The all things Poltical topic - We bear our banners aloft, boots like Drums Our Cadence quick, our countenance dire.

[Guard Dog]

18 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I don't disagree that this is a concern. It should always be a concern to battle censorship and allow freedom of expression. But I argue with the idea things are getting worse, or that we are headed in a negative direction. That is built on the premise that we haven't had censorship, book burnings, and bad humor in the previous centuries. 

Things are way better than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago on the whole. We are hearing from way more voices, from more diverse backgrounds, than ever before.

Oh I don’t disagree there are more voices from more diverse backgrounds. The problem is they seem to all be shouting the same things and not brooking any disagreement in them.

I hope you’re right though. And you are in a better position to judge than I am. I would love to be optimistic about our future. It’s been along time since that was true. I probably shouldn’t worry though. I never had children and no matter what I won’t be around to see it.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Supreme Court to hear Mississippi abortion case 

well doesn’t this just throw a lit match into the hay barn

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

I don't disagree that this is a concern. It should always be a concern to battle censorship and allow freedom of expression. But I argue with the idea things are getting worse, or that we are headed in a negative direction. That is built on the premise that we haven't had censorship, book burnings, and bad humor in the previous centuries. 

Things are way better than they were 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago on the whole. We are hearing from way more voices, from more diverse backgrounds, than ever before.

fixed.

am not certain if we would conclude is better than 10-15 years past. last decade or so has been curious. even ten years ago and we woulda' had americans near universal condemning antifa and the proud boys. now we got folks aligning with antifa or proud boys? the polarization of the last ten years has many americans questioning aspects o' first amendment freedoms, and am shocked by how quick such a change occurred w/o a domestic war or something similar to presage the change.

am personal sensitive to the diminution o' first amendment freedoms, but our fear were perhaps too focused on the cataclysm we thought were a necessary precursor. assumed it would take some kinda massive social upheaval or singular shocking event to change the american paradigm-- a 9/11. instead, all it took were fox news, alt-right radio, a rescission and a President willing to embrace the politics of grievance.

we would suggest @Guard Dog read fahrenheit 451. am thinking the important detail from the novel which is glossed over all the time is how the firemen in the book were the result o' a populist movement. weren't some kinda State or authoritarian action which led to the attempt to homogenize and sensitize information and ideas. the people got tired of the conflict and the divisiveness. people became increasing uncomfortable with unpleasant ideas, and so the people demanded a normalization. and keep in mind, bradbury were less than subtle 'bout the link 'tween a willingness to give up books and ideas with an increase in the availability o' entertainment such as tv, which he envisioned in 1953 would become wall-encompassing and interactive. 

a work o' fiction is fahrenheit 451, but am thinking too many nevertheless miss the message. 

that said, to be lettering yourself get your shorts in a twist over a guardian story is questionable in any event. would want way more info before we accepted the guardian or ny post version o' a story. 

University says sorry to janitor over KKK book

2008. 

as an aside, am thinking the main reason the school tried to fire the janitor is not 'cause o' the kkk stuff but 'cause his book were 'bout the efforts o' notre dame students fighting the kkk in indiana, and say anything positive 'bout notre dame is to this day punishable by tar and feathering at purdue.

somewhere 'round 10-15 years past, things changed in the US, and situation has gotten worse instead o' better. gd may be overreacting to a singular dubious news story as is his habit, but am thinking people do need to wake up to the real possibility we could willingly give up our freedoms for a bit more civility and security. fahrenheit 451 were more prophetic than we personal ever imagined and am now convinced it won't take a war or similar to bring 'bout support for metaphorical firemen. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Guard Dog]

I have read Fahrenheit 451. Next to “The one who waits” it’s my favorite Bradbury work. I even referenced it in my first reply to Hurlshot 

The scary part about populist movements and polarized political factions sooner or later they end up with power. We just had a teensy little taste of that. Can’t say I enjoyed the flavor. Not looking forward to the next helping.

oh also, it’s not an unfair criticism to say I am overreacting to what might be a one off news story. But another way to look at it is this new story is yet another brick in the wall of our eventual prison. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I have read Fahrenheit 451. Next to “The one who waits” it’s my favorite Bradbury work. I even referenced it in my first reply to Hurlshot 

all the more reason to recognize where the real threat is coming. is not gonna be jack boots and an authoritarian regime. is gonna be your neighbors willingly sacrificing their books and freedoms on the pyre.  fahrenheit 451 is one o' the most misunderstood and poor referenced books o' the past 100 years. 

ps as for the threat to roe, J. Thomas has been telegraphing his willingness to overturn precedence for a couple years, and Alito has been doing similar if less overt. roe has clear been the unspoken target. 

how curious is it that rbg's obstinance regarding retirement may result in the death o' roe? 'course few recall that as late as last year, rbg were the only Justice on the Court who had ever been public critical o' roe before becoming a Justice. roe were never particular good law, but nobody had the courage to fix it and now 'cause rbg were too proud, it may be gutted. breyer needs to pay attention.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 17, 2021 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

[Guard Dog]

10 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

all the more reason to recognize where the real threat is coming. is not gonna be jack boots and an authoritarian regime. is gonna be your neighbors willingly sacrificing their books and freedoms on the pyre. 

ps as for the threat to roe, J. Thomas has been telegraphing his willingness to overturn precedence for a couple years, and Alito has been doing similar if less overt. roe has clear been the unspoken target. 

how curious is it that rbg's obstinance regarding retirement may result in the death o' roe? 'course few recall that as late as last year, rbg were the only Justice on the Court who had ever been public critical o' roe before becoming a Justice. roe were never particular good law, but nobody had the courage to fix it and now 'cause rbg were too proud, it may be gutted. breyer needs to pay attention.

HA! Good Fun!

Oh no argument on that count. No governing entity higher than a county school board in the United States has had any appetite for banning books. At least none that I can recall. Hardly new, just who wants material restricted and why has changed. And nobody that I recall has ever argued we should put them in a pile and light them up. But the point I have been making and you seem to agree with at least in part is the attitudes are trending in the wrong direction.

As for Thomas signaling his willingness to overturn Roe on a completely unrelated case, if you hadn’t pointed that out I never would’ve noticed it. I guess he was being to subtle for me. Of course at the court were to gut the decision The Congress could fix it in the very next term if they wanted to. That’s really who should’ve done it from the get go anyway.

Edit: to reiterate what I have said in the past abortion is very icky to me. Particularly partial birth abortion where a live baby is delivered and killed. That strikes me as barbaric. But I absolutely will not ever have my judgment and morality imposed upon someone else. I won’t do it to them and I don’t want the state to do it to them in my stead. Because I sure as hell don’t want it done to me. That’s why I think it should be legal and just let people decide what to do for themselves. At the end of the day we were all individually accountable to God for what we’ve done. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Guard Dog

[HoonDing]

Imagine a bunch of ugly old men with wigs telling women what to do with their body.

[Guard Dog]

16 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

Imagine a bunch of ugly old men with wigs telling women what to do with their body.

Actually if you believe the courts ruling in Roe The ugly old men in wigs were saying all along the state could not interfere with the decisions a woman makes about her body.

[Darkpriest]

So, I expect the midterms will be a reason, while we will see another cash injection into the economy by Dems. 

With narrow margins it's possible that they mighy lose both House and Senate. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/white-house-downplays-transitory-inflation-democrats-quietly-panic-over-impact-midterm

@Guard Dog would probably be very happy....

 

Until Trump 2024 ... 

[Guard Dog]

25 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

 

@Guard Dog would probably be very happy....

 

Until Trump 2024 ... 

God forbid! I would love to see them lose one or the other or both houses of Congress. Then we can cruise quietly into 2024. As long as at least one house of Congress is controlled by the opposite party of the president I will be happy.

Divided government: It’s like getting underwear for Christmas. Maybe it’s not what you wanted but it is what you needed.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations

am gonna keep linking similar until people realize just how much the Constitution don't protect you, and for those individuals who seem to believe in the fantasy of ye goode olde days of American Liberties. too few understand what the Constitution says and does not say. buck v. bell is law. is only punitive sterilizations which were outlawed by skinner. buck is precedent today.  buck is one reason why is nevertheless current Constitutional to force people to get vaccinations even if there is no government effort to make such laws or enforce 'em... other than the obvious school vaccinations and military vaccinations people conveniently ignore.  whole lotta kids and military folks being told what they can do with their body.

roe does not hinge on what old men may says 'bout how a woman chooses what to do with her body. is far too ez to be confusing campaign slogans with questions o' law. heck, roe specific notes the right o' the woman to make choices 'bout abortion is not unqualified. "protecting potential life" is one o' the specific state interests the roe Court noted could exceed an individual woman's right to privacy... 'cause what too many people forget is when you mention abortion, you are actual talking 'bout a privacy right which necessarily balances individual and state interests. griswold v. conneticut. privacy.

honest, roe is a mess.  however, roe is precedent, pivotal, and the Court ordinarily is reluctant to mess with similar precedent, and for good reason. when plessey were overturned, J Robert Jackson left his hospital bed so brown v. board would be unanimous. Jackson would die not long after brown. 

while am thinking it improbable we could ever personal support abortion, am uncomfortable telling others what they should decide. however, our personal pov is not relevant. talk 'bout roe and griswold is questions o' law. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps so is clear, am not criticizing @Guard Dog on this. the old men and women on the Court ain't direct deciding what choices a woman may make regarding her body. the question is whether States may make such decisions and whether the Constitution forbids or possible allows the federal government to have any say-so on the matter.   

Edited May 17, 2021 by Gromnir

[rjshae]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

God forbid! I would love to see them lose one or the other or both houses of Congress. Then we can cruise quietly into 2024. As long as at least one house of Congress is controlled by the opposite party of the president I will be happy.

Divided government: It’s like getting underwear for Christmas. Maybe it’s not what you wanted but it is what you needed.

If I had to pick, I'd be happier to see the Dems in control of the Senate as insurance in case the Don somehow gets relected. That lunatic needs some serious checks and balances.

[ComradeYellow]

12 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

Things are way better than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago on the whole. We are hearing from way more voices, from more diverse backgrounds, than ever before.

Covid-19, inflation, extreme military spending/threat of WW3, rising rent prices, political violence/shootings kinda makes up for the apparent gains though  

9 minutes ago, rjshae said:

If I had to pick, I'd be happier to see the Dems in control of the Senate as insurance in case the Don somehow gets relected. That lunatic needs some serious checks and balances.

3rd Party dammit!  The Don is gone.

[Gorth]

An interesting interview by the BBC with the director of Russian intelligence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-57144297

 

What i found interesting wasn't whether "they did it", but how politically savvy the guy is. You can always argue for or against whether they were and no doubt you would *not* get an honest answer in an interview.

 

The fascinating part (for me) is how good he is, without a script, to respond without commitment to an actual answer. E.g. Q: Did you do it? A: The things we're publicly accused of, no!

Also, when the talk is about MI6 estimating that they're only aware of 10% of all Russian intelligence operations in the UK, he doesn't answer yes or no (which sort of makes it impossible to pin him up on any outright lies). Like or dislike, got to admire skill in dealing with media when you see it.

 

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Gorth said:

An interesting interview by the BBC with the director of Russian intelligence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-57144297

 

What i found interesting wasn't whether "they did it", but how politically savvy the guy is. You can always argue for or against whether they were and no doubt you would *not* get an honest answer in an interview.

 

The fascinating part (for me) is how good he is, without a script, to respond without commitment to an actual answer. E.g. Q: Did you do it? A: The things we're publicly accused of, no!

Also, when the talk is about MI6 estimating that they're only aware of 10% of all Russian intelligence operations in the UK, he doesn't answer yes or no (which sort of makes it impossible to pin him up on any outright lies). Like or dislike, got to admire skill in dealing with media when you see it.

 

I enjoyed the interview but it was much of the same with all accusations levelled towards Russia and their interference in countries, he denied it obviously and playing the " Snowden and Prism did it " card is old but reliable 

Asking a question like " did you do it " and expecting any answer apart from " no we didnt " just seems a waste of time. Russia did do it and their is always a digital footprint when it comes to any state sponsored hacking that points irrefutably at the country involved like Stuxnet was created by the Israelis 

But I will agree with a point you have raised in the past, you can at least understand and reason with the Russians compared to the  CCP. Its easier to understand and address the Russian objectives compared to what the CCP thinks around certain developments related to their global policies and hegemony 

[Guard Dog]

US Supreme Court rules against police in warrantless search of RI man's home

9-0

[ComradeYellow]

17 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But I will agree with a point you have raised in the past, you can at least understand and reason with the Russians compared to the  CCP. Its easier to understand and address the Russian objectives compared to what the CCP thinks around certain developments related to their global policies and hegemony 

Eh, Russia has no real power besides nukes so it thinks it can charm its way into the world stage.

But honestly I don't really give a **** anymore, Eastern media used to be receptive to the authoritarian left but now it's all just alt right garbage.  They don't even seem to hold back anymore, right wing authoritarianism is the de facto ideology of the East.

[Raithe]

 

[BruceVC]

@Gorth

https://ewn.co.za/2021/05/18/experts-warn-shuttered-australia-is-becoming-a-hermit-nation

Is this accurate, I find it hard to believe that Oz strict lockdown measures are tantamount to the country becoming a " hermit state ". NK is a hermit state and once the virus is globally contained its not like Oz wont relax its current travel and border  regulations ?

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

@Gorth

https://ewn.co.za/2021/05/18/experts-warn-shuttered-australia-is-becoming-a-hermit-nation

Is this accurate, I find it hard to believe that Oz strict lockdown measures are tantamount to the country becoming a " hermit state ". NK is a hermit state and once the virus is globally contained its not like Oz wont relax its current travel and border  regulations ?

I believe that depends entirely on the rest of the world and how it handles the pandemic. If anything, the tightening of the rules regarding India shows how far they are willing to go to keep the virus out of Australia.

We can always kidnap some Kiwi's if we fear inbreeding...

If the rest of the world doesn't get it's act together though, yeah, I think it will be a long time before international travelers become a thing.

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I believe that depends entirely on the rest of the world and how it handles the pandemic. If anything, the tightening of the rules regarding India shows how far they are willing to go to keep the virus out of Australia.

We can always kidnap some Kiwi's if we fear inbreeding...

If the rest of the world doesn't get it's act together though, yeah, I think it will be a long time before international travelers become a thing.

Yes I can understand that view around preventative steps around stricter border control , personally I would support it until the pandemic is reasonably contained globally despite it ostensibly being draconian

I agree with the possible Kiwi inbreeding option but then you will have change your current legislation to allow for the rights of sheep to be recognized as family members  and partners....and this is something you guys outlawed years ago as I know ? 

Oh and as far as the latest India rules are concerned do you support this considering the reality of the virus running rampant in India ?

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Yes I can understand that view around preventative steps around stricter border control , personally I would support it until the pandemic is reasonably contained globally despite it ostensibly being draconian

I agree with the possible Kiwi inbreeding option but then you will have change your current legislation to allow for the rights of sheep to be recognized as family members  and partners....and this is something you guys outlawed years ago as I know ? 

Oh and as far as the latest India rules are concerned do you support this considering the reality of the virus running rampant in India ?

 

As for the India rules, it's not an easy question to answer and I might give you a different answer if asked twice about it. I can see the practicality of it, as most of the lockdowns happening after the initial lockdown last year was caused by people traveling from India. On the other hand, locking your own citizens out of your country is not illegal, but might be "questionable" ethically. Mind you, it's not like people in India can't travel to Australia, but they would have to be somewhere else in the two weeks before returning. I think the cricketers actually took a two stopover on the Maldives before returning from India to Australia. Effectively being quarantined somewhere else before returning. They have opened up a bit for travel from India now, but you have to produce a credible, fresh negative covid test before being allowed to board (and still have to be quarantined upon return)

 

Edit: Australia technically has a constitution, but it has little to do with people and rights and is all about the power sharing between the federal government and state governments (responsibilities and limitations of each)

Edit2: It has no bill of rights

[Guard Dog]

Posting because it’s humorous. No political statement. You already know I don’t like them.

[Raithe]

Politics or philosophy? (technically, that's a quote from neo-Nazi Kevin Strom, not Voltaire. For some reason it keeps getting mis-quoted)

Edited May 19, 2021 by Raithe