Starting a new thread for all things non Ukraine related. Please use other thread for that. Similar to the US election days, to give other subjects a chance without being drowned in the topic-du-jour...

 

Old thread:

 

Posting in the marginally less depressing thread.

For some content, here's the latest on man who sued a bunch of newpapers for suggesting he was a war criminal and unleashed an unending torrent of witnesses testifying he was a war criminal, Ben Roberts-Smith.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/24/ben-roberts-smith-told-another-soldier-in-afghanistan-i-just-want-to-kill-court-hears

The part of this that interests me the most, oddly, is the claim he didn't even own an iPod, because if that wasn't true, it would be a weird lie to tell.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-24/U-S-Justice-Department-ends-controversial-China-Initiative--17UHkbtYWoU/index.html

U.S. Justice Department ends controversial 'China Initiative'

Not only racist against Asians but Un-American as all Hell.  Wonder what compelled them to pull it especially at this time.

To understand how low we have fallen as a country here in Greece. I was listening to a late night talk show where the host was both a long time veteran of tv and a government shill and there were 5 guests, 3 politicians from 3 different parties a reporter and a lawyer. One of the 3 politicians was a representative of the government and made a statement that got the host to say WTF out loud on live tv while the other 4 guests had a look like a million silent facepalms had hit them. The topic of the discussion was how the government has hired hundreds of redundant people in an agency, who will be payed 4 times higher than the average employee there and were asking the representative why in the middle of this latest economic crisis and with covid still being a problem, they decided to throw that much money away. His response was that thanks to them spending money they don't have to hire people they don't need in an agency they wish to do away with, they are making sure that they will create a stable healthcare system for the next 50 years... while having fired 1/3 of the doctors in public hospitals so far.

But that's what we get for voting a Harvard political science graduate for PM... He brought all that is wrong with american politics with him and invited all the extreme right elements into his party to pad the vote numbers.

And believe it or not, the funny thing here is that our far right has mostly the same positions as the American Democrats while the literal communist party says the things you typically hear from a Republican.

Edited February 24, 20223 yr by teknoman2

 

Biden has nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson for the SCOTUS.

I've never heard of her before Breyer announced his retirement. A quick read on her wikipedia page it seems like she is a decent choice. Not someone I'm going to find a lot of common ground with but neither was Breyer. She is coming from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals which has been a conveyer belt to the big courthouse on First St. She might even have some bi-partisan support. Actually I don't see any reason to oppose her unless something dishonest about her turns up. Seems unlikely. The Democrats turned Supreme Court nominations into a bloodsport with Bork and Thomas and literally every one since. The Republicans quickly followed suit. Hopefully it's time to put an end to that s--t.

@Gromnirdo you know anything about her? Other than common knowledge.

 

Edit: If it had been up to me the first AA Woman on the Court would have been Janice Rogers Brown. Seriously you guys need to write my name in in 2024. You might not like everything I do but I'll cure what ails this country! 

 

Edited February 25, 20223 yr by Guard Dog

21 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Biden has nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson for the SCOTUS.

I've never heard of her before Breyer announced his retirement. A quick read on her wikipedia page it seems like she is a decent choice. Not someone I'm going to find a lot of common ground with but neither was Breyer. She is coming from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals which has been a conveyer belt to the big courthouse on First St. She might even have some bi-partisan support. Actually I don't see any reason to oppose her unless something dishonest about her turns up. Seems unlikely. The Democrats turned Supreme Court nominations into a bloodsport with Bork and Thomas and literally every one since. The Republicans quickly followed suit. Hopefully it's time to put an end to that s--t.

@Gromnirdo you know anything about her? Other than common knowledge.

 

Edit: If it had been up to me the first AA Woman on the Court would have been Janice Rogers Brown. Seriously you guys need to write my name in in 2024. You might not like everything I do but I'll cure what ails this country! 

 

Gromnir posted about her before. As I recall he had gushing praise for her, even if she wasn't his first choice.

I think this was his post from when she was on a short list -

 

Thanks, I missed that one. 

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Geez that is ageism 101  and Im very surprised. Hurlshot please dont be a bigot. Old people have a right to dignity the same as the rest of us

What would your students think if they found out you pushing  bigotry on the Internet ?????

You not automatically useless at a certain age unless your mental  faculties are not functioning correctly, no need for someone at 70 to not be an effective president 

Maximum age limit makes more sense to me than, for example, the current minimum age of, what, 35 in the US?

31 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Maximum age limit makes more sense to me than, for example, the current minimum age of, what, 35 in the US?

Yes but their is a  reason people retire at a certain age and its not because of them automatically being incapable due to age. Its about retirement funds and what governments can pay and allowing younger people into the job market which has limited jobs available always. But you dont necessarily have the same considerations with politicians because they come and go based on peoples votes 

So why would you support our politicians being restricted to a certain age ? Dont you think it should be about their cognitive ability and not their age ?

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes but their is a  reason people retire at a certain age and its not because of them automatically being incapable due to age. Its about retirement funds and what governments can pay and allowing younger people into the job market which has limited jobs available always. But you dont necessarily have the same considerations with politicians because they come and go based on peoples votes 

So why would you support our politicians being restricted to a certain age ? Dont you think it should be about their cognitive ability and not their age ?

If you reread what I said, you'll find that what I ACTUALLY said wasn't 'I support age limits' (I'm not entirely sure about my position on this) but 'an upper limit makes more sense than a lower limit of 35'.

4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

If you reread what I said, you'll find that what I ACTUALLY said wasn't 'I support age limits' (I'm not entirely sure about my position on this) but 'an upper limit makes more sense than a lower limit of 35'.

Sorry for misunderstanding you, no need to shout 

I was confused by the words " upper limit ", what do you mean by that ?

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Sorry for misunderstanding you, no need to shout 

I was confused by the words " upper limit ", what do you mean by that ?

Upper limit as in the highest possible. If you decree, for example, that people have to report to a processing centre at age 65 to be turned into Soylent Green, 65 is the 'upper limit' on being alive in that society. Or for a less morbid example, if you make a law that says the oldest you're allowed to be and still be president is 70, then that's the 'upper limit'.

3 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Upper limit as in the highest possible. If you decree, for example, that people have to report to a processing centre at age 65 to be turned into Soylent Green, 65 is the 'upper limit' on being alive in that society. Or for a less morbid example, if you make a law that says the oldest you're allowed to be and still be president is 70, then that's the 'upper limit'.

Okay so if someone is 68  and becomes president  for  a 4 year term what happens when they turn 70 and can they elected for a second term? Because I still think you are suggesting the actual  age should be the factor and not cognitive ability ?

 

I'm just answering your question as to what an 'upper limit' is.

Besides, there's plenty of precedent in most societies for age based restrictions on what people can do, it's just they're minimum age requirements, and we tend not to try to replace those with 'cognitive based requirements' or whatever.

1 minute ago, Chairchucker said:

Besides, there's plenty of precedent in most societies for age based restrictions on what people can do, it's just they're minimum age requirements, and we tend not to try to replace those with 'cognitive based requirements' or whatever.

But dont you think suggesting our politicians cant be a certain age is ageism? I am not talking about other things in society  because the original point was about the age of politicians ? I am asking for your personal opinion 

Just now, BruceVC said:

But dont you think suggesting our politicians cant be a certain age is ageism? I am not talking about other things in society  because the original point was about the age of politicians ? I am asking for your personal opinion 

A 12 year old can't be a politician, is that ageist?

1 minute ago, Chairchucker said:

A 12 year old can't be a politician, is that ageist?

No but I  would be worried about you if you suggested that. The definition of ageism is discrimination against older people, not younger people 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ageism

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

No but I  would be worried about you if you suggested that. The definition of ageism is discrimination against older people, not younger people 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ageism

Other sources define it as being any discrimination based on age. And we already do that at younger ages. I'm not convinced this would be all that different. I definitely think there is more of a case for banning politicians over the age of 70 where they are more likely to suffer from dementia or any number of other debilitating mental illnesses, than there is for banning people under the age of 35 from being the President of the USA.

2 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Other sources define it as being any discrimination based on age. And we already do that at younger ages. I'm not convinced this would be all that different. I definitely think there is more of a case for banning politicians over the age of 70 where they are more likely to suffer from dementia or any number of other debilitating mental illnesses, than there is for banning people under the age of 35 from being the President of the USA.

Fair enough, I see what you saying  

I think Biden has handled this Putins War into Ukraine admirably and he has done the right thing on the sequence of steps and comments from the WH

Hopefully this will change popular support for him  in a positive way in the US because he deserves it

 

Hmmm. I am torn. On the one hand I would like his approval ratings to be higher so that if he is the eventual Democratic nominee, he would beat the eventual Republican nominee. Especially if that ends up being Trump, as it seems it might.

 

On the other hand, I want his approval ratings to be lower so that he is not the eventual Democratic nominee.

Mostly of interest for Australians (federal election coming up this year). For non Aussies, Clive Parker and his UAP is to Australia what Donald Trump and the current Republican Party is to the US.