I've been reading about Neanderthals for the escapism. One difference between them and homo sapiens is the lack of visual art and, with a very notable exception, the apparent lack of sites for religious rituals.
Lack of a site doesn't mean there was no religion and no ceremonies, of course, and Neanderthals did make aesthetic designs both in the form of jewelry (shell necklaces) and in marks on some of their tools--though the marks are just straight lines in limited patterns.
Still there seems to be a difference in mind. What this means, I don't know.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...? ;-)
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 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.
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!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
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 :^)
"
Texas Instruments calculators?
HP or GTFO.
From back when HP made quality stuff, not just crappy printers.
On “Plus ça change…”
I've been reading about Neanderthals for the escapism. One difference between them and homo sapiens is the lack of visual art and, with a very notable exception, the apparent lack of sites for religious rituals.
Lack of a site doesn't mean there was no religion and no ceremonies, of course, and Neanderthals did make aesthetic designs both in the form of jewelry (shell necklaces) and in marks on some of their tools--though the marks are just straight lines in limited patterns.
Still there seems to be a difference in mind. What this means, I don't know.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
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!
"
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.
"
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.
"
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.
"
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).
"
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.
"
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.
"
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.
"
Everyone's wrong about something, possibly including me. The question is whether they'll listen to reason.
"
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.
"
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.
"
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...? ;-)
"
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 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.
"
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!
"
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/
"
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.
"
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)
"
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.
"
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.
"
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?
"
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.