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.
Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?
If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.
While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.
They've made Elon richer already
CNN reported yesterday that since September Musk's estimated net worth has gone from $250bn to about $320bn. He is richer by $70bn, which is considerably more than the $44bn he paid for Twitter, and his ownership of Twitter is the main reason he is is now $70bn richer (coz it got Trump elected)
That makes his purchase of Twitter perhaps the cleverest purchase of all time; certainly one of the most profitable
And, ummm, how many votes does Elon have?
Like every election, 2028 will mostly come down to "do people feel better off than four years previously"?
Now, I'm sceptical that the tariffs plan will make Americans richer. But I could easily be wrong.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
So, just to be clear, he thinks that invading a sovereign country to show that the President has a penis longer than one inch should be solved by talking to the invader?
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Agree. Just been watching Rylance in Wolf Hall and he is absolutely mesmerising in an apparently effortless way. I can't quite put my finger on why he's so good, but even when he's silent you can't take your eyes off him.
You actually have put your finger on it. His silence; a stillness that is utterly mesmerising.
Is it any good?
I tried reading Wolf Hall and found the artificiality of Mantel's style insufferable. I guess that's not an issue with the film production, so maybe I should try it?
Thank God it's not just me. Awful writer - unreadable IMO.
Nope. The books are sublime. But - and this may be crucial - the 2nd and 3rd are much better than 1st.
I started the first about three times before I clicked with it and went with the flow.
I liked Wolf Hall but found the long spoken passages with no indicator of which character was speaking a distraction. I think she received criticism for this and changed her style in the second, to things like ‘he, Cromwell, thought’ to make it clearer. I have not finished the last book yet. In a sense I don’t want to. The Cromwell she has created is such a ‘person’ that you want him to win, and of course, in the end, he loses, ironically just after his greatest triumph and reward . Is her version accurate? We can never know, but his is mesmerising and Rylance has him, to an absolute T.
In general, I prefer the approach of Guy Gavriel Kaye, who creates societies that closely approach China or Europe in the past, but which are not straight historical fiction.
I've been watching Gary W. Gallagher, a prominent historian, and his Great Courses lecture series on the American Civil War recently. It's comprehensive 48-lecture course that covers the political, social, and military aspects of the war all recorded in the year 2000.
One thing he keeps saying in his lectures is how important it is not to apply the values and judgements of today to the people of the time, if we really want to understand what they did and why they did it, but to read what they actually said and actually did in the context of their own time. He does this repeatedly with analysis of the war, the roles played on the war front, home front, and civilian front and displays no judgement or bias in any analysis he delivers on any of it.
Struck me as what an utterly radical point of view that would be today, simple academic objectiveness, and how we truly have gone backwards.
Sorry, but that really is complete tosh. I've spent a lot of time listening to The Rest Is History podcasts by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook recently (while exercising), and they repeatedly make exactly the same point.
I was taught that before CR was even born, I suspect.
But to defend CR’s point, they may say it’s best to do that, but do they actually practice it? And the US Civil War is I think the best example of something only seen these days through modern eyes. Lincoln’s always seen as the saviour, who freed blacks from slavery. But he wanted them all deported back to Africa once freed, didn’t he? Like that’s no different than Trumps position. 🤷♀️
No, he didn’t.
In his early years, he was an advocate of Colonisation - the *voluntary return* of freed slaves to Africa.
After he met the leaders of free African Americans (such as Frederick Douglass) who were opposed to this, he changed his mind.
That's a very glib simplification. Lincoln's mind was in flux at the time of his murder, as far as we can tell. He would say one thing to someone, and another to another. He was, after all, a politician, and a devious one at that
We know for sure that for much of his life he had a racist opinion of black people, and thought them "unequal" to whites, and that they should be humanely deported from the USA if possible, after their emancipation
BTW to unite two themes in this thread, over-rated novels and Abe Lincoln, has anyone read Lincoln in the Bardo?
Rave reviews, "the greatest novel of the decade", blah blah, what a load of wank
First five pages brilliant, next five pretty good, then it doesn't change for 300 pages, and there is no plot. PFFFF
I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴
I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.
Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.
Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.
He's been my inspiration on how to be subtle and nuanced.
He was great as Augustus, along with Sian Philips as Livia. And Gimli as Macro.
I think it was his 1978 Blakes7 appearance when Brian Blessed changed career from serious actor to national icon.
Comments
In his early years, he was an advocate of Colonisation - the *voluntary return* of freed slaves to Africa.
After he met the leaders of free African Americans (such as Frederick Douglass) who were opposed to this, he changed his mind.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0dpdx420lo
But, the Southern leaders were definitely fighting to uphold slavery. Their Articles of Secession made that clear.
Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery, but he wanted there to be no more slave States. Because cotton is a thirsty crop, the planters had to keep breaking new ground, moving Westward. A bar on new slave States would ultimately have finished the South’s cotton-based economy.
https://x.com/huberton/status/1859304678481330673?s=61
https://www-dagbladet-no.translate.goog/nyheter/vanskelig-for-ham/82261628?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
And I've just discovered he played the Lord Commander in the rather weird sci-fi cartoon Final Space. Quite versatile.
ETA Norman Scott in A Very English Scandal.
My solution is we put labels on any historical works that state 'the person who produced this will have had different views from today, and there's a decent chance they were racist, sexist, or homophobic by our standards, so let's assume that and move on'.
An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil
Corbyn has Tweeted
The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.
He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.
I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.
As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.
Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.
I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.
https://x.com/BenKentish/status/1859309594729943266
There are not enough Type 45 destroyers to reliably provide escorts for even one carrier. There are not enough F-35s to equip a complete air wing on one carrier when training and maintenance are taken into account. No effort was ever made to develop a VTOL radar aircraft (which is the only kind the QEs can launch) so they depend on helicopters to do that job, with severely reduced performance.
If we'd got the originally promised 12 Type 45s and 138 F-35s the carriers would be significantly more useful.
But that said, being able to field a carrier with stealthy fighters aboard is a huge deal. That puts us in a league where the only other players are the US and (kind of) China.
There are nuances to this whole affair, and some cold hard practicalities as well no doubt, but he alway seems to suggest anyone who doesn't agree that wanting peace is itself enough (that action besides talking might be needed) is a warmonger. British tanks and other weapons have already been used, why would a missile landing in Russia make much additional difference? The Kremlin will say it does, and get traction from the predictable quarters of twitter, but is it really that different?
He's probably a believer in the old 'NATO expansion caused the war' nonsense.
Ukraine defending itself is not an escalation.
https://nitter.poast.org/StewartMcDonald/status/1859287937197932831#m
I maintained the code for, and ran, their "Deemed Disposal" process.
I (together with a work colleague in case one of us got hit by a bus) went into the office on New Years Day and ran the process.
Unit Trusts and similar assets would be notionally sold, and then notionally bought back (bed and breakfasting) to realise any gains through the year. There would be a tax liability for these gains, to be met by selling assets for real, not notionally the next day. This could be tens of millions £, so no pressure!
This was done because, with the regular monthly investments from employer, employee, and personal pension schemes into the funds, actually selling something was rare and the funds were always growing.
But this only works for easily priced, liquid assets. For un-priced, illiquid assets such as property or land, there is a problem.
Though as RCS decides the 2028 election will likely also be decided on the economy so the candidate only makes much difference if very close
There really are a lot of people in the West who have been making it very clear for many years now that their preferred outcome in this war is to see Ukraine broken and subjugated, and I’m here to tell you that it’s absolutely morally justified to tell them to shut the fuck up...
People are literally being slaughtered over here while the nasty jam man is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. That's not an anti-war position, it's an appeasement of fascism position.
https://nitter.poast.org/OzKaterji/status/1859286863250702742#m
Sadly I do think we are not far off Ukraine having to move to a ceasefire which will become the de facto boundaries for some time. The world gets used to frozen conflicts.
Of course I am no position to afford one, nor am I ever likely to be.
One expert even says Trump will give Ukraine nuclear weapons if it stays out of NATO
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1978193/donald-trump-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-vladimir-putin
I accept your sincerity in taking a skeptical view of these things way more than I do with Jeremy Corbyn.
While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.
Except one: Chomsky.
I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.
* note - I am late to this one - it was first shown a year or so ago.
It's a pretty insidious form of racism.
steve richards
@steverichards14
·
12m
K Starmer has made a big and potentially dangerous call in allowing UK weapons to be fired on Russian territory. He needs to make a Commons’ statement and be questioned about his thinking . When leaders hide behind ‘operational’ secrecy terrible mistakes can be made.
I started the first about three times before I clicked with it and went with the flow.
FUCK.
Its the same reason why Hillary and Michelle were ridiculously short odds for Dem candidate this year.
It’s like Ann Coulter saying awful things, not because she’s stupid, but because she’s extremely intelligent and knows what she’s doing (you have to be very gifted to edit the Michigan Law Review.)
I'm not sure that's morally justifiable.
Moderator!!!
Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick
The Reeves guide to conning the public:
1. Fake your CV
2. Tell working people you won’t raise their taxes
3. Squeeze them to the pips and give their money to your union paymasters
You can’t trust a word she says👇
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1859298630512889988
People are concerned about jobs when either they haven't got one or they're afraid of losing the one they have and not being able to get another.
When those situation don't apply what they prefer is a good pay rise.
Now we're currently in an era of full employment, for that to change to a period of high unemployment would likely require a severe recession.
Which would certainly be not electorally favourable for the current government especially if compounded with tariff induced inflation.
But the school would not, I suspect, have a room named after a Confederate leader, irrespective of their other academic achievements.
So peace talks are inevitable as is a deal which will see chunks of Ukraine not won back. If they can keep them out of Russia's hands that would be something - a demilitarised buffer zone perhaps.
Ukraine's nukes? Kept at the end of the USSR? Ukraine had Soviet ICBMs and a fleet of heavy bombers - all of which used warheads controlled by Russia. Even if that control had been got around, had Ukraine kept those nukes then what would they have done - fired an ICBM at Moscow? A long range strategic weapon used to settle a border dispute over a shorter distance?
A couple of reasons.
I have not finished the last book yet. In a sense I don’t want to. The Cromwell she has created is such a ‘person’ that you want him to win, and of course, in the end, he loses, ironically just after his greatest triumph and reward .
Is her version accurate? We can never know, but his is mesmerising and Rylance has him, to an absolute T.
She has, as a middelaged woman in her 50s (she's now 76?), presumably given consent before being laid out like that?
Obvs "professional wrestling" is a slapstick stage act, but it also has risk.
That way, outcomes remain uncertain.
We know for sure that for much of his life he had a racist opinion of black people, and thought them "unequal" to whites, and that they should be humanely deported from the USA if possible, after their emancipation
BTW to unite two themes in this thread, over-rated novels and Abe Lincoln, has anyone read Lincoln in the Bardo?
Rave reviews, "the greatest novel of the decade", blah blah, what a load of wank
First five pages brilliant, next five pretty good, then it doesn't change for 300 pages, and there is no plot. PFFFF