by liberal japonicus
The comments on the previous post are closed (because we are obviously a Communist collective that can't tolerate a diversity of opinion) so here is an open thread. Have at it.
166 thoughts on “An open thread on July 4th”
Comments are closed.
Wait, I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist collective…
I celebrated by hanging up a flag with black streamers attached
I also spent the last 24 hours in the fetal position, moaning. Not over the degeneracy of America: the combination of a covid shot and a shingles vaccine.
I’m spending the day hanging out with folks who are doing the grunt work required to put on the local fireworks show. (Not the “damned amateurs” you hear making loud bangs in your neighborhood. This is a professional operation, led by a licensed pyrotechnician.)
The sort of apolitical patriotism that has been drowned out by the fanatics. But it still lives on in the real world. My sense is that these are the folks who will rise up and crush the fanatics. Rise up slowly and reluctantly, not least because fanatics are so rare in their immediate environment that they struggle to get their heads around the idea that anybody could be like that. But once the reality breaks thru? Fanatic, meet junk heap of history — at least for a generation or two, until the memory fades again.
I hope everyone in the U.S. had a great 4th of July. Especially, I hope everyone who loves them got to see a great fireworks show. Because, going forward you can expect fewer shows and smaller ones.
The thing is, virtually all of the fireworks used in the US are made in China. Which means they will be much more expensive in the future as Trump’s
folliestariffs kick in. Of course, drone shows are supposed to be the latest big thing. Color me underwhelmed.I understand the ban on McKT under whatever name, but I’d like to see him back. I urge him to apologise to the powers-that-be for having accused them of holding malevolent beliefs which they do not, and I urge those powers then to rescind the ban.
Well, libjpn@gmail address is working and he’s not written. I don’t want to pile thing up that he has to do, but I’d add that he also needs to admit that he snuck back here to try and set commenters against each other. In the normal cut and thrust, you can suggest that some person agrees with you, but trying to gin up conflict is really not acceptable and there needs to be an acknowledgement of that.
And I should add, that’s just me talking, we would have to discuss it between Russell, wj, Janie and me and that might be a pretty fraught discussion.
McKT aside, we are a pretty narrow group ideologically most of the time. Wj is the token conservative and he is more centrist really. Of course things get real heated real fast when there are serious disagreements about important issues. I said this to LJ privately the other day, but the amazing thing about the hilzoy era was how she and whoever else was in charge kept things under control. I didn’t necessarily agree with her on everything, but this was one of the few places I knew about where there was a wide range of views for a few years. Of course people gradually dropped out or in a few cases were banned for being offensive. I remember a couple from the far far left like that.
The culture might also have gotten more polarized, but I am not sure about that. It was pretty polarized with Bush, esp in the early years when he was more popular, I think. Now I can’t remember when I first came here.
It would be difficult being polite with a MAGA type. I don’t think we have had any.
Weirdly,for a couple of years Rod Dreher had a wide range of views in his American Conservative blog comments. For a bit he was repentant about his Iraq War support and would sometimes critique the right. But his anti gay and anti trans mania got more and more evident and his Islamophobia came back if it ever fully left and he got super culture war paranoid and started taking like Franco was justified. I got more and more sarcastic and was eventually banned. Then he wrote his famous root wiener post and got eased out.
I’m not positive, but I’m thinking that we are a pretty narrow group in terms of age, gender and probably ethnicity. So I’m not how we diversify ideology without dealing with those other categories.
This is an interesting video between Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes, but more specific to the observation of lack of diversity is the fact that both Klein and Hayes, after talking about how Mamdani used the TikTok genre to win, confess that they could not do it, or at least it would take a long time to get to the level that Mamdani showed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E2KYhDLDQY&t=3s
Just curious, has anyone here made a Tiktok video? If not, does anyone have a Tiktok account?
What is this “TikTok” you speak of?
I’m not positive, but I’m thinking that we are a pretty narrow group in terms of age, gender and probably ethnicity.
Age for sure. I don’t know about gender, but as to sex I think Janie and I are the only women (maybe Snarki, wonkie, CaseyL?). Ethnicity – hard to tell.
this was one of the few places I knew about where there was a wide range of views for a few years
I think there’s a real advantage to being exposed to different views and arguments, as long as one doesn’t just assume that people who disagree with one’s own opinion are immoral monsters, or stupid, or ignorant, as the case may be.
in a few cases were banned for being offensive. I remember a couple from the far far left like that.
bob mcmanus was the example of that I remember best. His open misogyny was really something. Funnily enough, I thought of him recently, when BBB in his final comment (clearly trying, as lj said, to foment more trouble) said words to the effect of “the men have decided”. bob mcm said that exact thing in reverse, when pre-emptively implying that women (it was sapient, Janie and me who called it out) would force the men here to ban him, as women had on the other blogs where he commented.
It’s true, there used to be a much greater variety of points of view here back in the day. Von, slarti, bc (who still pops up now and then). Lots of others, some quite good.
Now we’re mostly liberal-to-left, mostly (I think) boomer and genx.
It’s actually really hard to participate someplace where you are the contrarian voice. It’s a lot of work, and is not always particularly rewarding. People yell at you a lot, it takes time and patience to build some credibility. So I can understand why conservatives might not want to hang here.
That said, I’d welcome more conservative voices here. I’d just ask that they not just show up to trumpet their point of view and yell at people. Actual conversation would be good.
I appreciated McK’s presence here, but a lot of the time he seemed to just be here to scold us all for being such hypocrites. It was rude and tiresome, which is why he was banned the first time around. And it’s why he was banned the second time, having popped up as BigBadBird.
I’m sorry to say but I’m not sure it’s possible to have the kind of mixture of voices that were once available. Not because anyone has any intention of excluding anybody for their point of view, but because things have become so polarized. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people’s feelings run high.
But I personally would be willing to give it a shot.
Regarding the 4th of July, suffice it to say that I was just not feeling it this year. Went to my niece’s for her daughter’s 16th birthday, ate a hot dog and some birthday cake, hung with family, came home, read a bit, went to sleep. That was my exciting 4th.
In many ways, I feel like I’m about done with this country. Not that I plan to go anywhere else, I just am losing my belief that we are ever gonna get past the same toxic bullshit we started out with. It just never seems to end.
The cruelty – pointless, sadistic, nihilistic cruelty – we are capable of is freaking crushing me.
I don’t know if any other place is better, I just know what we are right now, and what we have been, and it breaks my freaking heart.
So that’s my 4th of July story.
Of the regular commenters, the age range is 52-78.
Thought I posted a comment, don’t know if it’s lost in the intertoobz or if I just did Preview and forgot to hit Post before I refreshed the page.
Stupid computers! 🙂
Anyway, if it’s floating around out there and somebody can find it and repost it, great. Otherwise I’ll try again later.
ETA: 12:20 comment released from confinement. -Ed.
F*** it, I’ll just write it again. It’ll likely be less ramble-y.
It’s true, we used to have a wider variety of voices. Over time, we’ve kind of sorted ourselves into a liberal-to-left boomer-and-genx niche.
It’s actually really hard to be a contrarian voice on a blog (or anywhere). People yell at you a lot, it takes time and work to build credibility. So I understand why conservatives would shy away.
In McK’s case, specifically, he had good things to say, but seemed unable to resist the urge to scold us all for being a bunch of lefty goupthink hypocrites. Which was rude and unwelcome and tiresome. So he got bounced. Came back as BigBadBird, same thing, so he got bounced again.
I’d be happy to see more conservative voices here, but things have become so polarized that I’m not sure it’ll happen. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people’s feelings run high. It’s a different time.
Regarding the 4th, just not feeling it this year. To be honest, I’m feeling like I’m kind of done with the USA. Not that I’m going anywhere, I’ve just lost faith that we will ever get past the same tired old bullshit that we began with.
The stupid, sadistic cruelty of what’s going on now is just a bridge too far. It’s pointless, it’s cruelty for it’s own sake. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is, and I cannot align myself with it, at all, ever.
We’re gonna pay for this, and I don’t look forward to it.
So that’s my 4th of July.
I really do appreciate the “somewhat right-wing” contingent here: (wj, Marty, CharlesWT). In fact, I often find Donald’s comments more annoying than wj’s. Go figure.
When was it that McTx was banned? I don’t remember that? But I do recall the most annoying features of McTx’s style of argumentation: claiming authoritative knowledge of everything, and imputing opinions to others, mostly in the context of strawmanning.
If there is ONE thing that drives me to an incandescent rage, it’s someone trying to tell me what my opinions/desires/thoughts/experiences are. That’s all stuff that one owns more profoundly than any property, being the stuff inside your own brain.
I am a woman, and a Boomer.
I used to spend some time seeking out conservatives sites and voices, hoping for rational conversations about policy ends and means, but then they reached the logical end of modern US conservativism and went nuts.
I mean, this isn’t me saying “Conservative thought is nuts” just because I’m liberal.
This is me saying “Conservative thought is nuts because it actively celebrates things that conservatives once swore they were opposed to, purely because their media leaders have told them to”… or, I dunno, just because they own the US government now and they can do whatever they want…?
And what they want is neo-feudalism, with concentration camps…?
I still drop in at Volokh Conspiracy once in a while, but the lunacy is in full swing with most of their FPers… and the comment sections are cesspools.
I could re-subscribe to The Atlantic, where some non-rabid conservatives have found a home, but they don’t represent any actual political movement – and not enough of an opposition to their Party’s current manifestation – so I’m not sure what the value is.
I actually miss most of the commenters who have been banned during my roughly 2 decades here. Does anybody have the full list?
Like the poor sod in the Monty Python sketch, I come here for an argument. Maybe I’m too emotionally inert, but I can’t remember ever feeling hurt by a blog comment to or about me. Annoyed, sure, but annoyance tends to inspire me to argue back, rather than depress me.
Arguing with pig-headed opponents can be a bore, but what’s a better way to waste time? Watching a horror movie? Listening to a sermon? Tastes differ, of course, and everyone is free to choose their own favorite time-wasting activity. For me, that was Obsidian Wings, once upon a time. I hope it becomes that again, someday.
–TP
I still drop in at Volokh Conspiracy once in a while,
Brett Bellmore is a regular commenter there.
Donald: we are a pretty narrow group ideologically most of the time. Wj is the token conservative and he is more centrist really.
I’d go with moderate conservative on most issues. I think that the “centerist” perception is mostly because the label “conservative” has been (successfully, to the point that liberals believe it) hijacked by the radical right and reactionaries. I am old enough to actually remember the 1950s and early 60s. For me, it was a wonderful, idyllic time. But then, I was a white kid in a small town California setting. There are some bits of that culture that I wish we hadn’t lost, but I have no desire to go back to the 1950s culture overall, even that one.
Not that, here in the real world, it’s possible to do anything like that. Hmmmm, an argument for rapidly developing virtually reality systems — so the Steven Millers can sit in their parents’ basement, muck up their private world, and leave the rest of us in peace.
russell: I’m sorry to say but I’m not sure it’s possible to have the kind of mixture of voices that were once available. Not because anyone has any intention of excluding anybody for their point of view, but because things have become so polarized. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people’s feelings run high.
I think the challenges are twofold. The first is: how do we find those centerist/conservative voices? Does anyone here know how to do recruiting? Second is: if someone like that stumbles across us, can we refrain from assuming that someone who says she’s a conservative is some sort of rabid reactionary? I note that a new chum arriving could read some comments here** and feel unwelcome before she ever moved from lurker to commenter. As you say, feelings run high on a variety of issues. I’ve certainly been moved to rant occasionally. 😉
So I’d say that increasing our diversity of views is definitely a “nice to have.” But I’m not sure how we might get from here to there.
**Donald leaps to mind. Not because he’s wrong about how outrageous some things are. It’s possible to be pretty damn conservative and agree completely on that. It’s more a matter, as far as I can explain it, of tone. And an assumption (again as I perceive it) that anyone who agrees, but thinks there are other, more achievable, priorities is at best an utter moral dullard.
Snarki, you must have been away. He was banned straight after 10/7, when he barrelled onto here and accused us (or maybe even specific people) of thinking that the murdered Israelis and their babies had it coming. It was a perfect example of his straw-manning, and his tiresome habit of treating us as if we were the Politburo or the People’s Congress, or some other lefty bogeyman. But I must say, when he wasn’t doing that kind of thing, his presence often stimulated a lot of interesting conversation over here, as contentious subjects often do, or did. I fear russell may be right, and that these days things are too polarised for that. It’s a shame.
Again, Snarki: I completely agree about what causes you incandescent rage – me too.
CaseyL: I did resubscribe to the Atlantic when I cancelled my sub to the WaPo, but I hardly ever read any of it (apart from non-mad David Frum) so may let it go again. I would never have thought that the coiner of “axis of evil” would end up being counted a reasonable voice.
What CaseyL said. To me, it’s just not worth the bother anymore.
But let’s also remember that the good old days were those of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
I’m perfectly happy to haggle with wj on occasion, though 🙂
This has me reminscing, mostly fondly, about Brick Oven Bill and the alien space bats guy. I don’t think either of them were banned, I think they both just moved on to greener pastures…
Anyway, if there are any conservative lurkers out there who are pondering participating but are afraid it’s just too lefty in here for them, please consider this your invitation to jump in. We will do our best not to jump all over you! At least not right away… 🙂
“ often find Donald’s comments more annoying than wj’s.”
Interesting. You mostly seem to agree on the war crimes thing, which is most of what I post about when ranting. In fact, that is virtually all of my rants as best I can recall.
“ anyone who agrees, but thinks there are other, more achievable, priorities is at best an utter moral dullard.”
That’s about right. Not supporting genocide is pretty low bar stuff.. You know who we lack here? Palestinian- American posters.
The pie in the sky material is in domestic policy and just keeping Trump from destroying what we have is sort of the best we can hope for.
I like Mamdani for example, but if he wins will be amazed if he can get a fraction of what he wants for nyc.
Of the regular commenters, the age range is 52-78.
That would make me the youngest. Strange feeling.
How did you figure that out again, Charles? Thanks.
Though of course with Trump in office we have a purely random foreign policy. based on whims. Best hope for Gaza would be if Netanyahu ticks off Trump in some way,
Most everyone here at one time or another has either implicitly or explicitly revealed their age or birthdate. Odds are that anyone who hasn’t is within the range.
You know who we lack here? Palestinian- American posters
You do a pretty damn good job of linking important stuff about the Palestinian situation which most of us would not otherwise see, Donald. In the previous discussion about ranters v persuaders, I think you are a ranter par excellence. And I mean that as a compliment. It’s not always comfortable, and I don’t always agree with you, but you are morally consistent and IMO a kind of conscience in the blog.
Do you keep a spreadsheet, Charles?
A text file. I was mildly curious about the regulars’ ages and started noting them as I learned them some years ago.
I was wondering about Charles’s age range myself. I think I have given away my approx age once or twice.
Thanks, Gftnc. But the tone thing sort of makes my eyes roll a bit. People should get a Twitter account, ignore the crap ( I have no idea what “the algorithm” wants me to see most of the time— I know about some people and they interact with others) and read Palestinians first hand. Some over there, some here. You will get tone, all right. Some Western lefties, some antizionist Israeli and American Jews. And plenty of pro Israel people respond, I am a cuddly little teddy bear in comparison to most of that crowd. I mean the substantive ones— there are of course plenty of people who only cuss out the side they are against, but you see plenty of bigotry on both sides with those folk, so even with them you get to see what sort of sewage is out there.
Supposedly seeing things on TV helped turn people against Vietnam. I think you see vastly more on Twitter. I almost never see anything on TikTok, which is supposed to be a site that helped turn young people against Israel in Gaza.
I probably need a break.
More on ranting. I visit LGM fairly often and that entire blog is one long almost continuous rant session, but they have their own culture there and while I think I get the unwritten rules and one or two of the inside jokes, they are a different type of ranter. I wouldn’t fit. It involves how and in what manner you are supposed to criticize the Democrats. The focus is on politics along with policy but mostly how it fits with politics. Nowadays they really hate the feckless Democratic leadership. I learn things from reading them.
“ . I almost never see anything on TikTok,”
Meaning that I almost never visit, not that there isn’t material there.
I was wondering about Charles’s age range myself.
I’m about four months younger than wj and have the same birthday as bobbyp.
I’m a 13-year-old shiba inu raised by a murder of crows that were terrorized by some dude in a George W. Bush mask. If you know that, then the rest of my politics comes into focus.
Supposedly seeing things on TV helped turn people against Vietnam.
True this. But, it was a different time.
There were three national broadcast TV networks, many if not most people got there news from those or newspapers. Or both. So there was a common set of news sources for most of the country, and those sources generally provided the same basic set of information, although with a somewhat different slant.
The cliche is that everybody trusted Walter Cronkite (CBS, through 1981) and Chet Huntley and David Brinkley (NBC, through 1970). They didn’t necessarily agree with everything they said, but they were seen as basically truthful, reliable voices.
And, the cliche continues, when Cronkite in particular began questioning the war, that was the tipping point.
Vietnam was also (I think) the first war where there was a lot of video coverage, and it was timely, i.e., you would see things fairly soon after they happened. The photomagazines like Like also provided a lot of coverage.
Net/net, most people got their news from the same places, and those places were trusted, and they were all fairly consistent in the information they presented.
I don’t think any of that is true now.
Re: Gaza in particular – I read a couple of foreign news sources – the Guardian, the BBC, Reuters, El Pais, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera has a *lot* of coverage of Gaza, but I don’t think very many people read it. It’s based in Qatar, no small number of USians would probably not read it for that reason alone.
On the US side, I read the AP, which has a fairly “just the facts” stance (I think?), but they don’t have the same level of coverage of Gaza as others do.
And I think everybody has basically forgotten about the Ukraine at this point.
I read Krugman on substack, but that’s about it. I signed up for a bluesky account but basically never read it.
Don’t do TikTok or similar.
News and information is a remarkably fragmented and siloed universe these days.
I wish there still was something with the ubiquity and trust level of the old 6 o’clock news guys, I think it would help make some of horror shows going on now more widely visible.
But they’re more or less gone.
I’m a 13-year-old shiba inu raised by a murder of crows…
LOL
I’m a 68 year old American geezer raised on duck and cover, Kennedy assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon and CREEP, J Edgar, MLK Jr and his assassination, race riots and cities on fire.
Early adulthood was Reagan and AIDs. We gave up on duck and cover somewhere in there and were basically just crossing our fingers.
Middle age was W Bush, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding for fun and profit.
And, here we are now.
What a long strange trip it’s been.
I actually miss most of the commenters who have been banned during my roughly 2 decades here. Does anybody have the full list?
I don’t have a list, but we may have different definitions of banning. In my definition, we’ve only ‘banned’ a few people while I have had the keys, which to me, means blocking them from commenting. There is a longer list of people who caused issues and were contacted off list and issues were discussed and at the end of that, the person said something to the effect that they didn’t, for reasons said and unsaid, want to change and so stopped. Some might say that was ‘banning’, but there seems to be a difference, at least to me. of asking someone to leave and they choose not to come back and having to do something to stop that person from coming.
novakant:
“But let’s also remember that the good old days were those of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ”
I think that’s when the split started on ObiWi. We had 500+ comment posts about torture, with people who recognized torture as an atrocity, full stop, arguing with people who thought torture was justified and useful. IIRC, most of the original front pagers were still around, and most of them were Iraq War hawks.
If you are talking about the original crew, that was before my time, but we had Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn’t be put in a Iraq war hawk box. I would try and take a look, but the whole Typepad architecture is very slow and creaky.
But I can pull up the first blog post in case you want a starting point.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/11/howdy_howdy_how.html
which has this
Second, this is not, strictly speaking, a Right-wing blog: it’s pretty much a centrist one. While I carry my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy card with pride, my fellow-bloggers do not. They aren’t froth-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, mind you – which will probably disqualify them as being on the Left for a very small yet vocal group of people – but they are most assuredly not Republicans. I look forward to their insights and challenges to my own ideological leanings. I also have a somewhat larger list of people (of varying political beliefs) whom I’m going to hit up for special guest posts from time to time: but for at least the start, three bloggers is probably an optimal number to regularly post here.
Again, this is before I was here, but my understanding is that Moe Lane started the blog, and he was on the conservative side, and worked hard to get voices from the other side, which then moved the blog to the left of center slant it has today.
Talking about good old days, during Iraq/Afgahnistan/Libya, a common plaint (out on the internet) was gee, I wish we could go back to the old Cold War days.
And going forward from that post, the three original bloggers here were Moe Lane, Katherine and von.
And going forward from that post, the three original bloggers here were Moe Lane, Katherine and von.
Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn’t be put in a Iraq war hawk box
These three were definitely not hawks.
I think the general consensus was that Afghanistan was the necessary war. And people were quite positive about Libya, at least initially – because of Obama/Clinton.
I am talking about having conversations with people who would excuse every atrocity and defend the use of torture. It’s quite similar to the positions taken regarding the Gaza war now.
Besides the actual torture apologists there were those who grandly conceded that torture is wrong, but strongly justfied blowing scores of people to bits in the name of freedom a la “you have to destroy the village to save it”. I’m glad those people left.
What a long strange trip it’s been.
Indeed. My apologies to all for angering you at one time or another over the course of the years.* The “all” would seem to include just about everybody here.
But as a famous sage once said, “(You’ll) get over it.”
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
An injury to one is an injury to all.
* list of the greatest hits available upon request.
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
Hard agree.
And bobbyp, FWIW, you have never angered me.
lj, thanks for the link to the original post. I have been a perennial lurker since the days of Moe but I didn’t know when the blog actually started. I miss those days because there was a good mix of voices at the time. I think your analysis is correct when the blog switched to mostly liberal voices. I don’t know if the conservatives didn’t want to engage anymore or if the just felt overrun. I think that overrun feeling has happened to a few people as the blog moved majority liberal. I still love coming here – never stop, please!
For those who would like to see a greater diversity of views here (diversity! What a concept!), it might be useful to ask a couple of questions:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate? Full on MAGA cultists? (I’m guessing generally not, but I suppose that could be projection.) Religious fundamentalists, of whichever religion? (Not, I think, those demanding that society generally conform to their views, but perhaps those who think the world would be a better place if more people embraced some of their views. Again, that could be projection.) Straight up conservatives: “I don’t much care for change, but can be convinced that it’s necessary in specific instances”? Moderate conservatives: “There are things that need changing, but I’d generally prefer gradual changes, small changes that can be reality checked as we go, to sweeping changes”? Centerists– those who see merits in both liberal and conservative views, and want to create compromises between them? New voices even further left than what we have now?
What ideas do you have for reality checking, both of new and existing commenters? Which mostly comes down to What is an authorative sourse? Does it have to be reliable across the board, or just in some areas? How much agreement do we need for something to be accepted as authorative?
Yes, I realize that I’m assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
Yes, I realize that I’m assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.
bring back alien space bats guy! 🙂
More seriously:
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
tl;dr – anybody sensible, for any reasonable definition of “sensible”, is probably OK with me.
I’m OK with people who voted for Trump, per se. Not sure about full on MAGA cultist, they yell a lot and don’t seem to understand the concept of argument from fact. But, I’d be willing to give it a try.
Also re: MAGAs, I personally would draw a bright line around gender- or race- or ethnic-based theories of human value and superiority, they just trigger my inner impulse to invite them to f*** right off. It’s a personal failing, I know – judge not, keep an open mind, right? – but one I am willing to own. We all have our limits.
I’m probably more comfortable with religious fundamentalists than most folks here due to personal history, but conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if “the Bible says” is not part of your epistemology, there isn’t really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Also, it’s a fraught time, it’s easy for things to go sideways. If there actually are conservatives of any of the varieties you name interested in joining the party, we might need to update / reinstate posting rules, just to make sure everybody stays in bounds.
Yeah, I can’t imagine it working with seriously MAGA types, or religious fundamentalists, essentially because I can’t see that either of those groups are concerned with anything that I would call reality. I might be wrong, of course. But, on the definition of “reliable sources”, wj, you definitely make an excellent point – that is problematic.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Yes, I think I agree.
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy. You’ve done it before; he was before my time, and I am deeply resentful to have missed him!
conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if “the Bible says” is not part of your epistemology, there isn’t really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
Thus my discussion of what constitutes an “authority”. I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with “the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says”. In the other hand, someone who starts with “I believe that” or “My faith holds that”, but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.
To take one example, suppose someone starts from”Thou shalt not steal.”. Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes “stealing.” Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what’s the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it’s possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.
** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we’re not looking at a null set.
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy.
I’ve tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of “alien space bat”. No joy.
If anyone has better Typepad-fu than I do (which is probably everyone) and wants to give it try, I will appreciate it. I think it was quite a while ago, but I’m not sure of a particular time period.
It’s also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.
I’ll also note that a random walk through the archives will show that we’ve had more than a few… interesting characters here over the years.
Anyone besides me remember Brick Over Bill and his recipes for rice and beans? 🙂
Maybe I’m living in some kind of fantasy ObWi populated by the bizarre flotsam and jetsam of my imagination….
Also, wj – I’m fine with people who refer to their faith-based beliefs as part of why they think what they do – I’ve done that myself here on a few occasions. But folks coming from that perspective have to respect that many or most folks here may not find that persuasive.
How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
Anyone who’s willing to engage in reasoned, fact-based, and tolerably polite discussion.
I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we’re not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority. And I’m quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
It’s also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing
LOL
And I’m quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
To quote the Spartans: “if”.
I just posted twice but after refreshing the post disappeared each time .
It’s also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.
Nah. More likely the alien space bats purged it.
A couple of observations. I’m probably a/the fly in the ointment. I’m happy to discuss things, but I am pretty big on examining unexamined assumptions. I’ll try and illustrate this with an example that’s on me.
GftNC and I had an exchange on manipulate and draw out. However, I went back to the comment and I said in the very same comment
What I see (after reflection) was that it was becoming evident to me that it was a loser on the internet pretending to be someone else because they couldn’t have a proper conversation with adults and admit they were wrong and that the said loser was pulling your strings.
GftNC could say I was wasn’t being honest, cause “pulling strings” conjures up the image of a marionette. But I hope that the full quote shows that I’m making the assumption that she wouldn’t have started the conversation if she knew she was just being recruited as a foot soldier in the war on cultural Marxism. But she was right to point that out. Hopefully, we won’t have to worry about sockpuppets for a while.
Unfortunately, a lot of arguing on the internet takes running off the other side as winning. While that was true for folks like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, not so true now. The whole concept of sealioning springs from this, but it shares a notion with other similar interactions, which is to goad a person taking one side of the argument into blowing up and then taking the moral high ground.
From this, I think that it isn’t so much the topic, it is the way the argument is processed. I was looking at the old posts and the big debate was gay marriage, which invited as much feeling back then.
Another thing, I imagine some people were a bit taken aback by Charles’ text file of our ages, which seems a bit Stasi-like. In a lot of places, especially if people don’t have much of a reason to play nice, there would have been fireworks at the comment giving the age range. ‘how the F would you know that?’ might have been a response. But I’m pretty pleased that this didn’t happen here. I can’t speak for others, but the whole thing seemed very Charles-like.
Well, since I’ve collected most everyone else’s birthdate or approximate age, my birthdate is 11/14/47.
Well, since I’ve collected most everyone else’s birthdate or approximate age, my birthdate is 11/14/47.
lj, I wondered whether you’d pick up the manipulation v pulling the strings aspect, but I decided not to go there with you given how distressing the whole thing had become. Ditto various other aspects (e.g. sex v gender). Let’s put it behind us, and just all (including me) be mindful that going after people in anger is generally uncalled for, and counter-productive.
On the Stasi like text file, I did realise it could look like that, but I also remembered that when I started on here I kept a table of where people said they lived (i.e. what state), so I could ask about or respond to their local weather issues, or political developments (e.g. asking wj or nous about things in California etc). I stopped years ago, but the impulse made me realise that I should definitely not cast the first stone, even if I had wanted to.
I’ve tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of “alien space bat”. No joy.
From back at the time when it looked like the hosting service was going to drop Typepad, and the Typepad export-content function was broken, and I pulled all of the site’s content out the hard way…
I still have a flat text file with everything up to that point. Thumbing through on the word alien (case independent), there are numerous mentions of space aliens. Someone flat out states that Moe Lane is a space alien. Someone follows that with, “No, I meant intelligent space aliens.” There seems to be agreement that Alien vs Predator is the definitive example of film franchises that have gone on too long. Nothing in a context suggesting alien space bats.
I think that the diversity–meaning the self-defined conservative voices—lessened because they simply couldn’t justify their positions. This is a very smart, well-informed, articulate group of people and the self-defined conservatives found their positions being picked apart, analyzed, scrutinized and rebutted. So they either got nasty or left or moderated. Or redefined “conservative”.
I think it is weird but sort of cute that someone has been recording birthdays. Like an odd hobby.
Male, neutered, orange, and about fifteen years old, if anyone is wondering. Birthday unknown.
and I pulled all of the site’s content out the hard way…
I’ve mentioned that I have wound up as the extended families’ archivist, and have thousands of pages of stuff that has been dumped on me over the years. One of my uncles spent years after he retired building a blog site where he posted content about the tiny town in Iowa where he was born and (for a while) raised.
One of the first things on my list of stuff to get safely tucked away in digital form when I decided to be serious about it was that blog content. Quite a bit of what I learned pulling everything out of Obsidian Wings was useful for pulling his stuff out of Blogger. Multiple copies are stored away now.
Pro Bono: I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we’re not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority.
“Expected” by who? Surely not by the hosts, than whom there is no higher authority in a blog comment section. Also, to “follow” an argument can mean two different things. I can follow an argument that the earth is flat, for instance, without feeling obliged to follow it up with a refutation.
I called myself “emotionally inert” earlier. What that means is: if a god-botherer citing chapter and verse declared in these pages that I am doomed to hell, I would not be offended, frightened, or otherwise annoyed. If I had a bit of time to kill, I might comment back sarcastically or contemptuously — but only for my own amusement.
Basically, I can’t get worked up about much of anything in a blog comments section. “Yo mama wears army boots” may be ad hominem but I figure sensible people hardly expect me to deny it lest I appear to accept it.
Some people (perhaps the “self-defined conservatives” wonkie speaks of) may be more sensitive than I am, of course.
–TP
Nothing in a context suggesting alien space bats.
Time to adjust my meds. 🙂
Before I began commenting here, I hung out at RedState for a while. Earlier today it occurred to me that maybe alien space bat was over there. Which kind of tracks, maybe.
So I went to RedState to see if they have a search feature. I didn’t see one, and I didn’t really want to spend any more time there.
So I guess alien space bat guy will remain a mystery. And I promise not to bring it up again, GFTNC.
Perversely, I feel a sense of loss….
I’ve encountered ASB scenarios in some of the SF/F I’ve read, but don’t remember such scenarios ever being described as ASBs.
Alien Space Bats in Fiction
About what topics get people’s dander up, I’d go to Martin Luther’s observation that “Most human affairs come down to depending upon whose ox is gored.” The earth being flat is not on the list of most people’s oxen, but other topics can end up being more ox-like.
And for the third time my short post disappeared.
I only answered a question from russell concerning a former poster and whether anyone remembers him (yes) and something food related (no).
No idea what the system sees as problematic there.
I’ve long since resigned myself to the reality that anything and everything that I have ever written on the Internet is available to someone willing to expend the effort to track it down. Including stuff I have long since forgotten, which I wrote when the Internet was new, and the preserve of a very small number of geeks. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.
I figure I’m still better off than those today who (apparently compulsively) write every detail of pretty much every they do. I expect it will come back to haunt a significant number of them.
In 50 years or so our culture may have adapted to the Internet. We’ll make use of its strengths where appropriate. And kids will be taught, about the time they learn to read and write, how to use it safely and responsibly. Until then, about the best we can do is damage limitation.
Hartmut, sorry, I dropped in and saw your post, but thought one had been freed. I think we put a textblock on He of the oven made of masonry units, so that may be why, though Russell did post the name twice, so I’m not sure.
wj’s comment reminds me of Ena Matsuoka, a member of Japanese girl idol group
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3052704/japanese-sex-pest-jailed-stalking-pop-idol-ena-matsuoka-using
A Japanese man has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for stalking and assaulting an up-and-coming pop idol after finding clues to where she lived by enlarging reflections of scenery and landmarks in her eyes in photographs she shared on social media.
“Expected” by who?
I might have expressed myself more precisely. I was merely discussing what I’m interested in reading.
Please expand on any memories of what the alien space bats commenter was up to.
WE CAN’T STOP HERE
THIS IS BAT COUNTRY
Charles, your link to Grok’s discussion of Alien Space Bats in Fiction is the only AI link of yours I’ve ever found useful or entertaining. It never occurred to me to search the term on Google, or Wikipedia, or I would have been enlightened years ago. But on the other hand, the explanation is a lot less satisfying than my bemused fantasies.
Snarki, no point mentioning those bats, the poor bastards will see them soon enough.
Charles, your link to Grok’s discussion of Alien Space Bats in Fiction is the only AI link of yours I’ve ever found useful or entertaining.
My life is complete… 🙂
Hey, open thread!!
Ringo Starr, aka Sir Richard Starkey, turns 85 today. The most musical drummer on the planet, his drum fills are melodies. The chillest Great Big Pop Star on the planet, too.
A personal hero, on a few levels.
Peace & love, as the man says. May it be so.
A personal hero, on a few levels.
A friend once remarked that the only measure of a drummer’s contribution to music was their technical virtuosity. “Yeah?” I asked him. “How many more great songs might have been produced if Ginger Baker were as good at keeping a band full of huge egos together as Ringo was?”
The people who downplay Ringo’s drumming are the same people who go on about how Jimmy Page was a sloppy, overrated guitarist, and probably the same people that complain about what a terrible word “moist” is…mostly because that seems to be the sort of thing that other edgy people are saying and getting praise for saying. They’ve never actually sat down to really listen to the songs in any detail or approach them with an open mind.
Ringo had a feel and sensibility all his own, and knew how to leave space in the song for the other players’ genius to show through. That’s a rare thing. The other player that comes to mind for me right away with this trait is John Paul Jones.
I don’t believe that Ringo and JPJ have ever collaborated on anything, but then I don’t know that it would work, either. They might end up being too mannered and respectful with each other.
The other player that comes to mind for me right away with this trait is John Paul Jones.
Jones was the glue in Zep. And a brilliant player, definitely the undersung member in that band.
Check it, the bass in this is just a perfect counterpoint to everything else that is going on. Funky, solid, he ties the different sections of the tune together and keeps in moving forward.
And if it’s a Zep tune and it isn’t a guitar or drums or voice, it’s JPJ playing it.
Re: Ringo, you can always tell a young green drummer who doesn’t understand how making music with other people works yet, because they don’t like Ringo.
I have to admit that I only remember Paul McCartney secretly rerecording Ringo’s drum track in the studio at night – is that true? And stills from the film were Ringo plays a caveman or something. But he seems to be a nice guy.
Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.
Anyway, thought I would post a reply I got from Schumer’s back in May after I wrote Schumer’s, Gillibrand and Latimer ( my House rep) a ( polite) several paragraph long email asking them to push for a ceasefire. Gillibrand and Latimer didn’t respond. No surprise in the last case and Gillibrand prob thought I was a global jihadist or something. So I gave the Schumer office some credit for a polite response. The response, however, was nonsense. Here it is —
————
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding U.S. aid to Israel and your request for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I share your concerns about the security and well-being of innocent Palestinians.
I’ve always said that Israel has 4 goals: Radically reduce Hamas’ threat, free the hostages, minimize the loss of innocent Palestinian lives and maximize the amount of humanitarian aid to innocent civilians in Gaza.
Like you, I am deeply troubled by the suffering of those who have been caught in the cross fire of this conflict. My heart breaks at the loss of so many civilian lives in Gaza. I am anguished that the Israeli war campaign has killed so many innocent Palestinians. I know that my fellow Jewish Americans feel this same anguish when they see the images of dead and starving children and destroyed homes.
I agree that the current political situation has created horrible living conditions for many Palestinians living in Gaza. That is why I have been supportive of opening up additional humanitarian aid routes to Gaza and increasing U.S. humanitarian aid contributions. Just recently Congress passed H.R. 815, the Emergency National Security Supplemental aid package that includes $9.3 billion dedicated for humanitarian aid, including for innocent civilians in Gaza.
I will continue to support a strong peace process through direct negotiations and look forward to the day when the Israeli and Palestinian governments can work together to achieve a two-state solution. I am committed to doing all that I can to encourage a productive and meaningful dialogue between the two parties.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
On his list of Israeli goals, numbers three and four are fantasy. In theory those are American goals but for Americans the first one was and is the one that mattered more than all others. By far. Keeping civilian deaths low would be nice, but not that important. For Netanyahu, staying out of jail and in power was the number one goal. For some others, the goal is ethnic cleansing.
So Schumer or whoever wrote this can’t really be that stupid. And from reading my email he or the actual writer knew I would think any of that was true. We need a better class of liar in DC. Or maybe even honest people.
The summary of HR 815 regarding Gaza is misleading, But too tired to rant.
On a positive note, I watched the hour long discussion with Brad Lander that Peter Beinart had on July 4. Lander was really impressive, a politician I could support with enthusiasm. Though I like Mamdani a lot, if I were a NYC voter I probably would have put Lander as 1 and Mamdani as 2 based on Lander’s experience. ( On Palestine Landervis a liberal Zionist unlike Mamdani, but Landercreally would be willing to pressure Israel, which is what I care about there. But I am mostly talking about his qualifications for being Mayor and all his other positions, very liberal, maybe a bit closer to achievable than what Mamdani wants. )
And he had a funny anecdote on his arrest. The two guys didn’t really like doing it. One was a Pakistani Muslim and said he would rank Lander and Mamdani as his top choices. The other said his wife wanted him to quit his ICE job because of what they were doing but he didn’t feel he could because he had a mortgage. Lander said it was funny but of course said it was also terrible.
No point linking— I think you have to subscribe to Beinart’s Substack.
Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.
(Wo)man shall not live by misery alone.
So Schumer or whoever wrote this can’t really be that stupid. And from reading my email he or the actual writer knew I would think any of that was true. We need a better class of liar in DC. Or maybe even honest people.
Assuming that anyone actually read it in any detail and stopped to consider what you were saying. I always assume that emails to representatives go to interns, who are mostly just skimming them for keywords and sending out form responses that are 80% LLM content. These letters aren’t so much responses, from what I can tell, as position statements meant to address keywords in your email. They are meant to clarify the representatives position. In this case his position is the equivalent of hope and prayers.
But hey…your email probably did go into the tally on the side of Gaza that he uses to determine how much concern he has to express while refusing to intervene, and how much he has to worry next time he’s up for re-election.
I’m starting to think that in the post-Citizens-United era the only way to actually get long time Dems to listen may be to organize (union, interest group, something) and throw support behind Democratic Socialists in primaries until we’ve picked off the ones with deep donor support.
Their worry with Mamdani shows that this is what they are running most scared from.
I know this is a peculiar thing to note, but as minutiae I believe Russell mistyped a former commenter’s name as “BrickOverBill”, r instead of n, which presumably would have made it past the filter. We’ll see if this comment appears.
My question for Schumer is my now-standard question for anyone advocating for a two-state solution: precisely where to you think the second state will be? And who is going to evict the current owners?
Nous—
That’s probably right. I hadn’t even considered LLM’s but maybe.
My theory is that there is a standard form letter for people asking for pressure for a ceasefire, using our aid as leverage. Maybe a different letter for people who support Israel’s position. I hadn’t thought of them using AI, but that just shows I am still stuck in 2023 or so in my thinking.
Supposedly it is more effective to call them in the phone but I have done that and get nervous.
On the solution, I can’t imagine it. People argue about a 1ss vs a 2ss, but it is really hard to picture the two sides in the same country and also really hard to imagine the settlers leaving or agreeing to live under Palestinian rule. No acceptable solution seems realistic for now. Just stopping the slaughter and getting surviving hostages back is about the limit of my imagination here.
Just my two bits on the ObWi diversity question:
The recognition of how one-sided it has become is refreshing. The introspection even more.
For myself, there is are a few barriers to entry on commenting if you are a conservative. You know you your comments will often draw “hostile fire” rather than curiosity. And you are surrounded. It’s not just from one direction. Expect to carry a heavy load if you are going to have a complete conversation because you are responding to many people when the opposite is not true. I have a full-time job, I’m married and a kid still at home. And I’m in my late 50’s (as CharlesWT likely knows). As much as I (usually) like the conversation, I don’t always have the time to read AND comment.
It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn’t completely responding to some of the counterpoint. That was in fact true, due to time. Recently, frex, Donald responded to me with some really good points, noting that my comment appeared to only blame Hamas and not Israel. His comments merited a response. If I only had the time. (Sorry, Donald). And I had a lot to say about the transgender issue and found myself very aligned with GftNC’s point of view and would have wanted to wade in, but by the time I could particiapte the conversation had moved on. In the past, some have assumed I had nothing to say and said as much when that simply wasn’t true.
So I just read and pop up from time-to-time.
It was easier under the Hilzoy era when I first was drawn here. Hilzoy had a way of interacting that I consider model. She was curious, respectful, and stepped in and politely (and sometimes firmly) called commenters out on both sides. Russell is a lot like Hilzoy; others too. Many not. And that era had several conservatives of many different stripes. While we were in the minority, it was a strong minority.
Lastly, in order to attract conservatives, IMHO, you have to at least want to hear another point of view. That’s why I am here. That’s why I turn on Urban View and Progressive Talk Radio from time-to-time when I’m on long drives. A recent opinion was voiced that conservatives left ObWi because they couldn’t justify their positions and noted that the group here is smart, well-informed and articulate, implying that the conservatives were not. That doesn’t help. However, I agree with the assessment of the characteristics of my left-leaning, liberal friends here on Obwi. You are a smart, well-informed and articulate bunch. Overall, I very much enjoy our discussions and hearing your points of view.
It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn’t completely responding to some of the counterpoint.
I feel you. I only participate in the comments of this blog because in other blogs, there is an often an assumption that everyone is in the same room/time zone and people push the advantage without thinking of that. The way I write comments grows out of that, trying to put down enough for people to chew on, but also trying to slow down the pace of the conversation, at least where I am wading in and why I often suggest that piling on is not really so good.
A bit of unsolicited advice, it’s always possible to say something like ‘let me put a pin in that, and give me a day or two to reply. Some people may just ignore that and try to get in their licks, but most of the people here would understand that (and would probably think less of the people not accepting that)
My long experience of writing to MPs is that, since word processors came into common use forty-odd years ago, one usually receives in reply a letter relevant to the general subject but not actually addressing one’s points. Schumer’s reply seems to be of that kind.
Another topic. I know Ian Welsh is not a favorite here. I sometimes think he goes too far or is wrong. . But this piece about the authoritarian use of a cashless economy seems correct to me.
https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-end-of-cash-the-rise-of-the-non-person/
bc’s reasonable comments tactfully omit that one of the (main?) people who gave them a hard time was me (there may well have been others, but naturally I remember my own attempts more clearly).
The first instance I remember (seven years ago) was the Kavanaugh hearings. bc said that Kavanaugh had refuted Christine Blasey-Ford’s version of events. In that halcyon and far off time, I still believed that “refute” meant (as it always had) “disprove by evidence or logic”, rather than “deny”, so since bc had (I think) told us that s/he was a lawyer, I reminded them that it is the duty of an officer of the court to protect the integrity of the court and uphold the integrity of the legal system. bc then disappeared for quite a while, possibly (as s/he says) because they were busy. This was of course before we all learned how deeply flawed the FBI’s investigations into Kavanaugh was, along with the evidence of other complainants.
The second time (or I may have the order confused) was when bc referred to Sztrok and Page as “the lovers”, a description I had only ever heard Trump use about them. Perhaps unfairly, I took this as confirmation that bc was not just conservative, but at least Trump tolerant, or Trump adjacent. Perhaps I was wrong.
On the gender issue, unfortunately GC feminists have had to get used to being cast in the same team as people with whom they have no other beliefs in common and whose other beliefs they utterly reject, but who sincerely or performatively profess to believe many of the same things on the GC issue.
So, on the question of which kind of conservatives would be valuable additions to ObWi, my own opinion would be any who can answer in the affirmative the following questions:
Do you believe that Trump lost the 2020 election?
Do you believe that Trump’s actions on and around January 6th were a) morally wrong, b) potentially criminal and c) insurrectionary?
Do you approve of Trump going after the law firms which in the past represented his opponents (for various values of “opponents”)?
Others may think this a grotesquely inappropriate approach to the problem. But it is mine. Obviously, and luckily, I don’t make the rules!
I should say I know nothing of Hüseyin Doğru— never heard of him before. But the general topic I agree with—ostensibly democratic governments have a new tool for repression.
Normally Christian fundamentalists would be screaming about this— it fits in perfectly with their fears about the mark of the beast. Maybe some are. But since their guy is in power in the US I suppose their concern will be postponed.
PS to my 09.50:
For the avoidance of doubt, my first 2 questions, in my opinion, establish mainly whether the person responding is living in the real world. The 3rd establishes their approach to the integrity of the legal system.
I like GftNC’s idea of checking that someone is connected to the real world. Just two details:
— while most of us are in the US, and therefore closely attuned to events here, not everyone is. In addition to the several folks in the UK (and lj domiciled in Japan) I seem to recall that Lurker is in Finland. There might well be others, either currently or in the future. Do we need a question or two for reality checks of those elsewhere?
— Just for equity, we probably ought to have a question or two that would reality check those on the left. (Maybe acknowledgement that such a category exists…? 😉
If this is a suggestion that we should have political shibboleths for commentators, I’m against it.
I don’t mind discussing whether Trump lost the 2020 election – he plainly did, but I see no harm in demonstrating the fact in response to an honest enquiry.
If this is a suggestion that we should have political shibboleths for commentators, I’m against it.
It seems to me that it’s GftNC’s personal filter for whom to bother discussing politics with.
Every bit of time we spend doing something is time we are not spending doing something else. Our time is limited. Spend it wisely.
It kind of reminds me of a friend’s suggestion that I read Project 2025 after I mentioned that tRump was full of sh*t when he said he didn’t know anything about it, even though there was a long list of major contributors to it in high-level positions in his administration.
Whether I read it had nothing to do with the point I was making, and I had better things to do with my time than read that crap.
The same goes for arguing with deluded people.
Everyone’s wrong about something, possibly including me. The question is whether they’ll listen to reason.
I had a lot to say about the transgender issue and found myself very aligned with GftNC’s point of view…
I mostly agree with GftNC’s viewpoint, but didn’t find time to write a carefully phrased comment when the question was live.
It seems to me that it’s GftNC’s personal filter for whom to bother discussing politics with.
Yes, exactly. I did say “valuable additions to ObWi”.
The question is whether they’ll listen to reason.
Personally I believe that anyone who still thinks Trump won in 2020 has shown themselves incapable of listening to reason.
Keyword ‘elections’
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-irs-says-churches-can-now-endorse-political-candidates-pulpit-rcna217495
The headline leaves out the even more scandalous part: ONLY churches, not other tax exempt entities. Those still have to obey the rule of either partisan or tax exempt but not both at the same time.
The headline leaves out the even more scandalous part: ONLY churches, not other tax exempt entities. Those still have to obey the rule of either partisan or tax exempt but not both at the same time.
In the other hand, getting yourself officially designated as a church is pretty straightforward. And the requirements are far less than you might imagine. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if most PACs could pull it off — given some of the organizations I’ve seen do so in the past. And any kind of charitable organization would be a shoo-in. For sure you don’t need to express believe in any kind of diety(s).
I just started the Sacred Assembly of the Mechanical Pencil. We meet at 3:30 AM every third Wednesday if anyone is interested. One stipulation is that you have to be able to do The Worm.
Russell is a lot like Hilzoy
Yikes! Are you sure you have the right (R)russell?
You are very kind, bc. I appreciate this, although I doubt I live up to it.
If this is a suggestion that we should have political shibboleths for commentators, I’m against it.
Pretty much my feeling also. And I think the suggestion of “just don’t engage” is also fine. I know there are certain topics that I’m just not interested in discussing.
The folks that we exclude from here tend to be folks (on either – or any – side of the fence) who are rude or offensive, in whatever way. And we generally give folks ample warning before they get bumped – most of the folks that have been banned have shown that they simply refuse to stop doing whatever it is we’ve asked them (usually repeatedly) to stop doing.
I’m not sure anyone has been banned simply for their opinion, per se.
Conservative lurkers, c’mon in! Just don’t be jerks. We’ll try not to be, too.
In the other hand, getting yourself officially designated as a church is pretty straightforward.
John Oliver did.
But I expect that the IRS (and SCOTUS) will come up with loopholes to the loopholes, although not necessarily of the blatant ‘Islam is not a religion’ kind that some Kristians(TM) and GOPsters try to push.
I do like the idea of a thousand (liberal) churches blooming!
But the point of a church endorsing candidates/parties is that its congregants then vote, as a bloc, as their church tells them to vote.
The Sacred Assembly of the Mechanical Pencil probably doesn’t have enough adherents to constitute a voting bloc.
Perhaps a “Sacred Assembly of Really Cool Mechanical Tools No Longer in General Use”? You could get the self-propelling pencil folks, and the people who still love their Texas Instruments calculators, their slide rules, and anyone who still knows what a protractor is, and there may be quite a few rotary phone fans waiting for a spiritual home!
Texas Instruments calculators?
HP or GTFO.
From back when HP made quality stuff, not just crappy printers.
I just saw a video clip from Ringo’s 85th birthday party. He’s four years older than Keith Richards, but looks 20 years younger :^)
…there may be quite a few rotary phone fans waiting for a spiritual home!
You can take my rotary phone after you pull my cold, dead finger out of the dialer!
Keith Richards has been undead since the ’80s. He’s keeping that phylactery safe and hidden.
That or Brian Jones gave him a ring for his birthday back in 1969.
Death by drowning…hmmm…
Be careful not to get confused with the Rotary Club.
I can’t deny a certain nostalgia for these devices either.
From back when HP made quality stuff, not just crappy printers.
Sometime while I was in graduate school (Texas, 1976-78) I went to one of HP’s sales pitches for their engineering calculators. At one point the salesman asked if there were any petroleum engineering students in the crowd and got several hands up. “You, my friends, will someday soon be walking along a catwalk and drop your calculator, watch it bounce twice, go over the edge, and fall 20 feet to the ground. What will you have if that’s a Texas Instruments calculator? Pieces.” Then he wound up and throw the HP calculator hard enough to bounce it off the back wall. “With an HP, you’ll just yell down and ask your buddy to pick up your calculator.”
Richards and Willie Nelson seem to have inherited the mantle of the Betty White jokes. “Shouldn’t someone be worrying about the kind of world our kids will leave for Keith and Willie?”
Eva Marie Saint, currently the oldest living Oscar winner, is still kicking it at 101.
I was a sucker for HP calculators and ending up buying five different ones.
bc: Lastly, in order to attract conservatives, IMHO, you have to at least want to hear another point of view.
Good to see you again, bc!
Put me down as definitely wanting to hear “another point of view” on any topic at all. Also put me down as willing to challenge any point of view — time permitting, and if I feel like it.
Is it possible that, unlike you, some conservatives find it frustrating to be challenged when they set forth their “point of view” on ObWi? I mean, “hearing” and “accepting” are different things. Any posted comment is “heard” in a literal(-ish) sense. If it elicits no response, would that be less, or more, frustrating than a bunch of replies “refuting” it?
Hoping you pop up more often, and bring friends with you:)
–TP
Donald,
I should say I know nothing of Hüseyin Doğru— never heard of him before.
Wasn’t he Kim Jong Il’s caddy when he shot 36 under par in one round of golf?
Juche!
I bookmarked Ian Welch’s blog some years ago, but rarely visit. He is not my kind of lefty. He makes my head hurt.
I hadn’t seen or didn’t remember Ian Welch. The information about Hüseyin Doğru (love the diacritics!) is interesting, but I’m working online with a masters student who is researching how cryptocurrency legislation should be handled and Welch is not really thinking why the German government can do what it can. Like Donald, I don’t know anything about the case, but I don’t think it is realistic to expect nations to simply stay with cash money. One thing I like about Japan is that it is much more a cash economy than what Germany sounds like, but it’s not clear to me if he wants Germany to be more like Japan, which I guess he imagines would clear up the problem, or wants the Government to put some guardrails because that will deal with the problem? It’s not really clear.
Here’s a website where Hüseyin Doğru is discussing it
https://diem25.org/en/author/huseyin-dogru/
But I can’t get the page to load.
I don’t think it is realistic to expect nations to simply stay with cash money.
These days the vast majority of currency transactions are electronic. I doubt anyone (outside the looney far right, and not most even there) expect or want that to change. Cash (paper) can be handy for small transactions. But nobody uses it much for legal transactions over $100.
But crypto is a whole different deal. It’s great for illegal transactions, or for evading taxes. And, if you get in early, it’s an effective “bigger idiot” vehicle. But legitimate uses? No so much.
It may be possible to regulate it to the point that it’s useful. But I haven’t seen any even halfway plausible ideas for doing so.
Just to be clear, my point wasn’t about using cryptocurrency, it was about the fact that a government has to control transactions for a number of reasons that are necessary and working with my student about how the EU is looking at controlling cryptocurrency suggests you are going to have the ways to control that will end up like Chekhov’s gun.
“ bookmarked Ian Welch’s blog some years ago, but rarely visit. He is not my kind of lefty. He makes my head hurt.”
I fall about halfway between him and the LGM lefties. They both irritate me in different ways. But you learn things from reading all sorts.
On the issue, I don’t think he is saying that we should exist in a strictly cash economy and if he did say that this would be dumb. But I think he is pointing to a new way for governments to crack down on dissent. Not that he is the first by any means.
TP: Thanks, and back at you.
russell: a day or two late and therefore considerably out of the pocket so to speak, but I’ve appreciated your insights into Ringo (there was a past conversation I recall). I was just teaching my son who just discovered music about playing on top of the beat vs. behind, etc. He listened because it was on one of “his” songs and he really liked the song and didn’t know why that particular part had such good energy.
I’m listening to “Love” for the first time (came with a bunch of CD’s from an estate sale) on my “new” high-end vintage CD player on a good system. I know it’s probably sacrilegious but I rather like the mix.
“Conservative lurkers, c’mon in! Just don’t be jerks. We’ll try not to be, too”
Not a complaint, but in reality this just isn’t possible. The subjects are too polarized, it’s too easy to lose perspective. Both sides. It is the nature of the Trump age,anyone conservative agrees with enough of his policies to be branded with both his policies and his psychopathy.
The hatred for those is so understandable as to make defending the smaller pieces not worthwhile.
I am just hoping we get to have midterm elections.
I was just teaching my son who just discovered music about playing on top of the beat vs. behind, etc.
The force is strong with this one!!! An advanced topic for a youngster – does your son play an instrument, or is he just listening?
Not a complaint, but in reality this just isn’t possible.
You could be right.
🙁
I think we could debate the merits of a policy in a civilised way, even if Trump favours it.
What, in my recollection, Marty found no sympathy for was the notion that voting for Trump might be a defensible action. Since Marty now hopes for, rather than expects, democratic elections, it seems that the rest of us were right in saying that it was not.
I am just hoping we get to have midterm elections.
You and all of us, Marty.
Or: what Pro Bono said.
Ok,here’s the thing with my reluctance to have a bipartisan kumbayah here: I am unwilling to discuss the merits of bombing people to bits and that’s what many to the right of me seem to have a rather high tolerance for.
Apart from this I’m actually quite a middle of the road social democrat, it’s just that the Overton window seems to have shifted massively during the past 25 years.
I would push back a bit on lumping LGM all together. I won’t do a deep dive into each poster, but it’s not really fair to suggest that there is one viewpoint when there are multiple authors.
Welch, on the other hand, is one person, so presumably (unless he has guest posters) his blog represents his view. The question of what kind of financial levers the government should use is an interesting question, and the case of Hüseyin Doğru seems pretty bad, but the problem is not the government using those levers, it is that what is happening is basically piggybacked on possibly the most incendiary question, the I/P one, which has a longer history than two other hot questions, abortion and the issue of trans There are others, the question of how much government is appropriate might be another, what racism is, what sexism is, but those problems have some definitional issues, where it is difficult to draw a line around what evidence should be considered.
Welsh seems more interested in being right than in understanding. He starts off with well, he didn’t like the truckers strike, but he was opposed to freezing their accounts. and now, 10 years later, he has been proven correct! So yeah, you can learn a lot from other sources, but you need to be careful about taking on their biases.
“Welch” in sundry comments should be “Welsh”, right? As in this blog.
Yeah, sorry about that.
For those of you with a little time on your hands and/or the inclination, I offer this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.VU8.A8K5.ebr2nefdqspV&smid=url-share
Passing political fad, or omen?
LJ-
You didn’t explain what is wrong with taking on Welsh’s bias in this case. He was opposed to the Canadian government using its power in what he considers an illegitimate way against the truckers, who he does not support. Now he opposes the German government doing something similar to someone he is in sympathy with. He is saying he was right to say that people should oppose this use of government power because it is a form of tyranny that can be used against anyone.
I agree with him. The government shouldn’t use certain levers of power.
“ you need to be careful about taking on their biases.”
That applies to everyone about everything. You and I both have biases..
As for LGM, as a long time reader it has not escaped my notice that there are many posters and even more commenters. There is a certain atmosphere there, a way of acting, just as there is here and at every blog I have ever visited for any length of time. You pick up on what opinions are acceptable and which ones will induce a pile on and yes, also the topics where people within the community will rip into each other. By LGM standards I have all three types of opinions.
Which is all I will say. I limit myself on the number of arguments I am going to get into and this looks like two that I am going to drop.
Here is a third which I came to post about, but have nothing much to say except for what I sat in this paragraph. . Epstein. I have no specific theory about him, but am skeptical of the “ move along, nothing to see here” stance.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-had-1000-victims
You didn’t explain what is wrong with taking on Welsh’s bias in this case.
I’m not really sure we are talking about the same thing. I’m talking about Welsh’s overall bias in that he wants to be right and he wants to tell everyone so. Neither of us knows anything about Hüseyin Doğru, so neither of us can comment intelligently, but if Germany is going too far, stepping back a bit, we can see how it comes about. Germany, given its history, not only the Holocaust, but also Munich, has a lot to overcome and it is understandable that pro Israel bias, along with the forceful campaign to equate any questioning of Israel with anti-semitism makes me wonder about the idea that Germany is simply doing this as a way of repressing voices. Making this out to be simply an argument about what levers government should use misses that whole problematic history. So it’s hard to ignore that bias for me. YMMV
I kind of feel that the attitude that Welsh puts out is the same attitude that has someone like a Robert Kennedy or a Tulsi Gabbard effortlessly slide from left to right.
About LGM, I have noted that I avoid the comments and I’ve also posted about how I feel uncomfortable with Loomis’ take no prisoners attitude. I don’t know how the other front pagers feel, though when things get really bad in the comments, it does bubble up to the front page. It’s pretty remarkable to have the situation where it looks like a front pager is trolling the commentators, but I do think a lot of their issues are not their political position, it is the speed at which conversation goes on over there, and the underlying snarkiness, which tends to magnify a lot of differences. So when you talk about the blog in that aspect, as I think you are when you talk about a ‘certain atmosphere’, I agree, but when you say “I fall about halfway between him and the LGM lefties” it sounds to me like you are suggesting the bloggers there occupy a point on the political spectrum, which I don’t see.
About Epstein, your link says this
There are so many explanations and unanswered questions raised by the release, which also says that there is “no credible evidence … that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.” That means that the theories alleging Epstein was operating some kind of operation to collect incriminating information for a foreign government (most notably the Israelis) has also been dismissed by the U.S. government.
A friend on facebook noted that Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, was given a state funeral in Israel and that what Epstein did bore all the marks of what an intelligence agency would do to get leverage. Being in that framework, there was another post that zoomed that was someone posting a tweet from someone saying that they lived in an area where there were a lot of Russian émigrés and there was a noticable absence of ICE agents. So I do wonder.
As for LGM…. There is a certain atmosphere there, a way of acting, just as there is here and at every blog I have ever visited for any length of time. You pick up on what opinions are acceptable and which ones will induce a pile on and yes, also the topics where people within the community will rip into each other.
And which opinions are which have changed over time. Several years ago, the first time I said that I expected a peaceful partition of the US, the idea was ridiculed and people piled on. Today, it is perfectly acceptable to say that things are soon to come down to an actual shooting civil war. People are applauded for saying that they are leaving the country to avoid the war.
Granted, I said the cause would be dealing with climate change — which I still say — and the people today are talking fighting between the fascist and non-fascist sides. Or between the urban and rural sides. Or between the fundamental Christians and everyone who isn’t. Criticism tends to be limited to the fact that those divisions don’t correspond well with existing state boundaries.
From the article bobbyp links to:
Fuentes?!?!? Somebody alert Stephen Miller that there’s a Hispanic in our midst! Get him on the next flight to South Sudan!
For all I know, the guy’s family has been in the US a couple of centuries. Does anyone think Miller cares?
Granted, I said the cause would be dealing with climate change — which I still say — and the people today are talking fighting between the fascist and non-fascist sides. Or between the urban and rural sides. Or between the fundamental Christians and everyone who isn’t. Criticism tends to be limited to the fact that those divisions don’t correspond well with existing state boundaries.
They can talk about all of those things and be right without it meaning that climate change is not a major factor in the situation. Climate change is a vulnerability/threat multiplier. It puts pressure on human systems and creates conditions that leave marginal populations desperate and exposed, and open to predation and exploitation. It drives urbanization and migration, and those are the issues that are driving the slide into xenophobia and authoritarianism.
It’s all of a piece, and climate change sits there at the base of it all like expansive soil under a foundation.
“ kind of feel that the attitude that Welsh puts out is the same attitude that has someone like a Robert Kennedy or a Tulsi Gabbard effortlessly slide from left to right.”
I don’t agree with that. As for the German government, , they have been repressing pro- Palestinian voices for awhile, certainly since Oct 7. I would expect them to tread very lightly when it comes to criticizing Israel, but there is a sense that they atone for their history on the backs of Palestinians. But again, this is on the long list of things I don’t care to argue. There is more than enough hypocrisy in this country to talk about.
Regarding Welsh, this sort of conversation drives me nuts. I suppose if there is another occasion where Welsh makes a point I find valid, I will spend time looking for some mainstream source making the same point so I can avoid irrelevancies. I very quickly learned that with Chomsky decades ago. Any mention of a human rights issue that cited him as a source became about him and not the issue. I don’t honestly give a crap if ten years down the road Welsh becomes David Horowitz. Or Christopher Hitchens or Matt Taibbi. I don’t expect it though. Still, Hitchens wrote some great stuff when he was still a lefty and occasionally even afterwards.
On Epstein, I have no attachment to any specific conspiracy theory but I would expect, given his associates and activities, he would have attracted intelligence agencies and potential blackmailers like flies to rotting meat. Intelligence agencies are not always the most ethical bureaucracies in the world and given what they are, they would be incompetent not to look for some way to take advantage of Epstein, his associates, and the way some of them spent their time.
Btw, I just looked and Welsh’s most recent posts are about Trump’s crazed tariff policies towards Brazil and the other one is about Epstein. Neither sounds rightwing. He despises Trump as vehemently as anyone here.
And regarding freezing bank accounts, do you support it without first going through a trial and convicting someone of committing a serious crime? I don’t and I think Welsh states it well here—
——-
Back when the Trucker Protest happened in Ottawa Canada I opposed freezing their accounts, even though I thought they were a bunch of fools and opposed their agenda. Why? Because it is punishment without a trial or facing a jury. It’s devastating. And I understood that if it could be done to people I disagree with, it could be done to people I do agree with.
———-
Makes sense.
To repeat, I’m not endorsing Welsh in general. Sometimes I just think he is wrong. Though his extreme pessimism about our trajectory is looking more plausible in the past six months.
Several years ago, the first time I said that I expected a peaceful partition of the US, the idea was ridiculed and people piled on.
Things are pretty different from what they were even just a few years ago.
The US doesn’t really have a single, common, consensus culture or history. New Englanders are not the same as folks in the Pacific Northwest, or the Southwest, or the Southeast, or the Plains. And none of those folks are the same as each other.
And that’s just the regional aspect.
Different cultures, different history. Different values.
Folks in New England have more in common with folks in maritime Canada than they do with folks in Texas, for example. Or Alabama, or Florida, or Kansas, or Minnesota, or Kentucky. And so on.
Trump is shredding Constitutional small-r republican governance, which is really the main thing we have in common. So I’m not sure what’s left. And I have no idea how that gets resolved.
To be perfectly honest, I’d be fine with New England separating from the US in its current incarnation. Whether just becoming a country of its own, or becoming a Canadian province. I just have no idea how we would get from here to there without people being harmed, so I’m not really an advocate of that.
Perhaps a stronger model of federalism? Which would also take a lot of work, and I don’t see that we’re in a place where that could be discussed in a reasonable way – a way that could lead to an actionable plan.
My expectation is that we’re just going to stumble forward into a heavily conflicted mediocre future.
By many measures, compared to other OECD countries we’re already mediocre. We have a lot of money and a lot of guns. That seems to be what we value, and what we’re good at.
Which I find kind of disappointing.
To put something of a point on my previous:
What I’m feeling lately is just a kind of crushing disappointment in my own country. It’s just unbelievable to me that, after all the work that generations of people put into overcoming the horrible legacies of the worst of our history, we’re back fighting the same damned fights.
Again.
Which makes me feel like we never really got past them. They’ve just been waiting in the wings for an opportunity to re-emerge.
Predatory capitalism, misogyny, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, xenophobia. Open hostility to gays and anybody who is in any way unusual or atypical. I’m sure you can add your own items to the list. All front and center, once again. And the freaking cruelty of it, the appeal that has for way too many people, just shocks me.
We have to fight this reeking pile of crap once again? Still? I’m just so freaking tired of it all.
Some of it is just human nature, for sure. But other places seem capable of at least maintaining a stance that it’s wrong. We appear to be inviting it all in to have a seat at the table. As if it’s all just another “point of view”.
I thought we were past a lot of this. Turns out it’s apparently bred in the bone. It turns my stomach.
Btw, I just looked and Welsh’s most recent posts are about Trump’s crazed tariff policies towards Brazil and the other one is about Epstein. Neither sounds rightwing. He despises Trump as vehemently as anyone here.
Last one from me. I did not say Welsh was right wing. I don’t think he is right wing. I’m not claiming he is right wing. And I’m not disagreeing with him because he is or is not right wing. I am just saying that what you are doing with him is the same that the fox news viewer is doing when they react to the last immigrant is taking our social security chryon.
You keep telling us that you don’t see why we are so down on twitter/X, you don’t see any algorithm at work etc. But the algorithm is not based on whether something is accurate or not, it is based on how well it can push your buttons. Getting you more reactive is what it does.
Welsh is buying into that when he asks you to subscribe and tries to monetize this. You buy into that when you say you had never heard of Hüseyin Doğru, but damn, this really reinforces your opinion of government.
There`s nothing to really do about it in the larger world, but you may want to consider my point rather than reflexively assume I am classifying Welsh as right wing, (I’m not) or assume that everyone knows LGM has a stable of writers so we can treat them all the same.(does everyone?)
and that’s the last I’ll speak of Welsh.
The US doesn’t really have a single, common, consensus culture or history. New Englanders are not the same as folks in the Pacific Northwest, or the Southwest, or the Southeast, or the Plains. And none of those folks are the same as each other.
I think we actually do have a common culture. Or did. Certainly we have different subcultures, both regional and otherwise. But there is, or was, far less difference from one region to another than there is from anywhere in the US to, for example, Australia.
Even now, I don’t think the biggest cultural divide is geographic. As a first approximation, the difference is between those who get their information primarily from Fox News and those who don’t. (There are newer, more disconnected from reality, news sources. As I said, a first approximation.). That’s why I don’t see partition as a viable future; the two groups are just too intertwined geographically.
I’m not sure how we restore some kind of national unity. What I hope is (and I know it’s a faint hope) is that the Fox News aficionados get burned enough, personally, by this administration that they recoil back to reality. Many are all in unto death, as we saw during covid. But if anywhere near half come to their senses, we’re back to a single culture with variations.
I think we actually do have a common culture.
I sincerely appreciate, as always, your unflagging optimism, wj.
I think we have have some language – some rhetoric – in common. But I do not think we have a common understanding of what those words mean.
I sincerely appreciate, as always, your unflagging optimism, wj
I truly wish I was optimistic at this point. But, while I have hopes, I don’t really have expectations. (At least, not positive ones. 🙂
I suspect that the question is just how bad it will get, and how long it will take us to repair the damage.
I imagine that just how bad it will get depends a lot on how bad the effects of climate change become, but that’s not a problem isolated to the United States. Things could get very bad for every country.
Just in terms of the US, though, absent major effects from climate change, I’d expect greater inequality and weaker federalism. Poor states will suffer. Tech hubs and coastal cities will continue to do relatively well. I wonder if we will start to resemble Brazil, with favelas rubbing shoulders with rich neighborhoods and militarized police maintaining the separation.
But the middle of the country is likely going to look like the land that time forgot.
We’re building gulags and far too many people think it’s just great because immigrants are ruining the country. But we’re still a prosperous country. People aren’t pushing wheelbarrows full of cash to the grocery store because of hyperinflation. Unemployment remains low.
What is happening more insidiously is the continued acceleration of the concentration of wealth. Too few people care about that … because too many people want to blame immigrants for their perceived problems. (I could go on again about the $80K pickup trucks and nice, large fishing boats with tRump flags flying from them, obviously owned by people who have been ruined by immigrants, the woke agenda, and all the socialism happening everywhere.)
It hurts my head.
I had a feeling that was going to happen. “No root for comment.”
Okay, LJ, you are right,
I am a moron easily misled by internet grifters like Welsh, stirring me up over issues I know nothing about, and also being fooled by algorithms on Twitter and I should take your ever so subtle hints to about this.
I have been reading a lot about governmental repression of pro- Palestinian demonstrators in Germany and in Britain and in other places. Here is a list of articles about Germany at Jewish Currents. One of them I remembered reading from before Oct 7.
https://jewishcurrents.org/results?query=Germany
The Guardian has an endless number of articles on this topic. Here is one.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/08/germany-importing-antisemitism-migrants-jewish
However, I see now that I was misled retroactively by that notorious Welsh, whose powers of deception are evidently so great they violate causality as physicists typically understand it. He may have written all those articles under various names, or perhaps it was the dreaded algorithm.
I am taking a break from this site. Being condescended to by someone who assumes I am an ignorant doofus who needs his guidance kinda gets on my nerves just a bit.
But we’re still a prosperous country. People aren’t pushing wheelbarrows full of cash to the grocery store because of hyperinflation. Unemployment remains low.
We’re still a prosperous country for now. Whether we remain one rather depends on how Trump’s trade wars play out. But individual areas are going to get hit hard, and sooner rather than later.
To take just one example, without USAid, the prairie states are going to get hammered starting next year. The silos are still pretty full from last year’s harvest. This fall, they’re not going to be able to buy what the farmers produce. Of course some of the grain might be diverted to cattle feed. Except that, with ICE rounding up all the workers from the slaughter houses, the market for cattle will be tanking also. Those states are going to be hurting big-time — and while Trump might talk about “family farms” on the campaign trail, he’s basically a city boy who just doesn’t really relate.
Between that and the damage to the vegetable farming here and tariffs on imports from (mostly) Mexico, food prices will be going up. Probably not to hyperinflation levels, but enough that discretionary spending will drop, which will hurt industries far beyond the farm.
That, in turn, will join with the other side of the trade wars (why should they, or can they, buy our stuff if we won’t buy theirs?) to kick unemployment up. Some of those unemployed might try some of the agriculture jobs that ICE is opening up. “Try” being the operative word. Farm work is nothing like office work — I’ve done it, and I know. Some of the unemployed might eventually get in shape to do it. But even if you spend a lot of time in the gym, that’s nothing like doing hard work 40+ hours a week.
Short story shorter, it’s going to get ugly. Republican Congress critters may not feel the impact next year. But by 2028, they’re going to join the ranks of the unemployed. (And their usual post-Congress positions as lobbyists aren’t going to be interested — few members to the next Congress are going to go anywhere near them.)
So, there’s your summary predictions from the resident optimist.
FWIW, Donald, I didn’t take lj’s initial commentary as being aimed at you in particular, but rather being more meta-commentary about the current media environment.
I agree with lj that the social media algorithms are having a distorting and divisive effect on public discourse and on public policy discussions. That does not mean that I think that there is no good information to be found on X or Substack, it just means that I think these sites make it harder for the average person to practice good media literacy, and that I prefer it when any particular writer/commenter takes the time to either follow information back closer to primary sources or to do some work to evaluate sources and show their reasons for selecting a particular source to cite. I value an ethos built on transparency of information and of biases.
I also recognize that this is a) a more academic, less mainstream attitude to take towards information and b) a lot of work that takes time, and that often pushes one out of the conversation as the back-and-forth of social media flows on.
Having said this, though, it doesn’t mean that I think that other commenters and bloggers have poor media literacy skills and that their own views are inevitably biased because their sources do not match my preferences.
I think you are quite well informed, Donald, and trust your information. If I comment on the venue, it’s because I want other readers and lurkers to think about their own information literacy practices and not get swept away in the algorithmic current. I know from teaching research that a lot of readers do end up getting swept away.
I suspect that the question is just how bad it will get, and how long it will take us to repair the damage.
The task now is triage. The trend to start reversing extreme concentration of wealth (HSH abv.) is first on the list. Both of our main political parties (aka “elites”) have pushed for policies enabling this, but only one of them actively promotes this as a positive political and social goal.
https://paulwaldman.substack.com/p/why-they-did-it
That is your Republican Party.
I appreciate wj’s standing in for his ideosyncratic concept of “conservatism”, but there are simply no “good” Republicans today, and they need to be politically neutralized root and branch, even the one’s who wj avers are “good ones”.
If they were “good” they would not be Republicans.
As we seem to be approaching the event horizon in our politics, those of us who care are required to take sides.
Gentle reader, I say unto you, “Pick one”.
I’ve been thinking about inequality and authoritarian voting and pondering what research has been done to measure this effect. I’m linking to this op ed in the Guardian from George Monbiot not so much for his opinion and commentary as for his having gathered a lot of useful and publicly available research on the topic.
There is strong evidence of a causal association between growing inequality and the rise of populist authoritarian movements. A paper in the Journal of European Public Policy found that a one-unit rise in the Gini coefficient (a standard measure of inequality) increases support for demagogues by 1%.
Why might this be? There are various, related explanations: feelings of marginalisation, status anxiety and social threat, insecurity triggering an authoritarian reflex and a loss of trust in other social groups. At the root of some of these explanations, I feel, is something deeply embedded in the human psyche: if you can’t get even, get mean.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/13/trump-populists-human-nature-economic-growth
You can’t see it in the excerpt I quoted above, but Monbiot links to eight academic studies to establish the claims he makes in these two paragraphs and to support his own claim that this is about disaffection.
I’ll also add that there seems to be some argument in political science circles about whether it is inequality itself (measured by the Gini coefficient that Monbiot mentions), or if it is perceptions of fairness around the distribution of economic reward that most drives this shift towards support for retributive authoritarianism.
I think Monbiot has, as he often seems to me to do, oversimplified his conclusion (taking inequality as the marker and not taking on the arguments of which sorts of inequality are most driving the trend), but I also understand that it’s hard not to oversimplify when trying to distill so much information and make it accessible in a short piece aimed at a popular press readership.
there are simply no “good” Republicans today, and they need to be politically neutralized root and branch, even the one’s who wj avers are “good ones”.
If they were “good” they would not be Republicans.
I’d agree with you that there are no good Republicans on the national level, I think the situation is a bit different on the local level. Not that there aren’t a lot of terrible local Republican office holders. Just that there are also some good ones.
You suggest that, if they were good, they wouldn’t be Republicans. But that’s simplistic. In some areas, the Republican primary essentially is the general election. If you want to hold office and do some good, you run as a Republican. (If tilting at windmills is your thing, you run as a Democrat.) Gerrymandering has made that worse. But it would be true in a lot of places even without that.
The other thing is, most people find it hard to change parties. Call it psychological momentum or something. But even if their voting habits in the general election shift, they resist changing their party registration.
It’s even harder if you are already an elected official. It can be done; my Congressman was originally elected to the state legislature as a Republican. But it’s hard. And you probably need some years in office to build a personal brand to get you through.
I might accept that good young people, in a lot of places, would find it hard to look at the current Republican Party (especially as the national party is so high profile) and register with them. Twenty years down the line, that will make your observation more true. But there will still be places where you can’t get elected and do good, especially the first few times, without the label.
I think you are quite well informed, Donald, and trust your information.
I do too, and I notice that when you are not particularly knowledgeable about a subject, you say so.
Sorry, that first sentence is a quote from nous, and should have been in italics.
FWIW, Donald, I didn’t take lj’s initial commentary as being aimed at you in particular, but rather being more meta-commentary about the current media environment.
Yes, I know it may have been a shock, I do meta-commentary so rarely that everyone was probably totally confused. (I am assuming we are all channelling Joni Ernst at this point)
I am taking a break from this site.
We all need a break now and then.
Just chiming in to say it’d be our loss if you were to make that permanent.
Thanks for hanging with us.
What russell said.
And that’s just the regional aspect.
My friend the anthropologist says that the suburbs of any two metro areas from Denver west are more alike than they are like anywhere else in the country. One way could be demonstrated once the Census Bureau made it possible to measure density based on “built area” rather than county area. Suburbs in the major metro areas in the West are just about twice as dense, on average, as suburbs in the rest of the country.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before, but when we were moving from New Jersey to the west Denver suburbs, my first observation was, “they really cram the houses close together here”.
Used to work for a homebuilder in the Denver Metro. They were all about how much more a square foot of home was worth than a square foot of property. They’d buy a parcel of land and then figure out just how many homes they could tile onto it that were in the center of the bell curve for size and trendy features. They would pare down the lot sizes until they had the maximum number of (unnecessarily large) houses they could fit into the space.
FWIW, that’s also the way of it in Southern California. The development philosophy is the same, but the climate and the demographics make for differences in home design.
But both places are run by the same real estate mafia.
Most western metro areas are constrained by “they’re not making any more attractive land” for a long time. Boulder, CO began fencing itself in with permanent open space purchases back in the 1940s, I believe. Lots of empty land east of Denver, but (a) the climate degrades quickly as you go that way and (b) there are no meaningful water rights that come with the land. Many of the neighborhoods burned in the LA fires had been built right up to the foothills by the 1950s and 1960s.
There are a lot of pictures around of those neighborhoods with isolated houses still standing. Invariably, those houses are on lots where someone scraped off the old house and build new to contemporary codes. We know (and require) so much more in the way of fire resistance and energy efficiency than we used to.
We see similar pictures every time a hurricane goes through a piece of the Gulf Coast that hasn’t been hit directly for 25-30 years. Everything flattened except where the old house was scraped off and replaced.
Further to russell’s comments about Ringo, he (and others) might like this, by T Bone Burnett:
“Ringo was the fire, totally the fire underneath that band. I think of what McCartney said, that the first song they played with Ringo, they all just looked at each other. Because he was the soul of rock ‘n’ roll, man. That cat, his energy was so beautiful and so exciting and wild — just his whole, his spirit is the thing he had. He played with Sister Rosetta Tharp, you know? He played with all of this ecstatic music that would come through Liverpool. And he is an ecstatic musician. The Beatles were all ecstatic musicians, you know, but Ringo was the fire under it.
“To me, he has as good a claim as anybody to the greatest rock ‘n’ roll drummer of all times, with his tones, the way he hit the drums, the type of beats he played, the way he would construct drum parts where nothing would be playing straight through . . . Ringo was an extraordinary musician.”
I’ve just finished watching the CNN/BBC three part documentary about the 40th anniversary of Live Aid, whose two concerts (London and Philadelphia) took place 40 years ago today and were watched by something like 1.5/2 billion people. The first part (all of which was very familiar to me) was mainly about how it all began, and the single Band Aid brought out, which also led to We Are The World. The second part was about the Live Aid concerts, and how they were organised and what happened, which again I knew a lot about (and had watched the whole thing).
The third part was about Live8, which led to the cancellation by the G8 of African debt payments, and vastly increased international aid budgets. I knew comparatively little about it, and it was completely fascinating, particularly politically, seeing the interviews with George W Bush, Blair, Condoleeza Rice et al, as well as hearing some of the criticisms. For anyone not interested enough in watching the first two parts, I nevertheless strongly recommend the third. Here is a guest link to a piece in today’s NYT about the anniversary, and the documentary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/arts/music/live-aid-bob-geldof-anniversary.html?unlocked_article_code=1.WE8.c0_h.2CwG2nKJUmpQ&smid=url-share
I have a t-shirt from Live 8, bought from a dude on the street, now usually worn while mowing my lawn. I only attended on the periphery in Philadelphia. It was a hot day.
Being in the middle of however-many-thousands of people wasn’t appealing. But it was still a lot of fun hanging out in nearby establishments and cooling off in the AC. That whole part of town was jumping.
One thing that made me apoplectic was watching coverage from London of the Pink Floyd reunion in a slacker bar, when MTV decided to break in midsong during Comfortably Numb so some 20-year-old nitwit could yammer on about nothing.
I wanted to throw my glass at the TV, but it wasn’t the bar’s fault.