Andrew is a very stupid, arrogant, entitled creep. It's perfectly possible he didn't know that Virginia Giuffre was trafficked, he would have assumed that a beautiful young girl wanted to sleep with a handsome prince (he was handsome, I regret to confirm), and if he even knew she was 17 that was above the age of consent here. But his general behaviour, in this issue as in everything else except his military service in the Falklands war, reveals his appalling character, and the most recent revelations that he lied in that BBC interview by claiming he had cut ties with Epstein in 2010, when an email from him to E in 2011 has since come out (dated after the famous photo became public) saying "“Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon.”
You can imagine how the words I have bolded have landed here. As far as the royals in general are concerned, I think things are in flux. Feeling against Harry and Meghan is somewhat stronger here than in the US, but William and Catherine are regarded pretty favourably, and since William in particular has let it be known that he is implacably against Andrew, won't have him at his coronation, and intends to modernise the monarchy when he is King, I don't see any likelihood of any really significant change any time soon.
God, what a fascinating story. I'd never heard it before - the most they might have said in school (high school) was that Charles V was "a bit erratic". Wonderful illuminations too, if that is what they are.
I think both cleek's and russell's suggestions are necessary, but I also think the Dems have fallen seriously behind in taking the message to the people in other ways. It's a bit like their previous approach to continuing to observe obsolete norms. Talking to various constituencies on the platforms that they use is absolutely necessary. Fox, for example, is almost certainly not where Trump gained his serious advantage with young men in 2024.
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!
On “Monarchy in the UK”
Andrew is a very stupid, arrogant, entitled creep. It's perfectly possible he didn't know that Virginia Giuffre was trafficked, he would have assumed that a beautiful young girl wanted to sleep with a handsome prince (he was handsome, I regret to confirm), and if he even knew she was 17 that was above the age of consent here. But his general behaviour, in this issue as in everything else except his military service in the Falklands war, reveals his appalling character, and the most recent revelations that he lied in that BBC interview by claiming he had cut ties with Epstein in 2010, when an email from him to E in 2011 has since come out (dated after the famous photo became public) saying "“Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon.”
You can imagine how the words I have bolded have landed here. As far as the royals in general are concerned, I think things are in flux. Feeling against Harry and Meghan is somewhat stronger here than in the US, but William and Catherine are regarded pretty favourably, and since William in particular has let it be known that he is implacably against Andrew, won't have him at his coronation, and intends to modernise the monarchy when he is King, I don't see any likelihood of any really significant change any time soon.
On “Bal des Ardents”
Good heavens, Pro Bono, I very much hope that is not a description of your own state of mind!
"
God, what a fascinating story. I'd never heard it before - the most they might have said in school (high school) was that Charles V was "a bit erratic". Wonderful illuminations too, if that is what they are.
On “Politics thread”
I think both cleek's and russell's suggestions are necessary, but I also think the Dems have fallen seriously behind in taking the message to the people in other ways. It's a bit like their previous approach to continuing to observe obsolete norms. Talking to various constituencies on the platforms that they use is absolutely necessary. Fox, for example, is almost certainly not where Trump gained his serious advantage with young men in 2024.
"
lj, thanks for lengthening the Recent Posts list, and also for sorting out my link!
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.