Leaderboard

20cm Stanley London brass Marine sextant. Antique 10 inch brass & wooden gimbal compass.

Image source, Historic England Image caption, The Sweet Track in Shapwick Heath National Nature Reserve is protected as a scheduled monument A 6,000-year-old wooden walkway over wetlands is no longer under threat thanks to conservation work. The Sweet Track, in the Shapwick Heath National Nature Reserve in Somerset, is set to be removed from Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register. The prehistoric track was built by the first farming communities in 3,806 BC and is the UK's oldest wooden walkway. BBC news article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-60203225 What tickles me is the date it was allegedly built. 3806 BC. Not one year earlier or one year later ! Happy reading.

Everything you need to know about L2.

Actually, this is probably the thinking that got us where we find ourselves. Perhaps we should be looking at the makeup of the SCOTUS as a whole, rather than as individuals assessed by qualifications for the job. I don't agree with your realization, or your analogy. This isn't about digging holes, it's about setting a steady course for our country. If you want that course to be inclusive of genders and people of color, it needs to veer sharply from old course. You're right, I've forgotten about them completely, almost as if they were never there. But what I objected to was claiming the Dems should take the higher ground only AFTER getting a dirty trick pulled on them by the GOP. You defend a LOT that the US GOP stands for (not everything) until they do something despicable, then expect the Dems to be the bigger people and avoid a civil war. There it is! It's all up to the US liberals you complain about so much!

I thought iNow said something directly it about as a riposte to a comment of mine, but I seem to be mistaken. It was earlier in the day. Looking back now, it might have been this comment from Phi, bolded: Anyway, thanks for all your views. This was just a learning exercise and I'm not really defending a view. The US system is what is, and I agree, reservations aside, that, in practice, a a black, female SC judge will improve representation of the wider US population.

(Replied before reading whole thread) I think some of those slinging AA at the process may not fully understand the principle at work here. The race and gender, in this context, are visible markers for finding jurists who have a diversity of upbringing and life experience and resultant perspective to bring to the panel of nine. Like others, I think that diversity should include not only women and PoC, but those who didn't attend Ivy League schools (currently 8 of 9 attended Harvard or Yale), for example. (And one of the candidates went to a state university -- good for her!) Most of the past minorities who made it on the Court, traditionally a club of white Protestant men, did so because a POTUS made a conscious selection of someone outside that group. Starting with Louis Brandeis in the early 20th century. In any case, Biden's goal is not to exclude white men but rather to continue the process of having the SCt be more a cross section of the real America. Growing up black and female does give you a perspective on the law and justice that is quite valuable when you are part of the highest court, that will rule on cases that impact the most vulnerable populations. In this regard, being black and female is a uniquely powerful qualification in bringing balance to the SCt. When you look at the current Court, you will not have any impression that whites or males are being excluded.

I can appreciate your feelings towards the Dems, but I disagree that they use the same playbook as the GOP. Both sides are implementing the wills of competing extreme-wealth actors, but the GOP base has been declining over the years, even though they're better organized, which has forced them to cheat wherever possible. The Dems problems are different, since they seem to prefer an intellectual approach to emotionally charged issues that splits their efforts and makes them look weak. Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for the GOP to do anything to win, since that's what business is all about in the US. As long as you're not currently in jail, the scummy things you do don't seem to matter as long as you're winning.

Why? Because they are not otherwise qualified? The only person whose definition of "best" really matters at this point is Biden's. If "best" in his opinion includes "woman of color", then as swansont pointed out, ONLY women of color qualify.

Specifically, he said he was okay with the judge from South Carolina. As he's the Senator from South Carolina, that is unsurprising. He's also not exactly representative of the majority of GOP these days. I see this all as phony manufactured outrage. Biden's being pilloried for being inclusive in his choice, and being told his inclusivity is representative of bias and exclusion. It's very Orwellian double-speak (like when the right decries cancel culture but then tries to cancel the Dixie Chicks, and Colin Kapernick, or ban books from schools, or ad infinitum). The face of blade, or the handle both come to mind. This is a solid point. The side being held to higher standards is the side which keeps losing bc their opponents can lie, cheat, and steal whenever they want and not get held to that same expectation of higher moral principle. It's a race to the bottom, I know. But again, you cannot unilaterally disarm. You must hold BOTH sides to the same higher standard, and that's just not happening.

Of course not, but when two sides are in pitched battle, one side cannot unilaterally disarm and hope to win anything other than annihilation.

This tactic has worked well for the GOP. Do the dirtiest tricks you can and then pivot when your opponent retaliates in kind. Complain that they lack principles, force them to change their tactics, and then when it's your turn pivot back to the dirty tricks and negative campaigning. There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty. You allow the tit and complain about the tat.

The perspective of being a black woman is not a quality possessed by any of the current or past justices. If that’s a quality you want on the court, so that it would be more representative of the population, then black women would be the only qualified group. White men, for example, would not be qualified. The GOP “concern” is manufactured. There should be no trouble finding a black woman with better judicial bona-fides than Amy Coney Barrett, who they deemed qualified to sit on the bench.

What if one of the Mods said "Everyone's opinion counts, as long as their name begins with the 1st 25 letters of the alphabet" ??? If you limit the group under consideration, you are by definition, not getting the best overall, just the best of that limited group. I would suggest, as INow has, that J Biden is also playing to his base; and I'd probably be more accurate. ( K Harris turned out to be a solid choice as VP )

"Best qualified person" is a myth trotted out every time a white man doesn't make the cut. How would one define 'best qualified' in the first place? Is a conservative approach to jurisprudence better/worse and a liberal approach? Can you be the 'best' if you lack perspective? Does everyone take a qualification test prior to being nominated? Were any of the previous justices considered 'best' by everyone? If two judges disagree is one 'right' and one 'wrong'? You pick a person who you hope will do well while following an ideology that you agree with, and then you live with the results when they do as they please.

No, I stand corrected. Didn’t realize it was that far away. I still think it’s tribal signaling and she’s not behaving based on any specific principle or ideology, just unsure which tribe she feels the need to signal to or why. Appreciate you highlighting the flaw in my last post ✌️

Lol. I particularly liked when he pissed on the antibiotics. ‘Murca!

Health care is NOT a joke !

"some sort of ability to control the novel gametic mutations it inherits or passes on." I did imply that. Is this not what epigenetics is? There are certainly some examples where genes responds to environmental stresses and those modifications gets inherited. Epigenetics is in its infancy. Till a few decades ago, ideas that are now accepted under epigenetics, were being laughed at. (Late Stephen J. Gould despised Lamarck with gusto. A day may come when Gould will be looked down upon for this and other reasons.) Just look at Covid-19 virus. Within a year -- an extremely short time on the evolutionary scale -- it has mutated so that now it is more infectious. When 'random' mutations are favorable over and over -- despite having extreme odds against such occurrences -- then those mutations cannot truly be random. We just don't yet understand the underlying mechanism of the phenomenon.

To Bufofrog (I think I'm restricted due to this being my first day of responding for a long time) If brain cells are not operating on any conscious level, then how does consciousness arise from them? Is consciousness not simply the ability to store information and recall that information? Are you saying cells do not store information and cannot recall said information? Yes there is... (I didn't realise this discussion malarchy could be so simple)....;)