Jenny1

Precisely. Which is where much of the danger lies.

But surely BrandNewGuy, unless you know the person well, you wouldn't be able to make the judgement. If a friend or relative who was assiduous in looking after sick family members, or volunteering, or any other act of charity, posted a message supportive of native Americans then it wouldn't count as 'virtue signalling' by your definition. If a stranger posts such a message, how can one possibly know if they're a generally helpful member of society or not? And thus how can you possibly define what they're doing as 'virtue signalling'? - I'm editing to apologise for sounding so adamant. But I do feel strongly about this issue. I worry, as others have noted, that many people use the phrase 'virtue signalling' to dismiss any deeply felt, positive opinion - and thus shut down debate. I don't mean to imply that you would fall into that category BrandNewGuy.

Well they might be able to - and they might not. But I agree with those who've suggested that it's a good idea to pop along for some tests. It's definitely worth a try. Sometimes of course it's just a matter of advancing years. We can't all be like my extraordinary god-father who was still doing round the world trips at 96!

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I will vote lib-dem again > having sworn I never would after the Melbourne > Grove fiasco. I think what that particular incident reinforced for me was that often it's a good idea to vote differently on national and local levels.

Thanks for posting the link rahrahrah. I think the 'Central Park Five' issue is particularly alarming.

But I wouldn't call that 'virtue signalling', would you uncleglen?

OK. I see BrandNewGuy. So that would mean someone saying something they don't actually believe, just to be approved of by their friends?

It may have something to do with the fact that the Goose Green roundabout is blocked on one side as they repair the water main there.

But Penguin68, do you really believe that approving of someone or something you agree with, if such approval doesn't cause risk to yourself, is in some way worthy of criticism or derision? And BrandNewGuy do you really think that stating your beliefs, in a context where it's not proven that they will have an impact on the world at large, is self indulgent and worthy of censure?

rjsmall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > default to WTO > agreements. Hi rjsmall. But when you make the comparison, as I'm sure you have, between what those agreements would give us, and what we have now, doesn't the end result look so much like 'nothing', that it would make sense to call it that?

There we go. Legal process on the way thanks to Bob Ferguson, Attorney General, Washington State.

I hope this link will work https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/ to a long and interesting piece in The Atlantic Monthly

To my shame I'd never heard of Neil Postman. But this is an interesting article about the book he wrote in the 80s which to some extent predicted our current political landscape. More Aldous Huxley than George Orwell. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-ourselves-to-death-neil-postman-trump-orwell-huxley

One of the appealing things I found about New Zealand was the way in which people tended to get things mended, rather than replace them. And it was economically viable to do this. So when the zip on my nice rucksack gave out my friends immediately knew to take it to the local chap who made yacht sails and repaired anything remotely canvas. The bag's still going strong nine years later - and actually the zip the repair man put in was much better than the original. I suppose it's easy to understand why this would be the case in a remote country which has a long history of having to be self sufficient.

Was it in the 1970s when people first started talking about 'built in obsolescence'?

I've never tried the hog roast at the market - though it smells tempting. I'm more concerned about the rise/potential rise in prices of day to day food items. Butter seems to have set off at an inflationary gallop recently.....

....I guess the other option is that Trump tries to get all the existing laws amended. Not sure how hard that would be and also not sure if it would 'count' - trying to make his actions legal retrospectively.

That's very helpful ianr. So the case being currently brought by the American Civil Liberties Union is based on the fact that the executive order is in breach of a number of pieces of existing legislation including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I'm no legal expert - but given what Trump has said the ACLU case appears unarguably strong, making the executive order illegal. I wonder if the legal process will have to 'play out' or if Trump will be persuaded to climb down before that happens.

I don't know what power congress has re executive orders I'm afraid. I'm sure the will would be there to challenge among many Republicans as well as Democrats - but I don't know what the process would be.

You'll probably have seen the case mentioned on the BBC website of the young woman studying veterinary medicine at Glasgow. She has an Iranian passport and went on holiday to Costa Rica with her boyfriend. Now they're not allowed to board the plane home because the flight goes via the US. Buying new tickets via Madrid will cost ?2600 which they can ill afford. As I understand it the judges are reacting to the individual situations that this executive order have created - not the 'constitutionality' of that order.

I can highly recommend the repeat of the 'Archive on 4' 'Frost on Nixon' currently available on the i-player. Useful as we meditate on the many faces of the US Presidency over the years - and what that means for us now. A real insight into the administration of 'Tricky Dicky'. Particularly fascinated by the close aides who knew when not to implement his explicit and adamant orders. Rest assured vito. My moral compass is reacting much as yours is at the moment.

Hi TheCat. Of course no march, political protest or indeed political party is going to be perfect. You raise an interesting point about explaining the banner 'The future is female' to your son. I think if I were to discuss that with my nephew, or one of my god sons, we would agree that this slogan should not be seen as excluding them (if it was written and carried in a spirit of exclusion - then it would of course have been wrong). I think we could have an interesting conversation about how the vast majority of human history has seen men in positions of economic, social and political dominance and that this has led to a movement that fights to re-balance that history. Piers Morgan's impressions of the Washington March (and accompanying marches around the world) disagree completely with my own. He concludes that 'this march wasn't about women's rights' but was rather a 'man-hating frenzy by some very nasty women'. I doubt that's how most people will have experienced it.

The bit that you quoted Mick Mac was arguing that there's a conflict, or indeed a contradiction, between being a successful woman who gets to the top of her profession and marching for women's rights. I don't see those things as contradictory. By implying that they do conflict with each other Piers Morgan implies that 'getting ahead' is good, while campaigning for women's rights by marching isn't. That's why I made the assumption that you didn't agree with the march.

So TheCat and Mick Mac. What do you think about Mike Pence's record on women's health issues? And how would you (if you were American) feel about the incoming administration as a result of that record? Might you be moved to demonstrate to make your views felt? (no matter if you were male or female) Also specifically TheCat. Having heard the whole of Madonna's speech (as I'm sure you have) .....do you still feel Piers Morgan's interpretation to be accurate?

creme caramel becomes Angel Delight Ah. The early 70s. I remember them well. Long hot summers and tetrasodium diphosphate. Those were the days.