I thought Uncommitted was a smart use of the primaries.
More generally, obviously much more critical than in the election itself. But getting the right candidates in the primary, and pushing all candidates to be better in all the usual ways. They're never going to chase us to the left like they chase to the right, so we have to do the work and set the boundaries.
Choosing to treat anyone who thinks otherwise as too stupid to realise this is exactly why Trump might win. Please stop.
The Democrats do not have a realistic chance of winning against Trump because the Democrats are entirely incapable of challenging power. It's the fundamental contradiction of liberalism. They won't do anything for the people they need to vote for them because if they do the people who fund them will stop funding them.
Obama and Sanders both excelled at small-dollar donations, of course. Sadly, Obama was a silver-tongued coward and the Clinton Democrats made sure she didn't repeat the mistakes of 2008 in 2016 by not bothering to sign up voters in case they killed her in the primaries again.
They dig their own grave and they do so willingly because it makes them exceedingly rich.
You know the article has words in it that aren't in the headline?
And that if you actually care about Biden winning, you need to engage with these arguments or at least have the good sense to STFU for fear of alienating people even further?
Alienating the people you need to hold their nose and vote for Biden is exactly what you claim you don't want.
Is Biden winning less important to you than posting like a smug cunt who is in no danger from fascism and looks forward to being able say "I told you so."
Muppet.
Learn to read, comprehend what you read, think about what you read, and then avoid saying stuff that gets you the exact opposite of what you want. FFS
Demanding that people vote for the least worst option without any content other than sneering at them for apparently not realising that one of the options is worse, is doing exactly that.
It's straw-manning the arguments of people who want (and desperately need) the Democrats to be better and are putting serious thought, time and energy into how that is possible in a world controlled by billionaires who unleash fascism the moment their power is threatened.
And they're doing it with a lazy, cynical, Bill Maher-wannabe take because apparently they think this is a good look?
They'll be the death of us all.
Yeah, if you're going to comment you would, ideally:
-
read the article
-
comprehend what it is saying
-
respond to it
Knee-jerk hand-waving is not useful. It's worse than just a waste of your time and ours, you are actively alienating everyone you desperately need to hold their nose and vote for Biden.
What are you trying to achieve here?
Obediently voting for the least worst option means you eventually run out of good options. <- we are here
The conundrum is working out how you force those options to get better without accelerationists getting to test out their theories for real (again).
I would respectifully suggest that "shut the fuck up and vote" does not cut it.
The president’s shedding key constituencies. If morality won’t move him to end his support of this war, will self-interest?
>Many voters believe, with good reason, that none of this would have happened without Biden’s assent. Biden has continued to speak of Israel’s attack on Palestinian civilians using the absurd language of “self-defense”. He has insulted Jewish Americans and the memory of the Holocaust by invoking them to justify the slaughter. And though his White House repeatedly leaks that he is “privately” dismayed by Israel’s conduct of the war, he has done little to stop the flow of US money and guns that support it.
>Even after the US state department issued a vexed and mealy-mouthed report on Israel’s conduct, which nevertheless concluded that it was reasonable to assess that Israel was in violation of international humanitarian law, the Biden administration has continued to fund these violations. That state department report was published on 10 May. The Biden administration told Congress that it intends to move forward with a $1bn arms sale to Israel. “OK, [Israel] likely broke the law, but not enough to change policy,” is how one reporter summarized the administration’s judgment. “So, what is the point of the report? I mean, in the simplest terms, what’s the point?”
>Meanwhile, Biden has expressed public disdain for the Americans – many of whom he needs to vote for him – who have taken to protest on behalf of Palestinian lives. Speaking with evident approval of the violent police crackdowns against anti-genocide student demonstrations, he said coolly: “Dissent must never lead to disorder.”
Cigarettes were marketed as actively healthy and good for the lungs. They used doctors to sell them. And wanted everyone to know that the only reason that smokers kept dying of lung diseases is because cigarettes are good for lungs so of course people with bad lungs were smokers. Duh.
Indeed. Fascism is power protecting itself. And, even if the specifics vary worldwide, power has needed a great deal of protection since it fucked up and crashed the global economy. Again.
I was thinking of Miliband, really. Got the same treatment as Corbyn but it never reached a crescendo because he caved.
And Labour in general, of course. Since Thatcher, at least, they always end up defaulting to this please-Murdoch-at-any-cost nonsense. Not that they were great before Thatcher (1945-51 excepted) but the media was much less extreme back then.
Not just children. The Tories need a kind of generalised hate to keep them in power. "Look! Over there! The poor people have all your money!". Not because a plurality of the electorate actually fall for it but because the billionaires who own the media keep the noise deafening to make sure no one pays any attention to their grift. Which means that the Labour party is too spineless to oppose it, keeping turnout nice and low while the Tories chase the fash to the right.
The fact of higher protein content appears to be true (without going back to find and critique all the original studies). Explanations are much harder to 'prove' for questions like this.
We can't do experiments on the evolution of tears, so all we can do is come up with plausible theories and look at how they fit with the body of evidence. With enough evidence, from enough different angles, we might one day be able to say which proposed explanations fit the facts (and which don't). It's how we (eventually) proved smoking was killing people (another question we cannot do experiments on human beings to prove one way or the other) but not all questions are as important as smoking was and there isn't necessarily a neat, single factor explanation to find even if someone was willing to fund all the necessary research.
Not my area but, for example, I recently saw a study claim that sniffing women's tears makes men less aggressive. That's an angle that might help build some support for, or knock down, the theory that emotional tears are useful for social communication (ie help get women killed slightly less often). Did those studies use sad stories or onions? Did any study compare sad stories to onions? If we're seeing hints of differences between sad stories and onions, that would tend to support the social communication element of the explanation. Unless we think there's a difference between sad tears and frightened tears, which there probably is, so we should check that too. And the rest of the literature on tears, if it's considered important enough to get the theory right. And we need to remember that sticky tears are not the same thing as smelly tears, so can we do experiments where non-emotional tears are made sticky, and non-sticky tears made to smell frightened?
Etc etc.
Explaining things we observe but cannot directly experiment on is a process, a process which typically takes many years and dozens of research groups. And a lot of funding. And decades of exhausting battles, if there is a lot riding on the answer (as it did with Big Tobacco vs Public Health).
That does rather beg the question of whether boys or girls are encouraged to be loud.
But maybe they're just picking up on teachers' biases? Teachers Give Lower Math Scores to Girls
They get away with it if the people they attack are less powerful than they are, yeah. Power is a thing.
No it doesn't. The dean who made this decision, as with most people in stable positions of power, does not need telling what to do because he will do it anyway.
Rutledge clerked for Clarence Thomas, and is featured in a painting included in ProPublica’s reporting on Republican donor Harlan Crow’s gifts to the Supreme Court Justice.
Obviously, people want that (the actual question asked was about an "urgent" need to see a doctor).
But this proposal is just a repeat of one of Blair's worst policy failures, without acknowledging how or why it failed.
When New Labour introduced the 48 hour target to see a GP, the vast majority of GPs 'met' the target by closing down their phonelines as soon as they ran out of appointments. In the process, they turned the 48 hour target into a 24 hour target because otherwise they'd only have been able to open the phoneline every other day.
It was very bad back then. It's much worse now because the NHS was at least relatively well-funded under Blair.
Not that they're announcing this because they think the policy will work, obv. Just doing their best to make sure the voters blame everyone but them.
[The link is to a video of an election Question Time audience haranguing Blair about the foolishness of this target.]
I didn't say you denied the Holocaust. I said you implied that it is the first example of European antisemitism.
I agree with a lot of this but this bit is a non-sequitur:
One thing many people don’t realize is that the Zionist colonial project was in motion long before WWII, as far back as the late 1800s.
Political zionism did get started in the late 1800s, as a proposed solution to the centuries of pogroms, expulsions and discrimination against Jews in Europe. Prior to the horrors of WWII, most Jews considered it literal heresy. It was the Holocaust that convinced many that Zionism was their only option, not least because most of the free world closed its borders to Jews fleeing the Holocaust and its aftermath. There was nowhere else to go.
This is a very useful short piece by a Jewish anti-zionist, pleading with the pro-Palestinian movement to take more care with their understanding of history: Zionism, Antisemitism and the Left Today
The Palestinians are paying the price for Europe's crimes. The problem cannot be solved by denying that those crimes ever happened.
In 1985, Columbia students occupied campus to push for divestment from South Africa. Five months later, the university cut ties to the apartheid regime after years of dragging its feet
Worth reading in full but here's some snippets:
>In 1985, hundreds of Columbia students, led by the four-year-old Coalition for a Free South Africa (CFSA), initiated a blockade of Hamilton Hall in the center of campus – the same hall peacefully occupied and renamed by students on Tuesday.
>The protest lasted for three weeks, drawing worldwide support. The administration photographed, videotaped and threatened student activists with disciplinary charges and expulsion. Five months later, after years of dragging its feet, the university divested from companies implicated in apartheid South Africa.
>In 2013 and 2014 a successful campaign by the Columbia Prison Divest students forced the university to divest from the private prison industry. Underlining the linkages of struggles, Students Against Mass Incarceration (Sami) sought the advice of Students for Justice in Palestine.
...
>Omar was a Palestinian student activist on campus at the time, supporting the Free South Africa Movement and highlighting striking similarities between the struggles in South Africa and Palestine to dismantle settler-colonialism and apartheid. Omar was deeply inspired by the divestment demand as a tactic to pressure a duplicitous and complicit institution. He later co-founded the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement calling for ending international state, corporate and institutional complicity in Israel’s regime of oppression against Palestinians.
The United Methodist Church marked a new era of LGBTQ inclusion by voting to lift the bans on LGBTQ clergy and on pastors performing same-sex unions. They also removed the language that said homosexuality was “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
An accused rapist who had sought to clear his name by suing one of Australia’s largest television networks for defamation has lost his case, with a judge finding that, on the balance of probabilities, he committed the crime.
>After the interview aired, Lehrmann was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, but the trial was abandoned in 2022 due to juror misconduct and not revived due to fears about Higgins’ mental health.
>Without a trial and a means to clear his name, Lehrmann turned to defamation action, claiming that Network Ten and “The Project” presenter Lisa Wilkinson damaged his reputation by providing enough information in the program for him to be identified, though he was not named.
>Network Ten and Wilkinson chose to fight the charge, mounting a truth defense, meaning that to win, the network’s lawyers needed to prove that on the balance of probabilities the rape happened.
>Lee found Monday that the two had sex that night, but Higgins was so inebriated she couldn’t possibly have given her consent – and that Lehrmann didn’t seek to obtain it.
>“I’m satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann’s state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Miss Higgins’ consent,” said Lee.
>The ruling delivers a devastating blow to Lehrmann’s attempt to clear his name. As Lee put it in his judgement: “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”
>Proponents of AI and other optimists are often ready to acknowledge the numerous problems, threats, dangers, and downright murders enabled by these systems to date. But they also dismiss critique and assuage skepticism with the promise that these casualties are themselves outliers — exceptions, flukes — or, if not, they are imminently fixable with the right methodological tweaks.
>Common practices of technology development can produce this kind of naivete. Alberto Toscano calls this a “Culture of Abstraction.” He argues that logical abstraction, core to computer science and other scientific analysis, influences how we perceive real-world phenomena. This abstraction away from the particular and toward idealized representations produces and sustains apolitical conceits in science and technology. We are led to believe that if we can just “de-bias” the data and build in logical controls for “non-discrimination,” the techno-utopia will arrive, and the returns will come pouring in. The argument here is that these adverse consequences are unintended. The assumption is that the intention of algorithmic inference systems is always good — beneficial, benevolent, innovative, progressive.
>Stafford Beer gave us an effective analytical tool to evaluate a system without getting sidetracked arguments about intent rather than its real impact. This tool is called POSIWID and it stands for “The Purpose of a System Is What It Does.” This analytical frame provides “a better starting point for understanding a system than a focus on designers’ or users’ intention or expectations.”
Exclusive: ITV is considering taking paid ads from parties on its streaming platform where ban does not apply
>But the ban – last updated in 2003 – only applies to traditional television channels and not to streaming television delivered over the internet. With audiences increasingly switching off traditional broadcast channels, the UK’s big political parties are preparing to take advantage of the loophole and pay millions of pounds to insert themselves into living rooms.
>Tom Edmonds, who ran digital advertising campaigns for the Conservatives in the 2010s, said politicians were desperate to pay to access screens. He said if British broadcasters did not run such ads, US tech companies would happily take the money. “You are going to see political ads on your TV. A lot of it will go on YouTube because you can get it in HD on your TV,” he added.
>In the past, British political parties did not have enough money to buy campaign adverts. But Labour and the Conservatives are set to take advantage of a little-noticed rule change announced last year by Michael Gove, which will increase the amount national political parties can spend on a general election campaign from £19.5m in 2019 to £35m for the next general election.
An anti-fascist coalition of various factions assigns blame ahead of time for a coming calamity. A series about the election. Differentiators: Part 2.
>Maybe, to the extend that we are institutionalists, we need to recognize that our vote doesn't free us from any other obligations between elections. Maybe we need to recognize the ways our commitment to institutions that abuse others have caused abused people to despair and mistrust us. Maybe we need to admit how we were wrong about the nature of our institutions, how we believed they protected and benefitted everyone simply because they protected and benefitted us. Some of us, if we are particularly unthreatened by fascism and particularly benefitted by supremacy, might need to realize that listening and following are more effective anti-fascist actions for us now than speaking and leading.
>Or maybe, to the extent that we are anti-institutionalist, we need to recognize that our anti-institutional alignment doesn't mean we aren't still culpable to the degree we are, and recognize that if we are taking that alignment primarily to evade culpability, we're still aligning ourselves spiritually with that institutional supremacy. Maybe we need to recognize that while elections aren't the only thing, they are still a thing. Maybe we need to recognize that just as voting doesn't free us from whatever culpability we carry, not voting doesn't free us, either.
If I have the right zoom level to make the text in the feed a sensible size, the font size in the threads is too small to read easily. Correct the zoom level in the thread and the font size in the feed becomes way too large.
This has long been a problem and I'm not sure why this is suddenly irritating me more than usual. Is it just me? Is there a setting I'm missing?
E2A: It's likely a browser issue. I've found a workaround, thanks all.
This isn’t its first failure, yet the tech giant is so embedded in the public sector that it seems invincible, says Sam Fowles, a barrister, author and broadcaster
Summary linked, long version here: https://www.jfsa.org.uk/uploads/5/4/3/1/54312921/origins_of_a_disaster_-summary-_eleanor_shaikh.pdf
Both hosted by jfsa.org.uk, the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance website.
>Driven by wider political agendas which included the protection of Japanese inward investment in UK plc, Blair ruled that the Post Office must purchase a salvaged version of Horizon. Insufficient work had been done to determine the viability of this option and the Post Office itself was adamantly opposed to the idea. Right up until the day before the Prime Minister’s decision, the Post Office were vociferous; they wished to terminate Horizon and start afresh with a new supplier. In any event, they argued they would need months to assess his chosen solution:
>>‘POCL believe that the hardware and software is probably sub-optimal as the platform for providing network banking and Modern Government services, but would need several months' work to have a clear view.'
Clauses in the former CEO’s contract could easily be enforced – but the whole rotten saga goes deeper
And all the others, thanks.
"Vennells’s incentive payments add up to £2.2m over the course of her time in charge. She may note that when James Crosby, former boss of HBOS, gave up his knighthood in 2013 after a parliamentary committee found he “sowed the seeds” of destruction at the bank, he volunteered to surrender 30% of his pension entitlement. Those were the days before clawback clauses but Crosby was nodding to the principle that giving up a gong is not enough. In a post-clawback world, matters should be simpler: the rules are meant to insist on repayment of bonuses. If the relevant clauses aren’t triggered in Vennells’s case, when would they be?
"None of which is to deny that the rotten saga goes further than her. The politicians with oversight roles of the state-owned Post Office clearly have questions to answer, as do the relevant executives at Fujitsu, supplier of the dodgy IT software. But, among the business crew at the top of the Post Office over the years, the two chairs during Vennells’s time must explain why they backed the executives to the hilt."
The head of Harvard’s fate was sealed when she became the focus of a culture war battle over antisemitism, plagiarism and free speech
As the Post Office (Horizon/Fujitsu) scandal is getting more coverage this week, I thought this accountancy blog (which talks about an accompanying video, for those who like video) might be of interest. I've been following this story for years but this is the first thing I've read that gets into the detail of what went wrong with the software.
>The Post Office trial is one of the few cases where an in-depth examination of system failures is made public and so it’s a valuable lesson to learn from. Even simple problems like maintaining a stock balance become complex when part of a distributed system. Techniques like ACID transactions can reduce the likelihood of errors but real implementations will sometimes fail. When a system processes a large number of transactions, this small probability of failure can add up to frequent errors. I hope that the presumption that computers operate correctly is revisited, and the factors revealed by the Post Office trial are taken into account when doing so.
Exclusive: Tory peer and husband, Douglas Barrowman, had repeatedly denied roles in firm given £200m government Covid contracts
>The Conservative peer Michelle Mone has acknowledged for the first time that she was involved with a company that was awarded government PPE contracts worth £200m during the Covid pandemic.
>Lady Mone’s husband, Douglas Barrowman, has also acknowledged for the first time that he was involved in the company, PPE Medpro.
>A representative of Barrowman told the Guardian that the Isle of Man-based businessman was an investor in PPE Medpro, and chaired and led the operation to supply personal protective equipment.
>The admissions raise questions about years of denials from the couple. Until now, Mone and Barrowman have consistently and emphatically denied to the Guardian, via lawyers, that they were involved in the company.
The investigation is ongoing. I very much hope this admission is a sign that it is getting somewhere.
>In the August 6, 1945 edition, under the blaring headline: FIRST ATOMIC BOMB DROPPED ON JAPAN; TRUMAN WARNS FOE OF A ‘RAIN OF RUIN,’” the New York Times traced the simultaneously terrifying and wondrous development of the atomic bomb, its scientific history, and the race between the Allies and the Germans to build it and use it first.
>Somewhere below the fold, buried in a long paragraph, this sentence appeared, as if highlighted in neon: “The key component that allowed the Allies to develop the bomb was brought to the Allies by a female, ‘non-Aryan’ physicist.”
>I scanned the next paragraph looking for the name of this “non-Aryan” woman. No name. No photo. Nothing.
>These periodic episodes of killing and destruction, which Israeli commentators and politicians cynically call “mowing the lawn,” have been a price Israel was willing to pay to avoid being pushed toward a two-state solution. We chose to “manage” the conflict through a combination of brute force and economic incentives, instead of working to solve it by ending our perpetual occupation of Palestinian territory.
>Many of my Palestinian human rights partners who organize nonviolent protests are targeted and harassed by the Israeli military. I believe these policies have the goal of preventing pressure for a Palestinian state and permitting Israeli settlement development and creeping annexation in the West Bank.
>For years, many of us on the left in Israel have been warning that we will never have peace and security until we find a political agreement in which Palestinians achieve freedom and independence. It isn’t just human rights activists taking this position: Even Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, has argued for years that Palestinian terror can be defeated only by creating Palestinian hope.
The mainstream media’s relentless dehumanization of Palestinians is enabling Israeli war crimes.
