Love the Saint-Saëns piece. Always nice to hear the horn played well. I played his Cavatine in music school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKUuFECQ48
And I had a chance to hear some of his choral works sung in the place where they were intended to be sung last year when my son's college choir toured France and sang in La Madeleine (where Saint-Saëns was the organist).
Regarding autism, I dealt with a neurologist professionally as an expert for TBI in accident cases. He had an interesting take on autism diagnosis. He was bothered because autism and ADHD and other mental and behavioral disorders are primarily diagnosed based solely on symptoms rather than focusing first on potential physical or neurological causes. 20/20 had an episode and showed one child diagnosed for years with severe autism. He rocked back and forth much of the time ignoring the outside world. An MRI was normal, but the specialized EEG this doctor had developed showed brain seizures. Anti-seizure meds had the kid going from something like a 30-word vocabulary to 200 in a month, and up to speed in fairly short order. It always has me wondering when I meet a kid on the spectrum at the severe end of the scale what an MRI, this specialized EEG and neuropsych eval might reveal.
TP: Most of it has to do with race. Frex: 1) I get his point about the DEI/merit debate. He went too far IMHO naming specific people (Michelle Obama et al) and essentially calling them not so bright. They apparently all admitted that affirmative action helped them in one way or another. But he was unkind and it detracts from his argument. 2) I think it is wrong to throw out MLK's impact due to his personal character issues, as bad as those have been alleged to have been. 3) I understand his argument with respect to the Civil Rights Act, and agree to a point (that it has led to unconstitutional DEI programs and, as some say, has become a "second constitution" unto itself). However, its initial impact was so very good and important and I didn't see him acknowledging that. In short, while he reached out to, encouraged and mentored many young black conservatives, these comments were, at best, tone deaf.
I also diverge to a point on immigration. I think his position is rational (enforce the law) and I largely agree with that. I would personally soften the edges somewhat of what can lawfully be done under the conditions we face now due to Biden's open border policy.
I would have more exceptions for abortion.
There are other issues, and I think Charlie had other rough edges, but it seemed to me that he was a work in progress. He was still quite young. I think marriage and kids was good for him. And now we won't see what he might have become.
lj: The Horst Wessel comparison came first. And the FB poster's joke was more an illustration of how I wouldn't rely on him for information about Kirk than on the extremely bad taste of the joke itself. He seems to think Kirk and the CEO deserved it.
nous, I agree with your assessment of the proclamations and your use of "nettlesome." Still, AOC's response seems to show that it is more what was not in the proclamation (and the same case could have been made for Hortman). But your point is well-taken.
GftNC, AOC's response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn't really what was in the proclamation but what wasn't; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman's legislative agenda.
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo
I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.
Seems to me that it is preferable to have some framework rather than none, even if inconsistently applied (at least you have something to measure against and criticize). Otherwise, you are just making things up. And by a small group of people no less. Claiming the Constitution is "living" runs a great risk of just making things up and thwarting the amendment process.
That's what happened with Roe. Although the article mentions this, it seems to ignore that the modern resurgence of originalism was a direct response to the "penumbra" of Roe. Well, that and the protests that broke out on the Supreme Court's steps hoping to influence what the vote couldn't bring.
GftNC, if originalism is "insane," what do you suggest?
Btw, I think of Scalia more of a textualist first and foremost. I lean textualist as far as that can get you, originalist after that.
Lj: "an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations."
Interesting thought, especially in light of Dobbs. Trying to bring back discussion of the rights of the unborn at the federal level are we?
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.
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Love the Saint-Saëns piece. Always nice to hear the horn played well. I played his Cavatine in music school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKUuFECQ48
And I had a chance to hear some of his choral works sung in the place where they were intended to be sung last year when my son's college choir toured France and sang in La Madeleine (where Saint-Saëns was the organist).
Regarding autism, I dealt with a neurologist professionally as an expert for TBI in accident cases. He had an interesting take on autism diagnosis. He was bothered because autism and ADHD and other mental and behavioral disorders are primarily diagnosed based solely on symptoms rather than focusing first on potential physical or neurological causes. 20/20 had an episode and showed one child diagnosed for years with severe autism. He rocked back and forth much of the time ignoring the outside world. An MRI was normal, but the specialized EEG this doctor had developed showed brain seizures. Anti-seizure meds had the kid going from something like a 30-word vocabulary to 200 in a month, and up to speed in fairly short order. It always has me wondering when I meet a kid on the spectrum at the severe end of the scale what an MRI, this specialized EEG and neuropsych eval might reveal.
On “Precursors”
TP: Most of it has to do with race. Frex: 1) I get his point about the DEI/merit debate. He went too far IMHO naming specific people (Michelle Obama et al) and essentially calling them not so bright. They apparently all admitted that affirmative action helped them in one way or another. But he was unkind and it detracts from his argument. 2) I think it is wrong to throw out MLK's impact due to his personal character issues, as bad as those have been alleged to have been. 3) I understand his argument with respect to the Civil Rights Act, and agree to a point (that it has led to unconstitutional DEI programs and, as some say, has become a "second constitution" unto itself). However, its initial impact was so very good and important and I didn't see him acknowledging that. In short, while he reached out to, encouraged and mentored many young black conservatives, these comments were, at best, tone deaf.
I also diverge to a point on immigration. I think his position is rational (enforce the law) and I largely agree with that. I would personally soften the edges somewhat of what can lawfully be done under the conditions we face now due to Biden's open border policy.
I would have more exceptions for abortion.
There are other issues, and I think Charlie had other rough edges, but it seemed to me that he was a work in progress. He was still quite young. I think marriage and kids was good for him. And now we won't see what he might have become.
"
GtfNC/Wonkie: I remember that too, and Wonkie's comment in particular about a campaign against her sister's church. I would be interested in that too.
"
lj: The Horst Wessel comparison came first. And the FB poster's joke was more an illustration of how I wouldn't rely on him for information about Kirk than on the extremely bad taste of the joke itself. He seems to think Kirk and the CEO deserved it.
nous, I agree with your assessment of the proclamations and your use of "nettlesome." Still, AOC's response seems to show that it is more what was not in the proclamation (and the same case could have been made for Hortman). But your point is well-taken.
GftNC, AOC's response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn't really what was in the proclamation but what wasn't; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman's legislative agenda.
"
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo
I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.
"
We don't even need Godwin's law anymore. The probability is 1 from the get-go now.
On “An experimental first post”
Seems to me that it is preferable to have some framework rather than none, even if inconsistently applied (at least you have something to measure against and criticize). Otherwise, you are just making things up. And by a small group of people no less. Claiming the Constitution is "living" runs a great risk of just making things up and thwarting the amendment process.
That's what happened with Roe. Although the article mentions this, it seems to ignore that the modern resurgence of originalism was a direct response to the "penumbra" of Roe. Well, that and the protests that broke out on the Supreme Court's steps hoping to influence what the vote couldn't bring.
GftNC, if originalism is "insane," what do you suggest?
Btw, I think of Scalia more of a textualist first and foremost. I lean textualist as far as that can get you, originalist after that.
Lj: "an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations."
Interesting thought, especially in light of Dobbs. Trying to bring back discussion of the rights of the unborn at the federal level are we?
On “Excelsior!”
Thanks for the email, lj, and for all who made the transition and archiving possible! Nice to see everyone.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
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.
"
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.