Tom Lehrer was wonderful. And even fans can find some new songs (see below) - for various reasons I recently mentioned "Wernher von Braun" to a friend who I knew liked him, and she had never heard it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro&list=RDQEJ9HrZq7Ro&start_radio=1
And of course, his reply to the question of why he was no longer doing satire is a classic: that satire was obsolete after Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, his relinquishing of all his rights to his compositions was a rather heroic act. And the website publicising this reveals an amazing number of songs, many of which I had never heard of, and although presumably not all of them are classics I still intend to browse around them... https://tomlehrersongs.com/
I'm just watching an hour long Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on the Ubu-Putin relationship. Very interesting compilation, with good sources, drawing a lot of stuff together, some of which we knew, but with more details. I don't know if you can get this stuff in the US (or Germany etc), but I reckon if you can you might find it worthwhile: https://x.com/C4Dispatches/status/1945861731344880003
In case it helps, it's called ‘Trump: Moscow’s Man in the White House? Dispatches’
I've just watched a Daily Beast interview with Tina Brown, who commissioned and ran, when she was still with the Daily Beast, the first really detailed series (6 parts) by Conchita Sarnoff in 2010 on the Epstein case . She says, among other things, that her bet is also that Ubu himself was not into underage girls, despite his long, sleazy relationship with Epstein, but that she wonders whether one of the reasons he may want to keep any "list" secret is so that he has leverage, or kompromat, on some of the people mentioned in it. Also credible, IMO.
And if I were Bondi, I'd be sure to stash the evidence somewhere that Trump couldn't get to it, rather than destroying it. Given all that we have seen from Trump in the past, the only way to protect yourself is to have leverage. If she were to get rid of it, she would have no leverage.
Yeah, good point. It's not as if all these "super loyal" toadies don't know what kind of scummy guy they are dealing with, and will act accordingly.
Time will (hopefully) tell, but currently my own bet would be that there is no real evidence that Trump personally took advantage of the opportunities offered by Epstein (have you all followed the recent case of Jes Staley and his exchange with Epstein? "That was fun. Say hi to Snow White for me" Epstein: "What character would you like next time?" Staley "Beauty and the Beast"), but maybe he is being pressured by another person who is in the files, and in a position to threaten him in some way. As I say, I hope we will find out some time.
this is a real fault line that could be a wedge issue. I'd et the infighting rage, and work to poke holes in the Trump cover story that there is nothing to be seen. All that is required is to remain skeptcally agnostic and ask questions. They'll do the rest themselves.
Here's hoping. And here's also hoping that they don't find a way to just destroy any evidence that does exist....
I agree it may not move the needle enough on the MAGA people, but still, every development shows Ubu has not understood how unhelpful so much of this is to him:
From 2 hours ago in the Guardian: Trump doubles down on 'Epstein hoax' and says Republicans pursuing it are 'stupid people'.
The president then was asked what evidence he might have seen to change his stance on the Epstein case, which this morning he called a “hoax”.
Trump doubled down on his claim that it’s a “big hoax,” but did not provide evidence to support this claim. He also claimed the Epstein case was “started by the Democrats,” but again cited no evidence (though he did mention the Steele Dossier, a report on Trump’s 2016 campaign that alleged cooperation with Russia?).
“Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and try to do the Democrats’s work,” Trump said.
“They’re stupid people,” he continued to say about Republicans who believe there is more to be revealed about the Epstein case.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
On “Everyone is a hero in their own story”
This made me smile:
https://x.com/forresterbird/status/1950592868160090387
https://www.householddivision.org.uk/musicians-coldstream
"
Tom Lehrer was wonderful. And even fans can find some new songs (see below) - for various reasons I recently mentioned "Wernher von Braun" to a friend who I knew liked him, and she had never heard it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro&list=RDQEJ9HrZq7Ro&start_radio=1
And of course, his reply to the question of why he was no longer doing satire is a classic: that satire was obsolete after Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, his relinquishing of all his rights to his compositions was a rather heroic act. And the website publicising this reveals an amazing number of songs, many of which I had never heard of, and although presumably not all of them are classics I still intend to browse around them...
https://tomlehrersongs.com/
"
I've never been into Metal, but Ozzy was a beautiful, loving soul. RIP.
On “Your Schadenfreude monitoring open thread”
I'm just watching an hour long Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on the Ubu-Putin relationship. Very interesting compilation, with good sources, drawing a lot of stuff together, some of which we knew, but with more details. I don't know if you can get this stuff in the US (or Germany etc), but I reckon if you can you might find it worthwhile:
https://x.com/C4Dispatches/status/1945861731344880003
In case it helps, it's called ‘Trump: Moscow’s Man in the White House? Dispatches’
"
I've just watched a Daily Beast interview with Tina Brown, who commissioned and ran, when she was still with the Daily Beast, the first really detailed series (6 parts) by Conchita Sarnoff in 2010 on the Epstein case . She says, among other things, that her bet is also that Ubu himself was not into underage girls, despite his long, sleazy relationship with Epstein, but that she wonders whether one of the reasons he may want to keep any "list" secret is so that he has leverage, or kompromat, on some of the people mentioned in it. Also credible, IMO.
"
And if I were Bondi, I'd be sure to stash the evidence somewhere that Trump couldn't get to it, rather than destroying it. Given all that we have seen from Trump in the past, the only way to protect yourself is to have leverage. If she were to get rid of it, she would have no leverage.
Yeah, good point. It's not as if all these "super loyal" toadies don't know what kind of scummy guy they are dealing with, and will act accordingly.
Time will (hopefully) tell, but currently my own bet would be that there is no real evidence that Trump personally took advantage of the opportunities offered by Epstein (have you all followed the recent case of Jes Staley and his exchange with Epstein? "That was fun. Say hi to Snow White for me" Epstein: "What character would you like next time?" Staley "Beauty and the Beast"), but maybe he is being pressured by another person who is in the files, and in a position to threaten him in some way. As I say, I hope we will find out some time.
"
this is a real fault line that could be a wedge issue. I'd et the infighting rage, and work to poke holes in the Trump cover story that there is nothing to be seen. All that is required is to remain skeptcally agnostic and ask questions. They'll do the rest themselves.
Here's hoping. And here's also hoping that they don't find a way to just destroy any evidence that does exist....
"
I agree it may not move the needle enough on the MAGA people, but still, every development shows Ubu has not understood how unhelpful so much of this is to him:
From 2 hours ago in the Guardian:
Trump doubles down on 'Epstein hoax' and says Republicans pursuing it are 'stupid people'.
The president then was asked what evidence he might have seen to change his stance on the Epstein case, which this morning he called a “hoax”.
Trump doubled down on his claim that it’s a “big hoax,” but did not provide evidence to support this claim. He also claimed the Epstein case was “started by the Democrats,” but again cited no evidence (though he did mention the Steele Dossier, a report on Trump’s 2016 campaign that alleged cooperation with Russia?).
“Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and try to do the Democrats’s work,” Trump said.
“They’re stupid people,” he continued to say about Republicans who believe there is more to be revealed about the Epstein case.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
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
"
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."
"
What russell said.
"
Sorry, that first sentence is a quote from nous, and should have been in italics.
"
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.
"
I am just hoping we get to have midterm elections.
You and all of us, Marty.
Or: what Pro Bono said.
"
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.
"
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.
"
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!
"
Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.
(Wo)man shall not live by misery alone.
"
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.
"
Perversely, I feel a sense of loss....
"
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.
"
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".
"
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!
"
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.
"
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
Hard agree.
And bobbyp, FWIW, you have never angered me.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.