State of the Discussion

I don't like Lebrecht's personality and business model - it seems like he fashions himself as the Hedda Hopper of the classical music world. However, I really liked his Mahler biography, he is certainly knowledgeable and hard-working and can be sensitive writer about music:

https://welltempered.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/classical-music-review-mahler-is-the-new-beethoven-critic-norman-lebrecht-argues-in-his-new-book-%E2%80%9Cwhy-mahler%E2%80%9D/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/sep/04/mahler-lebrecht-memoir-beethoven-ninth

Not sure, but hasn't Congress passed a law to forbid the president to do that (i.e. rendering US citizens to foreign courts, the ICC in particular)? Apart from that, that's not how US politics work. Alas, I fear it would be political suicide.

Perhaps more than you care to know about Norman Lebrecht.

"Ultimately, Norman Lebrecht’s reputation reflects the divided nature of classical music commentary today: a once-dominant voice whose sharp style secured attention and influence but whose methods have increasingly drawn scrutiny, culminating in the loss of his long-standing BBC platform. The evidence from peer reviews, legal records, artist statements, and public reactions points to a figure who remains widely discussed—yet more often as a cautionary example of boundary-pushing journalism than as an unchallenged authority."

Norman Lebrecht: Polarizing Classical Music Figure

There are people who can't do an art but set themselves up as keepers of standards about that art, standards they present as Truth, rather than their own perspective. The same thing happens with visual art. The gatekeeper gets legitimacy by upholding convention and, thereby, the establishment (or those who consider themselves to be the establishment and have the power to act that way). The establishment that the gatekeeper represents probably has expectations for women which are in the standard. There may be more of a tolerance of men who deviate from the standard than women.

Interestingly, in terms of visual art, the convention is to be seen as unconventional, and the establishment loves the "outsider" that has been taken in as an insider.

I know I am over-simplifying. I think the dynamic I described exists but there are other dynamics as well. One is all the fans who ignore the gatekeepers and love the artists of their choice anyway. Another is commerce and marketing which can shower vast rewards on someone who is hated by the gatekeepers.

And, of course, there is such a thing as good and bad in any art. I just don't think clothing choices count as part of the evaluation.

"Should we applaud the mini star of whore for his honesty to publicly state that the US military will not feel obliged to obey any laws of war,"

It'll make the war-crimes trials easier, it's true.

Hartmut, could you check if the Nuremberg courtroom/gallows are available? Danke!

A few more thoughts, with pro bono's link, it certainly pushes it over to sexism, had it only been the reposted message by Wang, I might have hesitated, but reading his wikipedia page, he seems like a real jerk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lebrecht

(don't know why my wikipedia always has each reference on a different line)

Mentioned in the wikipedia page, but worth a read on its own is Hurwitz's piece about him.
https://www.classicstoday.com/journalist-norman-lebrecht-dead-at-61/

Ouch!

She doesn't need him. He needs her. He's a gossip and a hanger on, much like Jann Wenner.

I propose the portmanteau "gatecreeper" for this particular combination of self-importance and sexism. I do think he's being sexist in his assumptions about Wang's popularity and need for his legitimation.

Must hurt to both be this wrong and get sacked over it.

What a self-important little man.

So the US attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran and then Iran would attack the US which made it an imminent threat. I don't even know what to call this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/02/us-israel-war-iran-live-updates-attacks-strikes-tehran-lebanon-beirut-hezbollah-dubai-latest-news?page=with%3Ablock-69a5fa488f0863f6a3f000cf#block-69a5fa488f0863f6a3f000cf

I think I have touched on that in the most recent post about Yuja Wang and if folks want to take the conversation there, please feel free to copy paste any comments from here that you want to use as a springboard.

GftNC, perhaps the problem is precisely that most men are like the Good Men you describe. We don't really see an obvious reason to label ourselves. The anomalies, the various flavors of bad guys, they need labels. If only so the rest of the world knows which kind of bad behaviors to watch out for from a particular individual.

But why do we need a label? Aren't we the default, the general expectation? (Yeah, I rather think we are.) Still, if somebody thinks we do need a label, "Gentlemen" works for me.**

** I realize that some may object to this, on the grounds that this has class overtones. Bosh!
Partly I say that because, in my misspent youth, I came across a story, with characters definitely not upper class: Gentlemen, Be Seated! It leapt to mind just now.

I've posted a lot on this thread about how many men act, or have acted, or want to act in what are now considered dodgy or immoral (or worse) ways. As a comment from the other side, which also has a lot of truth to it, this is Caitlin Moran in today's Times. I don't know what the proportions are (good v the other kind), but I know plenty of the sort of men she describes. The references are very English, but I think the men of ObWi will understand them...

Caitlin Moran: Stop calling all men toxic. They’re mostly goodThe men around me are a universe away from Dominique Pelicot, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate — funny, nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym
Caitlin Moran
Monday March 02 2026, 5.00am, The Times

What do we call the good men? In a world of “toxic masculinity”, incels and the manosphere? A world where the president of the United States hisses, “Quiet, piggy!” and the news is dominated by the Pelicot trial and Epstein? In a world where, only last week, the frighteningly popular activist Nick Fuentes said that all women need to be put in “gulags — breeding gulags”?

What do we call the men who aren’t like this? What do we call the good men?
This week is also the first anniversary of Adolescence — which became a one-word reference for the kind of boy we’re terrified of. But what do we call the good boys? What is the one-word reference for them?
I look around my world and it’s filled with men who seem to come from a wholly different universe from Pelicot and Fuentes. They have utterly different DNA. These men are both rock solid and lighthearted. They’re very funny, very nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym in later life. They can’t even discuss how devastated they’ll be when the dog dies. They take their mum flowers; they mentor younger men without really mentioning it, and they sit in meetings texting, under the table, ludicrous Eighties pop song lyrics to friends who are sad.

Their masculinity is the quiet, unshowy, utterly implacable kind. I’ve seen each and every one go into battle for the ones they love. I have seen them make the phone calls, cancel the deals. I’ve seen them, when necessary, take other men to one side — somewhere quiet, somewhere dark — to explain, in a manner that’s almost friendly, that it would be a very risky decision to behave like that again. That today is the day these behaviours end.

So what do we call these men? These men who are, evidently, the majority of men. For — let’s remember — the majority of men don’t want to put women in gulags. They don’t want to build a gulag! Building a gulag would be a nightmare. Putting up the shed was hard enough.
“You call them ‘the Good Men’!” shouted one audience member at a live event, when I asked this question on stage. “Because … they’re the good men!”
And, obviously, I love that idea. But the problem is, everyone thinks they’re the good men. No one thinks they’re the baddie. Andrew Tate and Donald Trump believe they’re saying what every man would say, if he only had the balls. Dominique Pelicot claims he loves his wife. Epstein denied everything. They don’t think they’re the bad guys. After all, history is full of men who act like this. In Greek mythology; in Roman history; in the reports of every invading army. Marital rape was still legal in this country until 1991. 1991! After Kylie, and acid house!
So you can’t call the good men “the Good Men” — because, ultimately, it means nothing. It describes nothing specific.

The fundamental problem is, we still have no male equivalent to feminism. There is no global movement for male progress and happiness — that wants to leave the bad old ways, of history and mythology, behind. It is inevitable there will be a movement, at some point. There is only so long people can keep discussing “the crisis in masculinity” before some smart young man sighs, opens his laptop, lights a fag and starts writing the male equivalent of The Female Eunuch.

But until there is a movement, with a name, and objectives, there is no name to call the men who would be part of that movement. Nick Fuentes has named himself an incel; Tate, a misogynist. But the good men have yet to name themselves. And the lack of a name means that, even though they are the majority, they seem almost … invisible. Because we cannot talk about something if it doesn’t have a name.
“How about ‘Gentleman’?”

I have been despairing to my husband that I am part of the problem; I cannot think of a name for the good men, either.
“I love the word ‘gentleman’,” he says. “Gentle-man. As the Smiths lyric goes, ‘It takes guts to be gentle and kind.’ An old-fashioned gentleman is honourable and dutiful, while also being clubbable, well dressed, and ready to ‘have a quiet word’ with other men who are being loud, discourteous or just mad. The word already exists. It’s … ‘Gentleman’.”
And — like some masculinity pH test — it seems to work. It immediately divides all men into two categories. Trump, Pelicot, Tate, Epstein, Fuentes? They test negative for “gentleman”. Attenborough, Palin, Rashford, Obama, McCartney, Southgate? Gentleman-positive. Chemically, taxonomically, genetically, gentlemen.

Perhaps the name of the good men is “gentlemen”. Until another name comes along.

Trump vies for Bush’s crown for worst foreign policy decision in history

Trump, last month, bested his own record (from last year) for the longest ever State of the Union address. (Which of his qualifies as most vacuous is a separate discussion.) Similarly, he will have three more years to exceed this worst foreign policy decision. Bad idea to bet against his doing so.

From the previous thread - They are striking “targets” in the north of Tehran. These are busy residential neighbourhoods with schools, nurseries and restaurants. The residential palace and museums are located there. Wtf is wrong with these people?

This is straight out of the current Russian playbook being used in Ukraine. Is there any reason at all to think it will work any better here?

The main difference I can see is that Iran starts out with sophisticated, long range, drones -- designed and already being manufactured.** I'll be amazed if Israel doesn't become aacquainted with Shahed's for the next few weeks. Or months, as may be. This isn't like attacking Palestinians, who have no real industrial base.

As for the US, I expect Trump to just declare victory and scuttle home. Before he loses a US Naval vessel or something. Incompetent as this administration is, it will be no surprise if that doesn't work out well. It's not like attacking Venezuela after all.

** At least this may cut off Russian imports, and so reduce the attacks on Ukraine, at least a bit.

I was thinking more of 'play with your prey' animals or some selected arthropods with a side dish of jellyfish.
Wood chippers would quickly lead to uncontrolled blood loss putting an end to the procedure.

And the European reaction is to condemn Iran for answering in kind.
The general problem of a conflict where all parties are despicable* and politicians feel obliged to throw in their lot with one of them.

*the Yahoo from Netanja, His Orangeness and Chamenei all lack any conscience or empathy. They should all be (very) slowly fed to some less than fussy carnivores on life TV.

That has become the norm. 'Negotiations' are a diversion to make the attack a surprise when it hits. Ideally it gives the location of the high level negotiators, so they can be targeted themselves (as happened the last time where it only failed because the attack hit the house before the guys arrived). First rule: His Orangeness and the Yahoo from Netanja NEVER act in good faith.

Now I wake up to the news that they are bombing Tehran.

I urge the people in the US and Israel to rise up and overthrow their government's.

As for Anthropic specifically, I’m not up on the details, either of Anthropic’s history or this specific spat. But if Hegseth is upset, that strongly suggests that Anthropic is on the side of the angels, at least on this one.

I believe the line Anthropic (and OpenAI too, I think) have drawn is at autonomous killing machines at a retail level. "Retail" meaning the AI has decided this person is an enemy combatant that should be killed, and that person is not. I may have missed something, but they don't seem as opposed to wholesale level stuff, as in the AI has decided this is a Chinese landing ship with 1,000 marines attacking Taiwan, or not.

I could just as easily have used "the private sector" or "for-profit entities." The government, in a normal country, is usually the one installing the guardrails to keep the capitalists from running amok.

Many of us thought that the war-mongering, torturing, lying Conservatives that got the US into the Iraq war were the worst of the worst.

We were wrong, as is now abundantly clear.