I see from the Excelsior thread that posts with links do not automatically go into moderation. So maybe it's to do with anything tagged "Charlie Kirk", which wonkie's 5.55 might suggest? Does anybody know how this works - maybe it's because it's a new blog site for us, or is it because Big Brother is watching?
Ha! Since you ask, I am going to link something I wouldn't assume is for ObWi, since it relates purely to a rather controversial piece of legislation which is currently trying to make its way through parliament on assisted dying, and which some of my friends are involved in. So this is by way of a test, to see if posts with links automatically go into moderation:
lj, I imagine this has taken and is taking you huge amounts of time and effort, when you do have a day job! I hope it's clear that any comments of mine about the new site are purely for the sake of alerting you (and everyone) about any glitches, or changes from the status quo ante (like the possibility that posts with links are delayed for moderation, as on the Charlie Kirk piece. Eeek, does that mean you are going to have to spend time doing the moderation as well??).
I knew barely anything about Charlie Kirk, but reading some of the absolutely appalling things he has said and advocated, I was truly revolted. This doesn't of course mean that I rejoice in or welcome his assassination; the political and ideological polarisation in America is quite terrifying enough, without bringing murder into it. What really scares me is the moving of the Overton Window; because of Kirk and people like him it seems increasingly possible to insult people's character and intelligence on the basis of their race and attract millions of fans and followers as a consequence. And, on the same Overton Window issue, normalising discussion of whether women should have the right to vote really scares me:
In trying to work out how to navigate the archive site, I clicked on the Andrew Olmsted stuff. A couple of things (this is not a complaint - God knows that would be ridiculous from someone as clueless as me), just feedback about stuff you may already know about:
1. Both "hilzoy's Final Post" and "Andrew's final post" seem to go to the same post, called "Remembering Andy Olmsted".
2. Since I couldn't find the long thread of the comments, I went into the calendar archive, and as far as I could see none of the posts include the threads of comments. Am I missing something obvious, is this the new normal, or is this going to change?
Hallelujah! So many thanks to Michael, lj, Janie and anybody else who was involved. Days without a check in to ObWi felt weird - I'm so very glad it's back!
By the way, I should have said: I very strongly support the continued front-paging of the Andrew Olmsted stuff. Even though I first started reading after his time (probably 2008 - hilzoy was still around for quite a while) I read every single thread about him that the front page memorialises, and it seemed (and seems) to me that he, what he represented and the relationship that e.g. hilzoy in particular had with him, was a clue to the intrinsic character of the best of ObWi. So that would be my vote, FWIW.
lj: thanks for the update. Sounds good.
Michael: thanks! Also, buckwheat pillow arriving tomorrow - here's hoping.
wj: whenever anything of mine goes into spam, if it's important I always post a request for retrieval here, so no need for apology to me!
That pillow is £136 to order here, and cannot be dispatched for 6 - 7 months! And it looks like our standard size pillows (i.e. which will fit normal UK pillow cases) are a bit smaller, 27.16 inch x 16.92inch versus your 20 x 26 inch. But I think the important thing is the weight of the hulls, the one I am thinking of (as well as being cheaper - around $50) seems to have very good reviews, and says it has 9.25 lbs of hulls in it, versus your one which has 9.75 lbs. In all other respects this one looks pretty good (i.e. with zip so you can add or subtract husks, organic etc etc), so I reckon I will go with this one as a trial, and if it only lasts a couple of years so be it, and I will order again.
Michael: as well as being a God of Tech, you are now officially an influencer. I have returned new pillows 1 and 2, and am about to order a buckwheat husk pillow. Fingers crossed.
Speaking (obviously) from a position of total ignorance, I'm nonetheless hoping that all the work Michael did before, when Typepad was going through a particularly erratic phase, means we don't have to lose our whole history. I feel (and I bet I'm not alone) that losing ObWi altogether would be a very sad loss. Clearly, moving us somewhere else will mean a lot of work for somebody who knows how to do it - is there anything the rest of us can do to help?
He knows what he's saying is false and just says it anyway.
I think this is true. And I think he does it in service of his ambition - he knows that the most likely way for him to be the next POTUS is to slavishly toady to Ubu, and tell whatever lies are necessary to further his aim. It's possible that he thinks that once he is POTUS he will be able to get out from under any Ubu stuff he disagreed with (whatever that may be), but in my opinion he would be an even worse and more dangerous POTUS if that is possible. And my life experience tells me that no matter how bad it is, it can always get worse. The fact that the US has elected Ubu twice gives me no faith that it couldn't happen again, and next time with even more capable, competent and efficient apparatchiks.
This, in today's Times (a Murdoch paper), is by William Hague, ex-leader of the Conservative Party, and gives a rather better impression of what respectable UK rightwingers think of what is happening in the US, including on free speech: John Bolton raid is a chilling sign of rule by vendetta
Former US security adviser was courageous in his criticisms of Trump’s approach to Putin — his treatment is alarming
William Hague
At 7am last Friday, the FBI searched the home of the former US national security adviser John Bolton. Boxes of files were taken away, apparently as part of an investigation into the misuse of classified documents — a regular topic in Washington, as both Presidents Biden and Trump have got into trouble over keeping sensitive material at home.
Such a raid might or might not be justified but there is a chilling aspect to it. Bolton is a highly effective critic of Trump’s foreign policies, from the well-informed vantage point of having been a close adviser to the president in his first term. In recent weeks his analysis of Trump’s negotiations with Vladimir Putin has been perceptive, widely broadcast and damning, enraging his old boss.
That this was followed by a raid on Bolton’s home and office by law enforcement officers is suggestive, to say the least, of the use of state power to pursue a vendetta, a pattern more familiar in authoritarian regimes than in the United States. It raises questions about free speech in America and should draw our attention to the cogent argument Bolton has been making about the recent talks on Ukraine.
I know Bolton, although he is some way from being a kindred spirit — he has always been more hawkish than I am over matters such as negotiations with Iran. But his understanding of world affairs is acknowledged and there is no doubt that he speaks from huge experience and sticks to his principles. This left him appalled by his experience in the first Trump administration. Afterwards he wrote a damning book, which the Justice Department attempted to block.
A few years ago, Bolton told me he thought there had never been any serious chance of a deal with Kim Jong-un over North Korea’s nuclear weapons when Trump was enthusiastically pursuing that in his first term. Bolton witnessed those talks at first hand but thought that the president, desperate to be seen as the great dealmaker who could build a rapport with a dictator, was completely unrealistic: North Korea was never going to throw away the powerful leverage in world affairs that a nuclear arsenal provides. Kim was turning up to the meetings for the prestige and acceptance that came from being treated with great respect by the president of the US.
Having seen Trump make this mistake at close quarters, it is not surprising that Bolton was unsparing in his comments about the same opportunity being afforded to Putin earlier this month — invited on to US soil in Alaska for a long talk with Trump, looking like the two great world leaders trying to settle matters graciously between them. He pointed out that even the initial set-up of the meeting was “a great victory for Putin — he’s the rogue leader of a pariah state and he’s going to be welcomed into the United States”.
Bolton went on to give a depressing but realistic assessment of the chances of a deal. “I don’t think there’s a peace deal anywhere in the near future,” he said. “As long as Putin is advancing on the battlefield, even if it’s three yards in a cloud of dust, he’s not going to give up anything if he can get away with it.”
He argued that Trump’s desire to be awarded the Nobel peace prize was a highly motivating factor in his behaviour but that he was being played by Putin, whose “flattery campaign is working Trump over, as seen by Trump’s statement recently about how Ukraine shouldn’t have taken the war on. Ukraine didn’t take anything on, they were invaded”.
These accurate comments incensed Trump, who complained about the “very unfair media” who were “constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton”. That such personal comments from a president were followed within ten days by FBI agents turning up at the house of the offending critic is what suggests a system moving towards vendettas rather than justice.
At the same time, events in recent days only confirm that Bolton’s analysis of the Alaska talks was spot on. Putin did a professional job of buttering up Trump, by saying, for instance, that the war would never have happened if Trump had been in charge at the time.
Trump’s comment to President Macron that “I think he wants to make a deal for me” was revealing of how Putin will have played the personal flattery for all it’s worth, as Bolton mercilessly pointed out. But in the past few days, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has revealed how little Moscow’s position has changed, dismissing hopes of any imminent meeting between Putin and President Zelensky, accusing European leaders of not being interested in peace and asserting that any future security arrangements for Ukraine must be agreed with Russia and even China.
Lavrov has been performing this function for decades — after Putin has had an encouraging chat with a foreign leader, Lavrov makes sure nothing really happens. In doing so, he follows Putin’s orders to the letter: I have been in meetings with him, years ago on Syria, when he has repeatedly telephoned Putin for precise instructions on what he can say or agree to. It is a double act particularly suited to lulling Trump into a false sense that he is on the edge of the peace prize while the Russians continue to intensify the war.
What has happened this month is that Putin, seeing Trump was finally getting impatient with him and threatening tougher sanctions, offered a meeting to play on Trump’s weakest spot — the wish for a big deal with a powerful dictator. Once Putin pulled that off beautifully, Zelensky and European leaders had to rush to Washington to administer the only known antidote: an equal dose of chumminess, flattery and reason to cancel out Putin’s poison.
At the end of all that rushing about, the essential problem remains. Putin will not end the war unless the terms make it impossible for a diminished Ukraine to function as a sovereign and defensible state, or unless he cannot gain by further fighting. The only way to change that calculation is to raise the cost to him of continuing to fight. Trump’s approach of avoiding new pressure on Russia while chasing an unlikely peace deal is at least as likely to lengthen the war as shorten it.
As Bolton has put it, what Trump should really do is tell Putin “if they don’t get serious about withdrawing Russian forces from Ukraine that he will significantly increase US assistance … to restore Ukraine to its full sovereignty and territorial integrity”. That is very good advice.
It is a great pity that it is not currently heeded in the White House — and it will be a tragedy for America and the world if such advice cannot be given without fear of reprisal.
They had to work hard to overcome the two-tier policing.
Ah. If not Vance, I see what sort of "UK citizens" you have been listening to. This ("two-tier policing", "two-tier Kier" etc) is a favourite topic and expression of the Faragist and Reform tendency, the closest we have to Trump-like people. Your stated policy of detesting the left and the right equally is shown for the sham it is, at least in a UK context.
Apart from that, what Pro Bono said.
things they posted on X or other social media platforms.
Oh, and on social media platforms, see "going through people's devices to see if they have ever badmouthed Trump or his government".
And Lucy Connolly was imprisoned, after the murder of the three little girls in Southport by a British citizen, for tweeting (within hours of the attack) on X: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care? If that makes me racist, so be it.”
The murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport by Axel Rudakubana sparked widespread rioting in town centres and outside migrant hotels, following false claims that the attacker was a Muslim small boat migrant."
Yup, we don't have the equivalent of the (currently rather hypothetical) first amendment, or untrammelled freedom of speech, but I know in which country I'd feel safer criticising the government. Or being a lawyer and representing clients against the government. Or against the POTUS. Etc etc etc.
You're right. I was thinking about free speech problems in the UK.
This is a mad Vance trope. He said it to object to the fact that "pro-life" demonstrators were not being permitted to protest within some hundreds of feet of abortion clinics, which was intimidating women going in. Then he extended it to people "silently praying" within the perimeter (possibly questionable, but needs to be seen in the context).
The "hundreds of people being arrested for peacefully protesting" are demonstrating in reaction to a recent decision of the government to proscribe an organisation called "Palestine Action", which explicitly advocates "direct criminal action tactics to halt the sale and export of military equipment to Israel". PA recently did tens of millions of pounds worth of damage when they broke into an RAF base and sprayed gallons of paint on planes and into their engines. After that they were defined as a terrorist organisation, and proscribed, which made protesting in their support illegal under the Terrorism Act. I'm not crazy about any of this, particularly the arrest of the protesters, but I don't think that by any definition it amounts to much of a free speech problem compared to a regime which is going through people's devices to see if they have ever badmouthed Trump or his government, and then refusing them entry to the US, or if there already deporting them.
On the books banned in the school districts, incidentally, it is estimated that 64% of them are by women, and disproportionately by women of colour.
Free speech problems, eh? Didn't we have a thread recently called motes and logs?
Charles, your LLMs are (not for the first time) letting you down badly. Or perhaps you have been paying too much attention to e.g Vance and co.
I see that in at least 65 US school districts, among the banned books is The Handmaid's Tale. Your Health Secretary is an anti-vaxxer and general science denier. People who criticise the POTUS are the targets of vindictive legal intimidation. Attempts are being made (so far successfully) to skew the electoral system to keep the current party in power, and armed forces are being deployed in US cities to intimidate the population. How would you describe what is happening in your country - are you indeed (as russell reminds you suggested before the inauguration) pretty much muddling through?
I have never denied that in the UK we have many problems (post-Brexit, the economy, Reform). Worried though we are by much of it, I can't think of a single thing which compares in any way with what is happening in the States. Your "facetiousness" does nothing but parrot the idiotic, ignorant and dangerous talking points of the people who are driving your country's democracy to its destruction.
If any readers here need some help when you emigrate to England, let me know.
You'd be amazed to hear how often I've thought just that! I don't think I want to live in an Islamic country...
I'm assuming this is a joke, Charles. If not, do expound.
Yes, I agree with Cain's Third Law (any further ones welcome), and with wj, russell and Marty. Treating people of every degree as people, and equals worthy of respect, is one of the most foundational rules for living a good life. Any personal benefits which accrue, while welcome, are a purely secondary matter.
Marty - congratulations!
How high the floor and how to deliver it are open for discussion; anyone who argues against a floor is arguing for the pitchforks and torches to come out eventually.
Quite right. What are the other Cain's Laws?
Well, I suppose it all comes down again to the concept of purity. It would be great if everyone saw and agreed with the analysis of the underlying problem as laid out by russell - don't forget that I always said he should be ROTU.
But since this is unfortunately not the case, I believe the next best thing is to make aspects of the case to the greatest number of people, whether rich or poor, left or right, and hopefully among them some with power to influence the course of policy.
I know next to nothing about David Brooks, but he writes opinion pieces in the NYT, still one of the most influential media outlets in America, particularly I would have thought among the rich and powerful. If it takes such a piece from such a source to get part of the issue across to even a fraction of the currently unconvinced/unaware, this seems to me worthwhile.
Meanwhile, if Brooks is condescending, a narcissist, an adulterer, or the conscienceless discarder of a longtime wife for a younger woman, this seems to me irrelevant to the analysis of the problem of segregation, societal fragmentation and inequality. If we are quoting Jesus on this matter, didn't he also say Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk”
I see from the Excelsior thread that posts with links do not automatically go into moderation. So maybe it's to do with anything tagged "Charlie Kirk", which wonkie's 5.55 might suggest? Does anybody know how this works - maybe it's because it's a new blog site for us, or is it because Big Brother is watching?
On “Excelsior!”
Ha! Since you ask, I am going to link something I wouldn't assume is for ObWi, since it relates purely to a rather controversial piece of legislation which is currently trying to make its way through parliament on assisted dying, and which some of my friends are involved in. So this is by way of a test, to see if posts with links automatically go into moderation:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/09/the-lords-must-fix-the-dangerous-assisted-dying-bill
"
lj, I imagine this has taken and is taking you huge amounts of time and effort, when you do have a day job! I hope it's clear that any comments of mine about the new site are purely for the sake of alerting you (and everyone) about any glitches, or changes from the status quo ante (like the possibility that posts with links are delayed for moderation, as on the Charlie Kirk piece. Eeek, does that mean you are going to have to spend time doing the moderation as well??).
On “Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk”
My comment on this is apparently "awaiting moderation". Maybe because it has links?
"
I knew barely anything about Charlie Kirk, but reading some of the absolutely appalling things he has said and advocated, I was truly revolted. This doesn't of course mean that I rejoice in or welcome his assassination; the political and ideological polarisation in America is quite terrifying enough, without bringing murder into it. What really scares me is the moving of the Overton Window; because of Kirk and people like him it seems increasingly possible to insult people's character and intelligence on the basis of their race and attract millions of fans and followers as a consequence. And, on the same Overton Window issue, normalising discussion of whether women should have the right to vote really scares me:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/opinion/douglas-wilson-evangelical-hegseth.html?unlocked_article_code=1.l08.9djO.hh9sD539663c&smid=url-share
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/13/womens-suffrage-week-in-patriarchy
On “Excelsior!”
In trying to work out how to navigate the archive site, I clicked on the Andrew Olmsted stuff. A couple of things (this is not a complaint - God knows that would be ridiculous from someone as clueless as me), just feedback about stuff you may already know about:
1. Both "hilzoy's Final Post" and "Andrew's final post" seem to go to the same post, called "Remembering Andy Olmsted".
2. Since I couldn't find the long thread of the comments, I went into the calendar archive, and as far as I could see none of the posts include the threads of comments. Am I missing something obvious, is this the new normal, or is this going to change?
On “What to do?”
Hallelujah! So many thanks to Michael, lj, Janie and anybody else who was involved. Days without a check in to ObWi felt weird - I'm so very glad it's back!
"
By the way, I should have said: I very strongly support the continued front-paging of the Andrew Olmsted stuff. Even though I first started reading after his time (probably 2008 - hilzoy was still around for quite a while) I read every single thread about him that the front page memorialises, and it seemed (and seems) to me that he, what he represented and the relationship that e.g. hilzoy in particular had with him, was a clue to the intrinsic character of the best of ObWi. So that would be my vote, FWIW.
"
lj: thanks for the update. Sounds good.
Michael: thanks! Also, buckwheat pillow arriving tomorrow - here's hoping.
wj: whenever anything of mine goes into spam, if it's important I always post a request for retrieval here, so no need for apology to me!
"
That pillow is £136 to order here, and cannot be dispatched for 6 - 7 months! And it looks like our standard size pillows (i.e. which will fit normal UK pillow cases) are a bit smaller, 27.16 inch x 16.92inch versus your 20 x 26 inch. But I think the important thing is the weight of the hulls, the one I am thinking of (as well as being cheaper - around $50) seems to have very good reviews, and says it has 9.25 lbs of hulls in it, versus your one which has 9.75 lbs. In all other respects this one looks pretty good (i.e. with zip so you can add or subtract husks, organic etc etc), so I reckon I will go with this one as a trial, and if it only lasts a couple of years so be it, and I will order again.
"
Michael: as well as being a God of Tech, you are now officially an influencer. I have returned new pillows 1 and 2, and am about to order a buckwheat husk pillow. Fingers crossed.
"
Speaking (obviously) from a position of total ignorance, I'm nonetheless hoping that all the work Michael did before, when Typepad was going through a particularly erratic phase, means we don't have to lose our whole history. I feel (and I bet I'm not alone) that losing ObWi altogether would be a very sad loss. Clearly, moving us somewhere else will mean a lot of work for somebody who knows how to do it - is there anything the rest of us can do to help?
On “I’m forever blowing bubbles”
I see from hilzoy that Typepad is closing down on 30th September. What is going to happen to ObWi??
https://everything.typepad.com/blog/2025/08/typepad-is-shutting-down.html
"
I'm skipping Replika, talk to me when the holosuites are available.
LOL
On “The Schadenfreude Express”
He knows what he's saying is false and just says it anyway.
I think this is true. And I think he does it in service of his ambition - he knows that the most likely way for him to be the next POTUS is to slavishly toady to Ubu, and tell whatever lies are necessary to further his aim. It's possible that he thinks that once he is POTUS he will be able to get out from under any Ubu stuff he disagreed with (whatever that may be), but in my opinion he would be an even worse and more dangerous POTUS if that is possible. And my life experience tells me that no matter how bad it is, it can always get worse. The fact that the US has elected Ubu twice gives me no faith that it couldn't happen again, and next time with even more capable, competent and efficient apparatchiks.
"
This, in today's Times (a Murdoch paper), is by William Hague, ex-leader of the Conservative Party, and gives a rather better impression of what respectable UK rightwingers think of what is happening in the US, including on free speech:
John Bolton raid is a chilling sign of rule by vendetta
Former US security adviser was courageous in his criticisms of Trump’s approach to Putin — his treatment is alarming
William Hague
At 7am last Friday, the FBI searched the home of the former US national security adviser John Bolton. Boxes of files were taken away, apparently as part of an investigation into the misuse of classified documents — a regular topic in Washington, as both Presidents Biden and Trump have got into trouble over keeping sensitive material at home.
Such a raid might or might not be justified but there is a chilling aspect to it. Bolton is a highly effective critic of Trump’s foreign policies, from the well-informed vantage point of having been a close adviser to the president in his first term. In recent weeks his analysis of Trump’s negotiations with Vladimir Putin has been perceptive, widely broadcast and damning, enraging his old boss.
That this was followed by a raid on Bolton’s home and office by law enforcement officers is suggestive, to say the least, of the use of state power to pursue a vendetta, a pattern more familiar in authoritarian regimes than in the United States. It raises questions about free speech in America and should draw our attention to the cogent argument Bolton has been making about the recent talks on Ukraine.
I know Bolton, although he is some way from being a kindred spirit — he has always been more hawkish than I am over matters such as negotiations with Iran. But his understanding of world affairs is acknowledged and there is no doubt that he speaks from huge experience and sticks to his principles. This left him appalled by his experience in the first Trump administration. Afterwards he wrote a damning book, which the Justice Department attempted to block.
A few years ago, Bolton told me he thought there had never been any serious chance of a deal with Kim Jong-un over North Korea’s nuclear weapons when Trump was enthusiastically pursuing that in his first term. Bolton witnessed those talks at first hand but thought that the president, desperate to be seen as the great dealmaker who could build a rapport with a dictator, was completely unrealistic: North Korea was never going to throw away the powerful leverage in world affairs that a nuclear arsenal provides. Kim was turning up to the meetings for the prestige and acceptance that came from being treated with great respect by the president of the US.
Having seen Trump make this mistake at close quarters, it is not surprising that Bolton was unsparing in his comments about the same opportunity being afforded to Putin earlier this month — invited on to US soil in Alaska for a long talk with Trump, looking like the two great world leaders trying to settle matters graciously between them. He pointed out that even the initial set-up of the meeting was “a great victory for Putin — he’s the rogue leader of a pariah state and he’s going to be welcomed into the United States”.
Bolton went on to give a depressing but realistic assessment of the chances of a deal. “I don’t think there’s a peace deal anywhere in the near future,” he said. “As long as Putin is advancing on the battlefield, even if it’s three yards in a cloud of dust, he’s not going to give up anything if he can get away with it.”
He argued that Trump’s desire to be awarded the Nobel peace prize was a highly motivating factor in his behaviour but that he was being played by Putin, whose “flattery campaign is working Trump over, as seen by Trump’s statement recently about how Ukraine shouldn’t have taken the war on. Ukraine didn’t take anything on, they were invaded”.
These accurate comments incensed Trump, who complained about the “very unfair media” who were “constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton”. That such personal comments from a president were followed within ten days by FBI agents turning up at the house of the offending critic is what suggests a system moving towards vendettas rather than justice.
At the same time, events in recent days only confirm that Bolton’s analysis of the Alaska talks was spot on. Putin did a professional job of buttering up Trump, by saying, for instance, that the war would never have happened if Trump had been in charge at the time.
Trump’s comment to President Macron that “I think he wants to make a deal for me” was revealing of how Putin will have played the personal flattery for all it’s worth, as Bolton mercilessly pointed out. But in the past few days, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has revealed how little Moscow’s position has changed, dismissing hopes of any imminent meeting between Putin and President Zelensky, accusing European leaders of not being interested in peace and asserting that any future security arrangements for Ukraine must be agreed with Russia and even China.
Lavrov has been performing this function for decades — after Putin has had an encouraging chat with a foreign leader, Lavrov makes sure nothing really happens. In doing so, he follows Putin’s orders to the letter: I have been in meetings with him, years ago on Syria, when he has repeatedly telephoned Putin for precise instructions on what he can say or agree to. It is a double act particularly suited to lulling Trump into a false sense that he is on the edge of the peace prize while the Russians continue to intensify the war.
What has happened this month is that Putin, seeing Trump was finally getting impatient with him and threatening tougher sanctions, offered a meeting to play on Trump’s weakest spot — the wish for a big deal with a powerful dictator. Once Putin pulled that off beautifully, Zelensky and European leaders had to rush to Washington to administer the only known antidote: an equal dose of chumminess, flattery and reason to cancel out Putin’s poison.
At the end of all that rushing about, the essential problem remains. Putin will not end the war unless the terms make it impossible for a diminished Ukraine to function as a sovereign and defensible state, or unless he cannot gain by further fighting. The only way to change that calculation is to raise the cost to him of continuing to fight. Trump’s approach of avoiding new pressure on Russia while chasing an unlikely peace deal is at least as likely to lengthen the war as shorten it.
As Bolton has put it, what Trump should really do is tell Putin “if they don’t get serious about withdrawing Russian forces from Ukraine that he will significantly increase US assistance … to restore Ukraine to its full sovereignty and territorial integrity”. That is very good advice.
It is a great pity that it is not currently heeded in the White House — and it will be a tragedy for America and the world if such advice cannot be given without fear of reprisal.
"
Irony is dead. Or, if not dead, laying in a gutter somewhere bleeding.
LOL won't do here. We need an acronym for a sick laugh.
"
They had to work hard to overcome the two-tier policing.
Ah. If not Vance, I see what sort of "UK citizens" you have been listening to. This ("two-tier policing", "two-tier Kier" etc) is a favourite topic and expression of the Faragist and Reform tendency, the closest we have to Trump-like people. Your stated policy of detesting the left and the right equally is shown for the sham it is, at least in a UK context.
Apart from that, what Pro Bono said.
"
things they posted on X or other social media platforms.
Oh, and on social media platforms, see "going through people's devices to see if they have ever badmouthed Trump or his government".
And Lucy Connolly was imprisoned, after the murder of the three little girls in Southport by a British citizen, for tweeting (within hours of the attack) on X:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care? If that makes me racist, so be it.”
The murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport by Axel Rudakubana sparked widespread rioting in town centres and outside migrant hotels, following false claims that the attacker was a Muslim small boat migrant."
Yup, we don't have the equivalent of the (currently rather hypothetical) first amendment, or untrammelled freedom of speech, but I know in which country I'd feel safer criticising the government. Or being a lawyer and representing clients against the government. Or against the POTUS. Etc etc etc.
"
You're right. I was thinking about free speech problems in the UK.
This is a mad Vance trope. He said it to object to the fact that "pro-life" demonstrators were not being permitted to protest within some hundreds of feet of abortion clinics, which was intimidating women going in. Then he extended it to people "silently praying" within the perimeter (possibly questionable, but needs to be seen in the context).
The "hundreds of people being arrested for peacefully protesting" are demonstrating in reaction to a recent decision of the government to proscribe an organisation called "Palestine Action", which explicitly advocates "direct criminal action tactics to halt the sale and export of military equipment to Israel". PA recently did tens of millions of pounds worth of damage when they broke into an RAF base and sprayed gallons of paint on planes and into their engines. After that they were defined as a terrorist organisation, and proscribed, which made protesting in their support illegal under the Terrorism Act. I'm not crazy about any of this, particularly the arrest of the protesters, but I don't think that by any definition it amounts to much of a free speech problem compared to a regime which is going through people's devices to see if they have ever badmouthed Trump or his government, and then refusing them entry to the US, or if there already deporting them.
On the books banned in the school districts, incidentally, it is estimated that 64% of them are by women, and disproportionately by women of colour.
Free speech problems, eh? Didn't we have a thread recently called motes and logs?
"
Charles, your LLMs are (not for the first time) letting you down badly. Or perhaps you have been paying too much attention to e.g Vance and co.
I see that in at least 65 US school districts, among the banned books is The Handmaid's Tale. Your Health Secretary is an anti-vaxxer and general science denier. People who criticise the POTUS are the targets of vindictive legal intimidation. Attempts are being made (so far successfully) to skew the electoral system to keep the current party in power, and armed forces are being deployed in US cities to intimidate the population. How would you describe what is happening in your country - are you indeed (as russell reminds you suggested before the inauguration) pretty much muddling through?
I have never denied that in the UK we have many problems (post-Brexit, the economy, Reform). Worried though we are by much of it, I can't think of a single thing which compares in any way with what is happening in the States. Your "facetiousness" does nothing but parrot the idiotic, ignorant and dangerous talking points of the people who are driving your country's democracy to its destruction.
"
If any readers here need some help when you emigrate to England, let me know.
You'd be amazed to hear how often I've thought just that!
I don't think I want to live in an Islamic country...
I'm assuming this is a joke, Charles. If not, do expound.
On “David Brooks in Laodicea”
Yes, I agree with Cain's Third Law (any further ones welcome), and with wj, russell and Marty. Treating people of every degree as people, and equals worthy of respect, is one of the most foundational rules for living a good life. Any personal benefits which accrue, while welcome, are a purely secondary matter.
Marty - congratulations!
"
How high the floor and how to deliver it are open for discussion; anyone who argues against a floor is arguing for the pitchforks and torches to come out eventually.
Quite right. What are the other Cain's Laws?
"
Well, I suppose it all comes down again to the concept of purity. It would be great if everyone saw and agreed with the analysis of the underlying problem as laid out by russell - don't forget that I always said he should be ROTU.
But since this is unfortunately not the case, I believe the next best thing is to make aspects of the case to the greatest number of people, whether rich or poor, left or right, and hopefully among them some with power to influence the course of policy.
I know next to nothing about David Brooks, but he writes opinion pieces in the NYT, still one of the most influential media outlets in America, particularly I would have thought among the rich and powerful. If it takes such a piece from such a source to get part of the issue across to even a fraction of the currently unconvinced/unaware, this seems to me worthwhile.
Meanwhile, if Brooks is condescending, a narcissist, an adulterer, or the conscienceless discarder of a longtime wife for a younger woman, this seems to me irrelevant to the analysis of the problem of segregation, societal fragmentation and inequality. If we are quoting Jesus on this matter, didn't he also say Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.