WRT The Atlantic and the inclusion of Jeffrey Goldberg in the Signal, a recommendation. He usually chairs a weekly discussion with other interesting liberals on the USA state of play which is You Tubed generally on Friday/Saturday. Sane, relaxed, informative on the ball without going OTT. The most recent is here:
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
As a Meta shareholder, I find your attitude disturbing.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
As a Meta shareholder, I find your attitude disturbing.
You're okay I think, Meta isn't cool with the kids any more. You just mess with us adults.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
The electorate in 2028 might be quite keen on boring.
What about a boring POTUS so boring that he is surrounded by billionaires who are so boring they believe in feeding the hungry, finding cures for diseases of the poorest, excellent governance as exemplary for the wider world, hate war, speak softly, carry a big stick and, if religious, think that devotion to Jesus is done by servant leadership and concern for the poor.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
As always there is the presumption, which as far as I understand has never been tested that paying attention at school is good for your life chances, doing fuck all at school is bad.
As one who feels in retrospect of 50 years maybe I worked far too hard at school I would really like to see some statistical analysis.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
FPT
On the last point, there were only 2 or 3 chaotic classes, and obviously the corridor clamour. Not unusual I think. The head of lower school teacher seemed as pathetic as some senior teachers I've seen in the past. The Head teacher was just scared of his back. I would also say that the use of videos was the only way to calm down some classes.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
There's a remarkable number of decent boys and young men around who seems to me not to fit remotely into the freak show categories we hear about all the time. This does not happen by accident. Perhaps we should hear more about them, and how it is done in the most ordinary of families.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
There's a remarkable number of decent boys and young men around who seems to me not to fit remotely into the freak show categories we hear about all the time. This does not happen by accident. Perhaps we should hear more about them, and how it is done in the most ordinary of families.
Yes I don't doubt the solution to this is great parenting. Parents do need support to withstand the social pressure engendered by current norms, though. School-wide commitments amongst parents to hold off giving social media access are a good start.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
The electorate in 2028 might be quite keen on boring.
What about a boring POTUS so boring that he is surrounded by billionaires who are so boring they believe in feeding the hungry, finding cures for diseases of the poorest, excellent governance as exemplary for the wider world, hate war, speak softly, carry a big stick and, if religious, think that devotion to Jesus is done by servant leadership and concern for the poor.
Yes we simply have to get away from reality tv politics. It rewards the wrong things and the wrong people.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
I am not particularly 'Team Lowe' - he just seems to be one of those perpetual rebels like Douglas Carswell who aren't happy unless they're falling out with someone.
However, this process against him is embarrassing. First reporting him to the police for hurty words, and now this sort of half-hearted smeary announcement that he is guilty of harrassment in a 'silence is violence' sort of way. The whole thing is extremely unedifying and frankly they deserve to lose Runcorn to give them a kick in the hoop.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Thing is, charisma allows you to get away with things. If you don't have it you have to graft and deliver. Hence why all the best people are dull. We see that on here.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Did you mean to say "It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with a lack of competency", or am I wasting my time in trying to make sense of your posts?
No he was right.
He is arguing that people thought Starmer was competent when he was just lacking charisma. While they were wrong, it’s an easy mistake to make.
It is often implied. I recall Gordon Brown's people overreacting to one of the tv debates with lines about substance, not style, with the suggestion being if you have style you cannot also have substance (funnily enough not something people argue when they do have style), or indeed that a lack of style indicates one has substance.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Did you mean to say "It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with a lack of competency", or am I wasting my time in trying to make sense of your posts?
No he was right.
He is arguing that people thought Starmer was competent when he was just lacking charisma. While they were wrong, it’s an easy mistake to make.
It is often implied. I recall Gordon Brown's people overreacting to one of the tv debates with lines about substance, not style, with the suggestion being if you have style you cannot also have substance (funnily enough not something people argue when they do have style), or indeed that a lack of style indicates one has substance.
Quite.
Being dull also did wonders for 'Spreadsheet Phil' Hammond. The trouble is, like Brown, he was shite.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Thing is, charisma allows you to get away with things. If you don't have it you have to graft and deliver. Hence why all the best people are dull. We see that on here.
A bit of a conundrum for people to decide where they fall on this one.
Pretty obvious where the Guido site falls in the ReformUK civil war, quoting liberally from the KC report and just linking to Lowes response without even quoting from it.
Makes me think he cannot sustain much opposition momentum from within the party, unless maybe they have a terrible locals?
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Thing is, charisma allows you to get away with things. If you don't have it you have to graft and deliver. Hence why all the best people are dull. We see that on here.
A bit of a conundrum for people to decide where they fall on this one.
The US arguably has the advantage here, as state governors can demonstrate competence in government before stepping up to compete for the big prize.
And yet they still managed to elect a chaotic and mendacious TV personality. Twice.
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Did you mean to say "It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with a lack of competency", or am I wasting my time in trying to make sense of your posts?
No he was right.
He is arguing that people thought Starmer was competent when he was just lacking charisma. While they were wrong, it’s an easy mistake to make.
It is often implied. I recall Gordon Brown's people overreacting to one of the tv debates with lines about substance, not style, with the suggestion being if you have style you cannot also have substance (funnily enough not something people argue when they do have style), or indeed that a lack of style indicates one has substance.
Quite.
Being dull also did wonders for 'Spreadsheet Phil' Hammond. The trouble is, like Brown, he was shite.
Not Flash, just Gordon remains one of the better political slogans, though.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
Indeed, further proof that the public trust lawyers #BestOfHumanity
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
The electorate in 2028 might be quite keen on boring.
What about a boring POTUS so boring that he is surrounded by billionaires who are so boring they believe in feeding the hungry, finding cures for diseases of the poorest, excellent governance as exemplary for the wider world, hate war, speak softly, carry a big stick and, if religious, think that devotion to Jesus is done by servant leadership and concern for the poor.
Yes we simply have to get away from reality tv politics. It rewards the wrong things and the wrong people.
I don't see how we will get there - whilst the US have reached the peak of that tendency we have not, and the public don't seem inclined to temper things down yet (despite electing the low key Starmer).
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Thing is, charisma allows you to get away with things. If you don't have it you have to graft and deliver. Hence why all the best people are dull. We see that on here.
A bit of a conundrum for people to decide where they fall on this one.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
Indeed, further proof that the public trust lawyers #BestOfHumanity
I hope your legal work is on sounder foundations than that statement.
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Thing is, charisma allows you to get away with things. If you don't have it you have to graft and deliver. Hence why all the best people are dull. We see that on here.
A bit of a conundrum for people to decide where they fall on this one.
It's a bit of a twister isn't it.
My colours are nailed to the mast on it, it's others I worry about.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
What does independent mean here? Reform hires a KC and she crosses her heart and hopes not to be biased?
Feels like a bit of a mugging. The talks were trailed as technical, agreeing no-strike list of infrastructure targets. In the end, seasoned Russian negotiators spent 12 hours wearing the Americans down. Sanctions relief the minimum. Who knows what else was agreed.
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
The distortion has been pretty extensive so far already, I wouldn't bet on how much more it could go.
I'm sure if you explain that you're in fact English and the orange hair glued all over your body was a Trump comedy thing they'll let you out and scratch 'Orangutan' from their list
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
As a Meta shareholder, I find your attitude disturbing.
You're okay I think, Meta isn't cool with the kids any more. You just mess with us adults.
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
Maybe food riots is in the Project 2025 plan as a way of allowing the fabled "National Emergency" that can be used to halt the mid-terms?
Yaroslav Trofimov @yarotrof · 1h So basically Russia gets sanctions relief under the Black Sea ceasefire deal negotiated by the Trump administration, and Ukraine gets the status quo or worse.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
What does independent mean here? Reform hires a KC and she crosses her heart and hopes not to be biased?
Isn't that the way of any independent investigation though? Someone has to pay them after all, and only the party/company in question can do so.
That's not to say anyone can discount an 'independent' person knowing what their brief really is, but who else should have done such an investigation and who would appoint them in this instance?
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Did you mean to say "It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with a lack of competency", or am I wasting my time in trying to make sense of your posts?
No he was right.
He is arguing that people thought Starmer was competent when he was just lacking charisma. While they were wrong, it’s an easy mistake to make.
Yes. Quite simple I would say but perhaps I could have phrased it more elegantly.
Edit - On reflection I should have used 'mistake/for'.
Do you mean you tend to think competent people lack charisma, and that as a result of your poor (or zero) grasp of logic, you also tend to think people without charisma are competent?
Perhaps it's a useful insight into how some people's minds work. But I think I'd want more evidence that the workings of many people's minds are that confused.
Yaroslav Trofimov @yarotrof · 1h So basically Russia gets sanctions relief under the Black Sea ceasefire deal negotiated by the Trump administration, and Ukraine gets the status quo or worse.
Or worse is their position over the last year, increasing day on day it seems like. With the USA batting for Russia the prospects for Ukraine seem terrifying to me in the long term.
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
Maybe food riots is in the Project 2025 plan as a way of allowing the fabled "National Emergency" that can be used to halt the mid-terms?
You're falling into the "It's 4D chess..." trap. It isn't - it's just a bunch of people who are both incompetent and sh1ts.
If it’s built by Canadian workers on Canadian docks, it should be made with Canadian steel and aluminum.
The opposition had already started being reduced to admitting he was saying ok things but complaining it was not sincere, or complaining that it was their idea first. Momentum is a tough thing to stop somtimes.
Yaroslav Trofimov @yarotrof · 1h So basically Russia gets sanctions relief under the Black Sea ceasefire deal negotiated by the Trump administration, and Ukraine gets the status quo or worse.
Or worse is their position over the last year, increasing day on day it seems like. With the USA batting for Russia the prospects for Ukraine seem terrifying to me in the long term.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
As a Meta shareholder, I find your attitude disturbing.
You're okay I think, Meta isn't cool with the kids any more. You just mess with us adults.
Insta and WhatsApp are Meta aren't they?
Ah yes, I forgot about Insta. Don't know any kids that use WhatsApp apart from talking to their parents.
"So why has it taken so long just to get planning permission for this project? The reason is that colossal amounts of time and money have been spent building a mountain of paperwork. All told, National Highways has been forced to produce 359,866 pages to get approval from the crossing. Laid end to end, this paper trail would stretch 66 miles, almost five times longer than the road itself. There’s 1,800 pages on newts, 774 pages on bats, 5,800 pages on archaeology, and a long running debate National Highways had with a Cambridge college about nitrogen deposition." (£)
Mark Kelly isn't a bad bet for Democratic nominee in 2028. He's moderate, he's got a great story, and he'll probably carry Arizona.
In the mix, but he's also a bit boring.
People may want a little boring by then. After all they voted for Starmer
And within 6 months they're moaning their socks off and fancying a bit of Farage.
People.
It's easy to confuse lack of charisma with competency.
Thing is, charisma allows you to get away with things. If you don't have it you have to graft and deliver. Hence why all the best people are dull. We see that on here.
A bit of a conundrum for people to decide where they fall on this one.
It's a bit of a twister isn't it.
My colours are nailed to the mast on it, it's others I worry about.
You are on the whole excellent. An almost total absence of the big "I am". You let your fingers do the talking.
Of course there's now a risk this will go to your head and you'll start showing off. So we'll leave it there.
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
If it turns out fine, it will be forgotten by the midterms.
If it turns out badly, the people who might be complaining won't be in a position to complain...
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
Because no-one likes to admit it was a bad idea in the first place, because that would mean they've been doing the wrong thing for the last 10 years or so. We saw how long it took to stop most people smoking cigarettes even though the evidence had first become available in the 1950s IIRC. It was another 30 years before the campaign against smoking made serious headway.
The classy place to be instead of zoos is botanical gardens, better ambience, less pressure (none in my case) to tick stuff off a list, and no sense that you are in a museum of living slaves. An enlightened state would ensure a good or excellent one in every centre of population. (I was in Edinburgh's last week; a gem; and free).
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
What does independent mean here? Reform hires a KC and she crosses her heart and hopes not to be biased?
I'd have thought the independence comes from her obligation to comply with professional standards enforced by the Bar Council which includes maintenance of independence.
That doesn't mean she can't act for a client, and present their case as well as she can, but her client here would be RefUK, and the terms of reference would have been agreed with Lowe when he was in the party.
If Lowe thinks she hasn't been independent, and has reached conclusions an impartial barrister could not properly have reached (in the interests of Farage or anyone else) that's a complaint to the Bar Council - and quite a serious one.
I think this is why he is being relatively measured here. There pretty clearly is credible evidence against him here. He can (and I assume does) argue that the evidence has been manipulated by his enemies - that his accusers are exaggerating or lying in a systematic way that has resulted in the KC being misled. But it's very hard to make the KC part of the "conspiracy" herself - perhaps he will complain to the Bar Council, but it's actually very unlikely a KC would jeopardise her reputation and indeed career to do a personal favour to Farage. She was paid her rate to assess the evidence, and did so.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
What does independent mean here? Reform hires a KC and she crosses her heart and hopes not to be biased?
Independent simply means that the declared intention is that a lawyer is acting in a quasi judicial role and not for one party or another. Like Martin Moore-Bick in the Grenfell inquiry.
Whether such a thing is possible is a different question, best not looked into too closely, like how juries reach their decisions. All societies need foundational myths and these two are an improvemnet on trial by ordeal.
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
Trumpski, or at least Musk, seems to be in the process of stopping the social security system from functioning.
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
Howard Lutnick, Trump's Commerce Secretary, said: "Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law—who is 94—she wouldn't call and complain."
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
Lowe's response is less ranty than I would have expected, but even if his view of events were correct, an independent KC authored report is a strong card to play in the game of public, and even party, opinion.
What does independent mean here? Reform hires a KC and she crosses her heart and hopes not to be biased?
Independent simply means that the declared intention is that a lawyer is acting in a quasi judicial role and not for one party or another. Like Martin Moore-Bick in the Grenfell inquiry.
Whether such a thing is possible is a different question, best not looked into too closely, like how juries reach their decisions. All societies need foundational myths and these two are an improvemnet on trial by ordeal.
This is a bit different from jury deliberations as she's subject to Bar Council regulation, and indeed her ability to earn a living is rather dependent on them concluding she maintained her independence. Lowe could go to them and say, "This is a travesty - she didn't tell me what the allegations were or let me respond; witnesses I suggested weren't approached" etc. But he probably won't as she probably did those things, and the Bar Council probably wouldn't uphold the complaint.
There could be a grand conspiracy, but it's pretty unlikely. Lowe's best approach is probably to shake his head sadly and say the KC tragically had the wool pulled over her eyes by dreadful liars and crooks. People who don't like Farage may well buy that. But saying she was part of the plot probably isn't a runner.
Comments
Going for the absence of mens rea defence ?
my goodness you can see Tulsi Gabbard trying to come up with evasive answers to Kelly's questions in real time
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1904560131934744652
1: At 12:06am
2: At 9:44am
https://x.com/AlexHortonTX/status/1904531479868129446
Kelly asked.
She answered
He basically said that’s not what I meant
She gave the same answer…
If you go to https://vf.politicalbetting.com/ and log on you should see a red notification telling you where to go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GAlDyTMAZM
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
But depending on the state of the Union in 2028, boring might be just the job.
If there is a Union in 2028 and it's still having competitive elections.
I presume I'll get my stake back if the whole election is cancelled because of martial law or whatever.
As one who feels in retrospect of 50 years maybe I worked far too hard at school I would really like to see some statistical analysis.
People.
On the last point, there were only 2 or 3 chaotic classes, and obviously the corridor clamour.
Not unusual I think. The head of lower school teacher seemed as pathetic as some senior teachers I've seen in the past. The Head teacher was just scared of his back. I would also say that the use of videos was the only way to calm down some classes.
Civilisation rests on a stiff upper lip
Mary Harrington"
https://unherd.com/2025/03/male-repression-is-good-actually/
So, he's not cutting Medicare, it's just no one can physical access it.
An independent KC has found “credible evidence” of unlawful harassment of two women by MP Rupert Lowe and “male members of his team”, Reform UK has said.
Jacqueline Perry KC, who was commissioned by Reform, said there was “veracity in the complaints from both women which amounts (to) ‘credible evidence’ — to use Mr Lowe’s own words”.
Perry said that the complaints of “victimisation, constant criticisms (and) discriminatory behaviour do seem to amount to harassment on the part of both Mr Lowe and his constituency team”.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/former-reform-mp-rupert-lowe-failed-to-address-toxic-conduct-says-kc-h99pz8k8d
I've spent the afternoon wondering if the irony of comment will tear asunder fabric of the space time continuum
He is arguing that people thought Starmer was competent when he was just lacking charisma. While they were wrong, it’s an easy mistake to make.
However, this process against him is embarrassing. First reporting him to the police for hurty words, and now this sort of half-hearted smeary announcement that he is guilty of harrassment in a 'silence is violence' sort of way. The whole thing is extremely unedifying and frankly they deserve to lose Runcorn to give them a kick in the hoop.
Edit - On reflection I should have used 'mistake/for'.
Being dull also did wonders for 'Spreadsheet Phil' Hammond. The trouble is, like Brown, he was shite.
·
12m
It’s like Watergate, only in this version Nixon directly mails the tapes to Woodward and Bernstein
Makes me think he cannot sustain much opposition momentum from within the party, unless maybe they have a terrible locals?
And yet they still managed to elect a chaotic and mendacious TV personality.
Twice.
Well, Howard, your mother is atypical. There are tens of millions of voters for whom Social Security is their primary source of income. And if they don't get their check they don't eat.
These older, lower education, lower income pensioners voted for Donald Trump.
Reality distortion only goes so far. It's hard to think of a policy better designed to fuck over your own voters than not sending them their Social Security cheques because Elon Musk is convinced the program is rife with fraud. (It's not.)
@olliecarroll
Feels like a bit of a mugging. The talks were trailed as technical, agreeing no-strike list of infrastructure targets. In the end, seasoned Russian negotiators spent 12 hours wearing the Americans down. Sanctions relief the minimum. Who knows what else was agreed.
https://x.com/olliecarroll/status/1904594219601191227
Yaroslav Trofimov
@yarotrof
·
1h
So basically Russia gets sanctions relief under the Black Sea ceasefire deal negotiated by the Trump administration, and Ukraine gets the status quo or worse.
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1904571378092646772
That's not to say anyone can discount an 'independent' person knowing what their brief really is, but who else should have done such an investigation and who would appoint them in this instance?
Perhaps it's a useful insight into how some people's minds work. But I think I'd want more evidence that the workings of many people's minds are that confused.
https://x.com/markjcarney/status/190451706683031563
If it’s built by Canadian workers on Canadian docks, it should be made with Canadian steel and aluminum.
Great.
"So why has it taken so long just to get planning permission for this project? The reason is that colossal amounts of time and money have been spent building a mountain of paperwork. All told, National Highways has been forced to produce 359,866 pages to get approval from the crossing. Laid end to end, this paper trail would stretch 66 miles, almost five times longer than the road itself. There’s 1,800 pages on newts, 774 pages on bats, 5,800 pages on archaeology, and a long running debate National Highways had with a Cambridge college about nitrogen deposition." (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lower-thames-crossing-and-the-failure-of-the-british-state/
Of course there's now a risk this will go to your head and you'll start showing off. So we'll leave it there.
If it turns out badly, the people who might be complaining won't be in a position to complain...
That doesn't mean she can't act for a client, and present their case as well as she can, but her client here would be RefUK, and the terms of reference would have been agreed with Lowe when he was in the party.
If Lowe thinks she hasn't been independent, and has reached conclusions an impartial barrister could not properly have reached (in the interests of Farage or anyone else) that's a complaint to the Bar Council - and quite a serious one.
I think this is why he is being relatively measured here. There pretty clearly is credible evidence against him here. He can (and I assume does) argue that the evidence has been manipulated by his enemies - that his accusers are exaggerating or lying in a systematic way that has resulted in the KC being misled. But it's very hard to make the KC part of the "conspiracy" herself - perhaps he will complain to the Bar Council, but it's actually very unlikely a KC would jeopardise her reputation and indeed career to do a personal favour to Farage. She was paid her rate to assess the evidence, and did so.
That said I can't summon up the energy to ask what's really going on.
A perfectly normal day here.
At least, I hope the tattoo's temporary...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhLJ-LU9Abs
Whether such a thing is possible is a different question, best not looked into too closely, like how juries reach their decisions. All societies need foundational myths and these two are an improvemnet on trial by ordeal.
There could be a grand conspiracy, but it's pretty unlikely. Lowe's best approach is probably to shake his head sadly and say the KC tragically had the wool pulled over her eyes by dreadful liars and crooks. People who don't like Farage may well buy that. But saying she was part of the plot probably isn't a runner.