leicsmac

Yoon was always a piece of work. Didn't think he'd go this far to use and abuse his power, though - he's not even got universal support from within his own party on this one. I just hope this doesn't get too bad.

I honestly don't know what the best way forward is on that topic. Darkly humorous that the world is having to consider these decisions because a few million people who likely have never left their state decided that their eggs were a little too expensive for their own personal liking.

I can sort of understand Starmer hedging his bets here some but you're absolutely right here, and I'd add that in terms of social values, scientific policy and basic human rights the UK should align a lot more with a lot of European nations (with a few exceptions) than with the incoming US administration too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy89x13xle5o Drumpf isn't going to give you a biscuit if you act the poodle, Mr Starmer. Act accordingly.

I think the writer is emphasising exactly that. Edit: I reckon that everyone has a different calculus for ends justifying means.

Something I came across earlier WRT the current Biden discussion, from a "proper" leftist: I never thought I'd say this, as I very much don't like the guy, but good for Joe Biden. Good move, Joe. Stick it to them. Personally, I don't give a **** about what Hunter Biden did. I will fully admit that haven't bothered with learning all the details, but I don't need to. Because compared to the crimes of Trump, of which he will never really be really held accountable for, anything that Hunter Biden did was akin to a kid stealing from a candy store. And the degree to which prosecuting him was a politically motivated witch hunt should be brutally obvious to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by a red hat. I can only hope that such a move isn't isolated, that maybe, just maybe, the Dems have finally learned (too little too late but still) that the "moral high ground" is ****ing meaningless when the other side is as committed to playing as dirty as the GOP does. Yes, go against your word. Meet them at their level. Stop acting as though American politics is an intramural kids' sporting league and show some ****ing teeth. It is truly the only way forward when the side committed to playing dirty is also the side that wants to destroy democracy and usher in a tyrannical religious theocracy. Biden just showed his teeth for once. Let him be a guiding beacon for the rest of the party. Edit: to pre-empt possible comments, posting this purely for the purpose of discussion, I don't have a good/bad take on it myself.

Well, he had enough time to incite an insurrection attempt and to pardon at least few of his buddies, if you look at the list, but yes, point made. Agreed, though given the maxim "when they go low, we go high" has led us to, well, this...

In this regard, pretty much. I'll be the first to point out that the two "sides" in the US share several qualities, but then there's enough that differs between them to be meaningful, too. And yeah, it most certainly is a rather crazy world. One might hope that it doesn't get much crazier.

And it's not like January 6th insurrectionists aren't about to get out of jail free either.

Thank you, antivax BS by the likes of Bridgen on social media.

Yeah, this is just about where I come out too, but I would have abstained tbh.

If that's true (and it's entirely possible), then I would be curious to know exactly what form it would take that would allow us to have more control over pain and consciousness/action as someone approaches the end of their life due to a terrible illness than we have already. I understand the arguments being made here and they're legit, but for them to be truly workable in terms of policy one has to offer more for the terminally ill than just sympathy/"thoughts and prayers" and the concept of an idea.

... which is nothing compared to the societal pressure put on blokes by other blokes.

Good hitting and building the lead here.

Fair to say. For me, I see the idea of someone suffering terribly and for a long time, with people (or not) around them unable or unwilling to nullify the pain they're in, and think that denying them the other option to end that pain, is unconscionable. But on the other side, the safeguards for something like this have to be utterly ironclad because the moment someone dies not entirely of their own free will, the entire idea is invalidated. And I'm not sure how you guarantee something like that. Edit: I struggle with it a lot at a personal level tbh, is pain worse than death, or the other way round?

Yeah, there clearly were numerous secular people on the No side too. It's clearly a very complex and fraught ethical debate, and both sides made legit ethical points. I would have abstained, if I had the choice to do so.

From the Beeb: Harry Brook now has seven centuries from just 36 Test innings - a ton every 5.1 times he goes out to bat. Only three players in history can better that: Clyde Walcott (4.9), George Headley (4.0) and Don Bradman (2.8) The Don making everyone else look tame again.

https://www.guerillacricket.com/ Also, Brook is some talent.

Time is the most valuable resource for exactly this reason. Every other resource, at a fundamental level, is a means to utilise it as best a person can.

Case in point re yesterday's discussion: the front page of the Telegraph features on the Chagos Islands and on energy policy - tacitly backing what the incoming Trump administration would do (wrong on both counts) over what the UK are doing at the present time (correct on both counts). Not lies, but encouraging the wrong side of the discussion rather than merely reporting it.

I think it's as close as one is going to get. Reuters and Associated Press are good for bare bones factual reports, though.

Because unfortunately people pay more to be told what they want to hear than what really is.

Agreed. The Times is really the only one I'd take at face value most of the time.

Until it's verified by another reputable source, I think it's best to treat it with speculation as at the very least it could be embellished in a way that's sensationalist enough to get clicks but not enough to be libel. Goodness knows that happens often enough with the 'Graph.

No, but an observation about recent developments on it; why anyone with a modicum of sense or empathy would believe one word of what the Telegraph prints, about Leicester City or otherwise, perplexes me.