Speak To The Kitty: NEW OBWI EMAIL ADDRESS And Open Thread

by Gary Farber

Longtime and valued commenter Uncle Kvetch asked an extremely important question here.

[…] While it was nice seeing a united front of commenters taking on avedis' all-too-familiar mix of dick-waving bravado and abject sexual terror, I do find myself wondering just what constitutes "beyond the pale" when it comes to homophobic remarks around here. I'm not referring to ban-worthy offenses, as the posting rules are clear enough. But I have to say that when the inevitable necrophilia/bestiality comparisons were dragged out and numerous commenters just kept on presuming good faith on avedis' part…well, it makes me wonder.

The answer is that the "New Banning Rules" were last updated, as you can see, by longtime front-pager Edward at 10:25 AM on January 26, 2005.

They include this:

One writer (but only one) from the other side of the fence must agree to the ban for it to move forward (Von can vote as either side of the fence as he wishes). For the record, currently Charles Bird, Andrew, and Sebastian Holsclaw are on the right; Von is in the center; and Hilzoy is on the left.;-) Yes, that's unbalanced…we're working on it.*

This has been discussed many many many times in comments since 2005, by various people.  Many emails to the kitty address have been sent since 2005.

The "New Banning Rules" remain as posted until someone with the ability and authority to post new rules does so.  Wording has been suggested. 

The Posting Rules were last updated 1/19/2007, with a further undated update by an unknown to me user of "SuperUser."  I can guess, but so can you.

Again, much email has been sent to the kitty address since then, and there have been various discussions in comments about this since that time.

The Posting Rules remain as posted until someone with the ability and authority to post new rules does so.

None of this will change until the co-bloggers communicate with each other about it, and appropriate action taken by the appropriate parties with the ability to do so.  As has always been the case. 

As of Wednesday, December 29th, the address to email the kitty has been: ObWings At gmail Dot com

Send Obsidian Wings related email there.


The template will be updated to the new email address when someone with the ability and authority to access the template does so.

The above address is now readable by
# Doctor Science
# Eric Martin
# Gary Farber
# Jacob Davies
# russell
# Sebastian H

The address to reach me personally is gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com

I'll do my best to respond as I can. 

I promise no one a response.  All I promise is that I'll do my best to do my best.

Each member of the ObWi collective will do their best to respond, I'm sure.  Whether there will be any communication between members of the ObWi collective on responses, or how to respond, or what's appropriate to respond, will, presumably, be discussed among them at some future date, or it won't.

If you've sent email to the currently listed kitty address, and haven't received a response in the past two years, I suggest sending a new email to ObWings at gmail dot com

Alternatively, someone with access to that email address might eventually address the backlog, but I don't advise waiting.

You now know the best way to reach a member of the ObWi collective, short of asking for or knowing their individual email addreses, that I'm aware of.

I think a discussion of the Posting Rules, Banning Policy, slogan of the blog, and other elements that have gone unchanged since 2005 and 2007, would be an extremely wonderful thing. 

My personal response, Uncle Kvetch, to your entirely appropriate question is purely my personal opinion.

If I knew what the collective opinion was, I'd tell you.  I don't, and I can't.  Possibly this post may engender discussion of some sort somewhere, whether private or public, here in this thread, or elsewhere.  I can't predict the future, or the behavior of others. 

So my purely personal opinion which in no way speaks for anyone but me, and does not speak for the ObWi collective, is this:

As much as I can personally manage, I try to view people's speech and acts at a given time, and given set of times, as speech and acts, rather than as identifiers of who they are in a permanent way.

More specifically, I believe that all of us have unexamined prejudices.  I believe that all of us are products of our culture, and we've been raised soaked in whatever combinations of culture we've been soaked in, and exposed to. 

Therefore, it's my observation that none of us are totally free from some forms of ignorance and assumptions, including those ranging from merely careless, or unexamined, to habit, to not being yet exposed to better information in a way that is meaningful to them, to those who actively resist changing for many reasons, to those who will only change after months or years or perhaps decades of new experience, to those who will die unchanged in whatever ill-thought, or horrific, prejudices and beliefs they have acquired, and in many cases held from infancy, or childhood, or were otherwise imprinted strongly via memorable experience.

Until proven otherwise to my own personal satisfaction, subject to my own variable and subjective and changeable judgement, I try to consider people to be changeable and persuadable. 

I consider that, in essence, to be the heart of what blogging is or should be about.

It is, at least, part of what the essence of blogging is for me

Again, I speak only for myself.  But my personal opinion as a commenter who has commented with comments of 5000, 10000, and 15000 word long comments since 2003 is that this has been part of the mission, intent, and goal of Obsidian Wings.  It remains my personal opinion as a front-pager until such time as I am not, or I am persuaded Obsidian Wings's mission has been changed while I wasn't looking, or the majority of current Obsidian Wings' blogges have announced a new policy, or Eric Martin makes such an announcement. 

In light of that, I do my best, until I can't, to focus on discussing (in no particular order), racist, homophobic, sexist, heterosexist, agism, nationalistic, fascistic, communistic, nihlistic, caste-biased, heightist, Islamophobic, anti-Christian, antisemitic, ableist, weightist, sizist, antifatism, ignorantism, egotheism, accidentalism, nominalism, nomism, tribalism, and every other kind of prejudicial acts and speech, rather than labeling people as being those identities and only those identities.

Until I feel forced to treat them otherwise.  But it's always, in the end, my choice, and my judgmentalism, and only mine.  Just as everyone must draw their own lines as to that which they can tolerate and can't tolerate.

I believe in the power of people to change.  I believe in redemption.  I believe in allowing for it.  I believe in attempting to encourage people to educate themselves, and I believe blogging to be about informing, educating, and engaging.

I don't wish to speak to an echo chamber.

Crucially, I believe that few people change strong opinions in a moment, a day, a week, or a month.  I believe that in most cases, serious changes of opinion usually take place over the course of months, and years, and after a great deal of exposure to that which I regard as incontrovertible evidence, sound logical argument, good writing, and ways of reaching people that they are capable of hearing.

I believe people can only do this through a process of personal evolution, and that we're all undergoing it at all times, unless we are frozen, stagnant, unthinking people, closed to new ideas, and incapable of change.

This is my observation on how human beings largely work. 

Crucially, I believe that people have to, often, if not usually, take a long time to consider what they've read, heard, and been exposed to.  Often people may only weeks, or months, or years, later realize that something makes sense after all.

And, sometimes, then their perspective slowly begins to change.

It may take years, it may take decades, it may never take place.

Having said all that, obviously when someone is repeatedly, or emphatically enough, over a long course of years, demonstrably not changing, there becomes less and less reason to think that, for the time being, they are incapable of learning, growing, and evolving. 

All too often, that's the case for many of us, and to some degrees all of us are subject to it.  Few of us will ever wholly change all our important beliefs, and obviously what's important is not change itself, but openness to reconsideration of one's ideas, acceptance of the idea that we all have unexamined prejudices, willingness to engage in fearless self-examination, the ability to do so, and then act on it. 

And one's ideas must model reality as much as possible, or they lead us astray.

Reality as I see it includes the fact that all of the above prejudices, and so many others, are utterly unjustified, horrific, and result in great terror, hatred, death, and suffering in the world, as well as constant strain, unpleasantness, justified anger, counter-hatred, fear, and endless other sorts of negative effects, ranging from the Holocaust/Shoah, to the daily sexism every woman in our society is forced to deal with, aware of it or not, the daily racism anyone perceived as The Other is forced to deal with, the daily homophobia anyone perceived as queer is forced to deal with, and so on and on.

In sum, everyone perceived as The Other, by anyone, is vulnerable in the right circumstances to great suffering imposed on them by others.

These are  among the fights we as humans must fight to become better people, have a better culture, and a better world.

Having said that, there are plenty of people who make clear immediately just how vicious and intolerable they are, and that's what the posting rules are for.

I would like to see them enforced as consistently as is practical, in every way that is reasonably practical, insofar as mechanisms can be created to facilitate this.

I would like to see ObWi seen as a place that tolerates debate of all nature up to the point where debate crosses the line of the posting rules as they currently exist, until such time as they might change.

Meanwhile, on ObWi, we have the Posting Rules that we have, and we tolerate as much as we can within them, and somewhat beyond, and, yes, there has been very little consistency about that, and… very little, period. 

When someone crosses the line, and someone who is a member of the collective is made aware, and can do something about it, something may happen to enforce the Posting Rules.

It's been known to happen many times, if sporadically and utterly inconsistently.

Myself, I'd like to see the Posting Rules clarified somewhat, and the Banning Rules seriously revised.  But it's not up to me, any more than any other decision around here is.

Meanwhile, things are what they are.  I ABSOLUTELY think that anyone who feels that anyone else has been crossing the line, should feel absolutely free to say so in that thread, and in any open thread, and in email to the kitty, or any ObWi blogger you can reach, and I'd like to hope it will be given appropriate consideration and response. 

And speaking only for myself, since all that matters here are words, I'd like to inform everyone that I'm a sissyqueerpansyfaggot gay homosexual African-American foreign born Muslim Jew disabled woman progressive liberal socialistic pro-military anti-military atheistic respector of religion who hates all religions, is anti-Christian, pro-Christian, terrorsymp Arab foreign-born tall short fat skinny old young stupid smart well educated ill educated person who should be treated as any and all of the above. I was also born in Kenya, my middle name is Hussein, I hate America, love America, and am full of multiple identities, apparently.  Oh, and I'm mentally ill. 

For purposes on ObWi. I'm willing to defend my stances and identify as any or all of the above as best I can. 

And when I can, I will argue with anyone who wishes to criticize me on any of the above bases, attack me, regard me as such, until such time as I won't, as time and energy and priorities allow, at any given time, save when I won't, and until I can't, which for all I know will be in ten minutes.

What any other member of the ObWi thinks, you'll have to ask them, and/or they'll respond as they choose.  Everything in this post remains my personal opinion, I am not speaking for anyone but myself, and that's all I can say.

Comment away and ask questions as you like, until someone else stops you, or I do.

Thanks for asking, Uncle: it's an important question.

Discuss.

This is an open thread.  Bring up any other subject you like, including your day, week, month, whatever thoughts occur to on any topic.

There's no length limit to comments on this thread. 

I'm going to write what I want in comments on this thread in this manner, and I hope everyone will free to speak their mind about anything they wish to say, including letting me know any way in which I've offended them, including by writing this post. 

192 thoughts on “Speak To The Kitty: NEW OBWI EMAIL ADDRESS And Open Thread”

  1. One writer (but only one) from the other side of the fence must agree to the ban for it to move forward (Von can vote as either side of the fence as he wishes). For the record, currently Charles Bird, Andrew, and Sebastian Holsclaw are on the right; Von is in the center; and Hilzoy is on the left.;-) Yes, that’s unbalanced…we’re working on it.*

    A nice look into the past; I’ve only been reading since Dr. Science started posting here, so I had not been aware of the site’s history. Out of curiosity, then, is there a current understanding of the left/right split of the active posters?

  2. “Out of curiosity, then, is there a current understanding of the left/right split of the active posters?”
    Are you addressing me, personally, or asking about some mutual understanding? I can’t speak for anyone but me.
    And all I’d say to that is that I have my own evaluations of the views of the current front-pagers. Which are private.
    I’m happy to identify, according to situation, myself in various ways, because my views are complex, and I’m not thrilled with simple labels.
    I’ve quite commonly been labeled with pretty much every political label in the book, many times.
    Everyone gets to make up their own mind as to what label to stick on me, and what pigeonhole to file me in. Me, my views are my own.
    But I’ve been an elected official, in a trivial way, of the Democratic party several times, over a couple of decades; it’s entirely fair to say that I’m generally a Democratic voter — though I entirely vote on the individual, and have voted otherwise accordingly at times — and am most reasonably considered some variety of left/liberal social democrat with some libertarian and conservative views mixed in, and that my views evolve over time, and any statement I’ve ever made should be checked with me to see if I still agree (maybe), disagree (maybe), think I was an asshole (quite frequently), have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote such at thing (happens more often then I’d prefer), and so on.
    One thing that I think wouldn’t be true to say that my views are simple or terribly easily reducible, at least by my preference.
    Ask me this question again in half an hour, and I’ll give a slightly different answer. Time is linear, and life is dynamic, not stasis.
    My life is, and I try to encourage my thinking also not be, in stasis.
    And my short personal opinion about the group is that all of us now, besides Sebastian, are far more on the Democratic/liberal/left moderate side than not, while Sebastian… should speak for himself, and I’m not speaking for anyone else in this sentence.
    And I think that’s a fair description of ObWi for many years now. More than half the lifetime of the blog, by far.
    I think ObWi hasn’t been balanced the way the posting rules describe since Moe Lane quit. And that the claims of alleged balance description ranged from highly innacurate to wildly inaccurate ever since.
    This hasn’t been a controversial view since, well, note that in January, 2005, the blog was considered “January 26, 2005” to be unbalanced, and simultaneouslly said that:

    *And by “working on it,” of course I mean dragging Charles, Slarti and Sebastian over into the light of liberalism. ;p Just kidding…a balanced board is important…stay tuned.

    I have my own view of this, but make up your own mind as to how coherent this sounded even then.
    And that it hasn’t changed since.
    Despite being discussed endlessly in endless threads every few weeks, year after year after year after year. There was an announce shift to the new template in, god, I’d have to look it up: when Hilzoy was in charge, I think, but maybe I’m confusing that with when Publius announced it would happen very shortly.
    Theoretically the blog has striven to find more non-liberal/left/social democratic views for so many years I’d have to look it up.
    That’s why I brought Andrew over and introduced him to Hilzoy, and Hilzoy to Andrew.
    But, yes, it was unfair to Charles Bird, Andrew, and Sebastian Holsclaw and Von to put them on a “side” against Hilzoy, since everyone else put together and ten more besides, of high quality writers, couldn’t equal one Hilzoy, in my purely personal opinion.
    But in reality, nobody here has ever had entirely knee-jerk opinions, and everyone who has ever posted has made valid and interesting points quite a few times. How often is a subjective opinion.
    And while I’m giving relatively blunt answers, I think the slogan “This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’ve actually SEIZED the radio station . . .” should have been dropped by 2005 at the latest.
    But that’s not my call; just my two cents.
    I’d prefer to keep this private, but since this has been going on since 2005, I don’t think I’m being too impatient. Others’ mileage undoubtedly will vary.

  3. Marbel: expect a post on January 4th from me, my time.
    I make no promises as to whether it will be more than six words, or less than twenty thousand.
    (Probably less than twenty thousand, probably far closer to six, or more likely, a couple of hundred.)
    But barring medical or other incapacity, which is always possible, there will be a post by me.
    It’s a post I think about several times a day, ever damn day for… since I started thinking about it.
    Approximately two years ago.

  4. I’m reposting this comment from the “DADT and Rape Culture” thread.
    avedis at December 27, 2010 at 06:24 PM:

    […] I think that the author of the linked article is a little radical and a little bitter – just look at her – because she is not asble to play that game. She wants to be appreciate for her intellect, alone, or something.

    I’ve only just seen this comment.
    As an official Obsidian Wings co-blogger, I’m declaring this to be, speaking as only one member of the collective, in my opinion, two sentences (at least) that are in violation of The Posting Rules.
    Specifically:

    Be reasonably civil.

    And, most specifically:

    Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.

    Avedis, you’ve gotten away with a lot here, due to a combination of tremendous tolerance, lack of co-ordination, and other factors.
    This is an Official Warning.
    If you make personal attacks again in violation of this warning on ANY commenter here, you are subject to the possibility and probability of being banned.
    Since I’m seeing this belatedly, unless one of the other ObWi co-bloggers has given an Official Warning to you on another comment, I’ll consider this your First Warning.
    Do it again, you may get a second warning.
    There won’t be a third warning.
    How long you’ll be banned remains to be seen.
    My own preference would be along the lines of, in future:
    1) First offense gets a warning.
    2) Second offense gets a one/two day cooling-off ban.
    3) Third offense gets you two weeks.
    4) Fourth offense gets you two months.
    5) Fifth offense gets you two years.
    This is not an official ObWi banning policy at this time.
    So far as we have an official policy at this time, it’s either up to Eric Martin to declare, or you to be surprised with, and you may appeal any decision by email to ObWings At gmail Dot com
    If you have trouble figuring out how that works, speak up.
    But it’s how I suggest to the current collective that banning be handled in future.
    That, or something similarly consistent and clear; I don’t care about the precise numbers; I care about consistent rules that everyone can understand, that are enforced as consistently as is practical.
    Don’t make declarations about other people that you are not entitled to make. This is an example of your doing so, just one of many.
    You’re now Warned.

  5. Thanks, Gary. I’ve been following you on Amygdala for some time, and while I often disagree, I can at least appreciate your writings. Truly “moderate” group blogs seem very hard to find; little by little the drift one way or the other.

  6. Gary, I mean no disrespect, but is there any chance you could work on your…brevity? It seems to me that over the last few months your comments/posts have become a lot more wordy. Sufficiently wordy that I find it difficult at times to work through them. Your current comments seem to be characterized by a legalistic style perhaps designed to preempt future disagreement or confusion, but it has been taken to a ridiculous extent. This didn’t seem to be the case in the past.
    I mean, lines like this:

    If I knew what the collective opinion was, I’d tell you. I don’t, and I can’t. Possibly this post may engender discussion of some sort somewhere, whether private or public, here in this thread, or elsewhere. I can’t predict the future, or the behavior of others.

    look like they come from a panicked junior associate at a law firm. Do you really think you need to explain to us that you are incapable of predicting the future? Do you think anyone believes that you have magical powers? What point is there to enumerating all possible repercussions to this post?
    My point is: your readers’ time is valuable. Please don’t waste it.
    (As an object lesson, please notice what I’ve not written in this comment. I have not written anything about how ‘obviously you don’t have to change anything on my account’ or ‘of course you’re a skilled writer’ or ‘no doubt some (many? all?) will disagree with me’. I haven’t written anything like that because you’re not stupid and can infer it all. And what you can’t infer you can ask about.)

  7. Thanks for your input, Turb.
    See? That is exactly what I’m talking about.
    Excellent job. Many thanks.

  8. Yeah, on thinking about it, Uncle Kvetch, you’re right. In my one or two posts I should have objected much more strongly to avedis’s sexist and homophobic comments. I was too caught up trying to figure out where he was coming from.

  9. I dunno, with what is an essentially unmodded board, I think it becomes more important to figure out where people are coming from and if they are actually being honest before making strong objections. In the case of avedis, I still have a strong suspicion that he is playing us, so there is really no sense in denouncing his homophobia because if he is doing that, it is just a facade. The whole point of trolling is to obtain an outsized emotional reaction. And the whole performance, while directed at the DADT decision, is filled with winks and nods to other things primarily designed to piss folks who comment here. I mean, really, an ex-Marine with 20 years service, who has a son and a daughter in the service, yet remains steadfastly opposed to women serving, now running a horse farm and is also was an actuary who is convinced that everything on ObWi about health care is wrong? Oh, and the daughter likes whale watching. I think he’s only hung around here as long as he has because he hasn’t gotten the reaction that he wanted out of the commentariat. It would be a shame if the consensus was that we should work to give him what he wants.

  10. I commented as below in the other thread; I’ll reprint rather than link.
    WRT banning, I don’t think “avedis” should be (or should have been) banned. I think that, after the first couple of dozens of rounds, he should have been ignored. Shunned, even. DNFTT.
    He claims he is not a homophobe. Maybe, maybe not; no way for me to know.
    But he does assert, again and again and again, that real warriors ARE homophobes, and that they will not (cannot?) change, and will even subvert or abandon the military if asked to, and we as a nation cannot afford that. And he maintains this in the face of massive evidence that warriors in other times and other nations have not all been homophobes. As well as evidence that over the past 60 years or so racists in the US military have been forced to abandon the overt expression of their prejudices, and the sky did not fall in. Their patriotism or their devotion to duty ultimately outweighed their racism, and we as a nation are better for it. But “avedis” denies this precedent.
    If he is not a homophobe he is a full-time, partisan enabler of homophobia. Not worth my time, or anyone else’s. I feel foolish having engaged him as much as I did. So should we all.

  11. LJ:

    […] I dunno, with what is an essentially unmodded board,

    THE FOLLOWING IS GARY FARBER’S PERSONAL RESPONSE; NOT AN OBWI OFFICIAL RESPONSE; NO OTHER OBWI BLOGGER HAS BEEN CONSULTED IN THIS, AND MAY ENTIRELY DISAGREE:
    I solicit, in particular, longtime commenters to please monitor the comments, and send links to any comments they think questionable, to ObWings At gmail Dot com
    It would help greatly.
    Anyone is welcome to do it, but those who have been around for a while will have the best sense of when it’s appropriate.
    I also encourage discussion of matters taking place on this blog to take place on this blog, in any open thread I make, or send requests to me at ObWings At gmail Dot com, or gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com, if you wish to suggest a topic for discussion about ObWi.
    ObWi also continues to solicit suggestions for additional bloggers, last I looked, and we’re all capable, last I looked, of allowing Guest Bloggers by use of our individual judgment.
    If anyone would like to make a guest post, you’re welcome to send me your submission, or suggestion, and we can discuss it, or I might approve of it as written, or I might suggest or request some changes, or I may, of course, say “thanks, but I think this is more appropriate elsewhere.”
    FYI, reminder to all.

  12. LJ, it’s always possible that someone you know has google fu, and yet reserves judgment, still, despite various clear possibilities and established, yet not publically discussed, known facts and links.
    And more than one person here has been known to look into such things.
    Word to the wise. And I’m referring strictly to information derivable only from statements published on this blog.
    Were I not a front-pager, I’d say something more about this, but since I am:
    a) My role is different, and I play appropriately as I can.
    b) There’s no doubt someone would think I was using behind-the-scenes info; that wouldn’t be true, but it would be a stupid argument to waste time on, and might make someone feel foolish if I pointed out exactly how and why I can prove it isn’t true.
    But most people tend to underestimate what can be found out in just a few minutes of googling and reading, if one has good google fu, and the other person, ah, doesn’t realize all the possibilities of how many clues they’ve publically posted.

  13. […] I feel foolish having engaged him as much as I did. So should we all.

    It’s easy for many to forget that for every commenter, there are hundreds and hundreds — at least — of reading lurkers.
    If I’m addressing someone publically, rather than in email, I’m writing as much, of not more, as I can for the people reading what I write, as anyone addressed.
    Were it not so, I’d use email in most cases.
    We have an average, at present, of 3500 page views a day on ObWi.
    (It used to be 15,000-30,000 when Hilzoy peaked, but that’s another topic; though I do have an idea that not every front page blogger on ObWi has been reading the SiteMeter stats, which are public and on the sidebar, ever since I nagged Moe into installing SiteMeter, the original search mechanism, the second search mechanism, and so on. I could, of course, be wrong, and others have been consistently, when reading the blog, watching the stats more or less every week or three since 2005 or so and watched them decline steadily since Hilzoy left.)

  14. Your commitment to the idea that everyone is redeemable, Gary, is an admirable one. There are times when I’m sure it’s a better approach than my willingness to write people off, and this may or may not be one of them.
    The main problem I have with it is that it assumes an infinite amount of patience on the part of the community for rebutting the same zombie lies, timeworn canards and (demonstrably) dishonest arguments over and over again. Most people do not have that kind of patience, and when thread after thread after thread becomes poisoned by people who drag in all manner of bigotry, stupidity and just plain bad arguments, it becomes a chore to read, let alone comment. A lot of people just give up and go elsewhere, somewhere where the moderators are more willing to slam the lid on that kind of crap before it gets derailed by trolling.
    I have neither the time nor the energy anymore to waste on people who’ve demonstrated time and time again that they Just Don’t Get It. My family gets that kind of forbearance, but even then there are limits: I have an uncle who is the worst kind of bigoted, closed-minded wingnut, and he’s been that way as long as I’ve been alive–close to 40 years now. He is not persuadable. Arguing with him about politics feels like ramming your head into a brick wall, and is about as productive. I just don’t talk to him anymore, because what’s the point? If he undergoes some kind of major epiphany in his life that opens him up to deprogramming, I might make the effort–but he’s on the opposite side of the country and until he makes some effort of his own in getting sane, I have better things to do.
    And that’s an uncle. Why should random strangers on the internet have a greater claim to my time and patience than my family?
    At a certain point you have to be able to recognize that a person is not worth your time, and let them go. If you cannot do that, then bad faith actors and just plain crazy folk–and there are plenty of both wherever you go–will monopolize time, energy, and patience that is better spent on people who /are/ persuadable, or who already have their heads on straight and /don’t need to be changed/.
    That’s true in one’s personal life, and it’s doubly true on the internet, where the signal to noise ratio is far worse.
    Everyone may well be reachable. Maybe anyone can change. But if they don’t want to, there are better uses for your time–and mine.

  15. “Your commitment to the idea that everyone is redeemable…”
    That’s not quite what I said, in a crucial way.

    […] Until proven otherwise to my own personal satisfaction, subject to my own variable and subjective and changeable judgement, I try to consider people to be changeable and persuadable.

    Is quite different. As is:

    […] Until I feel forced to treat them otherwise. But it’s always, in the end, my choice, and my judgmentalism, and only mine. Just as everyone must draw their own lines as to that which they can tolerate and can’t tolerate.
    […]
    Having said that, there are plenty of people who make clear immediately just how vicious and intolerable they are, and that’s what the posting rules are for.
    I would like to see them enforced as consistently as is practical, in every way that is reasonably practical, insofar as mechanisms can be created to facilitate this.

  16. Gary,
    Sorry, by my comment that this was an essentially unmoderated board, I didn’t mean to dismiss the efforts that you and others are making, even as we speak. The ‘essentially’ was a way to try and identify the quality that ObWi has that often lets people speak for much longer than they might on a more strictly moderated list.
    The rest of my comment was a reply to Donald Johnson’s comment that he should have registered a stronger objection. I think I have mentioned before, but the softer approach is one that I appreciate, and I think that it makes a big contribution to the ObWi atmosphere. I’m not sure about any google-fu, I believe that I confined myself to what avedis has written as avedis here (and I have no access to any other information) and nothing else. Again, apologies if my comment came across as being ignorant or ungrateful of the efforts you are making, it was not intended.

  17. Gary, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to my comment. There’s much to chew on in what you wrote.
    I would like to point out (again) that I was not calling for avedis to be banned. I understand that I may have given that impression with my first comment on the DADT thread, which was something along the lines of “racist trolls get banned; homophobic ones get fed to their heart’s content.” That was clumsy on my part.
    What I was trying to get at was that there are plenty of options between banning and feeding, and I couldn’t understand the deference that avedis was getting, given what I saw as classic trollish behavior from the get-go. You and several others repeatedly countered his just-so assertions with coherent arguments, which he repeatedly ducked, dodged or ignored. He’d been in the Marines, you hadn’t, case closed. And yet on and on it went, to no discernible purpose…the dude came in calling this blog a “liberal circle-jerk” and left in a huff, hundreds of comments later, declaring it an “echo chamber.”
    Your vision for this blog is a worthy one — even a noble one. But it always carries the risk that fools will be suffered just a wee bit too gladly. I still maintain that this was one of those times, and the comments by dr ngo, LJ, and Catsy above do a good job of summing up my feelings.
    I’m happy to identify, according to situation, myself in various ways, because my views are complex, and I’m not thrilled with simple labels.
    You are a humanist. And that’s a damn fine thing to be in my book.
    And now I’m officially late for work. One more resolution bites the dust.

  18. Well, I’m glad you banned avedis, Gary (or whomever). There are a lot of blogs on the Internet and, frankly, while I don’t mind a bit of rough-and-tumble (in fact I will engage in it on occasion when I find someone (like avedis) to be a total tool), there comes a point when someone is such an entire jack-off that it destroys one’s ability to debate as everything becomes focused on the jack-off and his/her jack-offness…

  19. Well, I’m glad you banned avedis, Gary (or whomever).
    I don’t think avedis was banned. If he’s gone, he left on his own steam.
    IMO avedis has received about 1,000 times more attention than he deserved, but FWIW, here is my take on the affaire d’avedis.
    It’s worthwhile to counter harmful, wrong statements that people make, even if it makes no dent whatsoever in their point of view, and/or spurs them on to simply repeating them over and over.
    Where that crosses the line from useful conversation to just feeding a troll is unclear to me. I don’t think there’s a bright line.
    I’m more than sympathetic to Uncle K’s (and others) dilemna of having to either read vile, insulting crap, or not read at all. avedis was arguably in violation of this posting rule:

    We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one’s views or engaging in reasoned argument about them.

    I’m OK with him not having been banned, and I’m also more than OK with folks taking, and expressing, strong offense at some of his statements, notably the “gays == necrophiliac” crap, and his very stupid comments about Melissa McEwen.

  20. Link now updated to show the new email address.
    Probably someone ought to let hilzoy know as well.

    But, yes, it was unfair to Charles Bird, Andrew, and Sebastian Holsclaw and Von to put them on a “side” against Hilzoy, since everyone else put together and ten more besides, of high quality writers, couldn’t equal one Hilzoy, in my purely personal opinion.

    Agreed!

  21. @ Slarti:
    Not sure what “link” has been updated – when I click on the “Email me” link under the kitty, I get a “error” box – not that I wouldn’t email directly – now that I have (diligent ObWings follower that I am) read this post – but others may not get it (using FFox 3.6 on W7)
    @ Gary: agree that a new slogan wouldn’t be amiss.
    Also: the “About” page is way out-of-date as well.

  22. I posted that before I realized that it has to be verified before the change will take effect. I’d thought it was as simple as doing an edit.

  23. agree that a new slogan wouldn’t be amiss.
    suggestion:
    SPEAK TO THE KITTY: ALL HOLLERING, ALL OF THE TIME !!!😉

  24. Happy New Year all!
    Just stopping by as I was expecting an Andy post today. Thanks to Gary for putting it up.
    Seemed rude not to at least say hello while I’m in the neighborhood – so Hello! It’s awesome to see Gary and russell and Dr S on the front page. Lot’s of changes around here…
    I hope everyone is well and wish you all a great year in 2011. Maybe I’ll drop in occasionally in the less contentious threads…

  25. Jay C:

    Also: the “About” page is way out-of-date as well.

    Aside from minor tweaks, to which go all credit for huge, huge, huge amounts of invisible to all but a few work to Slartibartfast, Eric Martin, Publius, Hilzoy, and I don’t know how many or few others, the template has been unchanged since it was first created.
    The Posting Rules, old as they are, were never put into one coherent post; just a bunch of add-ons.
    This is about ten minutes work at most (for me, at least, if I had approval for the wording, and access to the password).
    The same is true of the Banning Rules, and the other boilerplate.
    Since Moe left, the links to Andrew on the upper right sidebar were added by Hilzoy, the blogroll has very occasionally been updated, and… if there are any other changes that have ever been visibly made beyond those, since then, I apologize to all who did them, for not recognizing them and honoring them.
    Doubtless Eric Martin, Slartibartfast, and Publius would be among those to thank.
    People who haven’t run a blog have no idea how much behind the scenes work it takes to do a good job, or even the most minimal job.
    I’m not faulting anyone for not making that their full-time job, which is what, in essence, it requires.
    Notice, for instance, how Balloon Juice functions, or any of innumerable group blogs started since 2003. It takes a lot of people pitching in, and a few to spend a lot of time, and a few to spend a certain amount of daily time, or at least weekly time, coordinating it all, and making sure substitutes are in place at all time when those ultimately responsible are not available.
    This requires scheduling, recruiting volunteers for monitoring duty, people who can update the sidebar as necessary, and so on and so forth.
    Sidebars need to be updated to make sure search functions work, links aren’t rotted, feeds stay current, tags available are appropriate and updated, tags are used, modern software is used to enable people who don’t use HTML to use HTML tags, software is added to allow people to easily recommend or repost posts to all the major social networks.
    The blogging environment changes every few months, at least. New software options are available from Typepad every day. Options become standard on blogs within, at least, months, if not weeks or days.
    Templates are often completely changed at least once a year, to keep up, rather than do it piecemeal.
    Many of these things could be done at least once within just a few minutes.
    This has been pointed out many sinces since 2005, and offers have been endlessly made for over five years.
    If this doesn’t happen: it doesn’t happen.
    It requires at least a couple of people who are willing to spend a few minutes reading TypePad Help, and learning to use the software.
    I’ve never used Typepad other than here. I know as little about it as anyone.
    But I’ve had no trouble figuring out how to do what I need to do, just by looking at what’s obvious, and by, if it’s non-obvious, taking a few minutes to read the relevant help.
    But I apparently have a talent for this, and it does take a few minutes, or more in some cases, and it may take people who are not comfortable with that sort of thing hours, or days, or weeks, or months, of struggle.
    None of that should be required knowledge for any front page poster. All posters need to know is how to post, and deal with comments.
    But SOMEONE has to know this stuff, and act on it, and set up systems to spread out the necessary tasks so they can be accomplished without putting an unreasonable load on anyone, least of all Eric Martin.
    Since Moe Lane left… we’ve had what we have. Obsidian Wings remains great.
    It’s been running on inertia ever since Moe, plus the attraction of good writers, and the major efforts made by those responsible who have put enormous amounts of time and sweat into keeping it running, which go totally unappreciated.
    HILZOY, PUBLIUS, SLARTIBARTFAST, AND ERIC MARTIN, AND ALL OTHERS RESPONSIBLE DESERVE ENDLESS CREDIT, APPLAUSE, THANKS, AND HONOR, and NOTHING ELSE.
    Repeat, rinse, recycle, repeat: HILZOY, PUBLIUS, SLARTIBARTFAST, AND ERIC MARTIN, AND ALL OTHERS RESPONSIBLE DESERVE ENDLESS CREDIT, APPLAUSE, THANKS, AND HONOR, and NOTHING ELSE.
    I am so thankful to them, and all the ObWi bloggers since the start, for putting up with me, and allowing me to comment so freely, and for allowing everyone to comment so freely, with so few restrictions, and for having created this invaluable community, which I know for a fact has helped change many people’s minds, and quite a few people’s lives in significant ways.
    The work done here, while visible only in bits and pieces to any of us — I damn well sure have missed significant and huge chunks, and endlessly more unknown unknowns — has done marvelous good for the world in its own not inconsiderable way.
    I can’t thank enough * Andrew Olmsted
    * Charles Bird
    * Edward Winkleman
    * Hilzoy
    * Katherine
    * Lindsay Beyerstein
    * Moe Lane
    * Publius
    * Slartibartfast
    * von
    # Doctor Science
    # Eric Martin
    # Jacob Davies
    # russell
    # Sebastian H
    And all the guest bloggers over the years.
    And not least of all, I can’t thank enough so many hundreds of regular commenters, so many of whom have become such good friends of mine over the years, and who have done so much for so many.
    A special shout-out goes to Liberal Japonicus, for his years of ancillary work.
    But there are so many others to thank, that it’s impossible.
    Everyone who comments on ObWi is part of the community.
    Families always fight. Strangers always fight. Communities always have internal fights.
    So far, no one at ObWi has, to the best of my knowledge, struck anyone physically.
    Some other harm has been done people, most of all, Publius, but we won’t go there now. And the toll on all the front-pagers is, at times, great. This is why no one has stayed in charge forever; everyone has a time when, under the existing system, they reach a point they cannot continue; this is no individual’s fault; it is simply inevitable with the legacy system of how ObWi works, created by Moe, which has been unchanged ever since.
    Form follows function.
    I’d like to help in any way I can to put into place an organizational structure for ObWi that will enable Eric to run the place with endlessly less demands on his time.
    Which is to say, so he can run the place while spending no more time on organizational or administrative tasks than he currently does. Which is every bit he can.
    It’s all entirely possible.
    It simply requires discussion, agreement, and implementation.
    We seem to have been blocked at “discussion” since I was made privy to such, and before that, “agreement” was apparently achieved at some times over some things. “Implementation” is what you see.
    I can suggest an entire plan of action, which is best done step by step. It’s been perfectly clear since 2005.
    That’s all I can do for now.
    All I’m interested in doing is seeing the blog restored to the number of readers and page views that it had at its peak, rather than the steady drop we’ve had in numbers each year since Hilzoy has left, as verifiable only (easily) for the last year alone here.
    I have no interest in suggesting anything that does not meet with the consensus of the entire ObWi collective, or, at least, Eric Martin’s approval and decisions, and a majority view.
    Having said all this, I’ll now try to shut up (not so easy for me, you’ll have noticed), and not repeat myself, as I have no desire to make anyone feel harassed, as I quite undoubtedlly already have, many times.
    This is not a brief comment. Apologies, but on an open thread, and my open thread, I’m approving myself, and no one is forced to read any of this.
    Otherwise, yes, point taken, and I shall generally strive to be briefer in ObWi comments, most of all on threads not written by me.
    And this is probably all the time I can spare on ObWi for the day. Thanks in turn for your time.
    My life, as it happens, is unbelievably busy, hard as that may be to believe.
    But Obsidian Wings has been one of the most important parts of my life since 2004.
    I care.
    When I care about things, I care a lot, until I’m given reason not to.
    Then I still care, but I go away. See most of 2009.

  26. I misstated at least one thing above, and probably many more. The “Share this” link was added quite some time ago.
    I apologize heartily for having misstated that, and overlooked it.
    I spent my morning writing this post on Andrew Olmsted from scratch.
    I’ve taken the liberty of temporarily making it the top post, with the intention of holding it their, if my co-bloggers agree, until midnight, January 4th, Pacific time.
    If they disagree, I’ll drop that and let it resume its normal flow.
    Due to that change, this post about Andrew Olmsted is temporarily not listed on the Sidebar.
    PLEASE READ IT.
    And comment.
    Thanks.

  27. OCSteve, you and I have exchanged email as to why you’re absent, and I assure everyone it’s for the most understandable reasons in the world.
    And my heart is with you, and some of my thoughts, and you’re among the people I’ve referred to in several recent comments on this blog without mentioning names.
    (Yeah, you’ll have to read to figure that out.)
    But let me say that if it would relax you, distract you, and give you pleasure, I know so many of us would love love love to see such a beloved regular return.
    There are SO MANY regulars gone that ObWi just isn’t the same place any more, as is inevitable. But many are missed, by me, and others who have been around for years, and you are among the top most such.
    Please, if it works for you, drop by whenever it works for you.
    Remember how glad you’ll make others to see your name and even five or six words from you.
    You mean something to some of us. You are, also, my friend. And always will be.
    Not to denigrate anyone else, but I’m also so glad to see Nell again, and a bit of Donald Johnson.
    Both of whom would make FANTASTIC FRONT PAGE BLOGGERS.
    I’d also like to remind Eric Martin that he said he’d “think about” someone whose initials are TN three and a half months ago, so this is a jog. I wasn’t going to suggest more names until Eric got back to me on that one. After three and a half months, I’m jogging.
    Now if we could just get dutchmarbel and Jes and so many more of the Missing Hundred, or even some, to return to comments….)
    I know neither Katherine nor Hilzoy wish to return even for a yearly guest post, at present, but I always retain hope for the future.
    Save for Andrew’s return.

  28. Thanks for the compliment, Gary. I’ve been very glad to see you around.
    OCSteve–maybe you could pop up in the weekly Friday open threads as a kind of tradition. I completely sympathize with the desire to avoid heated unpleasant arguments (I think that was your reason for leaving) and have cut back on my commenting and arguing for that reason (though I succumb to temptation sometimes.)

  29. I realized there’s no reason to be coy about the fact that I’ve several times publically suggested, for years, in my role as a commenter, that we ask Thomas Nephew, as well as Nell, Donald Johnson, and I’ll wait to make other suggestions for other possible co-bloggers until such time as I ever get a response from other members of the ObWi collective to these suggestions, beyond Eric’s I’ll-get-back-to-you at the beginning of September 2010.
    I suspect we can find some people who are rational, and more to the center/right/libertarian, as well, but I can’t ask anyone myself; it has to be a collective decision, or, at the least, Eric’s.
    So I’ll wait until such time as we get a response about the idea of asking Nell, Donald, and Thomas.
    This isn’t internal blogger business; we’ve had these conversations in public as to who might be a good suggestion ever since 2004, as anyone around here since will recall, and I’m just continuing — repeating — the same conversation, in my role as a commenter, not co-blogger, that we’ve had a bazillion times before.
    Everyone is, as always, encouraged and I’m asking for, as always, suggestions of other names of people who would might be good fits at ObWi.
    That’s all.
    Then the co-bloggers can have a conversation about who to ask, what to do, and so on, in private.
    In theory.
    I’m not shy about, as a commenter, making suggestions. We’re all free to do that, and then be ignored. SOP.

  30. There are SO MANY regulars gone that ObWi just isn’t the same place any more, as is inevitable.
    Well, there are some once-regulars lurking, doing much-cut-back commenting, or even skulking under new noms de blog. Or combinations of the above.
    Not that I would know anything about that.

  31. Thanks again Gary, but I’m happy with my role as occasional commenter. One thing I wouldn’t like as front page poster would be the obligation to respond to everyone or at least a large fraction of the people in the comment section–I’d probably be praying for thread drift, so I could be excused. But I would very much like to see Nell as a guest blogger, as well as other people.

  32. DJ: …maybe you could pop up in the weekly Friday open threads…
    I may just try that Donald. I do miss the regulars on this blog, more than I thought I would. It’s amazing how many times over the last year or so as I read a news story I found myself thinking “I wonder what Gary would think about that” or “I should drop this link somewhere for wonkie” or “I should ask LJ to explain this baffling Japanese article” or of course “I wonder what hilzoy is up to”… It happens even in the meat world – I can’t help but think of cleek when I get ACLU junk mail every couple of weeks…
    So maybe I’ll give it a try in 2011. Open threads are typically safe enough neutral ground. 😉

  33. One thing I wouldn’t like as front page poster would be the obligation to respond to everyone or at least a large fraction of the people in the comment section–I’d probably be praying for thread drift, so I could be excused.

    I think that’s the reason some others dropped out. It (responding to various comments) can consume your life. Post itself also forces you to a higher level of rigor & research when doing the post, which also tends to consume your life.
    It’s not for everyone. And not everyone is good at both posting and defending. I am good at neither; hilzoy is outstanding at both.
    Part of my problem with recommending someone is that I inevitably wind up comparing them to hilzoy, and there are few to none who can survive that comparison.

  34. Donald Johnson: “One thing I wouldn’t like as front page poster would be the obligation to respond to everyone or at least a large fraction of the people in the comment section”
    This not only doesn’t seem to be the attitude of some of the current ObWi collective, but in fact, the reverse; but my impression is, I must say, utterly confused. All I can say in public is that what the policy desired by at least two ObWi bloggers as regards desired length and number of comments is not at this time known to me.
    Three, really, but you should be able to figure out who it is that has yet to communicate with me at all.
    One seems to be under the impression that we don’t encourage long comments, as we always have, but instead we should encourage only short comments. 500 words is, I’ve been told, highly excessive.
    Another seems to believe similarly. I think. Maybe. Or not. Beats me.
    But I’m probably completely misunderstanding them.
    There has been no group discussion whatever, and all I know are a couple of fragmentary, contradictory, short remarks, from one, which remain unexplained, and a couple of similar from another.
    Especially as regards what the expectations should be of front-page bloggers and comments.
    Especially as regards what the expectations should be of front-page bloggers and comments from me.
    Especially as regards what the expectations should be of front-page bloggers and comments on threads written by others.
    But that all may be just a reaction to me. And probably is.
    And it’s come only from two of the six (seven, counting Slart, who although not listed as a co-blogger, does the vast majority of work on the blog, behind the scenes, and has for many years) of us.
    With blankness from another, and blankness from another, whom one might best look to for answers.
    The two other ObWi bloggers have been around long enough that they have no problem with traditional ObWi comments, and that’s all I know there. For now.
    You know as much about this as I do, save that you, and I, and anyone around ObWi for more than three or four years, knows that we traditionally have very long comments, and have always encouraged comments to be long, insofar as they are on-topic, reasonably to the point, and preferably thoughtful and interesting, and the more so, the better.
    That’s what made ObWi what it was, and not some other blog. It’s been the primary attraction of ObWi since its founding, or at least its growth in the first year and what it developed into by the end of the first year, and particularly through the second year, and then since, until… you tell me.
    Beyond that, what current policy is beats the hell out of me. It would be nice to have it written down somewhere, if not at least agreed to, if not at least discussed, wouldn’t you say?
    Try asking the other bloggers, I suggest, and seeing if you can get a consensus. Or a response.
    I would LOVE to get some coherent answers.
    Especially as regards what the expectations should be of front-page bloggers and comments.
    So, please: ask away at everyone else.
    I suggest the best approach would be that someone who is not me attempt to start such a discussion in someone else’s open thread, and then that blogger will respond as they wish. Which is as it should be.
    Maybe others will respond, as well. If they read the threads of others. Again: beats me.
    What I can say affirmatively is that Russell’s been around long enough to know the score, and I trust his judgement. Ditto that, of course I trust Eric’s judgement, and even though he doesn’t go back all that far at ObWi, I trust him, and he’s in charge.
    Ditto that Slart’s been around long enough, and I trust his judgment, and knowledge of the score.
    But it’s fair to say that I don’t believe you would be under any obligation to respond to comments.
    See example of Lindsay Beyerstein.
    Note that Publius’ dashes into comments were few and far between, and it was clear that he only sporadically read the comments even on his own threads, and commonly didn’t read the comments on any other threads, let alone respond regularly to any of them.
    He did all that he could as his time allowed, which is all anyone could ask, even if it wasn’t the tradition of ObWi, and his predecessors.
    So I wouldn’t worry on that score. It’s demonstrable that you can be a co-blogger here for a year, and make few or no comments. It’s demonstrable that you can be a co-blogger here for at least a couple of years, in charge, and make few comments.
    And as for the rest, doubtless time will clear it up. One way or another.
    My indirect understanding is that Lindsay was not a fount, nor even a font, of co-blogger communication, and that she did precisely as much in that direction as she commented in public. Possibly less in private than in public.
    That’s all I can say about that.
    All I can talk about is my own personal opinion, and my own personal opinion as a commenter, and as someone making suggestions to the ObWi collective, is that I think you, Donald Johnson, would be a wonderful blogger here. As would Nell. As would Thomas Nephew.
    And I’d love to see you post, and then make as many or few comments as you desire and wish to, and no more.
    Purely just my personal suggestions, which I expected to be as ignored as almost all commenter suggestions have been traditionally ignored by the co-bloggers over the years. Or agreed with, and then not acted upon.
    The exception that springs to mind is when I brought Andrew Olmsted over and introduced him to Hilzoy, and to ObWi, and Hilzoy and ObWi to Andrew.
    That worked out.
    You may or may not recall that one commenter was repeatedly suggested by many for years, and that commenter never once commented back, either publically, or otherwise. He thought it would be inappropriate to ever comment on that subject, publically or privately. But he was a unique case.
    Or you may not have noticed that, or at least the latter part.
    Whatever, it’s all public record, and factually provable, googleable, and citable.
    Ditto that a number of other commenters have been repeatedly suggested by commenters for many years, and the results have been what they’ve been, which is that, traditionally, recommendations to ObWi bloggers have been repeatedly suggested, and then — whatever degree of consideration given was given in private — and the results have been what you’ve seen.
    That, I do know quite a lot more about, and won’t comment on in public.
    What I *can* do is offer you, and Nell, and anyone whom I want to, guest spots under my password, and I solicit such posts from you three: please. Let’s give that a try, howzabout?
    Purely at your leisure, no obligation, but I’m asking.
    No pressure.
    Just whatever springs to mind, and is a short as you like.
    Be relaxed, and don’t worry about being “good enough.”
    You will be.
    LJ: offer extends to you. Offer extend to many here, to the point where I don’t want to give a long list, because then I’d be leaving out others I’d like to see guest post, and it would be awkward.
    Besides, no one will post as a Guest under my name without my approving their copy. 🙂
    I repeat that anyone is welcome to submit a possible guest post to me. I’ll deal according as I see fit, and I encourage submissions and query email to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com or obwings at gmail dot com
    There is no over-supply of posts around here these days.
    Not given that ObWi’s tradition has long been to have ten or more posts a day, but that since the reign of publius, that’s slowly slowly fallen to what it is in the last two or three years.
    What the current consensus is: beats me.
    What I do know is that holding different co-bloggers to different standards is, apparently, now SOP. Since at least September 03, 2010.
    How long that will last: beats me. My only information since has been two words: “for now.”
    Maybe I’ll find out more in ten minutes, or five hours, or sometime today.
    That would be delightful.
    Assuming the response isn’t hostile, or a request to leave. Which wouldn’t surprise me, and which I’m prepared for, if necessary.
    I wouldn’t be saying a damn thing about any of this in public, were I able to get any answers in private, or if there had been a single group discussion yet, even once.

  35. OCSteve:

    So maybe I’ll give it a try in 2011. Open threads are typically safe enough neutral ground. 😉

    Steve, I promise you that so long as I’m here, and capable, and either paying attention, or alerted, this blog will always be a safe a place for you, or anyone, to comment or post as I can make it.
    I will defend any and every commenter here as fairly as I possibly can, and I will especially defend those I know to be reasonable, and I will especially defend anyone whose comments are reasonable.
    As always, I’ll tell people what I think, save that as a co-blogger, I now respond quite differently than I did as a commenter, since I now have a responsibility to comment in a wholly different way, and imperceptible as the difference may appear to those not paying attention, I have most certainly been responding differently, bearing that responsibility, ever since my first guest post.
    It’s part of the job.
    See, again, my stint at Winds of Change, and observe whether I once was out of line there as either commenter or blogger. If anyone can draw my attention to a single exception, I’d LOVE to know of one.
    Gotta go now, for a bit.

  36. anyone around ObWi for more than three or four years, knows that we traditionally have very long comments, and have always encouraged comments to be long
    how has this been encouraged? when? by whom?
    frankly, if a comment is more than one screen length long the odds of my reading it at all drop to almost zero. that is, i don’t start then quit if the comment runs too long, rather, i don’t start at all.
    that goes for front page posts, too.

  37. Gary,
    As an outsider lookig in I have a few comments.
    First, the nature of discussion on OBWi has changed completely since I first started reading here just before Hilzoy left.
    There is no patience (avedis discussion aside) here anymore for a intellectual discussion of opposing views. This change was driven by the folks who have migrated to TIO, who simply defined any alternative view as fouling up the thread.
    Intellectual discussions involve more than facts and cites, they involve opinions and philosophy, and logic.
    Whether it is frustration with reality or simply a lack of interest in why huge numbers of people think and feel, the most common response to a variety of commenters has been to lump us together and treat any opposing view as “those people” and define us as bad.
    Sebastian, GOB, Brett, and I often disagree, sometimes very much.
    But we are all lumped together as a single bad presence. Even in the comments at TIO.
    I only occasionally comment now and find myself having to catch up on the few posts here at the end of the week because even most of thee commenters here make it clear that the only appropriate comment is “what russell said”.
    I commend you and Dr. Science for trying to expand the conversation, I will continue to check in to see if it works.

  38. I’d like to revise & extend my previous comment (January 04, 2011 at 09:19 AM) to say that, in semi-agreement with Gary, that front-pagers are not obliged to be heroic in either their posts or defenses of said posts in comments. Really, it’s up to each front-pager to decide what his/her role will be.
    Speaking strictly for myself, which is really all I ever had any business doing: I quickly realized that for me to do anything resembling a satisfactory (to me) job of posting and defending, I was going to have to spend a great deal more time that I had at hand, or wanted to have at hand.
    I did not mean to discourage anyone by presenting the job of being a front-pager as Herculian. It’s remarkably flexible; it’s pretty much up to each person to decide what they want to (and are willing to) do. My job here is mostly taking out the trash, and responding to specific requests to update links, etc. Design and sourcing of front-page posts are a whole ‘nother ballgame; one that I’ve played and decided I just don’t like well enough to continue playing.
    That’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it?

  39. Good point from you, cleek; I appreciate it. The more feedback we all give each other, the closer we can come to consensus.
    I live to serve; whatever most pleases the readers of ObWi, insofar as I can, and it works for me, I’ll try to do.
    Honest.
    I agree that brevity and concision are virtues.

  40. Marty:

    […] Whether it is frustration with reality or simply a lack of interest in why huge numbers of people think and feel, the most common response to a variety of commenters has been to lump us together and treat any opposing view as “those people” and define us as bad.

    That’s always the case with most people. You, too.
    See:

    […] I only occasionally comment now and find myself having to catch up on the few posts here at the end of the week because even most of thee commenters here make it clear that the only appropriate comment is “what russell said”.

    Best advice: golden rule.
    Treat everyone as an individual. You want to be treated that way. You deserve it.
    Everyone wants to be treated as an individual. Because that’s all any of us are.
    We all deserve it.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    And ignore, or ask anyone who does not, to do so.
    Good to hear from you; thanks for your thoughts.
    Slart:

    […] that front-pagers are not obliged to be heroic in either their posts or defenses of said posts in comments. Really, it’s up to each front-pager to decide what his/her role will be.

    Absofrigginlutely. Utter, complete, total agreement.

    […] Part of my problem with recommending someone is that I inevitably wind up comparing them to hilzoy, and there are few to none who can survive that comparison.

    Yeah, we can’t do that. There is no other Hilzoy.
    And no combination of us will make up for her.
    We must move on as best we can, until such time as she might feel inclined to even guest post once a year. If ever.
    I was more pleased than I can say to hear from her in mail again. But I understand her many reasons for not returning, respect them utterly, and don’t expect any return any time soon.
    But the future is unknown, and I, for one, would like ObWi to be thriving and more in another five years, and another ten years.
    I think long-term.
    Time-binding.

  41. “That’s always the case with most people. You, too.”
    Thanks for the response. However, I am not at an alternate site talking about any group or individual as fouling up the threads. I haven’t used cleeks magic code to screen people I disagree with. Your answer is not false, but it is much too simplistic in the context of the slow death of OBWi.
    To each his own, obviously, but I stand by my observations.

  42. I haven’t used cleeks magic code to screen people I disagree with.
    for the record, i only use my filters to screen trolls. disagreement is fine with me. being an ass for the sake of being an ass is not.
    But we are all lumped together as a single bad presence.
    by a faceless lump of people who all think identically, apparently.

  43. “by a faceless lump of people who all think identically, apparently.”
    cleek,
    sometimes it is better to make a general point, that obviously doesn’t apply to everyone, than start calling out names. Do you dispute that some group of people at TIO, as a rule, would not express the sentiment I stated?

  44. Do you dispute that some group of people at TIO, as a rule, would not express the sentiment I stated?
    don’t know for sure. i haven’t been by TIO in quite a while.
    not quite sure what sentiment you’re referring to, either. sorry.

  45. I second the idea of a Friday open thread hosted by Steve!
    BYW–things change. I went back in the archive looking for when I started here and I stumbled on the Rilkefan gets married thread, 2005, May.
    Rilkefan, Jes, CaseyL, Anarch, …
    The thing is back then we were in the darkness of the Bush regime and Iraq was very much a hto war. Plus this thing about political discussion blogging was catching onand expanding.
    So I don’t think it is a case so much of ObWi fading because hilzoy left. i think a lot of people are doing what hilzoy did–deciding that blogging wasn’t the way to participate in the polical conversaion for a while. The since of urgency dissapated.
    I remember hilzoy writing that the election of Obama made her fell that things were headed enough in a better direcgtion that she wanted to move from blogging to other activities. I don’t blame Obama for this but I have sort of the opposire feeling–I think the oligarchs have won and tht i need to figure out how to immigrate to a country that still has civilized values.
    In any case I think the times changed and that caused in individuals a change in their blogging habitats.
    it is hard to lose a sense of community. i do miss people.
    So I’m back to the idea of a friday ooen thread hosted by Steve!

  46. For the record, the people who frequently hang out at TiO include: LJ, DaveC, Donald Johnson, JanieM, dr ngo, John Thullen, nous, Ugh, russell, Slarti, and myself.
    I’m missing some people, but that gives you a rough idea. We’re talking a smaller community with infrequent posts. I doubt that these people all agree on anything.
    My best guess as to what Marty’s thinking is that in the recent past, someone (maybe JanieM) opined that Marty/Sebastian often argued in bad faith and a few people agreed. Marty, if you want to discuss that, you should find the comment and quote it. Frankly, if a random selection of the OW commentariat believes that you argue in bad faith, I think that suggests the problem might not necessarily lie with them.

  47. Marty:

    To each his own, obviously, but I stand by my observations.

    I agreed with your observations!
    If you think disagreed, please do quote which words you think I’ve disagred with!
    Marty:

    […] sometimes it is better to make a general point, that obviously doesn’t apply to everyone, than start calling out names.

    I agree!
    Thanks, Marty. Your thoughts are always welcome.
    Wonkie:

    Rilkefan,

    According to ral, almost made the last Bay Area gathering, and may make the next, which I have to do up the revised announcement for this week, but which will be for the 15th.

    Jes

    I’ve several times repeated how much I’d like to see Jes back. But that’s up to her, and in the past, she’s stated that she’ll ignore all comments from me. As I’ve said a number of times since I’ve become a front pager, now that I’m such, I will absolutely honor her request to not reply to any post from her, other than as a front pager on official business, as best I can.
    I value her input, as I always have, no matter that sometimes I disagree. I’ve always agreed with about 80%, at least, of her views, and my only significant differences have been over style.
    But it’s up to her. I would love to see her back, and she’s welcome, welcome, welcome.
    If there’s more I can do, suggestions welcome, and the one thing I’d suggest is that people she’s speaking to her forward these and my previous essentially identical posted comments.

    CaseyL

    Has been sighted, and would love to see more of.

    Anarch, …

    Busy with rising in middle management at work, family, and life, but again, boy would I love to see his input here again. That guy is smart, wise, and great.
    Tell him so, please, dr ngo.
    I don’t expect it make a difference, but that doesn’t matter. Love his stuff, and he should know.
    Even every half a year, or every three months, for a line or two, or a few lines in an open thread, would be a great step.

  48. Also, having OCSteve over for open threads would be awesome. We miss you Steve!
    That is a fantastic idea Gary.

  49. Turbulence:

    For the record, the people who frequently hang out at TiO include: LJ, DaveC, Donald Johnson, JanieM, dr ngo, John Thullen, nous, Ugh, russell, Slarti, and myself.

    DaveC is back at times, and I’m the one who made it clear that he’s welcome, so long as he stays within the posting rules.
    I’ve always been sure that DaveC is, at heart, a good person, no matter that I’ve thought that, at times, he acts out in a bad fashion.
    So long as he stays within the posting rules, I’m delighted to have him back to commenting at ObWi.

    […] JanieM

    Couldn’t want her back more than anyone else. I wish she would come back.

    dr ngo, John Thullen, nous, Ugh

    dr ngo is still here, some. John Thullen never left.
    People don’t always use the same name.
    Nous seems to still be around. Ugh, as well, but more is welcome, and if I’m wrong, even more is invited! 🙂
    Russell, Slarti, and you are obviously here, and thank goodness!
    You’re a damn smart person, whom I tremendously respect, and whose contributions I greatly value and seek.
    I’m not saying any of these things about people to hype how I feel or what I think.
    It’s what I’ve always thought.
    I know that I’ve often not sounded as if it’s true, but it’s true. I’m good at being brusque, but that’s brevity.
    I tend to overshoot in either direction. Working on it.

  50. Taking It Outside (TIO), and please correct me on this if I’m mistaken, was founded by liberal japonicus, with DaveC sharing posting privileges later, to serve as kind of a spillway for overflowing meta-discussion regarding threads that got out of hand here at OBWI.
    When meta-discussion derailed discussion at OBWI, you could and can “take it outside” and just drop in over there to see what condition your OBWI discussion was, or is, in.
    Taking it Outside was an offshoot of “Not Yet Enlightened”, whose proprietor was Jackmormon, among my top favorites of the many missing worthies, not yet mentioned.
    I suppose a rougher take on TIO’s mission vis a vis OBWI was that the latter is a neighborhood saloon wherein occasionally folks push back from the bar and commence to tap dance with chairs raised over the heads of their discussion partners for some proper bashing and the former was the street outside where you could take it and, well, either settle it, or finish it, thus avoiding breaking the glassware, furniture and assorted crockery over here.
    Oddly enough, nowadays for the most part, when the bar patrons at OBWI rush to the saloon doors to witness the anticipated conflagration in the street, more than likely they are disappointed when all they see is DaveC and John Thullen staggering arm-in-arm to another saloon, instead of a fistfight.
    Mostly. DaveC still has a wicked sucker punch, the bastid. 😉
    Somehow, “Shut up, Dave!” turns into “What Dave said!” over there.
    In a way, maybe Taking It Outside should be renamed Inside Out or The Cooling Tank, considering that most of the fireworks stay indoors here.

  51. Thanks Gary, the feeling is mutual.
    I’m going to disagree with Countme–in about TiO. Part of the point of TiO is having a place where you can discuss things not bound by the posting rules.
    I think of it like this: in any family, there many truthful, even vitally important, statements that one should not say at the thanksgiving dinner table. There’s got to be a place for those statements. TiO is that place.
    I think I found the thread which pissed Marty off: here. It makes for fascinating reading. Ironically, one thing that stands out is how the commenters don’t find all the conservative commenters equivalent: McTex behaves differently than the Seb/Brett/Marty/GOB cluster and is treated accordingly.

  52. Turb, actually, I think we agree regarding TIO.
    “Glassware, furniture, and assorted crockery” equals “posting rules”.

  53. TIO started as a place to, pretty much, sort out the various and sundry flaws of Charles Bird. Or so I remember it.
    I tend to think of blog-argumentation as having an axis that intersects both Charles and hilzoy, and if you divide that scale into even parts, I think I fall a lot closer to Charles than to hilzoy.
    Just another reason I quit. Because Charles, even though he’s notionally ideologically aligned with me, is not my favorite writer. He annoys me. His writing is predictable and his arguments clumsy. Bless him. He tries, I think, but he’s just Not Good. And it annoys me, that he reminds me of me.
    Sorry if this is beating up on Charles. I mean it more to be beating up on me.

  54. Sorry if this is beating up on Charles. I mean it more to be beating up on me.
    It’s not your fault, Slarti. You’re just Not Good. 😉

  55. TIO started as a place to, pretty much, sort out the various and sundry flaws of Charles Bird. Or so I remember it.
    Your recollection is sound, Slarti. Jackmormon and LJ founded the predecessor to TiO, Hating on Charles Bird (during Katrina, IIRC, when things were quite tense in ObWi comments, and Bird was especially, er, Bird-y — I know I exchanged some choice words with him at the time at HoCB).

  56. Countme–in, you’re right, we agree.
    TIO started as a place to, pretty much, sort out the various and sundry flaws of Charles Bird. Or so I remember it.
    The original name of the site was Hating on Charles Bird. Hence the address hocb.net. So, yeah.
    And it annoys me, that he reminds me of me.
    You two are extremely far apart in my mind. To start with, you have something that Charles lacks: shame. Plus, you’ve managed to convince me that I was wrong at least once or twice. Charles never has. I wonder if he has ever convinced anyone to change their mind about anything ever.
    Maybe you should consider posting more. In the worst case, that might remind me of how terrible you are. For fun, you could try and give us your opinion on Robert Farley’s piece here.

  57. Whoops, forgot about Hating on Charles Bird.
    Slart, I’ve always thought the old saw, “Bird Dog sucks and is ruining this site” was not inclusive enough. (Large grin)
    Maybe you could start a “Hating on Slartibartfast” blog and diss yourself in the post AND agree with yourself in the comments and we could come over and call you names as we forcefully disagree with your self-criticism.
    For what it’s worth, as I think Charles Bird mentioned here in an appearance not too awfully long ago, he was blammed from Redstate for his comparatively moderate views. I think he suggested compromise with the Democrats on the tax issue in his last post there, which was like suggesting to Kim il Jung (sp?) of North Korea that he use a shotgun instead of a hydrogen bomb on stray Census workers in the DMZ.
    That banning from Redrum was like being ousted from the Dirty Dozen for insufficient dirtiness. Kind of the opposite of banning here, which is like being asked by The Magnificent Seven to stay behind because of insufficient magnificence.
    In fact, if he had posted the same remarks in his last post here instead of there, he would have appeared magnificent. I think.
    As an aside, I mourn the tragic, self-inflicted death of Moe Lane.

  58. In the spirit of Open Thread, looks like Brett’s got a friend on the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia agrees with Brett that “citizen” means only “male citizen” and “person” means only “male person,” and that the Constitution cannot be read as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender absent specific amendment.
    Curious to see what, for instance, GOB thinks of that.

  59. As an aside, I mourn the tragic, self-inflicted death of Moe Lane.
    Heck, if we’re going to get all sentimental and nostalgic, I remember when Josh Trevino was a guy you could have a reasonable conversation with.
    Seems like another universe.

  60. Antonin Scalia agrees with Brett that “citizen” means only “male citizen” and “person” means only “male person,” and that the Constitution cannot be read as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender absent specific amendment.
    So: Corporations are people. Women, not so much. …wow

  61. Heck, if we’re going to get all sentimental and nostalgic, I remember when Josh Trevino was a guy you could have a reasonable conversation with.
    What, back before DKos went Scoop? 😛

  62. Which, I guess, means that a male person handling tainted foodstuffs in his own kitchen is O.K. to go, but a female creature spreading salmonella all over the salmon will not be read their now non-existent rights and can be sent to Guantanamo for “debriefing” and torture by stomach pump.
    Or does it? Who can tell, given that there were no founding mothers in the room at the time the vague language of the Constitution was committed to granite?
    But what if a corporation is in your kitchen, in all of its personhoody aproned glory, working up a stomach-turning omelot studded with mushrooms, jalapenos and e coli?
    Those are the really the only people who count. According to recent Scalia rulings, all corporations possess penises only. But I wouldn’t get your hopes up if you are a gay male corporation. And your plum out of luck if you’re a lesbian corporation.
    Was it Wonkie who thought maybe she’d move to a civilized country? I’d move now before the darkest, most virulent, and most uncivilized practices of humanity need to be trotted out once again, Lincoln-like, to resurrect civilization in the United States of America.
    The Confederate Constitution is now the working document for one third of the Federal Government.

  63. The Confederate Constitution is now the working document for one third of the Federal Government.
    I was thinking the Articles of Confederation.

  64. Gary: Want much much much more matttbastard.
    Guest post?

    Anytime, Gary. Just let me know when — I promise to keep the profanity and invective at a bare minimum. 😉

  65. Is the word “Italian” in the Constitution?
    Where does it say “sh*theads” are eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. I mean, I understand that female sh*theads can’t serve, but what of heterosexual male sh8theads with dicks?
    I guess John HanCOCKs signature on the document settled that matter.
    It didn’t read John Hanvagina. By all means, let’s convene a Constitutional Convention and years of voting by the 50 States to clarify what HanCOCK meant.
    Sounds like a porn movie about Republican Court appointees with crotchless robes.
    You know, at this point, I’d feel incredibly silly trying to clarify to Judge Scalia or Judge Thomas, or the rest of the legal literal morons appointed to the Court by political morons the meaning of “citizen” or “person”.
    It would be like standing on one foot naked and rubbing the top of your head one way and your tummy the other and repeating ad infinitum the words “person” or “citizens” until they sounded like gibberish.
    Let’s just bomb Fort Sumter one more time, and re-fight all of the battles, but this time finish the job totally and ruthlessly by whatever means necessary.

  66. In the spirit of Open Thread, looks like Brett’s got a friend on the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia agrees with Brett that “citizen” means only “male citizen” and “person” means only “male person,” and that the Constitution cannot be read as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender absent specific amendment.
    What Scalia does in that article is what he accuses the more liberal members of the court of doing all the time, namely, riding roughshod over the text to reach their preferred conclusion.* Thus, he reads the 14th amendment to have a “male” modifieer as Phil notes.
    And why? Well, because “Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.” How does he know? Well, he doesn’t say, but somehow that’s the case and thus sexual discrimination by the state and federal legislatures is constitutionally sanctioned (or, at least, not constitutionally barred, if that’s any different).
    This is remarkably narrow viewpoint for someone who is (reportedly and reputedly) a smart person. Perhaps such a crimped viewpoint gets him where he wants to go and, thus, there he is.
    In any event, if we were to follow Scalia’s preferred method of statutory interpretation, we would look to the text of the constitution, the 14th amendment specifically, which says no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Okay. Well, it seems to me that the most easily defined substantive term in that phrase is “person,” or, at least, it seems to me that we all could agree that “person” includes both men and women, such that any interpretation that excludes women is expressly contrary to the text and, therefore, wrong.
    But what do I know.
    *I offer no opinion (currently) on the accuracy of this statement.

  67. And more:
    John Hancock’s signature, not John Hanvagina’s signature, was on the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution, which really muddies the waters for the literalists among us.
    As a result, it could be that only propertied American men and corporations were declared independent of the Crown. Women are still colonized and ruled by England, which has the added complication of placing their vaginas out of reach of Justice Thomas.
    Do the male children of mixed marriages, say, between the British women who make up more than half the population of this country and either American males or American male corporations, enjoy dual citizenship as a result?
    Hard to say. What does Scalia think, crossing his arms and nodding his head Mussolini-like?

  68. OK, Constitutional literalism:
    I say bring back letters of marque and reprisal. They’re right there in the Constitution, and we never signed the Paris Declaration that ended their use.
    Privateering could be a great growth industry.

  69. It just amazes me that someone like Scalia can make a dunderheaded argument like that, then turn around and believe that, well, of course the First Amendment applies to television and radio.

  70. Go to bed early and miss all this. Harrumph.
    TiO’s plan for taking over ObWi (read with a Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz voice)
    -Give DaveC and OCSteve front page posting privileges
    -Get DaveC banned from here
    -provide a place for people to get together outside of ObWi
    and then we will rule the whole ObWi consortium!
    [/Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz voice]
    The basic recountings are correct, though more precisely Jackmormon started TiO as a blogspot blog asked me to help out, I set up the blog first as a wordpress and now as a nucleus blog, and I invited first OCSteve and then DaveC to post there when it felt like they had some things they wanted to say and it was getting lost in the back and forth. We have one or two others who have posting privileges as well. Marty, if you really feel like this is causing problems, I invite you to start your own blog, invite GOB and Brett and complain about us to restore balance to the universe.

  71. (As a parenthetical aside, is very nice to hear that the spirit of Thullen still haunts ObWi comments, if channeled via an unfamiliar vessel. Consider my table-rapping to be a poor substitute for applause.)

  72. LJ: Marty, if you really feel like this is causing problems, I invite you to start your own blog, invite GOB and Brett and complain about us to restore balance to the universe.
    Indeed. Plus, I’m sure a (theoretical) Mothership guest-post from yours truly would provide no little fodder for ObWi’s dread wingnut (;)) triumvirate to further chew on.
    Meta is not an exclusively left-of-centre conceit, kids.

  73. Phil got there faster and pithier, but:
    One problem is there hasn’t been a lot of consistency in Constitutional interpretation and the perceived need or lack thereof for an amendment to effect a change. For example Scalia’s logic might seem vindicated by looking at the Bill of Rights: no one at the time thought the 5th Amendment would free the slaves, even though a literal reading of the text is incompatible with the practice of slavery, and a specific amendment was passed to explicitly ban slavery.
    On the other hand, even though radio & TV didn’t exist in 1791 I haven’t heard anyone advocating for an amendment to extend 1st Amendment protections to new types of communications. The concept of “the Press” has evolved beyond the 18th-century context.
    I would be curious to hear an explanation of why we need an amendment to explicitly declare that women shall be considered citizens protected by the 14th Amendment, but that we don’t need one to cover modern media technologies.

  74. matttbastard:

    […] Anytime, Gary. Just let me know when — I promise to keep the profanity and invective at a bare minimum. 😉

    Send me what you’re satisfied with to either the new kitty address, or my personal address, when you’re satisfied, and I’ll get to it as soon as I reasonably can.
    Aka “any time.” 🙂
    Go! 🙂

  75. Russell:

    Privateering could be a great growth industry.

    This could, quite factually, possibly be useful in dealing with this, though the complications would to be more trouble than the help, absent a lot of interest and attention from the U.S. Navy, DOD, State, and then the international negotiations necessary on at least the military level, though almost certainly political, and then it almost certainly would fall apart, even though FAIL would be sure to happen long before that level.
    But there have been serious suggestions made and not as absolutely crazy an idea as you may thought of it as. 🙂
    Merely impractical, as opposed to lunatic. 🙂

  76. the next, which I have to do up the revised announcement for this week, but which will be for the 15th.
    Cool. Please post its announcement in a prominent place.

  77. “I would be curious to hear an explanation of why we need an amendment to explicitly declare that women shall be considered citizens protected by the 14th Amendment, but that we don’t need one to cover modern media technologies.”
    In a nutshell, because the ERA was proposed and defeated. It’s improper to ‘interpret’ the Constitution to implement defeated constitutional amendments. Losing has to mean something.

  78. Scalia acts like the Constitution is just words and like his interpetation (which he is too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge is just his interpetation) is also just words.
    But those words translate into reality and that matters. It matters to hte people affected and it damn well ought to matter to the person uttering the words.
    So there is no 14th Amendmant protection for women says Scalia, the man, who has no expectration of being discriminated against himslef.. And I bet he will accept exactly zero responmsiblity if his interpetation results in discrimination against women.
    Just like conservatives who are philosophically opposed to the health care mandate but accpet no responsiblity for the impact if the law is gutted.
    Or the peeple who blather about ending big government and restoring power to the states and take no responsiblity for decimation in the social safety net that will result.
    It’s so easy to believe all that conservative philosophical crap if one doesn’t expecxt to be affected oneself or if one doesn’t give a damn about the people who are affected.

  79. Merely impractical, as opposed to lunatic.
    Yeah, my comment was tongue in cheek, but letters of marque are not the most insane thing that could be put on the table. IIRC Ron Paul raised them as an option for dealing with Al Qaeda post 9/11.
    And they are right there, in black and white, in the Constitution. Congress can’t require you to buy health insurance, but they can hire bands of privateers to wander the globe, extracting a pound of flesh from folks we don’t like in some form that’s short of a declaration of war.
    It has an appeal of a certain sort. Hire the Gambinos or maybe the Crips to go after Bin Laden!
    As a practical matter, it would be a train wreck.

  80. Brett:In a nutshell, because the ERA was proposed and defeated. It’s improper to ‘interpret’ the Constitution to implement defeated constitutional amendments. Losing has to mean something.
    Well, this presumes that the reason people proposed the amendment in the first place is that what they proposed is not presently in the Constitution. Gary notes arguments w/r/t the ERA that echo arguments made against the original Bill of Rights itself: if you put a a list of rights in the Constitution, the tendency will be to interpret the Constitution to include only the enumerated rights (regardless of what the 9th & 10th amendments say, which is essentially nothing).
    In addition, the wording of alot of the amendments, and the Constitution itself, is pretty darn vague, such that reasonable people can disagree on what is and isn’t covered by this or that phrase (shocking, I know). So, if I think the 14th Amendment bars government discrimination on account of sex, but seeing how vague the Amendment is I may want to be absolutely sure that the Constitution bars such discrimination, I propose an amendment explicitly stating that.
    Finally, I’m not sure why we should be forever bound by the failure of an Amendment to pass. So a bunch of people in the early 20th century thought that the 19th amendment was needed to guarantee a woman’s right to vote. So what? Why is their view the correct interpretation of the Constitution and not the view of, say, people today that such a right is sufficiently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Do they win just because they went first?
    Suppose a bunch of people sponsored an amendment that explicitly extended freedom of the press to the internet, and it fell two states short of the needed votes to pass, is it now “clear” that freedom of the press doesn’t extend that far?

  81. and yet, when faced with an obvious qualifier like “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, Scalia is happy to infer meaning.
    he’s a fraud.

  82. So the moment that someone introduces an amendment to explicitly extend 1st Amendment protections to communications in the electromagnetic spectrum, and it fails to pass, then the government can start imposing censorship? Because losing has consequences?
    The only way to win is not to play.

  83. Or what about this: suppose an amendment is proposed which explicitly gives the government to power to discriminate on the basis of sex, and it fails to pass.
    Then what? Which failure counts more?

  84. The only way to win is to recognize conservatism for what it is.
    I can remember when the Civil Rights legislation of the sixites was under debate. The conservative position at the time was that Jim Crow was awful and it was so sad that black Americans were subjected to such terrible treatment but gee its against conservative philosophy to do anything about it a the federal level so we will just have to wait until the JimCrow states change their ways on their own.
    I can remember when the original Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Acts were under debate. The conservaties said oh gee its so sad that all this polluting is happening but it is against our philosophy to do anything about it…
    Scalia’s claim that he isn’t interpeting the Constitution through a personal filter is obvious bullcrap. He’s interpeting through the conservative philosophy: “Not my problem, screw you”.

  85. “Losing has to mean something.”
    Does it? Well then, winning should mean something too.
    And I mean high-stakes meaning.
    In the case of the ERA, winning should have meant that the losing females (and their male citizen sympathizers) who continued to be discriminated against in many walks of American life should have taken up arms against the winners and secured their rights through violence …. as a way of demonstrating the meaning of losing and winning.
    It is readily apparent from Reconstruction to election day 2010 that the Confederacy has never quite understood and internalized the meaning of losing the Civil War.
    I’m all for reiterating with utter finality the meaning of that, too.

  86. In a nutshell, because the ERA was proposed and defeated. It’s improper to ‘interpret’ the Constitution to implement defeated constitutional amendments. Losing has to mean something.
    Utter nonsense.
    This implies that if the ERA had never been proposed it would have been OK to interpret the 14th Amendment as granting equal rights to women, but since the ERA never passed that interpretation is wrong.
    So Constitutional protections are invalid unless endorsed by supermajorities? Is this really how you think Constitutional meaning ought to be decided?
    Say I propose the following Amendment:
    “Adherents of Islam shall enjoy the equal protection of the laws. Neither Congress nor any state shall make any law restricting the practice of Islam, or denying its adherents any rights to which they would otherwise be entitled under the federal or state Constitution or statutes.”
    If this failed, would that suggest that Muslims do not have First Amendment protections?

  87. Happily, of course, as things ended up, given that cooler heads prevailed, even Phyllis Schafly is free to duck into the House of Representatives Men’s Washroom, open the trap door on her bunny suit, and take a unisex pee without fear of prosecution, although Eric Cantor has been known to flee shrieking when it happens.
    That she pees standing up is a fact that makes John Boehner cry the tears of a man who feels deeply the bedrock Constitutional principle that all corporations are created equal.

  88. The funny thing is, the power of the SCOTUS to decide what is constitutional and what is not is not in the Constitution. That power was established (based, apparently, on penumbras emanating from the common law and maybe the Federalist Papers) in Marbury v Madison .
    But it’s not in the Constitution.
    So if we want to be really, really originalist, Scalia has bugger-all to say about what is and what is not Constitutional. Or, at least, his opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s.

  89. To be honest, I’d completely forgotten about TiO. When I first heard about it (and its predecessor) I appreciated the idea, I just didn’t think it’d be constructive for me to take already-unproductive arguments somewhere else so that they can get flogged to death. That’s not to say it doesn’t serve a good purpose, just that it wasn’t for me.
    I just clicked through the link provided upthread for why Marty stopped commenting, and was surprised at what I found–that I was mentioned by name as the catalyst for someone else to leave. So I hunted down the offending thread and reviewed it.
    I remember it well now, but it simply hadn’t stuck in my mind past the day it happened. If anything, I was in agreement with the person who said that most of us were probably failing to communicate rather than holding substantially different beliefs.
    The exception, of course, was my disagreement with JamieM. Try as I might, I just can’t even in retrospect reconcile our two worldviews. That’s unfortunate, but it happens. People believe different things, and our worst conflicts come when we get too invested in trying to make other people think the way we do. I’m guilty of plenty of that myself.
    Still, I’m looking at the thread again and having trouble seeing exactly just how I pissed JamieM off so much. We weren’t flaming each other, just disagreeing very passionately about a point which appears to be a critical way in which our first principles differ.
    But clearly it was enough to drive him/her away. To tell the truth I’ve never seen anyone write about me with the depth of loathing JamieM did on TiO. I hope never to again.
    With all of that said, I’m keenly aware of how abrasive I can be when I think someone is egregiously wrong about something, and it’s something I’ve been working on for a long time. It’s part of the reason I don’t spend a lot of time commenting on political blogs anymore: as I mentioned in a recent thread, the criminal negligence of today’s Republican Party and the kind of damage they are doing to this country has pretty much robbed me of any ability to be even-tempered with anyone who has the poor judgment to try defending that party and its agenda. And this is a perfect example: this is about as much as I was able to sanitize this paragraph of loaded language and still be honest about where I stand. I don’t like the spillover that has had on my interactions with non-Republicans.
    So consider this my unqualified apology to JamieM.

  90. “Finally, I’m not sure why we should be forever bound by the failure of an Amendment to pass.”
    We’re not. You can try to pass it again.
    I’m old enough to remember the argument over the ERA, and the opponents weren’t saying it was redundant. They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally, and excessive in that it would mandate equality where men and women shouldn’t be treated equally. (Like combat, or mandating unisex bathrooms.)
    In other words, they were quite clear that it would in fact change the Constitution, that the 14th amendment did not imply the ERA’s substance.
    You’ve come up with a series of proposed failing amendments, but they don’t connect with what I’m saying, because they aren’t amendments to change what the Constitution is currently understood to mean. You’re just pretending that taking a dive on a ginned up amendment to restate current understanding is the same as seriously trying to change the Constitution and failing.
    What’s been done with the ERA, effectively implementing it through the courts after it was defeated, just underscores what living constitutionalism is about: Providing a way to circumvent Article V, so that the states are stripped of their power under that Article to reject changes.
    As for the civil rights act, the conservative position was that the 14th amendment, by it’s very language, only permitted the federal government to regulate state governments, not individuals. The federal government was authorized to require state governments to treat their citizens equally. Not to require individual Americans to treat their neighbors equally.
    Maybe you think it should have been written to extend that far, but that’s not what the text that was actually ratified did.

  91. It is so handy to perceive the Constitution as only protecting the rights of the individual doing the perceiving and no one else.
    Just like its so handy to conceptualize government as having a legitmate role only in serving one’s interests and no one else’s.
    Just as it is handy to think that the only legitmate expenditures of tax dollras are on one one’s pet issues and but money spent on anyone else or anything else is wasted.
    That’s how conservatives roll.

  92. … I feel guilty stirring the pot like this – but why are we having this debate – in the past when discussions regarding the interpretations of Constitution came up Brett’s belief was that anyone who didn’t share his interpretation – was a fundamentally dishonest liar.

  93. Catsy:

    The exception, of course, was my disagreement with JamieM. […] The exception, of course, was my disagreement with JamieM. […] Still, I’m looking at the thread again and having trouble seeing exactly just how I pissed JamieM off so much. […] So consider this my unqualified apology to JamieM.

    I suggest apologizing to JanieM instead. 🙂

  94. […] I feel guilty stirring the pot like this – but why are we having this debate – in the past when discussions regarding the interpretations of Constitution came up Brett’s belief was that anyone who didn’t share his interpretation – was a fundamentally dishonest liar.

    It’s my experience that it’s best not to assume that someone stands by words written many months ago, over a few moments, without asking them again if they still stand by those words.
    People who have never written anything they’ve ever changed their mind about, or in retrospect considered that other wording would have more accurately represented their views, are exempt from this observation. 🙂
    Also: people have debates because they have them. One might also ask “why have comment threads on blogs?” or “why have conversations with other people whose minds we can’t read?”
    People debate and converse because it’s what people do.
    Like you just did. 🙂
    That’s why.

  95. wonkie:

    […] That’s how conservatives roll.

    Gentle reminder that the Posting Rules say:

    […] Lastly, just a reminder that Left and Right have very broad definitions and that people are going to take it personally if you inform them that of course all Xs eat babies, should they themselves be Xs (or Ys trying to keep things cool)

    Consider your reaction to a comment that included “That’s how [PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS/LEFTISTS/DEMOCRATS/GREENS] roll,” perhaps?
    People remain individuals. Everyone.
    Everyone. Everyone. Everyone.
    If anyone wishes to be treated as an individual, not a label, I’m not clear what justification they might have for ever complaining when other people respond, or originate, by responding as if their interlocutor is homogenous with tens of millions of other people.
    I’ve yet to meet a person who is interchangeable with another person.
    I’ve yet to meet a person who wishes to be treated as interchangeable and their entire life and worldview treated as reducible to a one-word label.
    I’d be very interested if anyone could introduce me to anyone who works that way.
    Does anyone know anyone like that?

  96. I’ve yet to meet a person who is interchangeable with another person.
    Of course. And that’s why, when you meet a new person, your first reaction is always and everywhere to ask them if they speak English. Right? I mean, no one in interchangable with anyone else. And since people are all unique and special snowflakes, you can’t just assume things about them like what languages they speak. Right?
    The truth is that for many questions, people are actually quite interchangable. For the question of ‘will this person speak english’, white folks in America are generally interchangable. Obviously, when we’re dealing with sets consisting of hundreds of millions of people, no statement will apply to all of them, but lots of interesting statements will apply to a very large fraction of them. Statistics are useful.
    So I think talk of whether individuals are completely interchangable misses the point. In practice, for a sufficiently narrow question, it is quite easy to reduce people to a one word label. For example, ‘who did you vote for in the last Presidential election?’ reduces almost the entire pool of recent Presidential voters very nicely into two classes…differentiated by two…labels. Whether you know the right word or have a sufficiently narrow question is a different matter, but that’s not the issue you raised.

  97. What’s been done with the ERA, effectively implementing it through the courts after it was defeated, just underscores what living constitutionalism is about: Providing a way to circumvent Article V, so that the states are stripped of their power under that Article to reject changes.
    Nothing’s been done with the ERA. What has been done is that both the courts and Congress have ruled that women are persons, and that rights, protections, or privileges that apply to persons apply to them.
    And that is prohibited precisely nowhere in the Constitution.
    Congress makes law, the courts rule on what law means and how it applies. I don’t see a problem here.
    Maybe you think it should have been written to extend that far, but that’s not what the text that was actually ratified did.
    The Constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act includes not only the 14th Amendment, but also the 15th, and the commerce clause.
    Also, basic human decency, but I digress.
    It only requires people to treat their neighbors equally in those areas that are within scope of what Congress can legislate.
    Unfortunately, Congress has no power to legislate on stupidity, ignorance, or unthinking hatred.

  98. They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally, and excessive in that it would mandate equality where men and women shouldn’t be treated equally.
    Here is the entire text of the proposed ERA. Can someone highlight the part about bathrooms for me?

    Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

  99. They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally
    This is hilarious considering that the Ledbetter bill just became law LAST YEAR.

  100. They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally, and excessive in that it would mandate equality where men and women shouldn’t be treated equally. (Like combat, or mandating unisex bathrooms.)
    Aside from the silliness that Phil already pointed out, wouldn’t the truth of this argument still mean that Scalia is wrong, considering the bolded part, Brett?

  101. Brett: You’ve come up with a series of proposed failing amendments, but they don’t connect with what I’m saying, because they aren’t amendments to change what the Constitution is currently understood to mean. (Brett’s emphasis)
    Understood by whom? What evidence do you have that there is this current (your word) belief that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not bar overt discrimination on account of sex by state governments? Scalia would say that “no one” believed that at the time it was adopted (despite what appears to be evidence to the contrary) and thus it can’t be the case that it bars state sanctioned sex discrimination, despite the “plain text” of the 14th Amendment to which he is supposedly trying to be faithful to.

  102. Bretty: What’s been done with the ERA, effectively implementing it through the courts after it was defeated, just underscores what living constitutionalism is about: Providing a way to circumvent Article V, so that the states are stripped of their power under that Article to reject changes.
    Why can’t it be that the people behind the ERA and who voted to ratify it in state legislatures were dunderheads who didn’t realize that the principles of the ERA were already enshrined in the Constitution under the 14th Amendment? Or that believed that such principles were in fact enshrined in the 14th Amenmdent but didn’t want to leave those that didn’t believe so any wiggle room? OR, indeed, that there was any single reason why the people who supported the ERA did so (and why those who opposed it did so) such that you can draw the conclusion that the failure to ratify it means that its principles can’t already be in the Constitution?

  103. It’s my experience that it’s best not to assume that someone stands by words written many months ago, over a few moments, without asking them again if they still stand by those words.
    Well, I really don’t care if a certain commenter still thinks I’m a homophobic, misogynist borderline rapist or not – but it sure put me off commenting here for a while.

  104. Russell said:
    “Here is the text of the entire of the proposed ERA. Can someone highlight the part about bathrooms for me?”
    In Section 1, the “u” in “under”, the “n” in “not”, the “i” in denied, the “sex” in “sex”, the “b” in “abridged”, etc. etc. clearly spells out unisex bathrooms.
    Plus, if you listen to Phyllis Schafly’s stemwinders back in the day, you can detect very clearly in the background the sounds of toilets flushing.
    Now, for the strict constructionist conservatives among us, the fact that the ERA did not pass spelled out as clear as skywriting by word of mouth that Lester Maddox may prevent, through the wielding of ax-handles, Rosa Parks from utilizing the bathroom in his restaurant, despite the fact that Republican Steve King is permitted to use Maddox’s bathroom to go Number Two, but that may be a good thing, because it reduces the incidence of King going Number Two all over the floor of the House of Representatives.
    If “Do Not Discriminate” is not clearly spelled out in a Constitutional Amendment and voted affirmatively on by whatever number of individuals in whatever number of the 50 states, then the writing on the wall of the men’s bathroom at the National Republican Committee headquarters shall maintain precedence, which clearly states “Discriminate to your heart’s content.”, among other suggestions.
    It’s like when Michael Steele reads his favorite book “War and Peace” and quotes its memorable opening lines “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”
    Kind of.

  105. “Here is the text of the entire … ” ah, crap!
    Could the Sargeant at Arms please read the text of Russell’s question to me out loud?

  106. Turb:

    Of course. And that’s why, when you meet a new person, your first reaction is always and everywhere to ask them if they speak English. Right?

    No. I listen to or read their English, and use my skills to determine whether to ask them, at an appropriate moment, only if necessary, if English is their second language.
    It’s rarely necessary to even indirectly ask.

  107. Well, I really don’t care if a certain commenter still thinks I’m a homophobic, misogynist borderline rapist or not – but it sure put me off commenting here for a while.

    If I cared anything at all for the opinions of people who treat all conservatives as part of a single, evil monolith, I wouldn’t, either.
    For good or ill, though, I don’t have that particular concern.
    The trick is, I think, to have a much thicker skin where it comes to discussion than you do in all other aspects of your life. Blog commenting is, after all, just words.

  108. novakant:

    Well, I really don’t care if a certain commenter still thinks I’m a homophobic, misogynist borderline rapist or not – but it sure put me off commenting here for a while.

    Entirely understandable.
    We all have feelings.
    All of us.

  109. If I cared anything at all for the opinions of people who treat all conservatives as part of a single, evil monolith, I wouldn’t, either.

    liberals could be substituted for conservatives in the above sentence without losing any of the flavor of it.

  110. If I cared anything at all for the opinions of people who treat all conservatives as part of a single, evil monolith, I wouldn’t, either.

    To distill down much of what I said, above: it isn’t about you. It’s about someone’s cartoon version of you.

  111. Being gone doesn’t mean not peeking in now and then. Then one thing leads to another.
    Seeing what Gary was up to in this thread, I’ve been following it desultorily — and unfiltered. Having ignored my own advice to myself and read Marty’s comments along with the rest, I was going to go away again as usual, but Catsy’s comments made me change my mind.
    *****
    Catsy, thanks. I apologize in my turn. I’ve already said (both here, at the time, and later, at TiO) that I was having a bad day and was unhappy with my own part in the exchange we had, not just with you.
    Also, you were not “the cause” of me leaving, it was more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. I explained this as well, I believe, both here and at TiO, and am not going to go over it at length now, especially in a thread where Gary is trying to revitalize the blog. Speaking only for myself, I need a life. Sitting around all day reading and sometimes participating in Obsidian Wings threads had come to be a major impediment to that quest. The repetitiveness of the arguments about things like marginal tax rates and wealth distribution didn’t help, nor did what I felt to be the increased rancorousness of a lot of threads. (I was here for less than 3 years; I’m sure some of the older hands could point to times when the rancor was far worse and more pervasive, but I’m talking about my own tolerance levels, plus my own preferences about how to spend my time.)
    A discussion about where we disagree about first principles would be valuable, in theory. In practice, that particular day, my worst (most hair-trigger, heavily primed) buttons were pushed. All I can say in brief is that I felt condescended to, both in the abstract and in the back-and-forth, and I wasn’t feeling well, and it was a bad day in general, and I reacted badly. Ultimately, it was watching myself, more than anything else, that made me decide to try to put Obsidian Wings aside.
    [More in another comment, probably.]

  112. Gary wrote:
    I’ve yet to meet a person who is interchangeable with another person.
    Brett wrote:
    The federal government was authorized to require state governments to treat their citizens equally. Not to require individual Americans to treat their neighbors equally.
    There has to be an entire riff on the nature of the relationship or non-relationship between those two sentences, but in deference to Cleek I’ll observe brevitity (Gary’s spelling 😉 up thread but I’ll leave it alone) and retire for the day or the week.
    It occurs to me that one’s mother (with the exception of Ma Kettle) does not believe in the interchangeability of each of their beloved children with other people, but that one’s Drill Sargeant in the Marines, in the carrying out of his or her duties, will mold you into an interchangeable part of a cohesive unit.
    And when your cannon fodder body is sent back in a body bag, you’d better believe the Marines will find another interchangeable you to take the next bullet.
    I doubt all but the most sensitive mothers can pick out, even with a magnifying glass, their individual offspring from an aerial photograph of the Marines mustered for parade on any given Sunday. Those mothers would have the same
    And why is it that “on the job” in America, we’re told that everyone can be replaced? All of us are expendable, blah, blah, blah?
    See ya.

  113. “Those mothers would have the same”
    The same what, John?
    The same problem picking out their individual child as a North Korean mother would have identifying their individual child in an aerial photograph of the North Korean Army on parade.

  114. Nice to see you again, JanieM.
    Ditto. And I just today saw for the first time your comment in the “offending thread” inviting me to e-mail you, Janie, in case you ever get down to Philly to visit your friend, so we might get together. I will be e-mailing you presently, after however-many months. Hogan and I have gotten together for happy hour. Perhaps we can all three (and whoever else) do so at some point in the not too distant future.

  115. (Of course, I’m a Marxist Kenyan Atheist mulatto. Grain of salt, natch.)
    And, worst of all, you listen to metal.

  116. I would be up for that happy hour. (I also have a sister in South Portland; I’ll try to find you, JanieM, next time I’m up that way.)

  117. hairshirthedonist:

    And, worst of all, you listen to metal.

    I am compelled to say that that made me laugh quite loudly.
    Shackleton the cat did sleep through it, but he’d practically sleep through being thrown against a wall. 🙂
    Thanks.

  118. And, worst of all, you listen to metal.
    That I do, my friend. BTW, gotta rep the hometown boys made good — make sure to check out London, Ontario’s finest party metal mavens, Baptized in Blood, on tour with Devildriver and Cancer Bats. BiB’s Roadrunner debut is one of 2010’s best releases, regardless of genre. Even the mighty Dave Mustaine is on the BiB bandwagon — he’s now their co-manager.
    Keep it dirty in 2011, y’all.

  119. One of, perhaps, but Enslaved and Barren Earth and Agalloch should be doing quite the number on those best of lists.
    \m/

  120. I have a hard time keeping up with the ever-expanding genres and numbers of band in metal these days. It was easy when I was in high school (if you didn’t listen to total crap): Iron Maiden, Metallica, Dio, Ozzy, Judas Priest; then you had your Slayers and Megadeths and Anthraxes. Now there are more genres than there were bands back then.
    Lately I have High on Fire, Decapitated, and Meshuggah in heavy rotation. Then there’s my seemingly perpetual Clutch kick, if they’re even metal anymore, if they ever really were. I like some of the instrumental post-rock/ambient metal stuff I’ve heard on Pandora – Isis, Pelican, Russian Circles.
    There’s just so much stuff out there, and I just know a lot of it’s really good. I don’t have the time to find it and I’m not sure I would know where to start if I did.

  121. It was easy when I was in high school (if you didn’t listen to total crap)
    Hey, I listened to total crap. Still do, as a matter of fact. What’s it to you?

  122. Thanks, Hogan and hairshirthedonist. It’s nice to see you here. 🙂
    hairshirt, I saw your email and will answer soon.
    Hogan, it would be fun to get together in Maine — you can write to ObWiBoston at gmail and I’ll answer from my own email account, then we’ll have a way to be in touch. (ObWiBoston is in effect a group account — I’m not the only one who can access it, just FYI.)

  123. hairshirthedonist – “There’s just so much stuff out there, and I just know a lot of it’s really good. I don’t have the time to find it and I’m not sure I would know where to start if I did.”
    Try lastfm and do a tag search (i.e. post-metal, given your Isis/Pelican/Russian Circles there to find bands like Cult of Luna, Jesu, The Ocean and Baroness) or find a band you like and look for similar artists. Don’t wade into the comments on the artists much if you value sanity, but it’s a great resource for finding new music without much effort.
    Also, once you find a smaller label artist you like a lot be sure to hit their label to see if there’s anyone else there you like. A little traction goes a long way. I got up to speed pretty quick this way.
    Roadrunner only signs bands once they are big. For the really vital scene you have to find the smaller labels and then keep the bands you like going through shirts and tickets.

  124. Since I’m here today and probably gone tomorrow, I’d like to say a few things for myself in case anyone is tempted to mistake the Janie-figment in Marty’s imagination for me. Marty is coy about naming names, lumping me with the other villains over at TiO who, he complains, are lumping him together with…oh, never mind. I will simply out myself as one of the people he’s referring to, if not the only one.
    He writes, “I haven’t used cleeks magic code to screen people I disagree with.” This is aimed at me, but it’s the figment-Janie in Marty’s imagination, not me, who filters people she disagrees with. Me, I filtered a tiny handful of handles, not because of disagreement but because of…not to weasel around it…dislike.
    I filtered Marty, Catsy, and one other commenter: one I virtually never agreed with and confess to disliking intensely, one I almost always agreed with but who pushed some of my buttons one day in a way that made me dislike both him and myself, and one there’s no need to mention.
    I never stopped reading McKinney, Brett, GOB, bc, or von — to mention a few commenters I disagreed with more often than not. I love reading intelligent arguments in favor of positions I don’t agree with. That’s why I not only kept reading McKinney but in a bloggy way considered him a friend.
    cleek said it more succinctly: “disagreement is fine with me. being an ass for the sake of being an ass is not.”
    In this very thread, Marty still misses the point of things I’ve said, still ascribes other points to a figment of his imagination onto which he has slapped my name, and is still unpleasant about it. This is vintage; see here and here for more. I put Marty in the filter because I don’t have time to waste on someone who declines to distinguish me from the voices in his head (see the second link; I am not making this up) or from other commenters, and who can’t be troubled to clarify his thought trains when they make no sense. Which is often, as when (first link) he says people campaigning for same-sex marriage are bad (“they will get theirs and screww the rest”) because they’re not campaigning for the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples to….what? In a thread that lasted for almost two weeks, in which Marty was asked more than once to clarify this and other things he wrote, we never found out. The fact that same-sex couples simply want the same right that heterosexual couples already have — to go down to the town hall and get married — seemed completely lost on him.
    *****
    Blogs are voluntary. Who and how much we read, to whom, to what, how, and how much we respond — all up to us, as long as we follow the posting rules. Marty is complaining (incoherently as usual, in my opinion) that people who have left here and gone to TiO (which is only me, as far as I can tell), and things that are being said elsewhere than here, are ruining it here. For me, Marty was helping to ruin it.
    Sh*t happens. People come together, they part, it happens all the time. I don’t know the magic for getting people to come back here; for me it would be a combination of what’s going on here and my ability to balance ObWi with other things.
    We’ll see, on both counts. I miss a lot of people from here, however merely pixelish we may be to each other. Happy 2011 to all.

  125. I know I value what exchanges we’ve had, JanieM. I’ve also seen you get your buttons pushed, but I tend to stand back and let you vent, rather than talk you down. Sometimes people just have to let it out, even if it means deviating from some conversational ideal they have.
    It’s only words. You haven’t damaged or abused anyone, as far as I can see. AFAIC any beef between you and Marty is ONLY between you and Marty, and doesn’t affect my relationship with either of you.
    Such as it is.
    It’s good to see you back here, and I look forward to further participation by you here, in the event that you choose to.

  126. Since this is an open thread, though, this story is likely to cause some of the no-vaccines-for-my-child crowd a little heartburn:

    (CNN) — A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an “elaborate fraud” that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.
    An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.
    “It’s one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors,” Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, told CNN. “But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data.”
    Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May.

    RTWT as inclined.

  127. some of the no-vaccines-for-my-child crowd
    Vaccination for communicable diseases should be mandatory, regardless of parental wishes. This is such a no-brainer that even my former right-wing nut self thought this should be the case.

  128. Vaccination for communicable diseases should be mandatory, regardless of parental wishes. This is such a no-brainer that even my former right-wing nut self thought this should be the case.
    Note that there are some people who for medical reasons cannot take some vaccines.
    And while I agree with the sentiment, I’m not sure this is the hill I want to do die on. People get completely irrational when you talk about government coercion and their children in the same sentence. Making it completely mandatory would trigger a firestorm of outrage and create a vast opportunity for demagogues. There are a lot of people who right now will happily get their kids vaccinated because the nice pediatrician said they should but who will totally flip out if a heavy handed mandate compels them to. Nice pediatrician can turn into an arrogant overbearing thug who “KNOWS BETTER THAN ME WHAT’s GOOD FOR MY CHILD” in a heartbeat.
    I think anti-vax sentiment and anti-GM sentiment that debbie raised in the other thread are closely related. People feel that the physical environment isn’t safe (i.e., there are chemicals everywhere, Monsanto is resequencing genes left and right, etc.), but they have no clue how to protect their children from those invisible dangers. Impotence leads to rage and a certain gullibility. I mean, Jenny McCarthy, really? For real? Are you serious?

  129. In the thread on Bradley Manning’s conditions of confinement, I said that the Obama administration had countenanced the torture of at least one U.S. citizen.
    Make that two.
    Yes, their Kuwaiti clients did the actual torturing, but anyone who thinks this was done without the knowledge of the U.S. government is wilfully naive.
    Gulet Mohamed’s treatment is easier for many people to name as torture than the extended solitary and sleep deprivation to which Manning is being subjected.
    But remember! “America” doesn’t torture.

  130. I do have to say that this whole business of the U.S. gov’t using its foreign allies to torture U.S. citizens by proxy and then barring those same citizens from re-entering the U.S. by placing them on the no-fly list is a bit unseemly. Perhaps we shouldn’t be doing that. Shining city on a hill and all.
    Oh, this was a “Mr. Mohamed”? Nevermind.

  131. Nell, of course, beat me to it. Stupid, non-comment-updating-preview-function.
    Turb – not sure I disagree with any of that.

  132. But remember! “America” doesn’t torture.
    Let’s look on the bright side. America has always commanded its allies to torture or murder random people often for little or no reason. Traditionally, American citizens have been exempted. But now, that exemption is falling away! Now, American citizens can partake in the glorious treatment meted out by our government, without discrimination!
    That bending you see isn’t Mr Mohamed’s tibia shattering in response to a club; it is the very arc of the universe bending towards justice.

  133. I think anti-vax sentiment and anti-GM sentiment that debbie raised in the other thread are closely related.
    One thing that seems common, from what I’ve seen, heard and read, is that anti-vax and anti-GM arguments tend to ignore or underestimate the problems with not having vaccinations and GM food. The ones making those arguments haven’t experienced the horrors of, say, polio or, as Gary pointed out on the other thread, mass starvation. Vaccines and GM food didn’t come about for nothing, or solely for profit.

  134. Note that there are some people who for medical reasons cannot take some vaccines.
    Which makes it that much more important that everyone else be vaccinated, thereby not serving as hosts for the organisms that will harm those who cannot be vaccinated. (But I agree about the likely bad reactions to gov’t mandates.)

  135. Shining city on a hill and all.
    ease of defense against rabble and ease of waste elimination are the best reasons to put your city on a hill in the first place.

  136. Second what Slartibartfast said at January 06, 2011 at 10:21 AM to you, JanieM, particularly the last ‘graph.
    Slart:

    Since this is an open thread, though, this story is likely to cause some of the no-vaccines-for-my-child crowd a little heartburn

    After most of that crowd have died, possibly.
    People fixate on a cause like this because:
    1) it’s their child. The most important thing in the world to them, naturally, is the Find The Answer.
    2) People will go for the easiest answer they can understand and latch onto.
    3) “Vaccines” are an easy answer.
    4) People have now fed and supported that answer, no matter they have no qualifications whatever to give an accurate answer, and don’t, and in fact, make a cause and a living out of, to be sure, their own ignorant good faith, and belief they are helping others in need.
    5) Once people have an idea in their heads, and it comforts them, they’re far more resistant to changing their minds than they even normally are, and most people are resistant to changing their minds on anything, let alone anything important, let alone what they think will save the life of their child, and other people’s children.
    So I don’t suggest any breath-holding on this.
    It’ll happen as soon as people stop believing in astrology, ghosts, life beyond the grave, auras, crystals, past lives, channelling, that all “radiation” is dangerous, that nuclear bombs can destroy all life on earth, or humanity, that the moon landings were a hoax, that aliens stuck probes up their rear end, and a gazillion other things people firmly believe that are far less important to them than their own children.
    In my opinion. I could cite research, but won’t. 🙂

  137. Turb:

    […] People get completely irrational when you talk about government coercion and their children in the same sentence. Making it completely mandatory would trigger a firestorm of outrage and create a vast opportunity for demagogues.

    Firmly agree.
    Sad, but true.
    It would be nice if we lived in a population where everyone were high-information, trained in critical thinking, and applying the scientific method, but that isn’t something I expect to see in my lifetime absent the arrival of a Singularity I don’t actually expect to “live” to see.
    Though anyone who wants to freeze my head as soon as I’m dead, and is willing to pay for it, has my full permission, let me state for the record.
    Put me in your freezer, where you can wave hi to me whenever you get out some frozen veggies or chicken. I’d like that.
    🙂
    Also, the rest of what Turb said, Nell said, Ugh said, Ugh again, Turb again, hairshirthedonist, and Slart, through 12:08 PM.

  138. The alternative to GM food is not mass starvation.
    The alternative to vaccinations is mass disease.
    Putting people who object to one in an “anti-science” bucket with the other and dismissing them both thereby is an un-thoughtful and uninformed move. Not up to the usual hsh standard.

  139. “It’ll happen as soon as people stop believing in astrology, ghosts, life beyond the grave, auras, crystals, past lives, channelling, that all “radiation” is dangerous, that nuclear bombs can destroy all life on earth, or humanity, that the moon landings were a hoax, that aliens stuck probes up their rear end, and a gazillion other things people firmly believe that are far less important to them than their own children.”
    Disbarring lawyers who buy fraudulent ‘research’ designed to give them an excuse to sue innocent people for a gazzillion dollars might be a good start, though.

  140. When the anti-vaccine thing came up last time, I wrote something about the motivations of the anti-vaccine crowd and it might be worth repeating here, especially since the label ‘anti-science’ has come up. While I’m not against vaccines in any way, I think it is a bit harsh to paint with such a broad brush and it is useful to see what points led to their conclusion, aside from questions of emotional attachment
    -autism seems to share a constellation of symptions with mercury poisoning
    -there has been a rise in the number of children diagnosed with autism that correlates with the advent of mass vaccination
    -the Thimerosal, (46% mercury) used in vaccines had never been tested (as indeed, most things have never been) for harmful side effects
    -When reviewed, many of the studies that dealt with mercury toxicity noted a correlation between body weight and amount of mercury, which potentially could magnify effects in a new-born
    -a number of conservative effects were seen when thimerosal was questioned, including companies trying to preserve their bottom line and lag time to create alternative vaccine delivery systems.
    While on some levels, vaccines cause autism may have been an easy answer, but the history of science is replete with stories of easy answers that have turned out to be correct. (my favorite one, peptic ulcers and H. pylori, though this piece tries to argue that it’s all in a days work for modern medical research. While I agree there is some mythmaking involved here, I don’t believe that the medical establishment comes out smelling like a rose in this)
    I say all this not to defend Wakefield in any way, nor to claim that anti-vaccine folks were right, but it seems that in a lot of scientific controversies, the desire to paint opponents are being anti-science leads to a narrative of ‘gee, how could any idiot believe that’. You often get this flavor in looking at recountings of debates about ether as a medium of transmission of light, phlogiston as the burnable essence or early theories of motion as impetus. We would be much better served by understanding what things led people to posit and believe things that are subsequently proven false and how the proof addressed the issues that were initially raised. Often times, the proof doesn’t directly address the issues raised, but creates a compelling framework that fits in better with our knowledge of other things. I suppose part of this is our natural impatience and our desire to have a knockout fact or observation that can be deployed rather than taking the time to draw together a range of facts, or as Gary says, the desire for an easy answer. But (and I am addressing this to myself as much as to anyone here) that temptation can really be problematic in both directions.

  141. RE: increase in autism.
    Is there really and increase in the number of children with autism spectrum conditions? Or just an increase in the number of children diagnosed?

  142. wonkie, I’m agnostic on that question, which is why I phrased it that way. I had an idea for a paper with the working title of ‘The Japanese language student as autistic’ because many of the behaviors of Japanese students in the language classroom (and in classrooms in general) have similarities to the autistic spectrum conditions so I spent bit of time reading about broadly about autism. Unfortunately, I couldn’t really get the paper to the point of what I wanted to suggest, which was that we should look to the techniques used in teaching the autistic and try and adapt them to the language classroom without sounding dismissive of autism. I still have some vague notion of an argument that the Japanese classroom culture creates a sort of cultural autism in Japanese students that helps certain kinds of learning but hinders other kinds.

  143. I didn’t mean to imply, if I did, tht autism is over-diagnosed. However I do wonder if the increase is due to wider knowledge about autism, better screening, and a broader definition than an actual increase in occurance. Autism used to be called “childhood schzophrenia” and was a rare diagnosis of a pretty extreme condiditon. Now people who are quite functional in most respects (even exceptionally functional) are diagnosed as having one of the conditions within the spectrum.
    I just don’t buy the connection with vaccines when a simpler explanation is available.

  144. Washington Monthly has more about the difficulties this might pose for those Constitutional scholars who voted before being sworn in
    I loved this:
    The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised.
    Comedy gold. All the money in the world can’t buy that kind of pure and unadulterated boneheadness. It’s a heaping helping of stupid, pressed down and shaken together. It’s transcendent. Incandescent, even. It shines, gleaming in the light like a rare and precious diamond.
    Sorry, am I being unkind?
    THEY WATCHED THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY ON THE TV WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED AND THOUGHT THEY WERE SWORN IN.
    Jeebus H Christmas, with bells on. Words fail me. We’ve become the Winky-Dink Republic.
    The next two years (at least) are gonna be like a Three Stooges marathon.
    Paging Rep. Howard, Rep. Fine, and Rep. Howard!

  145. Gary,
    Regarding guest blogging, I may very well take you up on it. I have been extremely swamped at work for the past few months and had some personal/health issues that arose and demanded my attention. Nothing serious, but it resulted in less time available for blogging.
    I’ll keep you posted. Thanks.

  146. THEY WATCHED THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY ON THE TV WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED AND THOUGHT THEY WERE SWORN IN.
    I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I love it when idiots make asses of themselves. On the other, I’m not keen on making a fetish of ritual.
    Swearing an oath is a ritual, like shaking hands to conclude a deal. Performing the ritual in proper form is good manners, and good manners count for something. But it is only good manners.
    I do laugh at Sessions and that other guy for trying to pass off their bad manners as honest ignorance of the proper form of the swearing-in ritual. The “I’m too stupid to know better” defense is always amusing. Coming from Pete Sessions of Texas, it’s also believable.
    –TP

  147. Randy: do. Please.
    hairshirthedonist: 193.5 lbs. this morning.
    It helps that all I found time for as I went past the fridge today was a swig of milk in the morning, later a tangerine, then later a bit of cucumber, and three baby carrots.
    I’m now nibbling something before falling asleep, having finally found time to do that while, hey, writing this.
    This was after, well, let’s just cut and paste an excerpt from Facebook, shall we? Yes, I thought you said “yes”! I must have misheard, but that’s what I heard, so:
    I hobbled down to Telegraph Avenue ( a couple or so short blocks, then down Telegraph a couple of long blocks, found a place where I bought a compass to add to my keychain of solar flashlight, combination tool, emergency whistle, turned around, hobbled back.
    Extremely painful. Took from 4 p.m. to about 6:45 p.m. Pain much worse half way out, ever worse until back here.
    Good to do.
    Would have gone to DMV if I’d gotten out at 3:30 p.m., but instead chose to rant on FB for just enough minutes [about 15 to keep me from getting back to DMV in time, in fashion that is exactly why I’m trying to limit my FB for now to posting links to such like this, which I just posted: [link to my latest post, quoting Andrew on gays in military]
    I’m being more efficient since arrving in Oakland, because I have to be. And thanks to the Buspirone and Lamictal since late 2008, I can be; only circumstances in Raleigh, specifically, living conditions and environment, aka the tiny room I was in, and people I was surrounded by outside the room, prevented me from better mental health, because I need three legs on my tripod to do okay, I’ve learned; no particular order, because all three are necessary:
    a) meds that work (for me, for now, Buspirone and Lamictal
    b) environment that I can cope with, and I’m ultra super sensitive to my environment, and most specifically, the people in proximity to me, or who will be if I open my bedroom door.
    c) cognitive therapy techniques and knowledge I’ve 99.5% taught myself from my own reading and research, like almost everything else I know in life.
    If I don’t have these three legs on my tripod, my stool falls over, and I fall down.
    C I’ve mostly had for quite some time, and only been increasing.
    B I had in Colorado from mid 2002 through early 2008.
    A I’ve only had since late 2008.
    First time in my life I’ve had all three is now. We’ll see how long I can have all three, and if that’s enough, or I’ll fall down again, get better, or what.
    Got tons else done today. Wins all around, aside from typical mistake of otherwise saying something on FB.
    Meanwhile:
    Back to cats. And, oh, yes, now I can finally eat something besides the snatched couple of carrots, and tangerine I had early today.
    And must fall over only in the sense of something called sleep, if I can manage it. But so many other tasks: some combination of relaxation that’s also productive is in order, while eating, and….
    Just like everyone else’s life, really. Only different. Which is just like everyone else.
    Only different.
    Not an unintentional repetition.
    There, that saved my time, but not yours.
    Nobody asked, but it’s my open thread, so hoo rah.
    And now I must get up in about 5 hours, but still won’t be asleep for a while, but I doubt I’ll comment, because oooh, squirrel!
    Expect a post tomorrow about Roy Edroso. Yes, I can.

  148. Make sure you click through and read that whole HuffPo story about those two clown shoes that weren’t properly sworn in, BTW. One of them may already have been conducting forbidden fundraising, too.

  149. THEY WATCHED THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY ON THE TV WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED AND THOUGHT THEY WERE SWORN IN.

    I did the same thing when Obama was sworn in, which…doesn’t that make me President?

  150. Arm-waving doesn’t count.
    John McCain, along with the rest of the Republican caucus, was swearing AT President-elect Obama during the ceremony with their fists raised and believed it made them all President.

  151. “Email Me” at the top left sidebar still says “obsidianinfo@yahoo.com”
    It’s as wrong as ever. It won’t work. Don’t send email there, please.
    ObWings At gmail Dot com
    Send Obsidian Wings related email there.
    Apologies to all.

  152. One of them may already have been conducting forbidden fundraising, too.
    Well, you can’t expect Fitzpatrick to know all those pesky rules and stuff. It’s not like he ever served in the House befo . . . oh crap.

  153. Expect a post tomorrow about Roy Edroso.
    Speaking as a longtime fan of Roy’s, thank you in advance for that, Gary.

  154. I *will* do Roy, but I need some brain cells to return first.
    More cells, less pain, less exhaustion.
    Comments I can babble. Posts = at least 3 brain cells necessary. 5, even.
    Or, why I spent endlessly more time between 2004-7 responding, much of the time, to every single comment on ObWi, for thousands and thousands of words, rather than blogging on my own blog.
    It was selfish, but more people did seem to like it than not.
    That was then, this is now, of course, and I’ll not do that much any more, save on, perhaps, threads of my own.
    Meanwhile: Roy could still use the help later today, or tomorrow, and in fact, my experience tells me, there are some advantages to spreading out people linking to such a situation over a few days, in any case.
    Right now: read this, and PayPal him some bucks, folks. We all owe him.
    Yup, the folks he skewers owe him, too. Think of all the extra page views! And increased fame!
    Do it NOW!
    GO HERE!
    Or if you can’t use PayPal (and it only takes seconds to create an account, if you’re… not one of the people who takes longer, and you can just USE ANY CREDIT CARD INSTEAD):

    If you want to send checks instead, you can use C&L’s PO BOX and I’ll make sure to pay out the amount. Just write ‘Roy” in your note section.
    C&L
    POBOX 66310
    Los Angeles, CA 90066

    I just sent ten bucks.
    And I’m currently homeless, couch-surfing, staying with a kind friend.
    As I’ve done far too much of my life, during which I’ve spent far too much time either being homeless and couch-surfing, or being evicted.
    I have no idea where I’ll be living after August 31st, though a few hopes and clues, and I hope it will be in the Bay Area, where I can con or pay someone to drive my limited amount of stuff, which all fits in one room.
    And I CAN AFFORD TO SEND HIM TEN BUCKS, in my opinion.
    So I kinda think YOU may be able to spare it, too. Give till it effing hurts, people.
    I’d never ask anyone to help me in any way they would notice the spending.
    But for someone else: yeah, I’ll guilt-trip you all I have to and can, if that’ll help. I have no trouble being an ar**h*le for a friend, since I have no trouble being an ar**h*le in general.
    And I know exactly why Roy, or anyone would never want to ask for help.
    There are people who become suicidal for long periods before they’ll ask for help, and then just barely manage to ask, in hysterical and crazed and desperate fashion, and then loath themselves forever thereafter until they can cope with it eventually, maybe, in the future.
    Then there are more mentally healthy people, who simply hate it.
    Roy is, I’m sure, mentally healthy; but nobody should EVER need to ask for private charity to put a roof over their heads, find secure shelter that they can depend on for the future, to eat, or to meet any basic need in a country as rich as the United States of America.
    Meanwhile, we have endless INVISIBLE homeless (to those who don’t want to look, or those genuinely isolated or in rural areas, but there are other forms of extreme poverty, and still homelessness there, too), and hungry people in this country, most of whom are too crushed to ask for help, and don’t want the shame and lack of pride that it’s difficult for many to avoid feeling.
    You can spare a few bucks, and for someone else, I’ll beg for them without a moment’s hesitation.
    Help Roy. He needs it.
    You never know when someone you really know and love might need help. Tomorrow, there might be an earthquake, and not only will you lose everything around you, but thousands of people will die in front of you; it happens all the time around the world.
    Katrina can happen again. Disaster can strike you or your loved ones at any time, and eventually, we all suffer loss, pain, experience fear, and must cope.
    Make it easier for someone else. Someone with a face you can know, and whose writing you can read.
    It shouldn’t take that, but it sometimes does.
    Help out the Edrosothon.
    Help Roy.
    DO IT NOW.
    And feel free to do it next week, too, and the week after.
    The worst that will happen is that he’ll get more then he’s comfortable with, and PAY IT FORWARD.
    That, or maybe he’ll spend it all on hookers and heroin.
    But is that for YOU to judge?
    Yes, you get to make up your own mind about that. As you do about any and all of this.
    But I’m here to tell you exactly why you shouldn’t.
    When I can.
    Meanwhile, this comment requires no proofing or being careful, and I can delete it or edit it if I said something stupid.
    A post I need to write more carefully.
    This is a placeholder; post coming, Roy, when I can do that.

  155. As of Wednesday, December 29th, the address to email the kitty has been: ObWings At gmail Dot com

    Ten days, and it hasn’t happened. Does Obsidian Wings have a plan for when this will happen? A timeframe? Is there someone in charge who can answer this question?
    If so, could they please respond here? Private email isn’t getting any answers.
    Could perhaps someone responsible who can answer this question respond, please?
    I offer to take responsibility, with no authority whatever, to solely make changes to the template authorized by the ObWi collective, if someone will let me have the password.
    I’m not going to abuse it any more than I’ve abused the fact that for many months I’ve had the ability to edit, change, delete, rewrite, or do whatever I want to my heart’s content, and obvious madness, to everything Eric Martin has ever posted on Obsidian Wings, Democracy Arsenal, Newshoggers, and every single person’s comments on every single one of those threads.
    Ditto last I looked, I still had a working password for Winds of Change.
    If there’s some reason I can’t be allowed to change the posted email address, please do let me know what it might be.
    If there’s an alternative plan for posting the new email address, please do let me know what it might be.
    If there’s a timeframe for when we’ll have a plan in place, please do let me know what it might be.
    If we have any plan at all besides wait indefinitely, please do let me know what it might be.
    If you’d prefer to respond in email, please do so.
    Meanwhile, I’m going to ask these questions in public, awkward as they are, until either there’s some actual change, not just intent, or until someone tells me my posting services are no longer required.
    I’ve asked these questions since 2005, and I’m used to being ignored, so that’s not the issue. My issue is that we’re still seeing no more update to the Posting Rules, Banning Rules, or EVEN THE EMAIL ADDRESS, which has gone unanswered for years, and I’m now 1/6th of the people responsible for answering questions about this.
    I’d like to know what I’m supposed to tell people.
    What’s the answer to that question that I should respond with?
    Does anyone who is otherwise a commenter have any questions or answers about this? If so, you’re free and encouraged to respond in this open thread, the next open thread, or to ObWings At gmail.com
    And, hey, if you get an answer from someone besides me, wouldn’t that be interesting and nice?
    Because I’m already having a lovely chat there with myself, but it’d be nice to talk with someone else beside just me.
    Anyone?

  156. This is quite shocking. NPR is the only place that has news on it so far.

    U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot outside a grocery store in Tucson while holding a public event, Arizona Public Media reported Saturday.
    The Democrat, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting a “Congress on Your Corner” event at the Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media.
    At least five other people, including members of her staff, were hurt. Giffords was transported to University Medical Center in Tucson. Her condition was not immediately known.
    Giffords was talking to a couple when the suspect ran up firing indiscriminately and then ran off, Michaels said. According to other witnesses, he was tackled by a bystander and taken into custody.
    Giffords was first elected to represent Arizona’s 8th District in 2006. The “Congress on Your Corner” events allow constituents to present their concerns directly to her.

  157. The Pima County, AZ sheriff’s department now confirms that Rep. Giffords and six others are dead following the shooting.
    Rep. Giffords, btw, was one of the 20 congresspeople represented by a set of crosshairs on Sarah Palin’s infamous map, following her “Don’t retreat, reload” statement. But I’m sure it’s a coincidence, since witnesses report the gunman walked straight up and shot her in the head.

  158. The shooting is horrifying. I’m so sad for the victims and their families, and so worried for the rest of us.

  159. Actually, Phil, Rep. Giffords is still alive. Amazing considering a through and through GSW to the head. Of course she is still in critical condition. And this is a tragedy. 6 or 7 people who were shot have died. One of those was a nine month old baby.
    The shooting is nothing short of political terrorism and it’s high time the people of this country say “no” to the type of anger and malcontent that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk project and spread like cancer through our civil and political discourse.

  160. She was reported as dead by the Sheriff and three news organizations at the time I posted. WTF kind of amateur-hour law enforcement organization reports someone as dead to the media without confirmation?

  161. Given this is an open thread, I’m going to mention this unexpected email.

    Richard Viguerie: Our Thoughts and Prayers are with
    Rep. Giffords and the Victims of the Arizona Shooting
    (Manassas, Virginia) The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, regarding the shooting in Tucson, Arizona of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords:
    “I was with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on a panel just last week at Renaissance Weekend in Charleston, South Carolina. Gabby is a warm, upbeat, and cheerful woman who I’ve been blessed to know.
    “Our heartfelt sympathies go out to the family of Representative Giffords, as well as all the families of the wounded and deceased in the wake of this truly traumatic event.
    “Regardless of political party, Americans are drawn together at this time of tragedy, and our prayers go out to the families of all the victims of this shocking act of violence.
    “We are all Americans, and there’re no Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, or liberals at times like these. When the violent acts of an individual aim to tear our society apart, they instead cause Americans to come together and unite stronger than ever.
    “We pray for the lives lost, and for the full and speedy recovery of all who were wounded.”

    As I just wrote a friend in email: […] Not that it’s from my old pal (he said sarcastically), Richard V., but gee, even he has a small, shriveled heart. (He faithfully sends me his missives daily: along with anyone else whose email address he can find, of course; have I mentioned I get a lot of mail? :-))
    This is part of why I try to give everyone a chance, even those who might most suprise me. None of us *mean* to be evil.
    And you never know when you might be surprised.
    Pleasantly.
    I know I’ll be back to totally disagreeing with his next missive, and probably outraged and appalled (though mostly I’m just clinical; it’s not as if his POV and precise views are little-known to me, nor those of so many of his friends), but I still let him in my inbox.
    I don’t always read it all, mind, or necessarily any of a given email from him, or various similar sorts of of folks whose mailing lists I’m on (trust me, or not, when you’ve been blogging as long as I have, your inbox gets very full every day with all sorts of… stuff that isn’t spam).
    But.
    At times: it’s educational. And informative. One way or another.
    And once in a blue moon: surprising.
    Life is full of those.
    If we are open to finding them.

  162. The old kitty email box is now open again: obsidianinfo at yahoo dot com
    Don’t use the gmail address, please, although that’ll now get read, too. But it’ll only be used for emergencies if Yahoo is down, and that’s all.
    The old kitty mail box is now functional.
    And if you wrote to obsidianinfo at yahoo dot com in recent years, and received no answers, which has happened to many of you — in fact, there was nothing personal about it, I assure you — you weren’t being singled out to be ignored.
    Honest. It wasn’t you. It’s me.
    I apologize. Blame me.
    I’m fine with that.
    But now you have an answer as to why you didn’t get a response. Just assume it was me screwing up, as usual.
    Meanwhile, your new mail will at least be read. If you wish to resend old mail, do so. No answers promised, nor any promises made as to when your new mail will be read.
    Although simply mentioning the subject header, or sufficient keywords from your past email will enable, um, someone to find it immediately, so that works, too. What I can’t promise are responses.
    But efforts will be made, and it’s now possible.
    More formal announcement saying this, and not much, if anything else, to come later today, probably, but if not, as soon as we can get to it. From someone.
    Don’t worry, be happy.
    If anyone would like to volunteer to help work on ObWi in any administrative ways, your applications will be accepted. Send email to the kitty, or to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com
    Again, when we’ll get back to you: dunno.
    What else may happen? Dunno.
    But good things, I hope. Eric has have great writers, — and also my prolix crap — and I hope to see even more great writers here.
    Again: guest posts solicited.
    *You* are invited to submit. See same addresses, same story as above.
    Got any complaints? Send them to me either at the kitty or my personal email box. If you have to pick, use the kitty, but either will work for now, until you hear otherwise.
    All praise: send to Eric, and Slarti, for all their amazing and unsung work, and particularly to Eric for administering the blog, and to Slartibartfast for endless invisible scutwork that none of you have any idea how much work he does on it; all praise to Jacob and Doctor Science, and Sebastian for their posts, and to Sebastian for his years here longer than any of us still left.
    Complaints? Make them at me, publically or privately, and I’ll do my best to respond as best I can, when I can.
    Have fun: that’s what blogging is all about.
    Almost all.

Comments are closed.