I've just finished watching the CNN/BBC three part documentary about the 40th anniversary of Live Aid, whose two concerts (London and Philadelphia) took place 40 years ago today and were watched by something like 1.5/2 billion people. The first part (all of which was very familiar to me) was mainly about how it all began, and the single Band Aid brought out, which also led to We Are The World. The second part was about the Live Aid concerts, and how they were organised and what happened, which again I knew a lot about (and had watched the whole thing).
The third part was about Live8, which led to the cancellation by the G8 of African debt payments, and vastly increased international aid budgets. I knew comparatively little about it, and it was completely fascinating, particularly politically, seeing the interviews with George W Bush, Blair, Condoleeza Rice et al, as well as hearing some of the criticisms. For anyone not interested enough in watching the first two parts, I nevertheless strongly recommend the third. Here is a guest link to a piece in today's NYT about the anniversary, and the documentary: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/arts/music/live-aid-bob-geldof-anniversary.html?unlocked_article_code=1.WE8.c0_h.2CwG2nKJUmpQ&smid=url-share
2025-07-13 10:54:11
Further to russell's comments about Ringo, he (and others) might like this, by T Bone Burnett: "Ringo was the fire, totally the fire underneath that band. I think of what McCartney said, that the first song they played with Ringo, they all just looked at each other. Because he was the soul of rock ‘n’ roll, man. That cat, his energy was so beautiful and so exciting and wild — just his whole, his spirit is the thing he had. He played with Sister Rosetta Tharp, you know? He played with all of this ecstatic music that would come through Liverpool. And he is an ecstatic musician. The Beatles were all ecstatic musicians, you know, but Ringo was the fire under it.
"To me, he has as good a claim as anybody to the greatest rock ‘n’ roll drummer of all times, with his tones, the way he hit the drums, the type of beats he played, the way he would construct drum parts where nothing would be playing straight through . . . Ringo was an extraordinary musician."
2025-07-11 21:00:07
What russell said.
2025-07-11 15:40:40
Sorry, that first sentence is a quote from nous, and should have been in italics.
2025-07-11 15:39:23
I think you are quite well informed, Donald, and trust your information.
I do too, and I notice that when you are not particularly knowledgeable about a subject, you say so.
2025-07-09 16:07:27
I am just hoping we get to have midterm elections.
You and all of us, Marty.
Or: what Pro Bono said.
2025-07-08 12:47:21
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.
2025-07-08 10:18:45
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.
2025-07-08 09:50:13
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!
2025-07-07 17:21:33
Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.
(Wo)man shall not live by misery alone.
2025-07-07 07:09:41
Charles, your link to Grok's discussion of Alien Space Bats in Fiction is the only AI link of yours I've ever found useful or entertaining. It never occurred to me to search the term on Google, or Wikipedia, or I would have been enlightened years ago. But on the other hand, the explanation is a lot less satisfying than my bemused fantasies.
Snarki, no point mentioning those bats, the poor bastards will see them soon enough.
2025-07-06 23:20:01
Perversely, I feel a sense of loss....
2025-07-06 18:47:40
lj, I wondered whether you'd pick up the manipulation v pulling the strings aspect, but I decided not to go there with you given how distressing the whole thing had become. Ditto various other aspects (e.g. sex v gender). Let's put it behind us, and just all (including me) be mindful that going after people in anger is generally uncalled for, and counter-productive.
On the Stasi like text file, I did realise it could look like that, but I also remembered that when I started on here I kept a table of where people said they lived (i.e. what state), so I could ask about or respond to their local weather issues, or political developments (e.g. asking wj or nous about things in California etc). I stopped years ago, but the impulse made me realise that I should definitely not cast the first stone, even if I had wanted to.
2025-07-06 16:02:45
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing
LOL And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
To quote the Spartans: "if".
2025-07-06 14:40:26
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy. You've done it before; he was before my time, and I am deeply resentful to have missed him!
2025-07-06 14:37:53
Yeah, I can't imagine it working with seriously MAGA types, or religious fundamentalists, essentially because I can't see that either of those groups are concerned with anything that I would call reality. I might be wrong, of course. But, on the definition of "reliable sources", wj, you definitely make an excellent point - that is problematic. All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Yes, I think I agree.
2025-07-06 09:47:16
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
Hard agree.
And bobbyp, FWIW, you have never angered me.
2025-07-05 16:24:49
Do you keep a spreadsheet, Charles?
2025-07-05 16:23:16
You know who we lack here? Palestinian- American posters
You do a pretty damn good job of linking important stuff about the Palestinian situation which most of us would not otherwise see, Donald. In the previous discussion about ranters v persuaders, I think you are a ranter par excellence. And I mean that as a compliment. It's not always comfortable, and I don't always agree with you, but you are morally consistent and IMO a kind of conscience in the blog.
2025-07-05 15:12:00
Snarki, you must have been away. He was banned straight after 10/7, when he barrelled onto here and accused us (or maybe even specific people) of thinking that the murdered Israelis and their babies had it coming. It was a perfect example of his straw-manning, and his tiresome habit of treating us as if we were the Politburo or the People's Congress, or some other lefty bogeyman. But I must say, when he wasn't doing that kind of thing, his presence often stimulated a lot of interesting conversation over here, as contentious subjects often do, or did. I fear russell may be right, and that these days things are too polarised for that. It's a shame.
Again, Snarki: I completely agree about what causes you incandescent rage - me too.
CaseyL: I did resubscribe to the Atlantic when I cancelled my sub to the WaPo, but I hardly ever read any of it (apart from non-mad David Frum) so may let it go again. I would never have thought that the coiner of "axis of evil" would end up being counted a reasonable voice.
2025-07-05 12:06:59
I'm not positive, but I'm thinking that we are a pretty narrow group in terms of age, gender and probably ethnicity.
Age for sure. I don't know about gender, but as to sex I think Janie and I are the only women (maybe Snarki, wonkie, CaseyL?). Ethnicity - hard to tell. this was one of the few places I knew about where there was a wide range of views for a few years
I think there's a real advantage to being exposed to different views and arguments, as long as one doesn't just assume that people who disagree with one's own opinion are immoral monsters, or stupid, or ignorant, as the case may be. in a few cases were banned for being offensive. I remember a couple from the far far left like that.
bob mcmanus was the example of that I remember best. His open misogyny was really something. Funnily enough, I thought of him recently, when BBB in his final comment (clearly trying, as lj said, to foment more trouble) said words to the effect of "the men have decided". bob mcm said that exact thing in reverse, when pre-emptively implying that women (it was sapient, Janie and me who called it out) would force the men here to ban him, as women had on the other blogs where he commented.
I've just finished watching the CNN/BBC three part documentary about the 40th anniversary of Live Aid, whose two concerts (London and Philadelphia) took place 40 years ago today and were watched by something like 1.5/2 billion people. The first part (all of which was very familiar to me) was mainly about how it all began, and the single Band Aid brought out, which also led to We Are The World. The second part was about the Live Aid concerts, and how they were organised and what happened, which again I knew a lot about (and had watched the whole thing).
The third part was about Live8, which led to the cancellation by the G8 of African debt payments, and vastly increased international aid budgets. I knew comparatively little about it, and it was completely fascinating, particularly politically, seeing the interviews with George W Bush, Blair, Condoleeza Rice et al, as well as hearing some of the criticisms. For anyone not interested enough in watching the first two parts, I nevertheless strongly recommend the third. Here is a guest link to a piece in today's NYT about the anniversary, and the documentary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/arts/music/live-aid-bob-geldof-anniversary.html?unlocked_article_code=1.WE8.c0_h.2CwG2nKJUmpQ&smid=url-share
Further to russell's comments about Ringo, he (and others) might like this, by T Bone Burnett:
"Ringo was the fire, totally the fire underneath that band. I think of what McCartney said, that the first song they played with Ringo, they all just looked at each other. Because he was the soul of rock ‘n’ roll, man. That cat, his energy was so beautiful and so exciting and wild — just his whole, his spirit is the thing he had. He played with Sister Rosetta Tharp, you know? He played with all of this ecstatic music that would come through Liverpool. And he is an ecstatic musician. The Beatles were all ecstatic musicians, you know, but Ringo was the fire under it.
"To me, he has as good a claim as anybody to the greatest rock ‘n’ roll drummer of all times, with his tones, the way he hit the drums, the type of beats he played, the way he would construct drum parts where nothing would be playing straight through . . . Ringo was an extraordinary musician."
What russell said.
Sorry, that first sentence is a quote from nous, and should have been in italics.
I think you are quite well informed, Donald, and trust your information.
I do too, and I notice that when you are not particularly knowledgeable about a subject, you say so.
I am just hoping we get to have midterm elections.
You and all of us, Marty.
Or: what Pro Bono said.
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.
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.
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!
Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.
(Wo)man shall not live by misery alone.
Charles, your link to Grok's discussion of Alien Space Bats in Fiction is the only AI link of yours I've ever found useful or entertaining. It never occurred to me to search the term on Google, or Wikipedia, or I would have been enlightened years ago. But on the other hand, the explanation is a lot less satisfying than my bemused fantasies.
Snarki, no point mentioning those bats, the poor bastards will see them soon enough.
Perversely, I feel a sense of loss....
lj, I wondered whether you'd pick up the manipulation v pulling the strings aspect, but I decided not to go there with you given how distressing the whole thing had become. Ditto various other aspects (e.g. sex v gender). Let's put it behind us, and just all (including me) be mindful that going after people in anger is generally uncalled for, and counter-productive.
On the Stasi like text file, I did realise it could look like that, but I also remembered that when I started on here I kept a table of where people said they lived (i.e. what state), so I could ask about or respond to their local weather issues, or political developments (e.g. asking wj or nous about things in California etc). I stopped years ago, but the impulse made me realise that I should definitely not cast the first stone, even if I had wanted to.
It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing
LOL
And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.
To quote the Spartans: "if".
russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy. You've done it before; he was before my time, and I am deeply resentful to have missed him!
Yeah, I can't imagine it working with seriously MAGA types, or religious fundamentalists, essentially because I can't see that either of those groups are concerned with anything that I would call reality. I might be wrong, of course. But, on the definition of "reliable sources", wj, you definitely make an excellent point - that is problematic.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Yes, I think I agree.
The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.
Hard agree.
And bobbyp, FWIW, you have never angered me.
Do you keep a spreadsheet, Charles?
You know who we lack here? Palestinian- American posters
You do a pretty damn good job of linking important stuff about the Palestinian situation which most of us would not otherwise see, Donald. In the previous discussion about ranters v persuaders, I think you are a ranter par excellence. And I mean that as a compliment. It's not always comfortable, and I don't always agree with you, but you are morally consistent and IMO a kind of conscience in the blog.
Snarki, you must have been away. He was banned straight after 10/7, when he barrelled onto here and accused us (or maybe even specific people) of thinking that the murdered Israelis and their babies had it coming. It was a perfect example of his straw-manning, and his tiresome habit of treating us as if we were the Politburo or the People's Congress, or some other lefty bogeyman. But I must say, when he wasn't doing that kind of thing, his presence often stimulated a lot of interesting conversation over here, as contentious subjects often do, or did. I fear russell may be right, and that these days things are too polarised for that. It's a shame.
Again, Snarki: I completely agree about what causes you incandescent rage - me too.
CaseyL: I did resubscribe to the Atlantic when I cancelled my sub to the WaPo, but I hardly ever read any of it (apart from non-mad David Frum) so may let it go again. I would never have thought that the coiner of "axis of evil" would end up being counted a reasonable voice.
I'm not positive, but I'm thinking that we are a pretty narrow group in terms of age, gender and probably ethnicity.
Age for sure. I don't know about gender, but as to sex I think Janie and I are the only women (maybe Snarki, wonkie, CaseyL?). Ethnicity - hard to tell.
this was one of the few places I knew about where there was a wide range of views for a few years
I think there's a real advantage to being exposed to different views and arguments, as long as one doesn't just assume that people who disagree with one's own opinion are immoral monsters, or stupid, or ignorant, as the case may be.
in a few cases were banned for being offensive. I remember a couple from the far far left like that.
bob mcmanus was the example of that I remember best. His open misogyny was really something. Funnily enough, I thought of him recently, when BBB in his final comment (clearly trying, as lj said, to foment more trouble) said words to the effect of "the men have decided". bob mcm said that exact thing in reverse, when pre-emptively implying that women (it was sapient, Janie and me who called it out) would force the men here to ban him, as women had on the other blogs where he commented.