Recent posts

#41

Off the Record / Re: What does a BIDEN Presiden...

Last post by Valmy - Today at 12:01:43 PM

But some people still stick to that

The KJV lasted for so long it became "God's English" the English that Jesus spoke. So it gained a currency as a liturgical language for the most conservative.

We have entire denominations who consider using anything other than the early 17th century version satanic. Of course this is only a Protestant problem as the Orthodox and Catholics never used the KJV.

My favorite example of the KJV status as "God's English" is when Joseph Smith made up translated the Book of Mormon he used that kind of English instead of, you know, 19th Century English because early 17th Century English is just how God talks.

#42

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 11:44:29 AM

Maybe the GOPtards weren't lying, they saw scary enough intelligence reports that they didn't want responsibility for Ukraine's eventual collapse.

#43

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 11:43:38 AM

Doesn't sound very good: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/23/russian-forces-make-significant-gains-in-eastern-ukraine

#44

Off the Record / Re: Indian Elections 2024

Last post by Barrister - Today at 11:41:13 AM

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I've always thought that Islam being the religion of the conquerors has something to do with it.

Isn't that saying the same thing?

#45

Off the Record / Re: Indian Elections 2024

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 11:36:52 AM

And yet people in the west still look at India as a counter to China rather then the next problem after China

I think it's a shift in power. In 1945 Europe and the US accounted for about 75% of the world economy, they're now about a third. China and India are a rising share of that and think (not unreasonably) that with that should come a share of world power which is still very Atlantic.

I'm not sure the US or Europe is particularly keen or willing to share that power (for different reasons and in different ways) but they need to accommodate India and China in some way - and soon, hopefully, they'll also need to accommodate a rising Africa.

I think that is the charitable version - it is closer to the truth that the West viewed both China and India as untapped markets.

Genuine question - is it more charitable to think it was to do with trade and the economy, or bloodless realpolitik?

I'm not sure - I think it's difficult to talk of the "West" in relation to either China or India. The UK almost immediately recognised the PRC, because of Hong Kong it needed a relationship with the mainland government and couldn't pretend the ROC was the "real China". A little later but France and Italy were also realist and, especially Italy, very early into China's economy.


I don't think economics was really the motive for the US dealing with Mao's China because I don't think that was a realistic goal in engaging with Mao and betting on "reform and opening" would have been very bold in 1972. I think it was a combination of factors. The US vetoing the PRC from entering the UN in favour of Taiwan was not sustainable, I think there was a countering the Soviets angle and I also think there was ego and excitement from Nixon and Kissinger of doing something historic. To flip it though - and I've no basis for this whatsoever (I have found a book on Zhou and will get it) - the reason you want to engage with the US is its cash. I slightly wonder if for Zhou opening the US to Mao's China was, like getting Mao to rehabilitate Deng and other leaders of "reform and opening", a way to orient the Chinese leadership on a path and checkmate the Gang of Four posthumously (not that he knew he was ill at that point - but was it part of that fight)?

With India I think Pakistan and the war on terror and China have all been as important as any econommic motivations. I also think, again to flip it from something the West does to something where Indian leaders are making choices, that the last bit of the Gandhi-Nehruvian consensus is non-alignment. I think India's state ideologically opposes power blocs and will not become part of one, but will work with different countries in different ways on an issue by issue basis. Which I think is something the US and the West find a little confounding, but is India's approach.

Having said all of that I think lots of Western countries and companies basically assumed massive market ???? PROFIT and have been shocked to discover that actually Indians and Chinese are also very good capitalists and not only able to make money in their own markets but to compete globally.

I think the idea is we worked to give both a reason to support the current state of things. It didn't work with China...or at least not to the extent we would have wanted. No matter how weird things get inside of India is there any reason to believe they are going to be some kind of anti-Western force?

Well what China and India will want is a say in the "rules based liberal order" which is commensurate to their heft economically and politically. I don't think the US is willing to countenance that for one second.

I think in general the areas and forums where those countries feel they have a say and a voice will be ones where they work wtihin the international structure that exists. In areas where they don't (e.g. finance) they will seek to revise the international order.

there's the whole extrajudicial murders in foreign states thing, that doesn't bode well.

I saw a fascinating article from an Indian commentator on that. It basically said that aside from whether or not it was right, it marked the rise of India as a great power because there were no consequences. He argued basically that India, like Israel or the US, could extrajudicially murder people overseas and no-one would or could do anything about it. No sanctions, no pariah status.

He didn't say this but basically it was a rather grim coming out party.

Yes, I think it is more charitable to say that the west brought India and China into an alliance system rather than to say they were simply trying to exploit them economically.

And of course, the west has been exploiting both India and China since The age of sail.

#46

Off the Record / Re: TV/Movies Megathread

Last post by Barrister - Today at 11:35:28 AM

I was watching a retrospective of All in the Family yesterday and it left me wondering - what are contemporary shows that fall into that niche? Working class families, dealing with everyday struggles/prejudices? The sitcom format is obviously no longer en vogue, but are there still any shows like that? Shameless comes to mind, but beyond that I seem to draw a blank. There used to be more, I feel - like Married With Children, or Roseanne (not counting the last few seasons).

I was going to suggest Young Sheldon (although I've hardly ever seen it), but reading the wiki page his dad is a high school football coach, so solidly middle class despite the presence of a "meemaw".  Plus is set in the past anyways.

But really - isn't the working class setting part of what made it so groundbreaking in the first place?  I mean how many shows take that kind of setting - ever?

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls069786537/

Listing of top sitcoms of all time.  Going through, which ones have a working class setting?

All in the Family (#4) sure, Cheers (#9), Taxi (#16), It's Always Sunny(??) (#24), Malcolm in the Middle (#30), My Name is Earl (#46) - and that's up to #50.  So 6, half of which are workplace comedies, and Malcolm and Earl are fine but hardly groundbreakingly topical.  (Note: I skipped over the foreign shows I wasn't familiar with).

Like - you can go back to think of shows that make fun of lower class people, like Beverly Hillbillies, or Green Acres, but the only one I can think of not named so far is maybe the Honeymooners, or Sanford and Son (and Sanford was explicitly named as a counterpart to All in the Family, and also developed by Norman Lear).

#47

Off the Record / Re: TV/Movies Megathread

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 11:34:29 AM

Thinking about it some more, I guess the "average Joe" series are mostly workplace comedies now? The Office, Superstore, etc?

I think so.

But I was thinking about your post and how we've shifted. Were there any sitcoms about friends or flatmates etc (not family and not colleagues) before the 90s? I can't think of any off the top of my head

Edit: Actually in a British context - maybe Hancock's Half Hour and Rising Damp.

Three's company

#48

Off the Record / Re: TV/Movies Megathread

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 11:28:20 AM

Thinking about it some more, I guess the "average Joe" series are mostly workplace comedies now? The Office, Superstore, etc?

I think so.

But I was thinking about your post and how we've shifted. Were there any sitcoms about friends or flatmates etc (not family and not colleagues) before the 90s? I can't think of any off the top of my head

Edit: Actually in a British context - maybe Hancock's Half Hour and Rising Damp.

#49

Off the Record / Re: What does a BIDEN Presiden...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 11:26:55 AM

But some people still stick to that

Yes - although always weird that (at least in the English speaking world) the guys who are likely to use the "verily I say unto thee" version are normally preaching in conference centres with a laser light show and possibly a post-sermon Monster Truck demo, while the guys in cassocks with incense use post-1960s translations that fully aware of Biblical criticism etc

#50

Off the Record / Re: TV/Movies Megathread

Last post by Syt - Today at 11:23:48 AM

Thinking about it some more, I guess the "average Joe" series are mostly workplace comedies now? The Office, Superstore, etc?