I'd counter that with the Bachs. Look out how many of his children became accomplished composers in their own right- practically all of them. And there are kids in Africa doing amazing stuff. We don't get to see it because they are solving problems we have already solved here, but in some cases, their inventions do get used here... the press just doesn't cover them as much.
What do you see as the Labour party's role in all of this? I'll admit that I dont know much about politics in the UK, but it seems to me that Labour is essentially letting the conversation be shaped by the hard-line brexiteers, rather than trying to win over moderate remainers (Maybe it's unrealistic to expect any conservatives to break with their party over brexit in the long run?)
I guess their big move was the no confidence motion - which seemed like May was going to survive almost immediately, even when her Brexit deal was so soundly rejected.
I'm about as impressed by Labour as I am by the Conservatives . I think May has decided to put party above country in her strategy, but it's hard to criticize her too much for that as Corbyn seems to have been doing that throughout this debate. At least up until recently May was making a good-faith effort to get her deal through. Irrespective of the merits of that deal, it was at least a genuine attempt to implement the referendum result.
Corbyn has always been a Euro-sceptic and therefore out of step with the majority of his party. That wasn't a problem when he was a back-bencher (who persistently ignored the party whip in voting his conscience). However, now that he's leader of the party he's discovered the joys of telling other people what to do and has refused to allow free votes on Brexit. One result of that is making it far more difficult to seek a compromise position across party lines (some of his MPs have tried to do that anyway, but he's opposed those efforts).
Although Corbyn is historically a Euro-sceptic he's been careful since before the referendum not to spell out his position on the future with Europe too clearly. That's allowed him to keep the Labour vote together, but made it pretty much impossible to seek common cause with the moderate Conservatives.
Corbyn has in the past trumpeted how much he believes in party democracy. At the last national conference the Labour delegates ignored his wishes by requiring the party to consider all options, including a second referendum, if they could not get an election. As I said in my previous post we're by now already past the point where there's an easy way to stop a no-deal Brexit, but Corbyn is still pursuing the strategy of seeking an election. It's easy to see the attraction of that for him - if the polls are correct that the country has moved a little bit towards Remain, Labour could expect significant gains in an election.
As you wrote above though, there has never been up to now the slightest possibility of getting an election (the same factors that make that look favorable for Labour, make it a distinctly poor bet for the Conservatives). The only chance a no confidence vote could succeed is if some Conservative MPs decide that May's strategy will be so harmful to the country that they need to put country above party. If Corbyn had pursued a different strategy I think that would already have happened, i.e. instead of seeking an election he could have tried to form a coalition of the willing specifically around the Brexit issue. However, by asking Conservatives to effectively support Labour, rather than supporting a national consensus, Corbyn has made it far harder to forge such a coalition.
The reality is that is not an issue which follows political lines, but (unlike some other countries) the UK is still treating it as a political issue. If that continues then a no-deal Brexit is almost inevitable as there is not the slightest possibility of getting a majority in Parliament for any solution based on party political lines.
I'd counter that with the Bachs. Look out how many of his children became accomplished composers in their own right- practically all of them. And there are kids in Africa doing amazing stuff. We don't get to see it because they are solving problems we have already solved here, but in some cases, their inventions do get used here... the press just doesn't cover them as much.
I'd love to say you're right but I'm not sure evidence backs you up. You're probably correct about Africa (and India hopefully) because those barriers are breaking down, thankfully.
Here's another troubling thought though. Are we medicating art out of our culture? How many of our influential artists/musicians/architects/writers/poets would have made the works they did if they were able to chemically alter their viewpoints? As individuals I'd be all in favor of improving their lives, but as a member of humanity it would be a tragedy if their viewpoints were altered. Thoughts...?
Edit: I just realized that many of these people probably did medicate themselves with drugs or alcohol. If they could have been 'cured' should they have been?
I saw a post on Facebook about something like this. It went, "What if the origin of the problem was not the Opioid Crisis, but the need to work when you are in pain? What if the Problem is not uppers, but the need to be always cheerful? Something like that, anyway. There was another one I don't remember as well. Basically, the need for people to function despite other problems, the need to work when you shouldn't have to, to always be up and cheerful and put in more production may be the cause of people resorting to opioids and/or other drugs, not the drugs themselve.
I only partly agree with it, but it's true that being in business makes more and more demand for workers now than in the past. Individual worker's productivity has gone up, but the rewards for all that extra work have not. Wages have either been static or gone down slightly overall, despite the fact that we- the workers, are working harder than ever.
It's not right, but that's the real insanity in the situation. Workers are expected to work harder and longer than we ever have before, putting in nights, weekends and even our vacation time for the good of the company, but if you can't do it, or you crumble in trying, they fire you and get another poor fool to do the same in your place. And workers don't get paid any more for it. It becomes the accepted level of productivity.
Edited to add... By the way, some people think that creative people have to resort to some sort of crutch, pills, alcohol- that's not true. Nor are most artists "tortured". But if you're an artist, it is difficult to support yourself solely on your art, which is also kind of wrong. Many/most artists have to do something else while making their art, be it writing, painting or whatever. It's very difficult to make a living doing art. "Tortured" doesn't generally come into it.
I saw a post on Facebook about something like this. It went, "What if the origin of the problem was not the Opioid Crisis, but the need to work when you are in pain? What if the Problem is not uppers, but the need to be always cheerful? Something like that, anyway. There was another one I don't remember as well. Basically, the need for people to function despite other problems, the need to work when you shouldn't have to, to always be up and cheerful and put in more production may be the cause of people resorting to opioids and/or other drugs, not the drugs themselve.
I only partly agree with it, but it's true that being in business makes more and more demand forworjers now than in the past. Individual worker's productivity has gone up, but the rewards for all that extra work have not. Wages have either been static or gone down slightly overall, despite the fact that we- the workers, are working harder than ever.
It's not right, but that's the real insanity in the situation. Workers are expected to work harder and longer than we ever have before, putting in nights, weekends and even our vacation time for the good of the company, but if you can't do it, or you crumble in trying, they fire you and get another poor fool to do the same in your place. And workers don't get paid any more for it. It becomes the accepted level of productivity.
That's only in the US. Europe is light-years ahead of us in that regard. The US is slowly becoming more aware of the work/life dichotomy but we've got a ways to go....
Edit: I shouldn't have said only in the US. China, South Korea and Japan suffer from the same worker expectations to varying degrees. That might well be from more directly competing with the US though...
If we jusdge by the DOW (which seems to
be Donald Trump's means of assessing it, It's stayed around 25,000
Since January of 2017. He's celebrated it hitting 25K each time, 3 times
now.
I said long-term. This is no way 'long-term' yet. I don't know if people
even understand what long-term means anymore. It certainly means longer
than one year, however...
I'd say "long-term" on something like this would be 4-5 years, maybe a decade.
Because come on, if you can't see the effects after TEN YEARS, when will you see the effects?
>
>
>
>
Careful, climate change ameliorization results might need far more than
10 years to see whether or not they've been effective. Long-term means
just that, LONG term.
Our life-expectancy might not even be long enough to see results of some
of our research. That's why education is important. We may not see
faster than light travel, colonization of nearby
planets/moons/star-systems, low-cost environmentally friendly energy
sources, 'Beam me up Scotty' teleportation, etc... But our grandchildren
or great-grandchildren might if we invest in the future.
That' why I said "on something like this", speaking of the economy.
Obviously affecting the climate will take several decades. Humans doing their damnedest have only gotten it to budge by about .1
degree per decade.
Here's another intruiging though that troubles me; humans that
seem to be quantum leaps above normal. The Einsteins, Curies,
Pythagoras, Rembrants, Newtons, Galileos, etc... all seem to be rather
random. No sons or daughters of them seem to be anywhere near as genius
as they were. If by happenstance, rather than genetics, those types of
individuals arise, how many of them are lost to the ages because of
circumstance? If, for example, a genius of that magnitude was born in
Africa or in a lower-caste of India, what would be their chance of ever
being able to amount to anything? Even worse, what if that person were
aborted in a Western nation? I'm only throwing this out there as food
for thought. My mind works in very odd ways and I was just wondering if
anybody else wondered the same things...
Consider the fact that J.R.R. Tolkein was in the Battle of the Somme in WW1. WW1, and 2, had TONS of lost potential.
I strongly suggest that all American (and non American, just look up a zip code, preferably in a red state) participants on this forum take this survey for the president of the United States regarding his upcoming State of the Union Address.
Let your voices be heard as this survey was only sent to Trump Supporters and any “statistics” he pulls from his ass during the speech will probably come from this survey.
It is good that Trump (campaign) is attempting to listen to the people with a survey like this. Let’s just make sure he listens to everyone. Try not to cringe too hard at some of these questions.
I strongly suggest that all American (and non American, just look up a zip code, preferably in a red state)
That seems dishonest, doesn't it...
Sure.
But so is how this survey is being conducted, the questions found within and the person administering it.
No one is forcing you to do it, but no one is forcing people not to do it, even multiple times.
It will also be dishonest if he references it, for this very reason, during what should be an honest (trying not to laugh) and serious address to the American public.
I strongly suggest that all American (and non American, just look up a zip code, preferably in a red state)
That seems dishonest, doesn't it...
Sure.
But so is how this survey is being conducted, the questions found within and the person administering it.
No one is forcing you to do it, but no one is forcing people not to do it, even multiple times.
It will also be dishonest if he references it, for this very reason, during what should be an honest (trying not to laugh) and serious address to the American public.
Eh, so does it mean you're officially inviting a certain Russian here to interfere with US politics?
I wouldn't sign my name and address to any of this polling bullshit. I guarantee it's just a scam to get your address so they can beg for your money. Trump already sends me a bunch of b.s. mail about how he (a billionaire) somehow needs my $10 to combat some Liberal such-and-such blah blah. I think my parents signed me up for this crap. Thanks, dad!
After reading all those double-speak questions like "Do you think the media did a proper job of blaming Democrats for the Shutdown?", I'm surprised the survey didn't ask if I'd stopped beating my wife yet.
I wouldn't sign my name and address to any of this polling bullshit. I guarantee it's just a scam to get your address so they can beg for your money. Trump already sends me a bunch of b.s. mail about how he (a billionaire) somehow needs my $10 to combat some Liberal such-and-such blah blah. I think my parents signed me up for this crap. Thanks, dad!
My name was: no one My email address was noneofoyourbusiness@nope.com
The Brexit debate is still going nowhere fast as we rapidly close in on the March 29th leaving date. In a previous post reflecting on the massive defeat for May when she tried to get her deal through I said she had a choice of moving towards the hard-line Brexiteers or going for a softer Brexit with the support of most Labour MPs. Her decision was to go for the former.
The proposal now is to go back to the EU and ask to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement - in particular the 'backstop' part of that relating to the trading arrangements across the Irish border. That has the big advantage for the Conservative party that everyone was able to vote for it - as the vote was essentially against the backstop rather than being in favor of something specific, all strands of the party felt free to support the government even though their support meant different things.
That has avoided exacerbating the divisions in the Conservatives, but potentially at a cost for the country - the vote significantly increases the chances of a no-deal exit and that seems to me to be clearly the most likely outcome now. May has spent months now saying that there was no alternative to her deal and that the EU would not renegotiate. So, it is unlikely to say the least that she really believes the EU will agree to substantive changes. She may be hoping for that, but I'm pretty sure she's now expecting a no-deal exit.
That result is of course what the 70 or so hard-line Conservatives have been playing for and they've nearly got it in their grasp. The reality of Parliamentary mechanics is that it's now unlikely there will be a further chance for MPs to instruct the government to take a different approach to Brexit. That's despite the fact that it's clear that the majority of MPs do not want a no-deal (in fact they voted for a motion saying that this week, but that motion was not binding on the government).
If May now denies any further opportunity to debate alternatives, the only possibilities I can think of that don't lead to a no-deal exit are: 1) The Speaker of the Commons overturns protocol to allow rebel MPs to raise a motion without government support. He did something along those lines not long ago, so it's by no means impossible he would try that - but it would almost certainly lead to a motion of no confidence in him and his position is not strong. 2) There's a successful motion of no confidence in the government leading to an election and the EU agree to extend the deadline for Brexit for that to take place. That EU agreement is by no means certain, as it would cause major technical issues (such as the requirement for the UK to elect new European MPs in this summer's elections), but they might go for it. The government survived a recent motion of no confidence, but that could change. In particular, if MPs conclude (as I do) that May is effectively now facilitating a no deal Brexit, it would only require a few Conservative MPs to decide that would be worse than a split in the party to allow a no confidence motion to succeed. 3) The EU change their minds and give in over the backstop issue. This seems highly unlikely to me. Their position has been clear and consistent for a long time and retreating from that would have consequences not just for the current negotiation, but future negotiations as well (detracting from their carefully built image of tough negotiators). They will also still be mindful of the impact of Brexit on the remaining 27 countries. If exit is seen as a good option then there will be significant pressure in some other countries (such as Italy) to go down the same route.
In my opinion Corbyn & May are coming toward some sort of tacit agreement about the path things are likely to follow. Corbyn did almost nothing to discipline Labour members who supported the Brady amendment, while using the House's opposition to no-deal as cover for visiting May. This suggests that he will allow some Labour members to support May's deal after some light cosmetic changes have been made to it. This will mean that the Conservatives still remain together for now, rather than being broken on the rock of the customs union. Corbyn gets to wash his hands of Brexit responsibility while moving the battleground to public services where Corbyn is comfortable. The question is whether the ERG take the current Brexit deal and then work on driving the final agreement back towards the right... In that case we might get to see whether May will ever put country before party.
@Mantis37 the crucial issue you've raised is whether the ERG (European Research Group - which is the hardline Brexiteers within the Conservative party) will back the current Brexit deal. If they don't then a few Labour MPs defying the party whip will be far short of getting it through. I agree that the deal does actually give the ERG most of what they want and therefore it would seem totally reasonable that they should back it and then work to influence the future trade deal with the EU. However, at the moment it seems to me they have their eye on a no deal exit and therefore won't back the existing deal (unless the backstop is removed, which seems unlikely to me).
If there seemed a real danger of a cross-party consensus forming - which would either water Brexit down or halt it entirely - then I imagine the ERG would change their minds and suddenly find the existing deal acceptable. However, for the moment there is no such consensus for them to worry about.
So the VA governor confirmed he was in a photo either as a guy in blackface makeup or as a klansman in full whitehood. Why do something like that? It is just not acceptable. He should resign especially in a place with a long history of troubled race relations like I believe Virginia has had. So far he's refusing to resign despite pressure. I doubt he will be able to keep refusing but so far he has.
The FL sec of state just resigned for basically the same thing - blackface photos.
Trump has broke another treaty this time a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia. He claimed they weren't following it so rather than do anything about it he gave them the gift of just suspending the treaty.
Russian President Putin announced his support for a proposal to start construction of a new medium-range supersonic nuclear missile and presumably thanked Trump for his continued support and undermining of NATO and the EU.
So the VA governor confirmed he was in a photo either as a guy in blackface makeup or as a klansman in full whitehood. Why do something like that? It is just not acceptable. He should resign especially in a place with a long history of troubled race relations like I believe Virginia has had. So far he's refusing to resign despite pressure. I doubt he will be able to keep refusing but so far he has.
The FL sec of state just resigned for basically the same thing - blackface photos.
Every prominent Democrat in the country called for him to resign within 3 or 4 hours, which remains consistent with the recent pattern of cleaning house when such controversies come to light. The Virginia Democratic Party has also called on him to resign. So, basically, EVERYONE. He is refusing to do so as of this hour. They can't force him out, but the entire national and state party is now in direct opposition to him staying in the seat. Northman is now claiming that he is not in the photo, which is a totally dubious claim considering he ALREADY apologized for being in it yesterday. Even if it wasn't him, it would STILL be a photo he selected to be put on his yearbook page. And as a completely unimportant note, why do medical schools have yearbooks?? This seems like something that should happen in high school and be left behind. The Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax is an African-American who just sat out on a tribute to Robert E. Lee that took place in the Virginia State Senate recently, and is also not the milquetoast moderate that Northman is. He is perfectly positioned to take his place after this controversy and at this point I don't think there is a single sane Democrat in the country who thinks Northman shouldn't be gone by late this afternoon.
That was my thought too. I kept checking to see if it the finality of his situation had occurred to him yet. Nope! Soon though. The other thing that puzzles me is what kind of yearbook editor would look at that and think it was acceptable? Crazy!
Comments
Corbyn has always been a Euro-sceptic and therefore out of step with the majority of his party. That wasn't a problem when he was a back-bencher (who persistently ignored the party whip in voting his conscience). However, now that he's leader of the party he's discovered the joys of telling other people what to do and has refused to allow free votes on Brexit. One result of that is making it far more difficult to seek a compromise position across party lines (some of his MPs have tried to do that anyway, but he's opposed those efforts).
Although Corbyn is historically a Euro-sceptic he's been careful since before the referendum not to spell out his position on the future with Europe too clearly. That's allowed him to keep the Labour vote together, but made it pretty much impossible to seek common cause with the moderate Conservatives.
Corbyn has in the past trumpeted how much he believes in party democracy. At the last national conference the Labour delegates ignored his wishes by requiring the party to consider all options, including a second referendum, if they could not get an election. As I said in my previous post we're by now already past the point where there's an easy way to stop a no-deal Brexit, but Corbyn is still pursuing the strategy of seeking an election. It's easy to see the attraction of that for him - if the polls are correct that the country has moved a little bit towards Remain, Labour could expect significant gains in an election.
As you wrote above though, there has never been up to now the slightest possibility of getting an election (the same factors that make that look favorable for Labour, make it a distinctly poor bet for the Conservatives). The only chance a no confidence vote could succeed is if some Conservative MPs decide that May's strategy will be so harmful to the country that they need to put country above party. If Corbyn had pursued a different strategy I think that would already have happened, i.e. instead of seeking an election he could have tried to form a coalition of the willing specifically around the Brexit issue. However, by asking Conservatives to effectively support Labour, rather than supporting a national consensus, Corbyn has made it far harder to forge such a coalition.
The reality is that is not an issue which follows political lines, but (unlike some other countries) the UK is still treating it as a political issue. If that continues then a no-deal Brexit is almost inevitable as there is not the slightest possibility of getting a majority in Parliament for any solution based on party political lines.
Here's another troubling thought though. Are we medicating art out of our culture? How many of our influential artists/musicians/architects/writers/poets would have made the works they did if they were able to chemically alter their viewpoints? As individuals I'd be all in favor of improving their lives, but as a member of humanity it would be a tragedy if their viewpoints were altered. Thoughts...?
Edit: I just realized that many of these people probably did medicate themselves with drugs or alcohol. If they could have been 'cured' should they have been?
I only partly agree with it, but it's true that being in business makes more and more demand for workers now than in the past. Individual worker's productivity has gone up, but the rewards for all that extra work have not. Wages have either been static or gone down slightly overall, despite the fact that we- the workers, are working harder than ever.
It's not right, but that's the real insanity in the situation. Workers are expected to work harder and longer than we ever have before, putting in nights, weekends and even our vacation time for the good of the company, but if you can't do it, or you crumble in trying, they fire you and get another poor fool to do the same in your place. And workers don't get paid any more for it. It becomes the accepted level of productivity.
Edited to add...
By the way, some people think that creative people have to resort to some sort of crutch, pills, alcohol- that's not true. Nor are most artists "tortured". But if you're an artist, it is difficult to support yourself solely on your art, which is also kind of wrong. Many/most artists have to do something else while making their art, be it writing, painting or whatever. It's very difficult to make a living doing art. "Tortured" doesn't generally come into it.
Edit: I shouldn't have said only in the US. China, South Korea and Japan suffer from the same worker expectations to varying degrees. That might well be from more directly competing with the US though...
I wasn't as accurate as I had hoped.
One in three UK firms plan for Brexit relocation, IoD says
Survey finds surge of smaller companies activating plans to move operations abroad
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/01/one-three-uk-firms-activate-plans-move-operations-abroad-no-deal-brexit-iod-survey
https://action.donaldjtrump.com/sotu-prep-survey?DCPe=YWRhbS5nYWJiYXR0QHRoZWd1YXJkaWFuLmNvbQ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ET_16&utm_campaign=20190201_8935_sotu-2019-prep-survey-rs_donaldjtrump_tmagac&utm_content=gop_surveys_text_take_top_other_all
Let your voices be heard as this survey was only sent to Trump Supporters and any “statistics” he pulls from his ass during the speech will probably come from this survey.
It is good that Trump (campaign) is attempting to listen to the people with a survey like this. Let’s just make sure he listens to everyone. Try not to cringe too hard at some of these questions.
“Do you agree with President Trump that we must be much TOUGHER on terrorism and potential/convicted terrorists?”
Potential? Potential rules out innocent before guilty.
and
“Are you pleased that under President Trump, the U.S. is no longer shipping pallets of cash to the Iranian regime?”
Is a misrepresentation (one of many in the survey) of what the U.S. contributed to the Internationally signed Iran Deal.
That seems dishonest, doesn't it...
That seems dishonest, doesn't it...
Sure.But so is how this survey is being conducted, the questions found within and the person administering it.
No one is forcing you to do it, but no one is forcing people not to do it, even multiple times.
It will also be dishonest if he references it, for this very reason, during what should be an honest (trying not to laugh) and serious address to the American public.
Yeah. he's the American President. Not the President for his base. He deserves to hear from EVERYONE.
https://my.democrats.org/page/signup/priorities-survey-acq?source=om2019_LB_FB_Jan19_Priority-Survey_50-65_F_Grassroots_LB_DNC_Survey_R1a_1200x628&utm_medium=om2019&utm_campaign=om2019_LB_FB_Jan19&utm_source=fb&utm_content=170937345&fbclid=IwAR1izArY2k_K8zOmOm875WH5eYFU-Te25b281KGu1aROYQRds0URj1COFpk
My email address was noneofoyourbusiness@nope.com
If there seemed a real danger of a cross-party consensus forming - which would either water Brexit down or halt it entirely - then I imagine the ERG would change their minds and suddenly find the existing deal acceptable. However, for the moment there is no such consensus for them to worry about.
The FL sec of state just resigned for basically the same thing - blackface photos.
Russian President Putin announced his support for a proposal to start construction of a new medium-range supersonic nuclear missile and presumably thanked Trump for his continued support and undermining of NATO and the EU.
Every prominent Democrat in the country called for him to resign within 3 or 4 hours, which remains consistent with the recent pattern of cleaning house when such controversies come to light. The Virginia Democratic Party has also called on him to resign. So, basically, EVERYONE. He is refusing to do so as of this hour. They can't force him out, but the entire national and state party is now in direct opposition to him staying in the seat. Northman is now claiming that he is not in the photo, which is a totally dubious claim considering he ALREADY apologized for being in it yesterday. Even if it wasn't him, it would STILL be a photo he selected to be put on his yearbook page. And as a completely unimportant note, why do medical schools have yearbooks?? This seems like something that should happen in high school and be left behind. The Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax is an African-American who just sat out on a tribute to Robert E. Lee that took place in the Virginia State Senate recently, and is also not the milquetoast moderate that Northman is. He is perfectly positioned to take his place after this controversy and at this point I don't think there is a single sane Democrat in the country who thinks Northman shouldn't be gone by late this afternoon.