I was thinking the other day about that weird time when all of a sudden a subset of the national culture was into CB radio, complete with radios, handles, etc. Making excuses to contact each other just so they could say, “Ten four, good buddy!”
I had a most serious crush on Kris Kristofferson, long before Convoy, (and put up with unacceptable behaviour from one of my tutors at law school - e.g. looking at my chest rather than my face while talking to me - because of his resemblance to KK) but I do wonder if that film also did something to make the whole scene attractive to women, and to men because it was attractive to women. Of course, it was presumably a big thing already for the movie to get made...
I know they aren’t but that doesn’t stop me from saying “Excuse me” when I stub my toe on the coffee table, or shouting, “Not one chance, asshole!” at the computer cord that tries to trip me.
I believe Michael Cain has also been known to talk to (or taunt) computers....
I was standing in the grocery the other day when I heard Mick Jagger wailing, “You’re enough to make a dead man come!” And I thought, “In about ten years, that will be nursing home music.”
LOL.
I have expanded by learning new artists, but the sound is all in the country/rock/folk/blues range.
It sounds like our tastes are quite similar, wonkie, (even down to those same albums among others) although I admit I came to country pretty late, and still not to the same extent as the other categories. Folk was probably first, then rock, and of course the latter was heavily influenced by blues. I have never been able to get into rap, and this post is the first I've heard of reggaeton; I'm not crazy about it.
But all of that aside, as a purely strategic matter, it’s a really bad idea to give Trump any reason to send the army into your city or town.
I think this is exactly right. This is a battle which must be fought with brains, with serious strategy, not (very understandable) kneejerk, impulsive emotion. And, as an aside, that's also one of my justifications for acting with (my definition of) civility.
I’ll also note, for everyone’s edification, that the much more modest increase is for charges of assault. I take every one of these charges with a grain of salt.
I can't remember the specifics, but didn't the feds recently try to get someone charged for throwing a sandwich at some kind of officer (maybe not ICE) and then couldn't get the charge to stick?
What TonyP just said, particularly this masterfully sly section:
Maybe the facts ARE exactly what the “official government website” (with its “Democrats have shut down the government” banner) says they are. I get more suspicious when it comes to statistics. Have there been vastly more cases of ICE-doxxing than, say, judge-doxxing? Have more ICE agents than judges been harmed as a result of being doxxed? I don’t know what “official” government statistics show, but I have a hunch the present government might fudge them a bit.
Thank you lj - since bc's going into spam with 3 seems to show that ATM only 2 is safe, perhaps a limit of 6, which means 5 would be safe? That's my vote.
On duration, how about 21 days or 28?
On subscribers, I can't really see the advantage (although being able to see one's past comments could be useful). On editing one's profile, would that be like when I changed to GftNC from the full version for weird Typepad cause? Perhaps not necessary here?
Upvote/downvote: IMO totally unnecessary, and an unwelcome development from what is our normal way of dealing with each other.
1. I'm amazed that bc got sent to spam with 3 links. I don't even think 10 is too many.
2. IMO 14 days may be too short. I never counted, but my impression is that some of our best threads at the old site went on for longer than that.
3. I'm not sure what this means, unless the sentence on Limited Capabilities means "Only a user with the subscriber role can generally:", although frankly I'm not sure what it all means even then! How would any of our information be "in the wild" anyway? Does it mean that all subscribers would be able to see each other's contact details etc? Don't underestimate quite how clueless some of us ancient non-tech types are!
I've just read hsh's link about the Young Republicans. Surprise, surprise. And also to see that J D Vance continues to distinguish himself. Jesus F Christ.
Ha, that's what comes of not looking at the papers (or anything else) till 6.30 pm*! Thanks hsh.
Now from me: on the issue of Biden's v Trump's records, I was going to snarkily ask bc what, as a lawyer, s/he thought about Trump's annexation of the entire (as near as he can) legal system and DOJ to go after his "enemies". I was going to contrast it with the prosecutions and convictions of Trump while Biden was POTUS, but lo, I don't have to. Here (from the Atlantic) is something today:
Well! I'd barely heard of this Ben Meiselas guy before, but it looks like he may be getting the message across - bigger audiences than Joe Rogan apparently. What do any ObWi people think of him?
Meanwhile, someone watching Trump's speech in Israel just called me; apparently he turned to Keir Starmer and called him the President of Canada. That should go in a showreel along with the war he settled between Cambodia and Armenia. Talking of calling a spade a spade and getting it across to the wider electorate...
I agree: what Pro Bono said. And on his last bullet point, about the SCOTUS, it's going to be interesting to see if this makes any difference (my guess is not, but I suppose it could give a bit of cover in case any of the disgraceful 6 is starting to feel uncomfortable)
I liked that Ryan Powers article. It's possible that my calls for civility can be misinterpreted as a call for "etiquette" or "decorum". I'm very aware of how often we misunderstand each other (two countries separated by a common language etc). In fact, I approve wholeheartedly of taking hard, tough action against the enemies of democracy, and of calling a spade a spade. If someone (Trump, Vance anybody else, including Ds) lies, I favour calling it lies. If a policy which e.g. directly contradicts what the ruling party said they would do while campaigning is introduced by stealth, I approve of calling it out and doing what's necessary to impede it. If attempts to subvert voting rights (gerrymandering etc) are made, I approve of doing what's necessary to impede them. And if unconstitutional actions are made by the government, I approve of demonstrating and taking other necessary actions (law suits, states' rights related etc) to oppose them. I agree that the Dem national leadership have been lily-livered and hidebound in their opposition by obsolete norms and assumptions.
What I mean by civility is the opposite of Ubu's behaviour. You don't have to insult and demean people to openly and factually describe what they're doing, including how and why. Calling dishonest, corrupt politicians dishonest and corrupt when you can support the accusation is a moral and practical imperative. Where my call for what I call civility particularly applies is in two situations: 1. when arguing and debating with people who defend the actions of those in power, in which case it is perfectly possible to factually describe what is happening without insulting them (e.g. demonstrating that lies are lies), and 2. when arguing and debating with people who might otherwise be considered on the same side as oneself, when there are occasional doctrinal differences but their basic intentions are otherwise congruent with one's own. In this second case, the irresistible case of the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea springs to mind; as well as being an illustration of a kind of narcissism of small differences, such infighting is counter-productive and does one's opponents' work for them.
Where American politics is concerned, I only wish there were more journalists and Dem politicians prepared to call a spade a spade, in such a way as to get their message truly across to the wider electorate. And I wish that there were platforms on which they could do so. Wit and creativity (like the dancing costumed protesters in Portland) really help in this, when enabled. And even Gavin Newsom's attempt at wit is better than nothing!
I think wj is absolutely right, nobody using the word knows what definition of "elite" anybody else uses. In the case of Rory Stewart, it can be quite hard to imagine how he wouldn't know he was part of "the elite", having been educated (as he was) at Eton and Balliol. It is of course a point in his favour that he only attended one meeting of the Bullingdon Club having realised how appalling their prevailing behaviour was, but on the other hand I believe they make a bit of a fetish of only selecting the "right kind" of members, which would mark you out as being a member of what many people (like Etonians for example) understand "the elite" to be. The only thing that would perhaps make sense is that he imagines the elite to be about money: he is right when he says that Oxford professors are not what most people these days consider "rich". Of course, before they started the immensely popular podcast, neither was he, although I believe he and Campbell are now!
I sympathise with novakant's view of Campbell, it took me a long time to get over his behaviour on Iraq etc. And I have never forgotten how he stormed onto the C4 News, with no notice, and tried to browbeat Jon Snow about the Dodgy Dossier. Watching it again makes me very much miss the calibre of those kinds of journalists (JS, not AC).
Aha, got it, thanks lj and Michael. I wasn't even sure the links would copy over, and the graphs, tables etc didn't, but at least I'll know what to look out for in the future. I haven't abandoned the idea of front page posts, lj, but a) this seemed appropriate to put in this thread, and b) I'm wary of there being too many new posts because I've always found the meandering, semi-discursive nature of our long threads one of the most appealing aspects of ObWi - like a bunch of friends sitting around chewing the fat.
Meanwhile, the NYT editorial board at least tells it like it is. Too bad the Rs have so bought into the fake news/MSM lie that they think they can safely ignore it:
OK, my comment which was "awaiting approval" has now disappeared, so it looks like it didn't gain approval. If so, lj, I think it's important to know why, so I (and everybody else) can avoid such a failure in the future. If it was the length, at the old site all I would have had to do was split it into two comments, so if that were confirmed I could act accordingly.
On “The South shall writhe again”
I was thinking the other day about that weird time when all of a sudden a subset of the national culture was into CB radio, complete with radios, handles, etc. Making excuses to contact each other just so they could say, “Ten four, good buddy!”
I had a most serious crush on Kris Kristofferson, long before Convoy, (and put up with unacceptable behaviour from one of my tutors at law school - e.g. looking at my chest rather than my face while talking to me - because of his resemblance to KK) but I do wonder if that film also did something to make the whole scene attractive to women, and to men because it was attractive to women. Of course, it was presumably a big thing already for the movie to get made...
On “The Return of the Boat Hook”
I know they aren’t but that doesn’t stop me from saying “Excuse me” when I stub my toe on the coffee table, or shouting, “Not one chance, asshole!” at the computer cord that tries to trip me.
I believe Michael Cain has also been known to talk to (or taunt) computers....
On “Weekend music thread #02 Bad Bunny”
I was standing in the grocery the other day when I heard Mick Jagger wailing, “You’re enough to make a dead man come!” And I thought, “In about ten years, that will be nursing home music.”
LOL.
I have expanded by learning new artists, but the sound is all in the country/rock/folk/blues range.
It sounds like our tastes are quite similar, wonkie, (even down to those same albums among others) although I admit I came to country pretty late, and still not to the same extent as the other categories. Folk was probably first, then rock, and of course the latter was heavily influenced by blues. I have never been able to get into rap, and this post is the first I've heard of reggaeton; I'm not crazy about it.
On “What’s up, doxx?”
But all of that aside, as a purely strategic matter, it’s a really bad idea to give Trump any reason to send the army into your city or town.
I think this is exactly right. This is a battle which must be fought with brains, with serious strategy, not (very understandable) kneejerk, impulsive emotion. And, as an aside, that's also one of my justifications for acting with (my definition of) civility.
"
I’ll also note, for everyone’s edification, that the much more modest increase is for charges of assault. I take every one of these charges with a grain of salt.
I can't remember the specifics, but didn't the feds recently try to get someone charged for throwing a sandwich at some kind of officer (maybe not ICE) and then couldn't get the charge to stick?
On “Opinions on settings”
I think I'll pass for now, lj!
"
I presume I'm not a subscriber. And my handle and email are also automatically filled in.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
What TonyP just said, particularly this masterfully sly section:
Maybe the facts ARE exactly what the “official government website” (with its “Democrats have shut down the government” banner) says they are. I get more suspicious when it comes to statistics. Have there been vastly more cases of ICE-doxxing than, say, judge-doxxing? Have more ICE agents than judges been harmed as a result of being doxxed? I don’t know what “official” government statistics show, but I have a hunch the present government might fudge them a bit.
On “Opinions on settings”
Thank you lj - since bc's going into spam with 3 seems to show that ATM only 2 is safe, perhaps a limit of 6, which means 5 would be safe? That's my vote.
On duration, how about 21 days or 28?
On subscribers, I can't really see the advantage (although being able to see one's past comments could be useful). On editing one's profile, would that be like when I changed to GftNC from the full version for weird Typepad cause? Perhaps not necessary here?
Upvote/downvote: IMO totally unnecessary, and an unwelcome development from what is our normal way of dealing with each other.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I'm v glad nous's "edited" comment below was rescued. I think it is exactly right.
On “Opinions on settings”
Oh, I've just tried to see what the +0- at the bottom is for - is it for the equivalent of likes and dislikes?
"
1. I'm amazed that bc got sent to spam with 3 links. I don't even think 10 is too many.
2. IMO 14 days may be too short. I never counted, but my impression is that some of our best threads at the old site went on for longer than that.
3. I'm not sure what this means, unless the sentence on Limited Capabilities means "Only a user with the subscriber role can generally:", although frankly I'm not sure what it all means even then! How would any of our information be "in the wild" anyway? Does it mean that all subscribers would be able to see each other's contact details etc? Don't underestimate quite how clueless some of us ancient non-tech types are!
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I've just read hsh's link about the Young Republicans. Surprise, surprise. And also to see that J D Vance continues to distinguish himself. Jesus F Christ.
"
Ha, that's what comes of not looking at the papers (or anything else) till 6.30 pm*! Thanks hsh.
Now from me: on the issue of Biden's v Trump's records, I was going to snarkily ask bc what, as a lawyer, s/he thought about Trump's annexation of the entire (as near as he can) legal system and DOJ to go after his "enemies". I was going to contrast it with the prosecutions and convictions of Trump while Biden was POTUS, but lo, I don't have to. Here (from the Atlantic) is something today:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/trump-political-prosecution-democrats/684556/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCThgNr42oHPKHeuYkIOS1gc&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
I haven't actually read it yet*, but from a brief skim it looks like they do a decent job....
"
hsh, do you have a link?
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
Well! I'd barely heard of this Ben Meiselas guy before, but it looks like he may be getting the message across - bigger audiences than Joe Rogan apparently. What do any ObWi people think of him?
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/oct/11/podcaster-ben-meiselas-on-taking-on-the-maga-media-and-winning-the-ratings-battle
"
Meanwhile, someone watching Trump's speech in Israel just called me; apparently he turned to Keir Starmer and called him the President of Canada. That should go in a showreel along with the war he settled between Cambodia and Armenia. Talking of calling a spade a spade and getting it across to the wider electorate...
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I agree: what Pro Bono said. And on his last bullet point, about the SCOTUS, it's going to be interesting to see if this makes any difference (my guess is not, but I suppose it could give a bit of cover in case any of the disgraceful 6 is starting to feel uncomfortable)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/13/us/politics/originalism-trump-supreme-court-unitary-executive.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tE8.z6ee.Bseton8hbgR1&smid=url-share
On “The Mother-in-law defense”
I liked that Ryan Powers article. It's possible that my calls for civility can be misinterpreted as a call for "etiquette" or "decorum". I'm very aware of how often we misunderstand each other (two countries separated by a common language etc). In fact, I approve wholeheartedly of taking hard, tough action against the enemies of democracy, and of calling a spade a spade. If someone (Trump, Vance anybody else, including Ds) lies, I favour calling it lies. If a policy which e.g. directly contradicts what the ruling party said they would do while campaigning is introduced by stealth, I approve of calling it out and doing what's necessary to impede it. If attempts to subvert voting rights (gerrymandering etc) are made, I approve of doing what's necessary to impede them. And if unconstitutional actions are made by the government, I approve of demonstrating and taking other necessary actions (law suits, states' rights related etc) to oppose them. I agree that the Dem national leadership have been lily-livered and hidebound in their opposition by obsolete norms and assumptions.
What I mean by civility is the opposite of Ubu's behaviour. You don't have to insult and demean people to openly and factually describe what they're doing, including how and why. Calling dishonest, corrupt politicians dishonest and corrupt when you can support the accusation is a moral and practical imperative. Where my call for what I call civility particularly applies is in two situations: 1. when arguing and debating with people who defend the actions of those in power, in which case it is perfectly possible to factually describe what is happening without insulting them (e.g. demonstrating that lies are lies), and 2. when arguing and debating with people who might otherwise be considered on the same side as oneself, when there are occasional doctrinal differences but their basic intentions are otherwise congruent with one's own. In this second case, the irresistible case of the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea springs to mind; as well as being an illustration of a kind of narcissism of small differences, such infighting is counter-productive and does one's opponents' work for them.
Where American politics is concerned, I only wish there were more journalists and Dem politicians prepared to call a spade a spade, in such a way as to get their message truly across to the wider electorate. And I wish that there were platforms on which they could do so. Wit and creativity (like the dancing costumed protesters in Portland) really help in this, when enabled. And even Gavin Newsom's attempt at wit is better than nothing!
"
Pretty much everything russell says @ - oh, no time stamp. His longer comment anyway.
On “Brought to you by your latest captain of industry”
I think wj is absolutely right, nobody using the word knows what definition of "elite" anybody else uses. In the case of Rory Stewart, it can be quite hard to imagine how he wouldn't know he was part of "the elite", having been educated (as he was) at Eton and Balliol. It is of course a point in his favour that he only attended one meeting of the Bullingdon Club having realised how appalling their prevailing behaviour was, but on the other hand I believe they make a bit of a fetish of only selecting the "right kind" of members, which would mark you out as being a member of what many people (like Etonians for example) understand "the elite" to be. The only thing that would perhaps make sense is that he imagines the elite to be about money: he is right when he says that Oxford professors are not what most people these days consider "rich". Of course, before they started the immensely popular podcast, neither was he, although I believe he and Campbell are now!
I sympathise with novakant's view of Campbell, it took me a long time to get over his behaviour on Iraq etc. And I have never forgotten how he stormed onto the C4 News, with no notice, and tried to browbeat Jon Snow about the Dodgy Dossier. Watching it again makes me very much miss the calibre of those kinds of journalists (JS, not AC).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBWE7QzADe8
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
Aha, got it, thanks lj and Michael. I wasn't even sure the links would copy over, and the graphs, tables etc didn't, but at least I'll know what to look out for in the future. I haven't abandoned the idea of front page posts, lj, but a) this seemed appropriate to put in this thread, and b) I'm wary of there being too many new posts because I've always found the meandering, semi-discursive nature of our long threads one of the most appealing aspects of ObWi - like a bunch of friends sitting around chewing the fat.
"
Meanwhile, the NYT editorial board at least tells it like it is. Too bad the Rs have so bought into the fake news/MSM lie that they think they can safely ignore it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/opinion/letitia-james-indictment-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sk8.XvAr.7ewQlq_sNfRI&smid=url-share
"
OK, my comment which was "awaiting approval" has now disappeared, so it looks like it didn't gain approval. If so, lj, I think it's important to know why, so I (and everybody else) can avoid such a failure in the future. If it was the length, at the old site all I would have had to do was split it into two comments, so if that were confirmed I could act accordingly.
"
I have just copied something quite long, which is "awaiting approval". I don't know why - maybe the length.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.