The Political Thread

[J.P.]

There was an election? The world suddenly lost all interest in UK, since the time extension.

[besleybean]

Just local elections in England...possibly other places within the UK, but not here in Scotland at least.

We all have the Euro elections soon, though.

For once, the English local elections seem to have been interesting.

[J.P.]

Talking about EU elections. This is a bit older, but my jaw really hit the floor as I read this:
 

Quote

Conservative MP and Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg called on Friday on the U.K. government to be "as difficult as possible" with the EU on a range of issues including the long-term budget if Brexit is delayed for an extended period.

"If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible," Rees-Mogg tweeted.

"We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron's integrationist schemes," he added, referring to French President Emmanuel Macron's vision for the future of the bloc.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/rees-mogg-uk-should-play-hardball-on-eu-budget-if-brexit-delayed/

So the logic is: we've beeped up the Brexit, so let's EU pay for it. Uh-uh…

Really, sometimes I think the EU should just close the borders and let them sort this out by themselves.

 

[besleybean]

😟

[Van Buren Supernova]

Alabama. WHY?

[Arcadia]

Fire-breathing evangelical Christians, is why. They think they'll go to hell if they don't pass laws that condemn the rest of us.

[T.o.b.y]

I saw a poster for one of the parties competing in the European elections recently that said "No GMOs!" and showed a picture of a two-headed chicken. Why didn't they go with the hound of the Baskervilles while they were at it? 

Are they really that stupid or do they think we are? 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Can we think of that as merely hyperbole for the purpose of making a point?

I am personally opposed to the way GMOs are currently being handled in the US.  They are doing some good, obviously, for example with bacteria that have been "trained" to produce certain medications.  But the Department of Agriculture allows GMO food crops to be produced and sold with very little testing (and what little testing there is, is done by the people who developed the crop, so gee whiz, guess how the testing is gonna turn out?).  In effect, the major testing is being done by the public, using themselves as the guinea pigs.

I'm in favor of mandatory labeling, so the consumers can decide for themselves.  At this point, the only way to be pretty sure you're not getting GMOs in your food is to buy organic (which may be one big reason why organic is becoming so popular).

[T.o.b.y]

36 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Can we think of that as merely hyperbole for the purpose of making a point?

I am personally opposed to the way GMOs are currently being handled in the US.  They are doing some good, obviously, for example with bacteria that have been "trained" to produce certain medications.  But the Department of Agriculture allows GMO food crops to be produced and sold with very little testing (and what little testing there is, is done by the people who developed the crop, so gee whiz, guess how the testing is gonna turn out?).  In effect, the major testing is being done by the public, using themselves as the guinea pigs.

I'm in favor of mandatory labeling, so the consumers can decide for themselves.  At this point, the only way to be pretty sure you're not getting GMOs in your food is to buy organic (which may be one big reason why organic is becoming so popular).

I really don't have a firm opinion on GMOs yet. It's one of those "need more data" issues for me. What I do know though is that it's usually a matter of things like parasite resistent corn or the bacteria that you mentioned. Not birds with multiple heads. If you're a political party promising to abolish something, you should at least know the basics of what that is. The poster tells me that either the people who put it up are really ignorant or they think I am ignorant and susceptible to cheap scare tactics. I don't like either of those scenarios. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect it's intended as a sort of shorthand or analogy, but I see your point as well.  Maybe they don't realize that anyone is thinking they might mean it literally.  (I tend to think in analogies myself, which may be why I didn't get your point at first.)

I agree, GMOs are definitely a need-more-data issue, and here in the US we're not getting that information because nobody is subjecting them to much scrutiny, plus GMOs aren't identified as such, even in the produce section, where the sign just says (for example) papaya.

The thing that bugs me most is the claim that GMOs are "just like" regular crops, except for whatever advantage they were created to have.  That's not fact, that's assertion.  It's not like they go into the cell nucleus with a scalpel; as I understand it, it's more like firing a shotgun at the nucleus and hoping that the payload ends up in the right place.  So who knows what unintended effects the process may also have?

I'm also irked by the claim that there's no real difference between a GMO and a hybrid.  That is utter bilge.  Hybrids have been occurring ever since there have been plants (and animals) with male and female parts, and the seeds sold as hybrid use the same natural process except that it's an arranged marriage, so to speak.  Whereas GMOs often introduce genes from other species, meaning that that particular organism has never existed before, and *could* never have existed without human intervention.  And each new GMO is a whole new ballgame.  How do we know what effects it might have on us, perhaps only becoming apparent years from now, or perhaps affecting the children that we conceive after eating it?

[J.P.]

2 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Can we think of that as merely hyperbole for the purpose of making a point?

Hyperboles are dangerous. People tend to take them seriously. As much as irony.

The sign of our time is that in most cases it's impossible to say what the intention of the author is. In the past a common sense was a good indicator, but not any more.

3 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

Are they really that stupid or do they think we are?  

They speculate that intelligent people will see the joke and the stupid ones will believe it's true. Win-win situation for the advertising party, for the rest of the population - spreading misinformation.

[Fantasy Lover]

Alabama. WHY?

If you're a political party promising to abolish something, you should at least know the basics of what that is. The poster tells me that either the people who put it up are really ignorant or they think I am ignorant and susceptible to cheap scare tactics. I don't like either of those scenarios. 

Hear hear, that's why the whole situation in Alabama and Georgia is so messed up! Nobody bothered to consult a doctor about it. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

... that's why the whole situation in Alabama and Georgia is so messed up! Nobody bothered to consult a doctor about it.

I don't quite see what you mean by that.

[Fantasy Lover]

I sincerely hope that we can discuss this subject with the same maturity and respect when discussing religion and politics, so here goes nothing.

The name is misleading and inaccurate: We need to stop calling it a “fetal heartbeat law” it should be called an “embryonic cardiac vibration law” because it’s not considered a fetus until the 10th week of pregnancy (8th week from conception) and it’s not actually a heartbeat because in the sixth week (of pregnancy. 4th week from conception) an embryo does not have a developed heart, (or brain, or spine) it has a cluster of cells that can be detected vibrating or pulsing.

[J.P.]

Good to know. Most of the terms used in the discussion are misleading, the "best" of the being post-natal abortion. But who needs facts? Mr. President says they kill babies, so it must be true. 😕

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, J.P. said:

Most of the terms used in the discussion are misleading, the "best" of the being post-natal abortion.

Judging by what came up on an internet search just now, that term seems to mean what it says, though admittedly I just skimmed a bit.  How do you interpret the phrase?

[J.P.]

It makes no sense, like post-mortal murder. Postnatal means after birth. Then it cannot be an abortion which is terminating a pregnancy by medical (or other) procedure. I think the real issue was about premies/newborns with no life expectancy. After birth, doctors are discussing the treatments, but it's more about not forcing life prolonging procedures onto those newborns. But - surprise, surprise - the term nonviable is obviously overlooked. Because people are able only to read headlines and maybe the first sentence of any text. Not to mention that the word is too diffiult to understand.😕

[Arcadia]

Breathe deep. Count to three. Repeat after me: "It is unreasonable to expect people to be reasonable...." Then bang head against wall.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

Postnatal means after birth. Then it cannot be an abortion which is terminating a pregnancy by medical (or other) procedure. I think the real issue was about premies/newborns with no life expectancy. After birth, doctors are discussing the treatments, but it's more about not forcing life prolonging procedures onto those newborns.

If they're talking about keeping non-viable infants as comfortable as possible but not putting them on life support, then there's precedent.  It's comparable to the option of not putting an adult on life support when there's no hope of their recovery.

If, however, they're talking about actively killing such infants, then the proper term would be either infanticide or euthanasia, neither of which has heretofore been legal, generally speaking, if practiced on humans.  That strikes me as a slippery slope, especially since it requires a judgment call by the doctor and/or family.

Right now they may be talking only about infants that presumably couldn't live long anyhow (which makes me wonder what's the point of killing them?).  But then there's likely to be talk about quality of life, and euthanizing infants born with deformities or genetic conditions, which gets even further into the judgment call department.  No telling where that might lead.

[J.P.]

14 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

20 hours ago, J.P. said:

 

If they're talking about keeping non-viable infants as comfortable as possible but not putting them on life support, then there's precedent.  It's comparable to the option of not putting an adult on life support when there's no hope of their recovery.

I cannot imagine the other version being even considered a possibility, not in the US. That's why this kind of misinformation is so dangerous. People (aka idiots) will start believing it, which is disastrous.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The problem at this point is, whom to believe, and I'm not real inclined to believe anybody these days.

[Arcadia]

Hence, our fractured society. We can't agree on who to trust any more. I don't see any way of fixing it, either, for the same reason.  

[Van Buren Supernova]

On the side line, what is hard for me to understand, that in US, you seem to have different laws for different states. That is quite mind boggling to be honest, don't you think so?

So, is it possible to do something that is prohibited in your state, in another state that allows it? Are you restricted as residence of particular state therefore have to follow whatever your origin's law? If not, what is the point of that as well? How does it work?

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

On the side line, what is hard for me to understand, that in US, you seem to have different laws for different states. That is quite mind boggling to be honest, don't you think so?

So, is it possible to do something that is prohibited in your state, in another state that allows it? Are you restricted as residence of particular state therefore have to follow whatever your origin's law? If not, what is the point of that as well? How does it work?

Please bear in mind that our states are large, and that just our 48 contiguous states are about the size of Europe.  In fact, each of our states was originally a separate colony and then a separate country loosely joined in a cooperative effort for a few years.  Don't members of the EU still have their own laws regarding some things -- or not?

We do have some federal laws (i.e., covering the entire country), but they cover things that can affect more than one state at a time, such as presidential elections, kidnappings, military service, etc.  State laws cannot contradict federal laws.

A citizen of any US state is bound by the laws of whatever state s/he is in at the moment.  (So yes, if you're from a state that prohibits X, but you're currently in a state that allows it, you're perfectly free to engage in X.)  Laws tend to be pretty similar from state to state, but there are some major exceptions, plus a large number of slight variations.  Counties and cities within a state can have their own laws in addition, but they must not contradict the state laws.  Also, states must recognize the validity of each other's contracts, including marriage.

It's not nearly as confusing as you're imagining!

[Van Buren Supernova]

EU is not the suitable example for now, I suppose. But for what I've known, many others with states or at least geographically distinctive division mostly still exercising the same law throughout. There could be differences, but normally not major. But don't quote me on this, I probably get it wrong.

Same-sex marriage and abortion are two things that stand out for me, same with medical drugs. If you can just go to another state to do so, what is the purpose of them being a law in respective state? And why they have the authority of imposing certain law in certain state? I'd say it'll leave the possibility of law being discriminative;  depends on majority and beliefs of that said state. Isn't it scary?