Blog powered by Typepad

« The mystery of Mrs. May | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 2.7.18 »

Sunday, 01 July 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr Hannan has probably caused more elite bowel movements than anyone with this!

My goodness, other wealthy countries trading with the UK! Luckily all this starts next spring!

The Anglosphere already has a mutual support system in the "Five Eyes" arrangement which is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Not too hard to extend it to Singapore but I doubt the new Emperor of China would like Hong Kong in it - unless he and his Party saw it as a way of getting "inside information".

It would be a very powerful trading bloc.

Britain joining the EU way back and turning away from the Commonwealth really pissed off a lot of people in those countries.

I'm going to forgo my usual restraint here. First I'll mention that much of California is rural and conservative to right wing. It is not only San Francisco and Los Angeles as many people seem to believe.

The self-abortion described above has nothing to do with California. Across America that practice was somewhat typical before the Roe v. Wade decision that protected the rights of women to control their bodies. Belly flops into swimming pools or purposeful falls were a few other fairly common practices. Then there were the infamous "back alley abortions" performed with wire coat hangers and so forth by unqualified practicians. I'm old enough to remember newspaper pictures of dead women being removed from cheap motel rooms and the like following some of them. As the civil right to the medical procedure and access to medical care is pared away these incidents will increase. Everywhere.

Of course the extreme measures are usually taken only by poor women. Those with money don't suffer them. In the days before Roe, in my upper working to middle class high school, I knew a few girls that got knocked up (not by me). One went to New York and the other to Japan for legal abortions.

Roe will probably not be overturned, no matter that the right has made the goal a fetish. That would probably knock Republicans out of office for at least two generations, and most know it. More likely the current practice of tighter legal and access restrictions in some states and rural areas will continue. There will inevitably be many more stories like the one above.

'Calm down, Dear', I didn't mention GOP or Dems, although it was mainly the latter who pushed through the legalisation of abortion. And 'pur-lease', don't talk to me about women controlling their bodies, if they did that in the first place, or, accepted the consequences of their own actions, there wouldn't be some 50 million dead babies littering America! I speak with some personal feelings because my Mum was "a very naughty girl" in 1938 but despite being single and despite having medical knowledge she decided to accept her responsibility.

Well, darling, I'm not sure about which portion of the population was most for Roe other than women. Before the decision there were still lots of Dixiecrats, or Southern Democrats, that were conservative. They were conservative in the ways you'd expect from today's Southerners, but also in the sense that they thought the government shouldn't tell everyone how to live their life. Some churches, both in the South and not, and other conservative organizations filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in support of Roe. Mainly they argued that if the government could tell women they had to carry a fetus to term, a slippery legal slope was created that would lead to the government dictating how people could worship or do other things. Non-Americans have a hard time understanding that our two main parties don't adhere to philosophies the way European parties do. Nearly all the former Dixiecrats are now Republicans.

Over 2/3 of the American public thinks Roe should not be overturned. The Republicans have put themselves in a tight spot of their own making.

As for your personal story, I'm glad you're able to experience a life you've gotten enjoyment from and are grateful for. What do you suppose you would have been thinking about if your mum had made a different decision? Do you believe in a spirit world?

The only spirit world I believe in, Bob, is that of whiskey and the next time I partake of a wee dram, I will raise a glass to the memory of my Mum who, alone and with no more money than she earned, gave me a very contented childhood.

Thank you for reminding me of Hulot.
A gem in any language.

Good on you and the memory of your Mum, David. It seems that in addition to being "naughty" she was ultimately a brave and responsible woman, as are many whose circumstances don't allow as much latitude. Sometimes people include situations like those in what they call "the human condition".

It's an interesting thought that if Mum had "controlled her body" in a specific instance you would be as equally non-existent as if her pregnancy had not run to term for any of a number of reasons. By the way, I can assure you we are not littered with fetuses.

Ref Hannon and his Anglo-spherical FTA, he's missing the one ingredient that is more important than all the others: freedom of movement.

If it's not a single market it's worthless. WTO has got close enough to being a global FTA it's hardly worth arranging old hat 19th century free trade agreements.

It's like flying around in the Wright Brothers' plane exclaiming how wonderful and amazing it is, when the rest of the world moved on years ago and is now flying around in Dreamliners. It's just embarrassing, like old farts who still send letters or use landlines.

The world has moved on from free trade, great idea that it was, like parchment and pen, and landlines.

Single Markets are FTA's on steroids, with freedom of movement being the critically important extra advance that brings productivity and efficiency over and above mere free trade.

If Hannon thinks the US and Australia are gonna let go their points based systems when they might have Blighty's entire Muslim community up sticks and descend on them, he's bonkers. As for Israel!!!

And who's gonna come over and replace the Eastern European inky-blinky darlinkies wiping dementia sufferers bottoms on minimum wage in the NHS? Americans? Australians? They've got their own aging population's arses to wipe.

The best Single Market on offer for Blighty is the EEA. Get over your xenophobia - "Anglo-spherical FTA", FFS! - and be rational.

If protectionism is bad for capital, goods, and services, why is it suddenly good for human resources? Or the other way, if free trade is good for capital, goods, and services, why is it bad for human resources?


"I speak with some personal feelings because my Mum was "a very naughty girl" in 1938 but despite being single and despite having medical knowledge she decided to accept her responsibility."

And the naughty Dad was a Canadian airman.

So without freedom of movement this blog and your favourite troll wouldn't exist!




Ding-Dong, the wicked witch is dead?

Seehofer's resigned ...

Merkel next?

Blighty ready to step up to the plate and lead the european rebels to a new EU 2.0 on Anglo-centric lines now the German hegemony has crumbled and is falling, after 45 years of patient waiting for the opportunity so to do?

Oops, I forgot.


SoD I think you're right about the EEA and it is bizarre, or perhaps pathetic is a better word, that there doesn't seem to be a sizeable group of parliamentarians pushing for it.

Bob - Re Roe vs Wade as I understood it and I may have misunderstood it, it made abortion a federal matter. It is were overturned then individual states would make their own law. As the world has moved on since RvW came down it is surely likely that most of the large urban states at the very least would decide to keep it legalise.

And any move to take important decision making like that closer to the point of impact is a good thing wouldn't you agree?


You are correct that the states would be in control of that aspect of civil rights were the Roe decision overturned. Probably less than half the states would make abortion illegal. Whether that would be good is doubtful. I tried to describe the situation before Roe above. It was no better and in some ways far worse than the present situation. I'll repeat that overturning Roe is unpopular and unlikely.

Before the Civil Rights Act states could also pass laws to discriminate based on gender or ethnicity. Those laws were also found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not give states power to ignore its legal requirements.


Bob's "somewhat right" where some things are concerned. Too Bob's "somewhat right" in asserting "The Constitution does not give [to] states" ... actually the constitution doesn't really "give" anything - it serves as the brakes.

(Don't bother Bob, I'm on my way to the office and won't be back until Monday next.)

The above is an argument concerning semantics. By necessity my description of how our Constitution functions was drastically condensed. If you'd prefer to see it as "brakes", that works too.

The comments to this entry are closed.