<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in the
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in medical
experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more civilized >countries.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>> >>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations"
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>>
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>> >>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>> >>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" >>>>>>>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>> >>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>> >>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenThere were venereal disease experiments on prisoners at a US federal >penitentiary:
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_Haute_prison_experiments
As an aside there has been a horrific history which shows how states do
vary per treatment of prisoners. After Reconstruction failed with the >nefarious Compromise of 1877 numerous Southern states were able to
re-enslave blacks via the 13th Amendment using dubious means such as >“vagrancy” laws. They would then lease convicts out to private entities and
gain county and state revenue. See _Slavery by Another Name: The >Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II_ by >Douglas A. Blackmon or the PBS documentary by the same name. Alabama was >notorious for this revenue generating practice.
In addition to the sickening legal (Constitutional) practice of convict >leasing there was debt peonage where one could not quit a job if money was >owed to an employer. It has been alleged railroad corporations in Florida >took part in these practices of convict leasing and debt peonage that fell >not only upon blacks but also immigrants. There’s a chapter in _Journalism >and Jim Crow : white supremacy and the black struggle for a new America_ >edited by Kathy Roberts Forde and Sid Bedingfield that focuses largely on >Henry Flagler’s railroad building in south Florida and the Keys.
So this aspect of Jim Crow devolved upon the various states but was
dependent upon the 13th amendment which ironically freed the slaves. Also >ironic is at roughly the same time the 14th amendment which was intended to >apply to freed blacks, was co-opted to protect the rights of corporate >“personhood”.
Nowadays the focus is upon private prisons in the US and also mass >incarceration which was a process that dovetailed with the War on Drugs
from the Nixon Era, but bumped up under Reagan and especially after Clinton >signed a crime bill propagandized largely on the black youth >“superpredator” myth. Yes this was at the federal level but inspired the >states. See the Netflix documentary “13th” and _Superpredator: Bill >Clinton’s use and abuse of black america _ by Nathan J. Robinson.
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>> >>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations"
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>> >>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>> >>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" >>>>>>>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>> >>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>> >>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
The US is a mess with the way the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” onto the states, more recently the 2nd amendment versus 10th amendment assertions of “states rights” and the ironically named political philosophy
of “federalism” whereby powers devolve to states but the federal government
can coerce via highway funding as happened with the drinking age in the fabled Reagan Era.
This incarceration reduction organ bill may not pass: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64488678
It is a state initiative, progressive Massachusetts oddly.
If the US were more civilized as a whole we would treat our prisoners more humanely and use an actual rehab philosophy instead of retribution and actually incarcerate far fewer people.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:The US is a mess with the way the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” >onto the states, more recently the 2nd amendment versus 10th amendment >assertions of “states rights” and the ironically named political philosophy
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>> >>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" >>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>> >>>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>> >>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
of “federalism” whereby powers devolve to states but the federal government
can coerce via highway funding as happened with the drinking age in the >fabled Reagan Era.
This incarceration reduction organ bill may not pass: >https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64488678
It is a state initiative, progressive Massachusetts oddly.
If the US were more civilized as a whole we would treat our prisoners more >humanely and use an actual rehab philosophy instead of retribution and >actually incarcerate far fewer people.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participatemedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal >>>>>> in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:The US is a mess with the way the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” onto the states, more recently the 2nd amendment versus 10th amendment assertions of “states rights” and the ironically named political philosophy
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>> >>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" >>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>> >>>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>> >>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
of “federalism” whereby powers devolve to states but the federal government
can coerce via highway funding as happened with the drinking age in the fabled Reagan Era.
This incarceration reduction organ bill may not pass: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64488678
It is a state initiative, progressive Massachusetts oddly.
If the US were more civilized as a whole we would treat our prisoners more humanely and use an actual rehab philosophy instead of retribution and actually incarcerate far fewer people.
On 2/2/23 3:19 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:The US is a mess with the way the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated”
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" >>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>> >>>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>>
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
onto the states, more recently the 2nd amendment versus 10th amendment assertions of “states rights” and the ironically named political philosophy
of “federalism” whereby powers devolve to states but the federal government
can coerce via highway funding as happened with the drinking age in the fabled Reagan Era.
This incarceration reduction organ bill may not pass: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64488678
It is a state initiative, progressive Massachusetts oddly.
If the US were more civilized as a whole we would treat our prisoners more humanely and use an actual rehab philosophy instead of retribution and actually incarcerate far fewer people.It's left over from our long history of slavery. Most Americans don't realize that slavery is still legal in the US. The 13th Amendment
prohibited most slavery, but left it available for people convicted of crimes. Ergo, people in power started convicting blacks of crimes.
Whether they were guilty or not, of course, was irrelevant.
That does not go on quite so overtly today, but the tradition of huge
prison populations now has its own momentum.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal >>>>>>> in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals.
Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a
few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
How many of them are confined to just a few states?
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>> if>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals.
Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a
few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France,
Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
How many of them are confined to just a few states?
One I forgot to mention was
10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrtAnd that affects the argument how?
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>> if>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals.
Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a
few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues
within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are over-generalizations.
How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France,
Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
How many of them are confined to just a few states?
One I forgot to mention was
10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:.........
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>> if>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a >>> few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.The US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are over-generalizations.
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere,I think the closest thing to gerrymandering in England would be "rotten boroughs" which have mostly or entirely been eradicated by now.
but on the wider issue of
government corruption, the US scores rather well in comparison to the
rest of the world but worse than most of Europe. I have no idea how
urban development rates, or even how to rate it.
On the other hand, the US also leads the world in quality of college education.
How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, >>> Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana, >>> Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
How many of them are confined to just a few states?
One I forgot to mention was
10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>> if>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade
negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and >>> Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a
few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
.........I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA. ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are over-generalizations.The US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere,I think the closest thing to gerrymandering in England would be "rotten boroughs" which have mostly or entirely been eradicated by now.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and early
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and early
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >> >>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>>> if>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>>>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >>>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a >>>> few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues
within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are
over-generalizations.
The US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun >ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere, but on the wider issue of >government corruption, the US scores rather well in comparison to the
rest of the world but worse than most of Europe. I have no idea how
urban development rates, or even how to rate it.
On the other hand, the US also leads the world in quality of college >education.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), the following90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and early
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>> >>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
But obviously, that's *different*!
/sarc
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >> >>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
That's an odd guess coming from someone with a history of postingsorry, but that was me agreeing with your point?
about legal, logical, and grammatical distinctions both subtle and
profound.
--
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:.........
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenThe US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >> >>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >> >>>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >> >>>>>>>>> in>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
And that affects the argument how?
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >> >>>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >> >>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a >> >>> few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues
within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are
over-generalizations.
ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere,I think the closest thing to gerrymandering in England would be "rotten boroughs" which have mostly or entirely been eradicated by now.
but on the wider issue of
government corruption, the US scores rather well in comparison to the
rest of the world but worse than most of Europe. I have no idea how
urban development rates, or even how to rate it.
On the other hand, the US also leads the world in quality of college
education.
How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, >> >>> Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana, >> >>> Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
How many of them are confined to just a few states?
One I forgot to mention was
10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:33:33 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:.........
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenThe US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Ãö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>>>>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >>>>>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and >>>>>> Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a >>>>>> few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed; >>>>>> 6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues
within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are
over-generalizations.
ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere,I think the closest thing to gerrymandering in England would be "rotten
boroughs" which have mostly or entirely been eradicated by now.
Up until the 1970s, the British Government tolerated extensive gerrymandering of electoral areas in Northern Ireland to ensure a
Unionist majority in councils running Nationalist areas. It was one of
the issues that led to the Civil Rights campaign of the late 1960s and eventually resulted in "The Troubles" there.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:20:55 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal >>>>>>>>>>> in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>>>>
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>>>>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim >>>>>>>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >>>>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and >>>>> Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a >>>>> few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues
within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are
over-generalizations.
The US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun
ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere, but on the wider issue of
government corruption, the US scores rather well in comparison to the
rest of the world but worse than most of Europe. I have no idea how
urban development rates, or even how to rate it.
On the other hand, the US also leads the world in quality of college
education.
Ok, so the topic has pole vaulted from state prisoner policies, to any
and all controversial social and/or political issues being argued
about in the US. I'm shocked... SHOCKED I say... nobody mentioned
rights of indigenous peoples. Gish Gallop much?
IIUC Athel tacitly agreed with my point, that state policies aren't a
valid measure of US as a nation. So AFAIC there's nothing relevant to
add to his OP or this topic.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrtAnd that affects the argument how?
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and early90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.And that affects the argument how?
early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the caseI guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and
patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics.
They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar
thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs so
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by
such idea.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:33:33 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"And influenced by MLK they were. Its been decades since I had read much,
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:.........
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenThe US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenNowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And that affects the argument how?
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, ?ö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade >>>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
in more>>>>>>>> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt >>>>>>>>>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>>>>>>>
I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment >>>>>>>>>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved. >>>>>>>>>
Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...
Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals. >>>>>>> Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and >>>>>>> Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a >>>>>>> few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:
1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed; >>>>>>> 6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.
I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues >>>>> within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA. >>>>> ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are
over-generalizations.
ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere,I think the closest thing to gerrymandering in England would be "rotten
boroughs" which have mostly or entirely been eradicated by now.
Up until the 1970s, the British Government tolerated extensive
gerrymandering of electoral areas in Northern Ireland to ensure a
Unionist majority in councils running Nationalist areas. It was one of
the issues that led to the Civil Rights campaign of the late 1960s and
eventually resulted in "The Troubles" there.
but I do recall the We Shall Overcome chant in this movie:
https://youtu.be/bRIJIzXUEcc
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:35:14 AM UTC, jillery wrote:early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >> >> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >> >> >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >> >> > government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
That's an odd guess coming from someone with a history of postingsorry, but that was me agreeing with your point?
about legal, logical, and grammatical distinctions both subtle and
profound.
--
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 00:05:33 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:35:14 AM UTC, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >> >> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >> >> >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >> >> > government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
I can't tell if you're asking me or telling me. If the latter, IThat's an odd guess coming from someone with a history of postingsorry, but that was me agreeing with your point?
about legal, logical, and grammatical distinctions both subtle and
profound.
--
apologize for misinterpreting your comments. Please disregard my misinterpretation as a late side-effect of posts from others.
--
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.And that affects the argument how?
early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the caseI guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and
patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics. They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs soRecent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists still
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by
such idea.
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in thisexample as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in >> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federalAnd that affects the argument how?
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the caseI guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics. They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs so why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked byRecent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists still
such idea.
Yes there are always good doctors continuing doing it: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From 1997 to 2013, approximately
1,400 inmates were sterilized in California prisons."
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to get rid and compensate. USA tries to extend to organ harvesting.Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federalAnd that affects the argument how?
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
and early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the caseI guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s
find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics.
They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs so why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by such idea.Recent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists still
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.Yes there are always good doctors continuing doing it: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From 1997 to 2013, approximately
1,400 inmates were sterilized in California prisons."
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
US has many, many problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian idiots.EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to get rid and compensate. USA triesWell, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The
to extend to organ harvesting.
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federalAnd that affects the argument how?
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
and early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the caseI guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s
still find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics.
They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar
thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs soRecent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and
Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by such idea.
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.Yes there are always good doctors continuing doing it: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From 1997 to 2013, approximately
1,400 inmates were sterilized in California prisons."
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
US has many, many problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian idiots.EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to get rid and compensate. USA triesWell, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The
to extend to organ harvesting.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to point at others.I'm not sure that's true. The USA's authoritarian idiots are pretty sure they are right about their authoritarian views and make no effort at all to hide them. As to pointing at others, most in the US are sufficiently unfamiliar with European politics
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee
wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard
wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,
oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13
UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at
7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02
05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb
2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01
17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>> > > > > > >>> Brilliant
idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>> > > > > > >>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>>
legal in more> > > > > > >> civilized>countries.> > > > > > >> > > > >I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>certainly fair ... no doubt there.> > > > > > >>> > > > >
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been
legal wrt> > > > > > > prisoners in state penitentiaries areIIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not
established not by the federal> > > > > > > government but by the
separate states, of which there are fifty.> > > > > > And that affects
the argument how?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess in the same
way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE
French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if
someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous
communities in the 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when
challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case> >
Eugenics.> > > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of USIn Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and>
patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of
there was similar> > > > thing but on basis of Racism. And in some
Immigration and Customs> > > > Enforcements they do it 2020.> > > >> >
Sweden and> > > > Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would beBut that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after
deeply shocked by> > > > such idea.> > > Recent inquiries indicate that
the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full
swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have
continued until very recently or may still be continuing
-gynaecologists still find women who are unable to conceive, only to
find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted
in them, some of them causing persistent pain.> > Yes there are always
good doctors continuing doing it:> >
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From1997 to 2013, approximately> > 1,400 inmates were sterilized in
California prisons."> > >> > > But this was also not my point, that
would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact
that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would
be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal
by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from
things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction
to the federal entity.> > EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to
get rid and compensate. USA tries> > to extend to organ harvesting.
Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of
lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious
things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties
of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has many, many
problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian
idiots.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
point at others.
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee
wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard
wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,
oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13
UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at
7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02
05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb
2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01
17:42:38 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>> > > > > > >>> Brilliant
idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>> > > > > > >>> >> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>>
legal in more> > > > > > >> civilized>countries.> > > > > > >> > > > >certainly fair ... no doubt there.> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > >> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in> >> > > > > > >> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been
legal wrt> > > > > > > prisoners in state penitentiaries areIIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not
established not by the federal> > > > > > > government but by the
separate states, of which there are fifty.> > > > > > And that affects
the argument how?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess in the same
way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE
French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if
someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous
communities in the 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when
challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case> > >> > > In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and> >> > > > patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of
Eugenics.> > > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US
there was similar> > > > thing but on basis of Racism. And in some
Immigration and Customs> > > > Enforcements they do it 2020.> > > >> >
Sweden and> > > > Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would beBut that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after
deeply shocked by> > > > such idea.> > > Recent inquiries indicate that >> the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full
swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have >> continued until very recently or may still be continuing
-gynaecologists still find women who are unable to conceive, only to
find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted >> in them, some of them causing persistent pain.> > Yes there are always
good doctors continuing doing it:> >
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From >> 1997 to 2013, approximately> > 1,400 inmates were sterilized inCalifornia prisons."> > >> > > But this was also not my point, that
would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact
that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would
be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal
by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from
things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction
to the federal entity.> > EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to
get rid and compensate. USA tries> > to extend to organ harvesting.
Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of
lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious
things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties
of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has many, many
problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian
idiots.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to point at others.As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:49:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >>>> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>> >>>> >>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >>>> >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>> > government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
But obviously, that's *different*!
/sarc
Actually it's orthogonal to the OP.
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee
wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard
wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,
oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13
UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at
7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02
05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb
2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01
17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>> > > > > > >>> Brilliant
idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>> > > > > > >>> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>>
legal in more> > > > > > >> civilized>countries.> > > > > > >> > > > >certainly fair ... no doubt there.> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > >> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in> >>> > > > > > >> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been
legal wrt> > > > > > > prisoners in state penitentiaries areIIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not
established not by the federal> > > > > > > government but by the
separate states, of which there are fifty.> > > > > > And that affects
the argument how?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess in the same
way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE
French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if
someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous
communities in the 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when
challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case> > >>> > > In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and> >>> > > > patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of
Eugenics.> > > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US
there was similar> > > > thing but on basis of Racism. And in some
Immigration and Customs> > > > Enforcements they do it 2020.> > > >> >
Sweden and> > > > Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would beBut that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after
deeply shocked by> > > > such idea.> > > Recent inquiries indicate that >>> the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full
swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have >>> continued until very recently or may still be continuing
-gynaecologists still find women who are unable to conceive, only to
find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted >>> in them, some of them causing persistent pain.> > Yes there are always
good doctors continuing doing it:> >
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From >>> 1997 to 2013, approximately> > 1,400 inmates were sterilized inCalifornia prisons."> > >> > > But this was also not my point, that
would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact
that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would
be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal
by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from
things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction
to the federal entity.> > EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to
get rid and compensate. USA tries> > to extend to organ harvesting.
Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of
lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious
things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties
of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has many, many
problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian
idiots.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't >suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >> > > > >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate inmedical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >> > > > >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >> > > > > government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts andRecent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists still
patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics.
They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar
thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs
Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs so
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and
Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by
such idea.
Yes there are always good doctors continuing doing it: ><https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From 1997 to 2013, approximately
1,400 inmates were sterilized in California prisons."
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to get rid and compensate. USA tries >to extend to organ harvesting.
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:and early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in >> > > > > >> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >> > > > > And that affects the argument how?
find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts andRecent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists still
patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics. >> > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar
thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs
Enforcements they do it 2020.
But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs so
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and
Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by
such idea.
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.Yes there are always good doctors continuing doing it:
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From 1997 to 2013, approximately
1,400 inmates were sterilized in California prisons."
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
has many, many problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian idiots.EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to get rid and compensate. USA tries >> to extend to organ harvesting.Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 01:30:18 -0500, the following appearedearly 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:49:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd that affects the argument how?
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >>>>> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in >>>>> >> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >>>>> >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>> > government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
His first sentence? Yes, or simply irrelevant. Of course, heBut obviously, that's *different*!
/sarc
Actually it's orthogonal to the OP.
did say it was facetious...
As for his second sentence, the "less facetious" one, I
disagree that it was orthogonal; both were about fascist (or
communist, a distinction without a difference among
collectivist philosophies) actions by governments, that only
the state is important.
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:10:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 01:30:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:49:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>> >>>>>> >>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
certainly fair ... no doubt there.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in >>>>>> >> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more >>>>>> >> civilized>countries.
IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal >>>>>> > government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty. >>>>>> And that affects the argument how?
His first sentence? Yes, or simply irrelevant. Of course, heBut obviously, that's *different*!
/sarc
Actually it's orthogonal to the OP.
did say it was facetious...
As for his second sentence, the "less facetious" one, I
disagree that it was orthogonal; both were about fascist (or
communist, a distinction without a difference among
collectivist philosophies) actions by governments, that only
the state is important.
The OP and Tiib's larger point isn't about governmental
"collectivist philosophies", but instead is a rather mindless
criticism of USA as a nation.
Roman Hruska's infamous wish that mediocre people be represented is
not only fulfilled, but those mediocre people are actual
representatives. Recent events have affirmed those mediocre
representatives have no problem authoring and submitting willfully
stupid bills like the kind cited in the OP. However, a submitted bill
in a state legislature, and from a very small state at that, doesn't
inform the state of USA.
It could be argued that laissez faire theory would accept not just
prisoners but all citizens to sell off their organs. It could and
should be argued that prisoners aren't in a position to legally
negotiate such contracts, any more than minors are in a position to
consent to sexual activity with adults.
In the USA and other countries, there are multiple levels of
government. When discussing individual liberties, "state" may refer
to any and/or all levels of government, and/or societal standards
(think woke culture).
In the USA, "state" may refer to one or collectively all fifty states,
as opposed to federal and/or municipal/county governments, and/or to
all regulatory institutions generally including NGOs.
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Tiib said:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee>>>
wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard>>>
wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,>>>
oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13>>>
UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at>>>
7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02>>> >>>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb>>> >>>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >>>>
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01>>> >>>> 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>> > > > > > >>>
Brilliant>>> idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>> >>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade
negotiations" are>>>>>> > > > > > >>> certainly fair ... no doubt
there.> > > > > > >>> > > > >>>> > >> I don't know if it's still the
case, but it used to be common in>>>> > > > > > >> the>USA to get
prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>> > > > > > >>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been>>> legal in more> >>>> > > > > > >> civilized>countries.> > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > > IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not>>> legal wrt> >>>> > > > > > > prisoners in state penitentiaries are>>> established not by >>>> the federal> > > > > > > government but by the>>> separate states, of
which there are fifty.> > > > > > And that affects>>> the argument
how?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess in the same>>> way in which >>>> AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE>>> French", as
this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if>>> someone said >>>> that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous>>> communities in the >>>> 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when>>> challanged
pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case> >>>> > > In >>>> Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and>>>> > > >>>> > patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of>>>
Eugenics.> > > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US>>> >>>> there was similar> > > > thing but on basis of Racism. And in some>>>
Immigration and Customs> > > > Enforcements they do it 2020.> > > >>
organs>>> so> > > > why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 humanBut that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack
generations after>>> Sweden and> > > > Denmark ended sterilizing. Even >>>> Russians would be>>> deeply shocked by> > > > such idea.> > > Recent
inquiries indicate that>>> the forced sterilisation of indigenous
Icelandic women was in full>>> swing in the 1980s, and even though
officially abandoned, seems to have>>> continued until very recently or >>>> may still be continuing>>> -gynaecologists still find women who are
unable to conceive, only to>>> find that unbeknownst to them they have >>>> contraceptive devices implanted>>> in them, some of them causing
persistent pain.> > Yes there are always>>> good doctors continuing
doing it:> >>>>
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>>>>>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued.From>>> 1997 to 2013, approximately> > 1,400 inmates were sterilized
that>>> would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the >>>> fact>>> that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, >>>> would>>> be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - >>>> in this>>> example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a >>>> proposal>>> by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematicCalifornia prisons."> > >> > > But this was also not my point,
inference from>>> things that happen in member states under their
devolved jurisdiction>>> to the federal entity.> > EU carried out and
EU regrets and tries to>>> get rid and compensate. USA tries> > to
extend to organ harvesting.
Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of>>>
lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly
obnoxious>>> things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from >>>> the parties>>> of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has
many, many>>> problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on
authoritarian>>> idiots.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to>>
point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probablyballoons)>wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary
Powers. I don't>suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they
caught.
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
And pedantically, USA uses spy satellites, a technology pioneered by
Russia (think Sputnik), not spy balloons, a technology pioneered by
France (think Montgolfier).
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Tiib said:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee>>>
wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard>>> >>>>> wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,>>>
oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13>>> >>>>> UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at>>>
7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02>>> >>>>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb>>> >>>>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >>>>
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01>>> >>>>> 17:42:38 +0000, Tiib said:> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>> > > > > > >>>
Brilliant>>> idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>> >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade
negotiations" are>>>>>> > > > > > >>> certainly fair ... no doubt
there.> > > > > > >>> > > > >>>> > >> I don't know if it's still the >>>>> case, but it used to be common in>>>> > > > > > >> the>USA to get
prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>> > > > > > >>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been>>> legal in more> >>>>> > > > > > >> civilized>countries.> > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>> > > IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not>>> legal wrt> >>>>> > > > > > > prisoners in state penitentiaries are>>> established not by >>>>> the federal> > > > > > > government but by the>>> separate states, of >>>>> which there are fifty.> > > > > > And that affects>>> the argument
how?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess in the same>>> way in which >>>>> AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE>>> French", as >>>>> this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if>>> someone said >>>>> that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous>>> communities in the >>>>> 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when>>> challanged
pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case> >>>> > > In >>>>> Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and>>>> > > >>>>> > patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of>>>
Eugenics.> > > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US>>> >>>>> there was similar> > > > thing but on basis of Racism. And in some>>> >>>>> Immigration and Customs> > > > Enforcements they do it 2020.> > > >> >>>>> >>>> > > But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack >>>>> organs>>> so> > > > why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human
generations after>>> Sweden and> > > > Denmark ended sterilizing. Even >>>>> Russians would be>>> deeply shocked by> > > > such idea.> > > Recent >>>>> inquiries indicate that>>> the forced sterilisation of indigenous
Icelandic women was in full>>> swing in the 1980s, and even though
officially abandoned, seems to have>>> continued until very recently or >>>>> may still be continuing>>> -gynaecologists still find women who are
unable to conceive, only to>>> find that unbeknownst to them they have >>>>> contraceptive devices implanted>>> in them, some of them causing
persistent pain.> > Yes there are always>>> good doctors continuing
doing it:> >>>>
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>>>>>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued.From>>> 1997 to 2013, approximately> > 1,400 inmates were sterilized >>>>> in>>> California prisons."> > >> > > But this was also not my point, >>>>> that>>> would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the >>>>> fact>>> that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, >>>>> would>>> be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - >>>>> in this>>> example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a >>>>> proposal>>> by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic
inference from>>> things that happen in member states under their
devolved jurisdiction>>> to the federal entity.> > EU carried out and >>>>> EU regrets and tries to>>> get rid and compensate. USA tries> > to
extend to organ harvesting.
Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of>>>
lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly
obnoxious>>> things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from >>>>> the parties>>> of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has
many, many>>> problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on >>>>> authoritarian>>> idiots.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to>> >>>> point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probablyballoons)>wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary
Powers. I don't>suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they
caught.
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid.
When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
And pedantically, USA uses spy satellites, a technology pioneered by
Russia (think Sputnik), not spy balloons, a technology pioneered by
France (think Montgolfier).
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 08:54:00 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll get the popcorn somebody else get the beer?
Harran has the peanut concession.
I'll get the popcorn somebody else get the beer?
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee>>> >>>>> wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard>>> >>>>> wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,>>>
oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13>>> >>>>> UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at>>> >>>>> 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02>>> >>>>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb>>> >>>>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >>>>
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01>>> >>>>> 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>> > > > > > >>>
Brilliant>>> idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>> >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade
negotiations" are>>>>>> > > > > > >>> certainly fair ... no doubt
there.> > > > > > >>> > > > >>>> > >> I don't know if it's still the >>>>> case, but it used to be common in>>>> > > > > > >> the>USA to get
prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>> > > > > > >>
medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been>>> legal in more> >>>>> > > > > > >> civilized>countries.> > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>> > > IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not>>> legal wrt> >>>>> > > > > > > prisoners in state penitentiaries are>>> established not by >>>>> the federal> > > > > > > government but by the>>> separate states, of >>>>> which there are fifty.> > > > > > And that affects>>> the argument
how?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I guess in the same>>> way in which >>>>> AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE>>> French", as >>>>> this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if>>> someone said >>>>> that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous>>> communities in the >>>>> 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when>>> challanged
pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case> >>>> > > In >>>>> Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and>>>> > > >>>>> > patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of>>>
Eugenics.> > > > They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US>>> >>>>> there was similar> > > > thing but on basis of Racism. And in some>>> >>>>> Immigration and Customs> > > > Enforcements they do it 2020.> > > >> >>>>> >>>> > > But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack >>>>> organs>>> so> > > > why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human
generations after>>> Sweden and> > > > Denmark ended sterilizing. Even >>>>> Russians would be>>> deeply shocked by> > > > such idea.> > > Recent >>>>> inquiries indicate that>>> the forced sterilisation of indigenous
Icelandic women was in full>>> swing in the 1980s, and even though
officially abandoned, seems to have>>> continued until very recently or >>>>> may still be continuing>>> -gynaecologists still find women who are >>>>> unable to conceive, only to>>> find that unbeknownst to them they have >>>>> contraceptive devices implanted>>> in them, some of them causing
persistent pain.> > Yes there are always>>> good doctors continuing >>>>> doing it:> >>>>
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>>>>>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued.From>>> 1997 to 2013, approximately> > 1,400 inmates were sterilized >>>>> in>>> California prisons."> > >> > > But this was also not my point, >>>>> that>>> would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the >>>>> fact>>> that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, >>>>> would>>> be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - >>>>> in this>>> example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a >>>>> proposal>>> by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic
inference from>>> things that happen in member states under their
devolved jurisdiction>>> to the federal entity.> > EU carried out and >>>>> EU regrets and tries to>>> get rid and compensate. USA tries> > to
extend to organ harvesting.
Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of>>> >>>>> lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly
obnoxious>>> things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from >>>>> the parties>>> of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has >>>>> many, many>>> problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on >>>>> authoritarian>>> idiots.
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to>> >>>> point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probablyballoons)>wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary
Powers. I don't>suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they
caught.
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
And pedantically, USA uses spy satellites, a technology pioneered by
Russia (think Sputnik), not spy balloons, a technology pioneered by
France (think Montgolfier).
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:[snip]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
Politicians know who gets them and keeps them in power, and those are >generally the people they support, or act on behalf of. In the US,
contrary voters have in the past been mixed together well enough that >politicians had to support all of them in order to support their base,
but that has been lessening over the decades as communities
self-segregate. Gerrymandering also contributes; its purpose is to
reduce the number of people that a politician needs to satisfy.
In autocracies, the leader needs only to satisfy the army generals and
tax collectors (or other suppliers of enough income to pay the army >generals). They can let the rest go to hell without serious negative >consequences to themselves. That's why dictatorships tend to be so hellish.
These are basic principles of Selectorate theory >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory). I find the subject >attractive as the only example of political science I have encountered
which comes close to justifying the word "science".
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in thisexample as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:[snip]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
Same as when U-2s were sent over Cuba that bookended the Cuban Missile >Crisis:
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/the-cuban-missile-crisis-pilot-whose-death-may-have-saved-millions
After U-2 pilot Rudolf Anderson was shot down and we were even closer to
the brink of nuclear exchange:
“Military leaders overwhelmingly urged Kennedy to launch airstrikes against >Cuba’s air defenses the following morning. The president, however, >correctly suspected that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had not authorized >the downing of unarmed reconnaissance planes, and he didn’t want to abandon >diplomacy just yet…”
Kennedy was acting on behalf of the nation just as he did when authorizing >the ill-fated Bay of Bigs fiasco.
And when U-2 singer Bono, himself something of a douche, twisted Dubya to
do more to battle AIDS in Africa, the latter acted on behalf of the US:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna28605888
Of course when Ike’s CIA got involved with ousting Arbenz in Guatemala and >Mosaddegh in Iran that was on behalf of the whole nation as was Ollie >North’s shenanigans during Iran-Contra.
When the Reagan administration strong-armed states using the threat against >highway funds to each raise the drinking age to 21 that shows the quirky >division of powers at play in our gov’t.
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it wasintroduced. As of this past wednesday:
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowbacksaid. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,” he
Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.treatment.”
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than >>half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >>same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
as are (irrelevant, from the OP, which was
specifically about a single state) comments about US spy
activities, by plane or otherwise. That said...
As for the fact that only 60% choose to vote, one can only
assume that voting, and democratic procedures in general,
are unimportant to the others, and that they are willing to
let the 60% choose for them. So in reality 100% of those for
whom voting is important do so, and, due to the lag in
accurate representation caused by the 10-year census cycle,
the number of electoral votes is only close to accurate and
you are correct that the president can be elected with
slightly less than half of the votes cast.
I'd note that setting up "safe districts" is also
Politicians know who gets them and keeps them in power, and those are >>generally the people they support, or act on behalf of. In the US, >>contrary voters have in the past been mixed together well enough that >>politicians had to support all of them in order to support their base,
but that has been lessening over the decades as communities
self-segregate. Gerrymandering also contributes; its purpose is to
reduce the number of people that a politician needs to satisfy.
gerrymandering.
Point; I'd note that "computer science" shares that, in
In autocracies, the leader needs only to satisfy the army generals and
tax collectors (or other suppliers of enough income to pay the army >>generals). They can let the rest go to hell without serious negative >>consequences to themselves. That's why dictatorships tend to be so hellish. >>
These are basic principles of Selectorate theory >>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory). I find the subject >>attractive as the only example of political science I have encountered >>which comes close to justifying the word "science".
almost all cases.
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it wasintroduced. As of this past wednesday:
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowbackhe said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,”
Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.treatment.”
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA >>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on >>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than >>>half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >>>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >>>same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect >gerrymandering?
--as are (irrelevant, from the OP, which was
specifically about a single state) comments about US spy
activities, by plane or otherwise. That said...
As for the fact that only 60% choose to vote, one can only
assume that voting, and democratic procedures in general,
are unimportant to the others, and that they are willing to
let the 60% choose for them. So in reality 100% of those for
whom voting is important do so, and, due to the lag in
accurate representation caused by the 10-year census cycle,
the number of electoral votes is only close to accurate and
you are correct that the president can be elected with
slightly less than half of the votes cast.
I'd note that setting up "safe districts" is also
Politicians know who gets them and keeps them in power, and those are >>>generally the people they support, or act on behalf of. In the US, >>>contrary voters have in the past been mixed together well enough that >>>politicians had to support all of them in order to support their base, >>>but that has been lessening over the decades as communities >>>self-segregate. Gerrymandering also contributes; its purpose is to >>>reduce the number of people that a politician needs to satisfy.
gerrymandering.
Point; I'd note that "computer science" shares that, in
In autocracies, the leader needs only to satisfy the army generals and >>>tax collectors (or other suppliers of enough income to pay the army >>>generals). They can let the rest go to hell without serious negative >>>consequences to themselves. That's why dictatorships tend to be so hellish. >>>
These are basic principles of Selectorate theory >>>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory). I find the subject >>>attractive as the only example of political science I have encountered >>>which comes close to justifying the word "science".
almost all cases.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 13:08:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:[snip]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
Same as when U-2s were sent over Cuba that bookended the Cuban Missile
Crisis:
So it's the "same" because Massachusetts sent Kennedy to the White
House? Or is it the "same" because the Star Chamber is based in
Boston?
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of
whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark
and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the
claim that "The EU carries out" - in this example as in the
Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of
lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in
member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is
settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into
serious opposition the moment it was introduced. As of this past wednesday: >>
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron
Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the
first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these
guys would give their legs to get out,” he said. “I don't know, it's
kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it
makes much sense.""
Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to
address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on
Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an
effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family
members and friends receiving life-saving treatment.”
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA >>>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >>>> are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than >>>> half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >>>> about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >>>> same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA >>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than >>> half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >>> about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect gerrymandering?
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it
he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,”
treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:30:14 PM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it
he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,
treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
"probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:35:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:30:14 PM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in
it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment
” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,
saving treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-
What is the source of your quote?"probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
Indeed you are more full
of shit than Glen, and more vulgar, too, but why you mirror
it to me?
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:20:16 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:35:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:30:14 PM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in
it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment
out,” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get
saving treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-
What is the source of your quote?"probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
You wrote it, ass hat. "probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing practice".
IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.
Indeed you are more full
of shit than Glen, and more vulgar, too, but why you mirror
it to me?
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it
he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,”
treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the
promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially
if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and
you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases prohibit this outright.
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in >>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA >>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on >>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than >>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than >>>half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >>>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need >>>50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >>>same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect >gerrymandering?
I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:50:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
...
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without theAs a completely useless bit of pedantry, the two letter abbreviation MS
promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal
prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases prohibit this outright.
is used for Massachusetts by the US Coast Guard but everybody else
uses MA with MS being Mississippi. The M's are crowded and conflicted.
Maine ME
Maryland MD
Massachusetts MA (Coast Guard MS)
Michigan MI (Coast Guard MC)
Minnesota MN
Mississippi MS (coast Guard MI)
Missouri MO
Montana MT
And now, for those of maturity, now that you've seen this trivia,
the consequences are set.
The penalty for learning a new thing is forgetting two older things.
And having been made aware of that, you won't be able to avoid
remembering this at the expense of two older things unless you
actually would like to remember the above. In that case you will
not remember the above but will forget something else but remember
the bit about the price of trivial knowledge.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:10:17 PM UTC, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:50:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
...
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly >>> motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without theAs a completely useless bit of pedantry, the two letter abbreviation MS
promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are
typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially >>> if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and >>> you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal
prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases >>> prohibit this outright.
is used for Massachusetts by the US Coast Guard but everybody else
uses MA with MS being Mississippi. The M's are crowded and conflicted.
Maine ME
Maryland MD
Massachusetts MA (Coast Guard MS)
Michigan MI (Coast Guard MC)
Minnesota MN
Mississippi MS (coast Guard MI)
Missouri MO
Montana MT
And now, for those of maturity, now that you've seen this trivia,
the consequences are set.
The penalty for learning a new thing is forgetting two older things.
And having been made aware of that, you won't be able to avoid
remembering this at the expense of two older things unless you
actually would like to remember the above. In that case you will
not remember the above but will forget something else but remember
the bit about the price of trivial knowledge.
This is massively interesting, but who is this "Burkhard" character you
are talking to? (and who the ... am I, now that I think about it??)
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA >> >>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than >> >>>half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >> >>>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >> >>>same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the >consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 7:30:14 PM UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote: >> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this
was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it
he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,”
treatment.”
Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
general pool. So essentially if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost allAs it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are typically donations to family members - not a
There are issues with the proposal, some quite massive. Linking it to a reward is the most obvious mistake they are making - South Carolina tried the same, but backtracked and now is one of the few states where inmates can make voluntary donations.and ethics of refusing someone to donate organs. For instance, gay men were excluded from donating blood long after improved testing meant this made no longer sense, medically speaking. It was just one more way of preventing them from fully participating
The second is the widening of the possible pool of beneficiaries - beyond family to also include "friends". That of course could be a slippery slope to treat them as donations into a pool, to be used by whoever is next in line, say after a car accident.
I'm ambivalent about this. On balance, if the rewards are abolished, I'd be in favour. a) because it can save lives, obviously. But b) because I would argue it is in the benefit of the donor too. Full disclosure, I have a half-finished paper on the law
into a sale, and is a bad idea indeed.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the followingbit of an apple and pear comparison though. First, there are countries like Australia, Belgium or Greece where voting is mandatory - and which for that reason alone have an extremely high coverage of voters in the ID schemes, so we can leave these
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it. >> >>>>
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole >> >>>> nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than >> >>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >> >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need >> >>>50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver >licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be >registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the >consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and >a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
Just a couple of observations:
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
Make of that what you will.
--
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 13:47:51 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
wrote:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 7:30:14 PM UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in
was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it
he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,
treatment.”
Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving
a general pool. So essentially if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost allAs it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are typically donations to family members - not
So much for that being an example of what USA "always" does.accident.
There are issues with the proposal, some quite massive. Linking it to a reward is the most obvious mistake they are making - South Carolina tried the same, but backtracked and now is one of the few states where inmates can make voluntary donations.
The second is the widening of the possible pool of beneficiaries - beyond family to also include "friends". That of course could be a slippery slope to treat them as donations into a pool, to be used by whoever is next in line, say after a car
law and ethics of refusing someone to donate organs. For instance, gay men were excluded from donating blood long after improved testing meant this made no longer sense, medically speaking. It was just one more way of preventing them from fullyI'm ambivalent about this. On balance, if the rewards are abolished, I'd be in favour. a) because it can save lives, obviously. But b) because I would argue it is in the benefit of the donor too. Full disclosure, I have a half-finished paper on the
into a sale, and is a bad idea indeed.I share your ambivalence and your reasons for it. I do wonder if it's possible to abolish the rewards. Easy enough to eliminate any
explicit quid pro quo. Harder would be to remove implied benefits, or
even expectations. I imagine most prison administrations and parole
boards would at least consider favorably a prisoner who donated a
kidney and saved a child's life, even if it's just one part of their
overall record.
--
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:40:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:20:16 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:35:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:30:14 PM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" -
moment it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the
out,” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get
saving treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-
What is the source of your quote?"probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
You wrote it, ass hat. "probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing practice".
These two expressions differ by meaning, butt lips.
IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.
Being vulgar makes you an expert, dim wit?
Indeed you are more full
of shit than Glen, and more vulgar, too, but why you mirror
it to me?
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it. >> >>>>
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole >> >>>> nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than >> >>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >> >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >> >>>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >> >>>same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the >consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
Just a couple of observations:
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
Make of that what you will.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:55:16 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:40:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:20:16 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:35:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:30:14 PM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" -
moment it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the
get out,” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to
saving treatment.”Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-
What is the source of your quote?"probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.
You wrote it, ass hat. "probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing practice".
These two expressions differ by meaning, butt lips.Only when you attempt silly semantic games like glen. You injected your political confirmation bias into a strawman argument, dumbass.
readily available. You chose instead to remain ignorant and comment anyway. That's just plain willful fucking stupidity. Blow it out your ass.IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.
Being vulgar makes you an expert, dim wit?Reading up on the subject makes me knowledgeable enough to intelligently comment on the issue without resorting to demonstrably false speculation, asshat. The information regarding the background and status of the legislation was presented and more is
Indeed you are more full
of shit than Glen, and more vulgar, too, but why you mirror
it to me?
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it. >> >>>>
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole >> >>>> nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than >> >>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >> >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by >> >>>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the >> >>>same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the >consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
Just a couple of observations:
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
Make of that what you will.
Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:10:17 PM UTC, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Misspelling of a famous Swiss historian?
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:50:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
...
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly >>>> motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without theAs a completely useless bit of pedantry, the two letter abbreviation MS >>> is used for Massachusetts by the US Coast Guard but everybody else
promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are >>>> typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially
if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and >>>> you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal
prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases
prohibit this outright.
uses MA with MS being Mississippi. The M's are crowded and conflicted.
Maine ME
Maryland MD
Massachusetts MA (Coast Guard MS)
Michigan MI (Coast Guard MC)
Minnesota MN
Mississippi MS (coast Guard MI)
Missouri MO
Montana MT
And now, for those of maturity, now that you've seen this trivia,
the consequences are set.
The penalty for learning a new thing is forgetting two older things.
And having been made aware of that, you won't be able to avoid
remembering this at the expense of two older things unless you
actually would like to remember the above. In that case you will
not remember the above but will forget something else but remember
the bit about the price of trivial knowledge.
This is massively interesting, but who is this "Burkhard" character you
are talking to? (and who the ... am I, now that I think about it??)
There is a Chevy Chase, MD that is neither comedian nor doctor.
Chevauchee?
https://www.chevychasehistory.org/chevychase/naming-chevy-chase
Maine is full of itself, always about ME, ME, ME!
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 5:40:17 AM UTC-5, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
'murica!
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:50:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
...
No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly
motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the
promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are
typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially >> if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and
you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal
prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases >> prohibit this outright.
As a completely useless bit of pedantry, the two letter abbreviation MS
is used for Massachusetts by the US Coast Guard but everybody else
uses MA with MS being Mississippi. The M's are crowded and conflicted.
Maine ME
Maryland MD
Massachusetts MA (Coast Guard MS)
Michigan MI (Coast Guard MC)
Minnesota MN
Mississippi MS (coast Guard MI)
Missouri MO
Montana MT
And now, for those of maturity, now that you've seen this trivia,
the consequences are set.
The penalty for learning a new thing is forgetting two older things.
And having been made aware of that, you won't be able to avoid
remembering this at the expense of two older things unless you
actually would like to remember the above. In that case you will
not remember the above but will forget something else but remember
the bit about the price of trivial knowledge.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:35:17 AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:aside.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the followingbit of an apple and pear comparison though. First, there are countries like Australia, Belgium or Greece where voting is mandatory - and which for that reason alone have an extremely high coverage of voters in the ID schemes, so we can leave these
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:Just a couple of observations:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it. >> >> >>>>
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole >> >> >>>> nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than >> >> >>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >> >> >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need >> >> >>>50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and >> >a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
Make of that what you will.
--
And then we have a Napoleon problem - yes, continental European jurisdictions typically require voter ID. But the UK, just like the US, doesn't,, though some of our right wingers are at the moment spreading a lot of lies about voter fraud to get such asystem in place - they too did the math. So how can we explain this? Well, continental systems also typically have mandatory ID cards full stop - and mandatory registration at the local authority of residence to boot. And the result is an infrastructure
that the need to know who qualifies for the vote. The Burkean Britsh were shocked at what they saw, and ever since treated state-issued, mandatory ID as anathema. The US inherited and amplified this opposition to centralised and mandatory ID
So, no problems with mandatory voter ID, IF you invest massively in the infrastructure, and not only make them free for citizens, but build an infrastructure where the next office to issue them is just a few streets away, and people are constantly andactively pursued to register, Dagget's story, of course, shows the opposite approach - making it more difficult for some citizens (those less likely to vote republican) to get ID, by selectively defunding the system that issues them. And even leaving
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:I suspect that has to do with the rather unique nature of
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:Just a couple of observations:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it. >> >> >>>>
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole >> >> >>>> nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than >> >> >>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans >> >> >>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need >> >> >>>50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and >> >a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.
--Make of that what you will.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 02:35:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com>:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:Just a couple of observations:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on >> >> >>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.I suspect that has to do with the rather unique nature of
the US as a voluntary association of sovereign states,
unlike (AFAIK) any European government. The Constitution
spells out pretty clearly the limited nature of the Federal
government, most clearly in Amendment 10.
--Make of that what you will.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 00:35:30 -0800 (PST), the followingaside.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:35:17 AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the followingbit of an apple and pear comparison though. First, there are countries like Australia, Belgium or Greece where voting is mandatory - and which for that reason alone have an extremely high coverage of voters in the ID schemes, so we can leave these
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:Just a couple of observations:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on >> >> >>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
Make of that what you will.
--
a system in place - they too did the math. So how can we explain this? Well, continental systems also typically have mandatory ID cards full stop - and mandatory registration at the local authority of residence to boot. And the result is anAnd then we have a Napoleon problem - yes, continental European jurisdictions typically require voter ID. But the UK, just like the US, doesn't,, though some of our right wingers are at the moment spreading a lot of lies about voter fraud to get such
actively pursued to register, Dagget's story, of course, shows the opposite approach - making it more difficult for some citizens (those less likely to vote republican) to get ID, by selectively defunding the system that issues them. And even leavingthat the need to know who qualifies for the vote. The Burkean Britsh were shocked at what they saw, and ever since treated state-issued, mandatory ID as anathema. The US inherited and amplified this opposition to centralised and mandatory ID
The cost info for the US is available here:
http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf
Since 43 states have costs of $25 or less (26 less than
$15), and since I'd estimate that the usual expiration
period is 5 years or so (I couldn't find anything but
individual state data, and life's too short) isn't out of
line with the NY info I found - 4 to 10 years with fees of
$6.50 to $13.50; hardly enough to break anyone. And for
those who really can't afford even that much fees may be
waived for a number of reasons.
In short, ID is required of everyone who wants to engage in
many common activities and the fees aren't onerous (and can
be waived anyway).
So, no problems with mandatory voter ID, IF you invest massively in the infrastructure, and not only make them free for citizens, but build an infrastructure where the next office to issue them is just a few streets away, and people are constantly and
That all seems a bit beside the point, that ID (generally
picture ID) is *already* required for quite a few
activities, and thus already exists. I guess it's not
"racist" to require ID for anything except voting, at least
no one seems to be ranting about it.
But this thread has gone on long enough, and we'll probably
never agree, so thanks for the discussion, and I'll see you
later. :-)
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:05:18 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:aside.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 00:35:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:35:17 AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the followingbit of an apple and pear comparison though. First, there are countries like Australia, Belgium or Greece where voting is mandatory - and which for that reason alone have an extremely high coverage of voters in the ID schemes, so we can leave these
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:Just a couple of observations:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on >> >> >> >>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
Make of that what you will.
--
a system in place - they too did the math. So how can we explain this? Well, continental systems also typically have mandatory ID cards full stop - and mandatory registration at the local authority of residence to boot. And the result is an
And then we have a Napoleon problem - yes, continental European jurisdictions typically require voter ID. But the UK, just like the US, doesn't,, though some of our right wingers are at the moment spreading a lot of lies about voter fraud to get such
withand actively pursued to register, Dagget's story, of course, shows the opposite approach - making it more difficult for some citizens (those less likely to vote republican) to get ID, by selectively defunding the system that issues them. And even leaving
that the need to know who qualifies for the vote. The Burkean Britsh were shocked at what they saw, and ever since treated state-issued, mandatory ID as anathema. The US inherited and amplified this opposition to centralised and mandatory IDThe cost info for the US is available here:
http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf
Since 43 states have costs of $25 or less (26 less than
$15), and since I'd estimate that the usual expiration
period is 5 years or so (I couldn't find anything but
individual state data, and life's too short) isn't out of
line with the NY info I found - 4 to 10 years with fees of
$6.50 to $13.50; hardly enough to break anyone. And for
those who really can't afford even that much fees may be
waived for a number of reasons.
In short, ID is required of everyone who wants to engage in
many common activities and the fees aren't onerous (and can
be waived anyway).
So, no problems with mandatory voter ID, IF you invest massively in the infrastructure, and not only make them free for citizens, but build an infrastructure where the next office to issue them is just a few streets away, and people are constantly
That all seems a bit beside the point, that ID (generally
picture ID) is *already* required for quite a few
activities, and thus already exists. I guess it's not
"racist" to require ID for anything except voting, at least
no one seems to be ranting about it.
But this thread has gone on long enough, and we'll probably
never agree, so thanks for the discussion, and I'll see you
later. :-)
Yes, I heard that you want to drop it
, but this is t.o.--
The refrain that ID is needed for so many other activities
anyway isn't really true. Trump infamously claimed that
you need ID to buy groceries, not so and I think he was
confused about buying alcohol. But I don't need an ID
to buy alcohol. Even when I was in my late teens and
early twenties, I almost never got carded. Even 30 years
ago you could write check in many places without an
ID if they had the systems that read the routing numbers
and could verify the account hadn't been flagged. So this
argument about "needing" an ID anyway just isn't true.
And then there are some facts about being poor. Poor
people move more often. If you move you need to update
your ID which is another $15 to $25. There are some varying
provisions for people who are homeless but they tend
to tie people to a city which makes itinerate work more
difficult.
Sure, these are problems for people irrespective of
voting. And they can be overcome, with extra effort.
But voting is a right. Barriers should be minimized.
If there was a real substantiated problem with voter fraud
that was demonstrated, and that could be fixed with photo
IDs, there could be a fair discussion of the trade-off in
access. But instead we get questions about proving that it
really makes things more difficult, or that the intent is really
voter suppression. And when that is addressed with facts
and the tables are turned to ask if there's a real problem of
voter fraud being fixed --- nothing.
That seems out of balance.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:10:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:immigration enforcement, nominally a high priority for the party that's very keen on voter ID laws. The only drawback would be that it would then be impossible to make it harder for some eligible voters to vote than others.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 02:35:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:I suspect that has to do with the rather unique nature of
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:Just a couple of observations:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on >> >> >> >>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.
the US as a voluntary association of sovereign states,
unlike (AFAIK) any European government. The Constitution
spells out pretty clearly the limited nature of the Federal
government, most clearly in Amendment 10.
I suspect that if the aim of voter ID laws was really to insure that everybody eligible to vote was able to do so and that nobody who was ineligible to vote was able to, then a national photo ID would be a way to do it. It would also simplify
OK, if you assume nefarious motives you can always find
----Make of that what you will.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 09:55:17 -0800 (PST), the followingimmigration enforcement, nominally a high priority for the party that's very keen on voter ID laws. The only drawback would be that it would then be impossible to make it harder for some eligible voters to vote than others.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:10:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 02:35:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:I suspect that has to do with the rather unique nature of
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appearedJust a couple of observations:
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >> >> >> >wrote:I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either >> >> >> >>>>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that >> >> >> >black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions >> >> >> >either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the >> >> >> >name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect >> >> >> >gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some >> >> >crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects >> >> >which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations >> >> >where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and >> >> >wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the >> >> >consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and >> >> >that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies >> >> >it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.
the US as a voluntary association of sovereign states,
unlike (AFAIK) any European government. The Constitution
spells out pretty clearly the limited nature of the Federal
government, most clearly in Amendment 10.
I suspect that if the aim of voter ID laws was really to insure that everybody eligible to vote was able to do so and that nobody who was ineligible to vote was able to, then a national photo ID would be a way to do it. It would also simplify
OK, if you assume nefarious motives you can always find
them, just like "offensive X".
----Make of that what you will.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:40:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:immigration enforcement, nominally a high priority for the party that's very keen on voter ID laws. The only drawback would be that it would then be impossible to make it harder for some eligible voters to vote than others.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 09:55:17 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:10:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 02:35:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:I suspect that has to do with the rather unique nature of
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appearedJust a couple of observations:
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >> >> >> >> >wrote:I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Another quibble, also important: The number of those
On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either >> >> >> >> >>>>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.
A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US,
I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that >> >> >> >> >black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions >> >> >> >> >either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the >> >> >> >> >name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect >> >> >> >> >gerrymandering?
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.
Decide for yourself; GIYF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some >> >> >> >crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects >> >> >> >which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations >> >> >> >where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and >> >> >> >wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.
Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the >> >> >> >consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.
However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and >> >> >> >that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies >> >> >> >it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.
AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.
In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.
And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.
the US as a voluntary association of sovereign states,
unlike (AFAIK) any European government. The Constitution
spells out pretty clearly the limited nature of the Federal
government, most clearly in Amendment 10.
I suspect that if the aim of voter ID laws was really to insure that everybody eligible to vote was able to do so and that nobody who was ineligible to vote was able to, then a national photo ID would be a way to do it. It would also simplify
Agreed, although I suspect we may have different groups inOK, if you assume nefarious motives you can always find
them, just like "offensive X".
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
------Make of that what you will.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't >suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at >the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't >suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy planes:..........................
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly exceeds the specified physical dimensions.
WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.
Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see
fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese
spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.
IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does
are always worg.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden..........................
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons)
wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't
suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative
analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy
planes:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly
exceeds the specified physical dimensions.
WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.
Sure, but just to be pedantically correct, that treaty was not in effect until a couple of decades after the time Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.
Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the
Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see
fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese
spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.
IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does
are always worg.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 03:20:37 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden..........................
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to >> >> point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at >> >the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >> >wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't >> >suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative
analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy
planes:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly
exceeds the specified physical dimensions.
WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.
Sure, but just to be pedantically correct, that treaty was not in effect until a couple of decades after the time Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.
Putting aside for the moment the OP's incorrect "always", and its respondent's incorrect equivalence, I acknowledge that your comment is pedantically correct.Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the
Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see
fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese
spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.
IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does
are always worg.
In counterpoint to your pedantically correct comment, it's
significantly correct to say the cited video also explains the
significant point that where sovereign airspace begins and outer space
ends has never been explicitly codified.
While that point was pedantic in 1947, it became significant in 1957,
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world's first manmade
orbiting object. During its 3-month flight, Sputnik flew over
multiple nations multiple times.
It's significantly correct to say that Sputnik didn't meet the Chicago Convention's exceptions for "free balloons", any more than did the
Chinese craft.
Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
--
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 5:40:20 PM UTC, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 03:20:37 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:Putting aside for the moment the OP's incorrect "always", and its
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden..........................
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to >>>>>> point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at >>>>> the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >>>>> wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't >>>>> suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative
analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy
planes:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly >>>> exceeds the specified physical dimensions.
WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.
Sure, but just to be pedantically correct, that treaty was not in
effect until a couple of decades after the time Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.
Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the >>>> Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see
fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese
spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.
IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does
are always worg.
respondent's incorrect equivalence, I acknowledge that your comment is
pedantically correct.
In counterpoint to your pedantically correct comment, it's
significantly correct to say the cited video also explains the
significant point that where sovereign airspace begins and outer space
ends has never been explicitly codified.
While that point was pedantic in 1947, it became significant in 1957,
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world's first manmade
orbiting object. During its 3-month flight, Sputnik flew over
multiple nations multiple times.
It's significantly correct to say that Sputnik didn't meet the Chicago
Convention's exceptions for "free balloons", any more than did the
Chinese craft.
Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
--
Slightly more complicated I think - and a fascinating story in any case.
The legal issue is the so called "vertical sovereignty" question, which remains controversial and contested to this day. Sputnik did not rely directly on the Chicago Convention, but on the notion that a state's territory does not extend above its "airspace". This is an interesting
use of the "the exception that proves the rule" argument - because the Chicago Convention gives states largely unrestricted control over their airspace (the exception) , everything "above" this is free. Couple of problems with this, even in the 1950s:
- it was contested if in this case that inference was permissible, some,
but not all, commentators read it as "States have "at least" full
sovereignty over their airspace"
- Chicago does not define where "airspace" actually ends. It defines
however "aircraft" as " "any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the
air against the earth's surface." From this some commentators have
concluded that airspace too is that part of space where the air is dense enough to supports balloons and combustion engines.
So up to 1957, and indeed still today, nobody knows how far the
sovereignty of a state really extends vertically, but one could argue
that Sputnik did not violate the law then or now. Or as their lawyer put
it: "Sputnik did not penetrate the air space over any territories; rather
it is these territories which run under . . . the orbit of the satellite's movement."
Now we come to the interesting part, which is indeed all about hypocrisy, just in a slightly different way. The US position, from at leat 1944
onwards, had already been that full sovereignty was limited to airspace,
and that while states in principle had infinite vertical sovereignty, everything above the airspace was subject to a "right of peaceful
passage", in analogy to international law of the High Seas. The US
proposed to codify this interpretation in 1955 - knowing full well that
the Soviet Union would reject this, as their thinking was that such a permission would benefit the technologically most advanced nations most .
And indeed, right up to the launch of Sputnik, the official USSR position
was that states exercised full sovereignty also in all of its space, not
just airspace, above their territory. But when one looked at the academic commentary coming from the state universities - that miraculously changed
in 1956, and very quickly the old position was not so much officially repudiated by simply "photoshopped" as if it never happened. Then came Sputnik, and with that a precedent was set - which is pretty much were we
are now. The law remains unclear, but all countries generally tolerate peaceful passage above their airspace, understood as "part where
conventional airplanes can operate". Note though that this is just a
right to peaceful passage, military uses would not be covered ("fly
through" of rockets carrying military equipment is fine however) so for
the discussion about spy balloons it does not do much work anyway. There
is a theory that Eisenhower intentionally delayed the US effort and let
the Russians go first - partly so that there was a credible threat that justified mayor investment, but also partly so that they would establish
as precedent a legal position the US had wanted all along.
Legally, that's pretty much were we are now: all academics think it would
e neat to have this as a formally adopted legal principle, but in the
absence of such a treaty, nobody knows what the extend of a countries vertical sovereignty is - the general toleration isn't quite enough to establish international customary law, but the "de facto" toleration seems to work.
another historical tidbit: The German declaration of War against France
form 1914 stated as one of the reasons intrusion by French reconnaissance balloons into German airspace.
Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
On 2023-02-11 17:39:34 +0000, jillery said:
[ … ]
Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
So for you it's OK to refer to "Soviet Union" without mentioning that it had 15 component republics, but not OK to refer to the USA without mentioning that it has 50 states?
On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 10:30:21 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-02-11 17:39:34 +0000, jillery said:
[ … ]
I'd say.Foreign policy is typically decided by the federal government, and hence properly attributed to the federal state, while penal policy under the US constitution is devolved largely to the state legislatures, and hence attributed to the individual statesTherefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearlySo for you it's OK to refer to "Soviet Union" without mentioning that it had 15 component republics, but not OK to refer to the USA without mentioning that it has 50 states?
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 5:40:20 PM UTC, jillery wrote:but on the notion that a state's territory does not extend above its "airspace". This is an interesting use of the "the exception that proves the rule" argument - because the Chicago Convention gives states largely unrestricted control over their
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 03:20:37 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:Putting aside for the moment the OP's incorrect "always", and its
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden..........................
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to >> >> >> point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at >> >> >the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >> >> >wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't >> >> >suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative
analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy
planes:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly >> >> exceeds the specified physical dimensions.
WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.
Sure, but just to be pedantically correct, that treaty was not in effect until a couple of decades after the time Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.
Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the >> >> Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see
fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese
spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.
IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does
are always worg.
respondent's incorrect equivalence, I acknowledge that your comment is
pedantically correct.
In counterpoint to your pedantically correct comment, it's
significantly correct to say the cited video also explains the
significant point that where sovereign airspace begins and outer space
ends has never been explicitly codified.
While that point was pedantic in 1947, it became significant in 1957,
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world's first manmade
orbiting object. During its 3-month flight, Sputnik flew over
multiple nations multiple times.
It's significantly correct to say that Sputnik didn't meet the Chicago
Convention's exceptions for "free balloons", any more than did the
Chinese craft.
Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
--
Slightly more complicated I think - and a fascinating story in any case. The legal issue is the so called "vertical sovereignty" question, which remains controversial and contested to this day. Sputnik did not rely directly on the Chicago Convention,
- it was contested if in this case that inference was permissible, some, but not all, commentators read it as "States have "at least" full sovereignty over their airspace"this some commentators have concluded that airspace too is that part of space where the air is dense enough to supports balloons and combustion engines.
- Chicago does not define where "airspace" actually ends. It defines however "aircraft" as " "any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface." From
So up to 1957, and indeed still today, nobody knows how far the sovereignty of a state really extends vertically, but one could argue that Sputnik did not violate the law then or now. Or as their lawyer put it: "Sputnik did not penetrate the air spaceover any territories; rather it is these territories which run under . . . the orbit of the satellite's movement."
Now we come to the interesting part, which is indeed all about hypocrisy, just in a slightly different way. The US position, from at leat 1944 onwards, had already been that full sovereignty was limited to airspace, and that while states in principlehad infinite vertical sovereignty, everything above the airspace was subject to a "right of peaceful passage", in analogy to international law of the High Seas. The US proposed to codify this interpretation in 1955 - knowing full well that the Soviet
And indeed, right up to the launch of Sputnik, the official USSR position was that states exercised full sovereignty also in all of its space, not just airspace, above their territory. But when one looked at the academic commentary coming from the stateuniversities - that miraculously changed in 1956, and very quickly the old position was not so much officially repudiated by simply "photoshopped" as if it never happened. Then came Sputnik, and with that a precedent was set - which is pretty much were
let the Russians go first - partly so that there was a credible threat that justified mayor investment, but also partly so that they would establish as precedent a legal position the US had wanted all along.toleration isn't quite enough to establish international customary law, but the "de facto" toleration seems to work.
Legally, that's pretty much were we are now: all academics think it would e neat to have this as a formally adopted legal principle, but in the absence of such a treaty, nobody knows what the extend of a countries vertical sovereignty is - the general
another historical tidbit: The German declaration of War against France form 1914 stated as one of the reasons intrusion by French reconnaissance balloons into German airspace.
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 5:40:20 PM UTC, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 03:20:37 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:Putting aside for the moment the OP's incorrect "always", and its
On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden..........................
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to >>>>>> point at others.
As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons) >>>>> wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't
suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative >>>> analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy >>>> planes:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947 >>>> and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the >>>> legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly >>>> exceeds the specified physical dimensions.
WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO >>>> and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.
Sure, but just to be pedantically correct, that treaty was not in
effect until a couple of decades after the time Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.
Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the >>>> Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see >>>> fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese >>>> spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.
IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does >>>> are always worg.
respondent's incorrect equivalence, I acknowledge that your comment is
pedantically correct.
In counterpoint to your pedantically correct comment, it's
significantly correct to say the cited video also explains the
significant point that where sovereign airspace begins and outer space
ends has never been explicitly codified.
While that point was pedantic in 1947, it became significant in 1957,
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world's first manmade
orbiting object. During its 3-month flight, Sputnik flew over
multiple nations multiple times.
It's significantly correct to say that Sputnik didn't meet the Chicago
Convention's exceptions for "free balloons", any more than did the
Chinese craft.
Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
--
Slightly more complicated I think - and a fascinating story in any case. The legal issue is the so called "vertical sovereignty" question, which remains controversial and contested to this day. Sputnik did not rely directly on the Chicago Convention, but on the notion that a state's territory does not extend above its "airspace". This is an interesting
use of the "the exception that proves the rule" argument - because the Chicago Convention gives states largely unrestricted control over their airspace (the exception) , everything "above" this is free. Couple of problems with this, even in the 1950s:
- it was contested if in this case that inference was permissible, some, but not all, commentators read it as "States have "at least" full sovereignty over their airspace"
- Chicago does not define where "airspace" actually ends. It defines however "aircraft" as " "any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface." From this some commentators have concluded that airspace too is that part of space where the air is dense enough to supports balloons and combustion engines.
So up to 1957, and indeed still today, nobody knows how far the sovereignty of a state really extends vertically, but one could argue
that Sputnik did not violate the law then or now. Or as their lawyer put it: "Sputnik did not penetrate the air space over any territories; rather it is these territories which run under . . . the orbit of the satellite's movement."
Now we come to the interesting part, which is indeed all about hypocrisy, just in a slightly different way. The US position, from at leat 1944 onwards, had already been that full sovereignty was limited to airspace, and that while states in principle had infinite vertical sovereignty, everything above the airspace was subject to a "right of peaceful passage", in analogy to international law of the High Seas. The US proposed to codify this interpretation in 1955 - knowing full well that the Soviet Union would reject this, as their thinking was that such a permission would benefit the technologically most advanced nations most .
And indeed, right up to the launch of Sputnik, the official USSR position was that states exercised full sovereignty also in all of its space, not just airspace, above their territory. But when one looked at the academic commentary coming from the state universities - that miraculously changed in 1956, and very quickly the old position was not so much officially repudiated by simply "photoshopped" as if it never happened. Then came Sputnik, and with that a precedent was set - which is pretty much were we are now. The law remains unclear, but all countries generally tolerate peaceful passage above their airspace, understood as "part where conventional airplanes can operate". Note though that this is just a
right to peaceful passage, military uses would not be covered ("fly through" of rockets carrying military equipment is fine however) so for the discussion about spy balloons it does not do much work anyway. There is a theory that Eisenhower intentionally delayed the US effort and let the Russians go first - partly so that there was a credible threat that justified mayor investment, but also partly so that they would establish as precedent a legal position the US had wanted all along.
Legally, that's pretty much were we are now: all academics think it would e neat to have this as a formally adopted legal principle, but in the absence of such a treaty, nobody knows what the extend of a countries vertical sovereignty is - the general toleration isn't quite enough to establish international customary law, but the "de facto" toleration seems to work.
another historical tidbit: The German declaration of War against France form 1914 stated as one of the reasons intrusion by French reconnaissance balloons into German airspace.
If someone is a sovereign citizen can they basically declare infinite vertical airspace rights and shoot down anything above them wherever they may roam while they are also avoiding taxes for dodgy reasons? Seems like the silent black helicopters full of reptilian shape shifting commandos had it coming if legal to do so.
As for the Chinese spy balloon, a female contemporary of mine from Germany tried to warn the US 40 years ago - but when she asked "do you have time for me today?" the answer was silence.
As for the Chinese spy balloon, a female contemporary of mine from Germany tried to warn the US 40 years ago - but when she asked "do you have time for me today?" the answer was silence.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 03:00:26 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
As for the Chinese spy balloon, a female contemporary of mine from Germany tried to warn the US 40 years ago - but when she asked "do you have time for me today?" the answer was silence.Keep in mind that 40 years ago, the literal larger concern was about
large and fast-moving craft carrying large nuclear weapons. Since
then, technology has allowed threats from smaller craft, as well as
improved the ability to detect those smaller threats.
On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 4:00:36 AM UTC, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 03:00:26 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
As for the Chinese spy balloon, a female contemporary of mine from Germany tried to warn the US 40 years ago - but when she asked "do you have time for me today?" the answer was silence.Keep in mind that 40 years ago, the literal larger concern was about
large and fast-moving craft carrying large nuclear weapons. Since
then, technology has allowed threats from smaller craft, as well as
improved the ability to detect those smaller threats.
Oh, the balloons in question were quite small :o) >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:05:48 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 4:00:36 AM UTC, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 03:00:26 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
As for the Chinese spy balloon, a female contemporary of mine from Germany tried to warn the US 40 years ago - but when she asked "do you have time for me today?" the answer was silence.Keep in mind that 40 years ago, the literal larger concern was about
large and fast-moving craft carrying large nuclear weapons. Since
then, technology has allowed threats from smaller craft, as well as
improved the ability to detect those smaller threats.
Oh, the balloons in question were quite small :o) >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY
Can you get me an autograph from Nena?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 486 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 132:44:59 |
| Calls: | 9,657 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,707 |
| Messages: | 6,166,644 |