by Gary Farber
Longtime and valued commenter Uncle Kvetch asked an extremely important question here.
[...] While it was nice seeing a united front of commenters taking on avedis' all-too-familiar mix of dick-waving bravado and abject sexual terror, I do find myself wondering just what constitutes "beyond the pale" when it comes to homophobic remarks around here. I'm not referring to ban-worthy offenses, as the posting rules are clear enough. But I have to say that when the inevitable necrophilia/bestiality comparisons were dragged out and numerous commenters just kept on presuming good faith on avedis' part...well, it makes me wonder.
The answer is that the "New Banning Rules" were last updated, as you can see, by longtime front-pager Edward at 10:25 AM on January 26, 2005.
They include this:
One writer (but only one) from the other side of the fence must agree to the ban for it to move forward (Von can vote as either side of the fence as he wishes). For the record, currently Charles Bird, Andrew, and Sebastian Holsclaw are on the right; Von is in the center; and Hilzoy is on the left.;-) Yes, that's unbalanced...we're working on it.*
This has been discussed many many many times in comments since 2005, by various people. Many emails to the kitty address have been sent since 2005.
The "New Banning Rules" remain as posted until someone with the ability and authority to post new rules does so. Wording has been suggested.
The Posting Rules were last updated 1/19/2007, with a further undated update by an unknown to me user of "SuperUser." I can guess, but so can you.
Again, much email has been sent to the kitty address since then, and there have been various discussions in comments about this since that time.
The Posting Rules remain as posted until someone with the ability and authority to post new rules does so.
None of this will change until the co-bloggers communicate with each other about it, and appropriate action taken by the appropriate parties with the ability to do so. As has always been the case.
As of Wednesday, December 29th, the address to email the kitty has been: ObWings At gmail Dot com
Send Obsidian Wings related email there.
The above address is now readable by
# Doctor Science
# Eric Martin
# Gary Farber
# Jacob Davies
# russell
# Sebastian H
The address to reach me personally is gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com
I'll do my best to respond as I can.
I promise no one a response. All I promise is that I'll do my best to do my best.
Each member of the ObWi collective will do their best to respond, I'm sure. Whether there will be any communication between members of the ObWi collective on responses, or how to respond, or what's appropriate to respond, will, presumably, be discussed among them at some future date, or it won't.
If you've sent email to the currently listed kitty address, and haven't received a response in the past two years, I suggest sending a new email to ObWings at gmail dot com
Alternatively, someone with access to that email address might eventually address the backlog, but I don't advise waiting.
You now know the best way to reach a member of the ObWi collective, short of asking for or knowing their individual email addreses, that I'm aware of.
I think a discussion of the Posting Rules, Banning Policy, slogan of the blog, and other elements that have gone unchanged since 2005 and 2007, would be an extremely wonderful thing.
My personal response, Uncle Kvetch, to your entirely appropriate question is purely my personal opinion.
If I knew what the collective opinion was, I'd tell you. I don't, and I can't. Possibly this post may engender discussion of some sort somewhere, whether private or public, here in this thread, or elsewhere. I can't predict the future, or the behavior of others.
So my purely personal opinion which in no way speaks for anyone but me, and does not speak for the ObWi collective, is this:
As much as I can personally manage, I try to view people's speech and acts at a given time, and given set of times, as speech and acts, rather than as identifiers of who they are in a permanent way.
More specifically, I believe that all of us have unexamined prejudices. I believe that all of us are products of our culture, and we've been raised soaked in whatever combinations of culture we've been soaked in, and exposed to.
Therefore, it's my observation that none of us are totally free from some forms of ignorance and assumptions, including those ranging from merely careless, or unexamined, to habit, to not being yet exposed to better information in a way that is meaningful to them, to those who actively resist changing for many reasons, to those who will only change after months or years or perhaps decades of new experience, to those who will die unchanged in whatever ill-thought, or horrific, prejudices and beliefs they have acquired, and in many cases held from infancy, or childhood, or were otherwise imprinted strongly via memorable experience.
Until proven otherwise to my own personal satisfaction, subject to my own variable and subjective and changeable judgement, I try to consider people to be changeable and persuadable.
I consider that, in essence, to be the heart of what blogging is or should be about.
It is, at least, part of what the essence of blogging is for me.
Again, I speak only for myself. But my personal opinion as a commenter who has commented with comments of 5000, 10000, and 15000 word long comments since 2003 is that this has been part of the mission, intent, and goal of Obsidian Wings. It remains my personal opinion as a front-pager until such time as I am not, or I am persuaded Obsidian Wings's mission has been changed while I wasn't looking, or the majority of current Obsidian Wings' blogges have announced a new policy, or Eric Martin makes such an announcement.
In light of that, I do my best, until I can't, to focus on discussing (in no particular order), racist, homophobic, sexist, heterosexist, agism, nationalistic, fascistic, communistic, nihlistic, caste-biased, heightist, Islamophobic, anti-Christian, antisemitic, ableist, weightist, sizist, antifatism, ignorantism, egotheism, accidentalism, nominalism, nomism, tribalism, and every other kind of prejudicial acts and speech, rather than labeling people as being those identities and only those identities.
Until I feel forced to treat them otherwise. But it's always, in the end, my choice, and my judgmentalism, and only mine. Just as everyone must draw their own lines as to that which they can tolerate and can't tolerate.
I believe in the power of people to change. I believe in redemption. I believe in allowing for it. I believe in attempting to encourage people to educate themselves, and I believe blogging to be about informing, educating, and engaging.
I don't wish to speak to an echo chamber.
Crucially, I believe that few people change strong opinions in a moment, a day, a week, or a month. I believe that in most cases, serious changes of opinion usually take place over the course of months, and years, and after a great deal of exposure to that which I regard as incontrovertible evidence, sound logical argument, good writing, and ways of reaching people that they are capable of hearing.
I believe people can only do this through a process of personal evolution, and that we're all undergoing it at all times, unless we are frozen, stagnant, unthinking people, closed to new ideas, and incapable of change.
This is my observation on how human beings largely work.
Crucially, I believe that people have to, often, if not usually, take a long time to consider what they've read, heard, and been exposed to. Often people may only weeks, or months, or years, later realize that something makes sense after all.
And, sometimes, then their perspective slowly begins to change.
It may take years, it may take decades, it may never take place.
Having said all that, obviously when someone is repeatedly, or emphatically enough, over a long course of years, demonstrably not changing, there becomes less and less reason to think that, for the time being, they are incapable of learning, growing, and evolving.
All too often, that's the case for many of us, and to some degrees all of us are subject to it. Few of us will ever wholly change all our important beliefs, and obviously what's important is not change itself, but openness to reconsideration of one's ideas, acceptance of the idea that we all have unexamined prejudices, willingness to engage in fearless self-examination, the ability to do so, and then act on it.
And one's ideas must model reality as much as possible, or they lead us astray.
Reality as I see it includes the fact that all of the above prejudices, and so many others, are utterly unjustified, horrific, and result in great terror, hatred, death, and suffering in the world, as well as constant strain, unpleasantness, justified anger, counter-hatred, fear, and endless other sorts of negative effects, ranging from the Holocaust/Shoah, to the daily sexism every woman in our society is forced to deal with, aware of it or not, the daily racism anyone perceived as The Other is forced to deal with, the daily homophobia anyone perceived as queer is forced to deal with, and so on and on.
In sum, everyone perceived as The Other, by anyone, is vulnerable in the right circumstances to great suffering imposed on them by others.
These are among the fights we as humans must fight to become better people, have a better culture, and a better world.
Having said that, there are plenty of people who make clear immediately just how vicious and intolerable they are, and that's what the posting rules are for.
I would like to see them enforced as consistently as is practical, in every way that is reasonably practical, insofar as mechanisms can be created to facilitate this.
I would like to see ObWi seen as a place that tolerates debate of all nature up to the point where debate crosses the line of the posting rules as they currently exist, until such time as they might change.
Meanwhile, on ObWi, we have the Posting Rules that we have, and we tolerate as much as we can within them, and somewhat beyond, and, yes, there has been very little consistency about that, and... very little, period.
When someone crosses the line, and someone who is a member of the collective is made aware, and can do something about it, something may happen to enforce the Posting Rules.
It's been known to happen many times, if sporadically and utterly inconsistently.
Myself, I'd like to see the Posting Rules clarified somewhat, and the Banning Rules seriously revised. But it's not up to me, any more than any other decision around here is.
Meanwhile, things are what they are. I ABSOLUTELY think that anyone who feels that anyone else has been crossing the line, should feel absolutely free to say so in that thread, and in any open thread, and in email to the kitty, or any ObWi blogger you can reach, and I'd like to hope it will be given appropriate consideration and response.
And speaking only for myself, since all that matters here are words, I'd like to inform everyone that I'm a sissyqueerpansyfaggot gay homosexual African-American foreign born Muslim Jew disabled woman progressive liberal socialistic pro-military anti-military atheistic respector of religion who hates all religions, is anti-Christian, pro-Christian, terrorsymp Arab foreign-born tall short fat skinny old young stupid smart well educated ill educated person who should be treated as any and all of the above. I was also born in Kenya, my middle name is Hussein, I hate America, love America, and am full of multiple identities, apparently. Oh, and I'm mentally ill.
For purposes on ObWi. I'm willing to defend my stances and identify as any or all of the above as best I can.
And when I can, I will argue with anyone who wishes to criticize me on any of the above bases, attack me, regard me as such, until such time as I won't, as time and energy and priorities allow, at any given time, save when I won't, and until I can't, which for all I know will be in ten minutes.
What any other member of the ObWi thinks, you'll have to ask them, and/or they'll respond as they choose. Everything in this post remains my personal opinion, I am not speaking for anyone but myself, and that's all I can say.
Comment away and ask questions as you like, until someone else stops you, or I do.
Thanks for asking, Uncle: it's an important question.
Discuss.
This is an open thread. Bring up any other subject you like, including your day, week, month, whatever thoughts occur to on any topic.
There's no length limit to comments on this thread.
I'm going to write what I want in comments on this thread in this manner, and I hope everyone will free to speak their mind about anything they wish to say, including letting me know any way in which I've offended them, including by writing this post.
Happily, of course, as things ended up, given that cooler heads prevailed, even Phyllis Schafly is free to duck into the House of Representatives Men's Washroom, open the trap door on her bunny suit, and take a unisex pee without fear of prosecution, although Eric Cantor has been known to flee shrieking when it happens.
That she pees standing up is a fact that makes John Boehner cry the tears of a man who feels deeply the bedrock Constitutional principle that all corporations are created equal.
Posted by: Countme--In | January 04, 2011 at 10:16 PM
The funny thing is, the power of the SCOTUS to decide what is constitutional and what is not is not in the Constitution. That power was established (based, apparently, on penumbras emanating from the common law and maybe the Federalist Papers) in Marbury v Madison .
But it's not in the Constitution.
So if we want to be really, really originalist, Scalia has bugger-all to say about what is and what is not Constitutional. Or, at least, his opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's.
Posted by: russell | January 04, 2011 at 10:57 PM
To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about TiO. When I first heard about it (and its predecessor) I appreciated the idea, I just didn't think it'd be constructive for me to take already-unproductive arguments somewhere else so that they can get flogged to death. That's not to say it doesn't serve a good purpose, just that it wasn't for me.
I just clicked through the link provided upthread for why Marty stopped commenting, and was surprised at what I found--that I was mentioned by name as the catalyst for someone else to leave. So I hunted down the offending thread and reviewed it.
I remember it well now, but it simply hadn't stuck in my mind past the day it happened. If anything, I was in agreement with the person who said that most of us were probably failing to communicate rather than holding substantially different beliefs.
The exception, of course, was my disagreement with JamieM. Try as I might, I just can't even in retrospect reconcile our two worldviews. That's unfortunate, but it happens. People believe different things, and our worst conflicts come when we get too invested in trying to make other people think the way we do. I'm guilty of plenty of that myself.
Still, I'm looking at the thread again and having trouble seeing exactly just how I pissed JamieM off so much. We weren't flaming each other, just disagreeing very passionately about a point which appears to be a critical way in which our first principles differ.
But clearly it was enough to drive him/her away. To tell the truth I've never seen anyone write about me with the depth of loathing JamieM did on TiO. I hope never to again.
With all of that said, I'm keenly aware of how abrasive I can be when I think someone is egregiously wrong about something, and it's something I've been working on for a long time. It's part of the reason I don't spend a lot of time commenting on political blogs anymore: as I mentioned in a recent thread, the criminal negligence of today's Republican Party and the kind of damage they are doing to this country has pretty much robbed me of any ability to be even-tempered with anyone who has the poor judgment to try defending that party and its agenda. And this is a perfect example: this is about as much as I was able to sanitize this paragraph of loaded language and still be honest about where I stand. I don't like the spillover that has had on my interactions with non-Republicans.
So consider this my unqualified apology to JamieM.
Posted by: Catsy | January 05, 2011 at 03:53 AM
"Finally, I'm not sure why we should be forever bound by the failure of an Amendment to pass."
We're not. You can try to pass it again.
I'm old enough to remember the argument over the ERA, and the opponents weren't saying it was redundant. They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally, and excessive in that it would mandate equality where men and women shouldn't be treated equally. (Like combat, or mandating unisex bathrooms.)
In other words, they were quite clear that it would in fact change the Constitution, that the 14th amendment did not imply the ERA's substance.
You've come up with a series of proposed failing amendments, but they don't connect with what I'm saying, because they aren't amendments to change what the Constitution is currently understood to mean. You're just pretending that taking a dive on a ginned up amendment to restate current understanding is the same as seriously trying to change the Constitution and failing.
What's been done with the ERA, effectively implementing it through the courts after it was defeated, just underscores what living constitutionalism is about: Providing a way to circumvent Article V, so that the states are stripped of their power under that Article to reject changes.
As for the civil rights act, the conservative position was that the 14th amendment, by it's very language, only permitted the federal government to regulate state governments, not individuals. The federal government was authorized to require state governments to treat their citizens equally. Not to require individual Americans to treat their neighbors equally.
Maybe you think it should have been written to extend that far, but that's not what the text that was actually ratified did.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | January 05, 2011 at 07:41 AM
It is so handy to perceive the Constitution as only protecting the rights of the individual doing the perceiving and no one else.
Just like its so handy to conceptualize government as having a legitmate role only in serving one's interests and no one else's.
Just as it is handy to think that the only legitmate expenditures of tax dollras are on one one's pet issues and but money spent on anyone else or anything else is wasted.
That's how conservatives roll.
Posted by: wonkie | January 05, 2011 at 08:10 AM
... I feel guilty stirring the pot like this - but why are we having this debate - in the past when discussions regarding the interpretations of Constitution came up Brett's belief was that anyone who didn't share his interpretation - was a fundamentally dishonest liar.
Posted by: DecidedFenceSitter | January 05, 2011 at 08:13 AM
Catsy:
I suggest apologizing to JanieM instead. :-)Posted by: Gary Farber | January 05, 2011 at 08:17 AM
People who have never written anything they've ever changed their mind about, or in retrospect considered that other wording would have more accurately represented their views, are exempt from this observation. :-)
Also: people have debates because they have them. One might also ask "why have comment threads on blogs?" or "why have conversations with other people whose minds we can't read?"
People debate and converse because it's what people do.
Like you just did. :-)
That's why.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 05, 2011 at 08:28 AM
wonkie:
Gentle reminder that the Posting Rules say: Consider your reaction to a comment that included "That's how [PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS/LEFTISTS/DEMOCRATS/GREENS] roll," perhaps?People remain individuals. Everyone.
Everyone. Everyone. Everyone.
If anyone wishes to be treated as an individual, not a label, I'm not clear what justification they might have for ever complaining when other people respond, or originate, by responding as if their interlocutor is homogenous with tens of millions of other people.
I've yet to meet a person who is interchangeable with another person.
I've yet to meet a person who wishes to be treated as interchangeable and their entire life and worldview treated as reducible to a one-word label.
I'd be very interested if anyone could introduce me to anyone who works that way.
Does anyone know anyone like that?
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 05, 2011 at 08:41 AM
I've yet to meet a person who is interchangeable with another person.
Of course. And that's why, when you meet a new person, your first reaction is always and everywhere to ask them if they speak English. Right? I mean, no one in interchangable with anyone else. And since people are all unique and special snowflakes, you can't just assume things about them like what languages they speak. Right?
The truth is that for many questions, people are actually quite interchangable. For the question of 'will this person speak english', white folks in America are generally interchangable. Obviously, when we're dealing with sets consisting of hundreds of millions of people, no statement will apply to all of them, but lots of interesting statements will apply to a very large fraction of them. Statistics are useful.
So I think talk of whether individuals are completely interchangable misses the point. In practice, for a sufficiently narrow question, it is quite easy to reduce people to a one word label. For example, 'who did you vote for in the last Presidential election?' reduces almost the entire pool of recent Presidential voters very nicely into two classes...differentiated by two...labels. Whether you know the right word or have a sufficiently narrow question is a different matter, but that's not the issue you raised.
Posted by: Turbulence | January 05, 2011 at 09:05 AM
Featherless bipeds, all...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 05, 2011 at 09:12 AM
What's been done with the ERA, effectively implementing it through the courts after it was defeated, just underscores what living constitutionalism is about: Providing a way to circumvent Article V, so that the states are stripped of their power under that Article to reject changes.
Nothing's been done with the ERA. What has been done is that both the courts and Congress have ruled that women are persons, and that rights, protections, or privileges that apply to persons apply to them.
And that is prohibited precisely nowhere in the Constitution.
Congress makes law, the courts rule on what law means and how it applies. I don't see a problem here.
Maybe you think it should have been written to extend that far, but that's not what the text that was actually ratified did.
The Constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act includes not only the 14th Amendment, but also the 15th, and the commerce clause.
Also, basic human decency, but I digress.
It only requires people to treat their neighbors equally in those areas that are within scope of what Congress can legislate.
Unfortunately, Congress has no power to legislate on stupidity, ignorance, or unthinking hatred.
Posted by: russell | January 05, 2011 at 09:15 AM
They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally, and excessive in that it would mandate equality where men and women shouldn't be treated equally.
Here is the entire text of the proposed ERA. Can someone highlight the part about bathrooms for me?
Posted by: Phil | January 05, 2011 at 09:20 AM
They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally
This is hilarious considering that the Ledbetter bill just became law LAST YEAR.
Posted by: Phil | January 05, 2011 at 09:27 AM
They were saying it was redundant with regards to the areas where women and men should be treated equally, and excessive in that it would mandate equality where men and women shouldn't be treated equally. (Like combat, or mandating unisex bathrooms.)
Aside from the silliness that Phil already pointed out, wouldn't the truth of this argument still mean that Scalia is wrong, considering the bolded part, Brett?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 05, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Bah, that's what I get for trying to post when tired.
Posted by: Catsy | January 05, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Brett: You've come up with a series of proposed failing amendments, but they don't connect with what I'm saying, because they aren't amendments to change what the Constitution is currently understood to mean. (Brett's emphasis)
Understood by whom? What evidence do you have that there is this current (your word) belief that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not bar overt discrimination on account of sex by state governments? Scalia would say that "no one" believed that at the time it was adopted (despite what appears to be evidence to the contrary) and thus it can't be the case that it bars state sanctioned sex discrimination, despite the "plain text" of the 14th Amendment to which he is supposedly trying to be faithful to.
Posted by: Ugh | January 05, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Bretty: What's been done with the ERA, effectively implementing it through the courts after it was defeated, just underscores what living constitutionalism is about: Providing a way to circumvent Article V, so that the states are stripped of their power under that Article to reject changes.
Why can't it be that the people behind the ERA and who voted to ratify it in state legislatures were dunderheads who didn't realize that the principles of the ERA were already enshrined in the Constitution under the 14th Amendment? Or that believed that such principles were in fact enshrined in the 14th Amenmdent but didn't want to leave those that didn't believe so any wiggle room? OR, indeed, that there was any single reason why the people who supported the ERA did so (and why those who opposed it did so) such that you can draw the conclusion that the failure to ratify it means that its principles can't already be in the Constitution?
Posted by: Ugh | January 05, 2011 at 10:59 AM
It's my experience that it's best not to assume that someone stands by words written many months ago, over a few moments, without asking them again if they still stand by those words.
Well, I really don't care if a certain commenter still thinks I'm a homophobic, misogynist borderline rapist or not - but it sure put me off commenting here for a while.
Posted by: novakant | January 05, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Russell said:
"Here is the text of the entire of the proposed ERA. Can someone highlight the part about bathrooms for me?"
In Section 1, the "u" in "under", the "n" in "not", the "i" in denied, the "sex" in "sex", the "b" in "abridged", etc. etc. clearly spells out unisex bathrooms.
Plus, if you listen to Phyllis Schafly's stemwinders back in the day, you can detect very clearly in the background the sounds of toilets flushing.
Now, for the strict constructionist conservatives among us, the fact that the ERA did not pass spelled out as clear as skywriting by word of mouth that Lester Maddox may prevent, through the wielding of ax-handles, Rosa Parks from utilizing the bathroom in his restaurant, despite the fact that Republican Steve King is permitted to use Maddox's bathroom to go Number Two, but that may be a good thing, because it reduces the incidence of King going Number Two all over the floor of the House of Representatives.
If "Do Not Discriminate" is not clearly spelled out in a Constitutional Amendment and voted affirmatively on by whatever number of individuals in whatever number of the 50 states, then the writing on the wall of the men's bathroom at the National Republican Committee headquarters shall maintain precedence, which clearly states "Discriminate to your heart's content.", among other suggestions.
It's like when Michael Steele reads his favorite book "War and Peace" and quotes its memorable opening lines "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."
Kind of.
Posted by: Countme--In | January 05, 2011 at 11:13 AM
"Here is the text of the entire ... " ah, crap!
Could the Sargeant at Arms please read the text of Russell's question to me out loud?
Posted by: Countme--In | January 05, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Turb:
No. I listen to or read their English, and use my skills to determine whether to ask them, at an appropriate moment, only if necessary, if English is their second language.It's rarely necessary to even indirectly ask.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 05, 2011 at 11:32 AM
If I cared anything at all for the opinions of people who treat all conservatives as part of a single, evil monolith, I wouldn't, either.
For good or ill, though, I don't have that particular concern.
The trick is, I think, to have a much thicker skin where it comes to discussion than you do in all other aspects of your life. Blog commenting is, after all, just words.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 05, 2011 at 11:34 AM
novakant:
Entirely understandable.We all have feelings.
All of us.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 05, 2011 at 11:36 AM
liberals could be substituted for conservatives in the above sentence without losing any of the flavor of it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 05, 2011 at 11:37 AM
To distill down much of what I said, above: it isn't about you. It's about someone's cartoon version of you.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 05, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Being gone doesn’t mean not peeking in now and then. Then one thing leads to another.
Seeing what Gary was up to in this thread, I’ve been following it desultorily -- and unfiltered. Having ignored my own advice to myself and read Marty’s comments along with the rest, I was going to go away again as usual, but Catsy’s comments made me change my mind.
*****
Catsy, thanks. I apologize in my turn. I’ve already said (both here, at the time, and later, at TiO) that I was having a bad day and was unhappy with my own part in the exchange we had, not just with you.
Also, you were not “the cause” of me leaving, it was more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. I explained this as well, I believe, both here and at TiO, and am not going to go over it at length now, especially in a thread where Gary is trying to revitalize the blog. Speaking only for myself, I need a life. Sitting around all day reading and sometimes participating in Obsidian Wings threads had come to be a major impediment to that quest. The repetitiveness of the arguments about things like marginal tax rates and wealth distribution didn’t help, nor did what I felt to be the increased rancorousness of a lot of threads. (I was here for less than 3 years; I’m sure some of the older hands could point to times when the rancor was far worse and more pervasive, but I’m talking about my own tolerance levels, plus my own preferences about how to spend my time.)
A discussion about where we disagree about first principles would be valuable, in theory. In practice, that particular day, my worst (most hair-trigger, heavily primed) buttons were pushed. All I can say in brief is that I felt condescended to, both in the abstract and in the back-and-forth, and I wasn’t feeling well, and it was a bad day in general, and I reacted badly. Ultimately, it was watching myself, more than anything else, that made me decide to try to put Obsidian Wings aside.
[More in another comment, probably.]
Posted by: JanieM | January 05, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Gary wrote:
I've yet to meet a person who is interchangeable with another person.
Brett wrote:
The federal government was authorized to require state governments to treat their citizens equally. Not to require individual Americans to treat their neighbors equally.
There has to be an entire riff on the nature of the relationship or non-relationship between those two sentences, but in deference to Cleek I'll observe brevitity (Gary's spelling ;) up thread but I'll leave it alone) and retire for the day or the week.
It occurs to me that one's mother (with the exception of Ma Kettle) does not believe in the interchangeability of each of their beloved children with other people, but that one's Drill Sargeant in the Marines, in the carrying out of his or her duties, will mold you into an interchangeable part of a cohesive unit.
And when your cannon fodder body is sent back in a body bag, you'd better believe the Marines will find another interchangeable you to take the next bullet.
I doubt all but the most sensitive mothers can pick out, even with a magnifying glass, their individual offspring from an aerial photograph of the Marines mustered for parade on any given Sunday. Those mothers would have the same
And why is it that "on the job" in America, we're told that everyone can be replaced? All of us are expendable, blah, blah, blah?
See ya.
Posted by: Countme--In | January 05, 2011 at 11:47 AM
"Those mothers would have the same"
The same what, John?
The same problem picking out their individual child as a North Korean mother would have identifying their individual child in an aerial photograph of the North Korean Army on parade.
Posted by: Countme--In | January 05, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Nice to see you again, JanieM.
Posted by: Hogan | January 05, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Nice to see you again, JanieM.
Ditto. And I just today saw for the first time your comment in the "offending thread" inviting me to e-mail you, Janie, in case you ever get down to Philly to visit your friend, so we might get together. I will be e-mailing you presently, after however-many months. Hogan and I have gotten together for happy hour. Perhaps we can all three (and whoever else) do so at some point in the not too distant future.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 05, 2011 at 01:14 PM
Make sure it's only for the day, John. No one is expendable, least of all you.(Of course, I'm a Marxist Kenyan Atheist mulatto. Grain of salt, natch.)
Posted by: matttbastard | January 05, 2011 at 01:35 PM
(Of course, I'm a Marxist Kenyan Atheist mulatto. Grain of salt, natch.)
And, worst of all, you listen to metal.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 05, 2011 at 02:07 PM
I would be up for that happy hour. (I also have a sister in South Portland; I'll try to find you, JanieM, next time I'm up that way.)
Posted by: Hogan | January 05, 2011 at 02:23 PM
hairshirthedonist:
I am compelled to say that that made me laugh quite loudly.Shackleton the cat did sleep through it, but he'd practically sleep through being thrown against a wall. :-)
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 05, 2011 at 02:26 PM
And, worst of all, you listen to metal.
That I do, my friend. BTW, gotta rep the hometown boys made good -- make sure to check out London, Ontario's finest party metal mavens, Baptized in Blood, on tour with Devildriver and Cancer Bats. BiB's Roadrunner debut is one of 2010's best releases, regardless of genre. Even the mighty Dave Mustaine is on the BiB bandwagon -- he's now their co-manager.
Keep it dirty in 2011, y'all.
Posted by: matttbastard | January 05, 2011 at 02:51 PM
One of, perhaps, but Enslaved and Barren Earth and Agalloch should be doing quite the number on those best of lists.
\m/
Posted by: nous | January 05, 2011 at 03:57 PM
I have a hard time keeping up with the ever-expanding genres and numbers of band in metal these days. It was easy when I was in high school (if you didn't listen to total crap): Iron Maiden, Metallica, Dio, Ozzy, Judas Priest; then you had your Slayers and Megadeths and Anthraxes. Now there are more genres than there were bands back then.
Lately I have High on Fire, Decapitated, and Meshuggah in heavy rotation. Then there's my seemingly perpetual Clutch kick, if they're even metal anymore, if they ever really were. I like some of the instrumental post-rock/ambient metal stuff I've heard on Pandora - Isis, Pelican, Russian Circles.
There's just so much stuff out there, and I just know a lot of it's really good. I don't have the time to find it and I'm not sure I would know where to start if I did.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 05, 2011 at 04:30 PM
It was easy when I was in high school (if you didn't listen to total crap)
Hey, I listened to total crap. Still do, as a matter of fact. What's it to you?
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | January 05, 2011 at 07:14 PM
Thanks, Hogan and hairshirthedonist. It’s nice to see you here. :)
hairshirt, I saw your email and will answer soon.
Hogan, it would be fun to get together in Maine -- you can write to ObWiBoston at gmail and I’ll answer from my own email account, then we’ll have a way to be in touch. (ObWiBoston is in effect a group account -- I’m not the only one who can access it, just FYI.)
Posted by: JanieM | January 05, 2011 at 07:28 PM
hairshirthedonist - "There's just so much stuff out there, and I just know a lot of it's really good. I don't have the time to find it and I'm not sure I would know where to start if I did."
Try lastfm and do a tag search (i.e. post-metal, given your Isis/Pelican/Russian Circles there to find bands like Cult of Luna, Jesu, The Ocean and Baroness) or find a band you like and look for similar artists. Don't wade into the comments on the artists much if you value sanity, but it's a great resource for finding new music without much effort.
Also, once you find a smaller label artist you like a lot be sure to hit their label to see if there's anyone else there you like. A little traction goes a long way. I got up to speed pretty quick this way.
Roadrunner only signs bands once they are big. For the really vital scene you have to find the smaller labels and then keep the bands you like going through shirts and tickets.
Posted by: nous | January 05, 2011 at 08:40 PM
Since I’m here today and probably gone tomorrow, I’d like to say a few things for myself in case anyone is tempted to mistake the Janie-figment in Marty’s imagination for me. Marty is coy about naming names, lumping me with the other villains over at TiO who, he complains, are lumping him together with...oh, never mind. I will simply out myself as one of the people he’s referring to, if not the only one.
He writes, "I haven't used cleeks magic code to screen people I disagree with.” This is aimed at me, but it’s the figment-Janie in Marty’s imagination, not me, who filters people she disagrees with. Me, I filtered a tiny handful of handles, not because of disagreement but because of...not to weasel around it...dislike.
I filtered Marty, Catsy, and one other commenter: one I virtually never agreed with and confess to disliking intensely, one I almost always agreed with but who pushed some of my buttons one day in a way that made me dislike both him and myself, and one there’s no need to mention.
I never stopped reading McKinney, Brett, GOB, bc, or von -- to mention a few commenters I disagreed with more often than not. I love reading intelligent arguments in favor of positions I don't agree with. That's why I not only kept reading McKinney but in a bloggy way considered him a friend.
cleek said it more succinctly: “disagreement is fine with me. being an ass for the sake of being an ass is not.”
In this very thread, Marty still misses the point of things I’ve said, still ascribes other points to a figment of his imagination onto which he has slapped my name, and is still unpleasant about it. This is vintage; see http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/11/wanted-thread-or-alive.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20120a65de398970b#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20120a65de398970b>here and http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/04/ears-and-noses-will-be-the-trophies-of-the-day.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e2013480588cd5970c#comment-6a00d834515c2369e2013480588cd5970c>here for more. I put Marty in the filter because I don’t have time to waste on someone who declines to distinguish me from the voices in his head (see the second link; I am not making this up) or from other commenters, and who can’t be troubled to clarify his thought trains when they make no sense. Which is often, as when (first link) he says people campaigning for same-sex marriage are bad (“they will get theirs and screww the rest”) because they’re not campaigning for the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples to....what? In a thread that lasted for almost two weeks, in which Marty was asked more than once to clarify this and other things he wrote, we never found out. The fact that same-sex couples simply want the same right that heterosexual couples already have -- to go down to the town hall and get married -- seemed completely lost on him.
*****
Blogs are voluntary. Who and how much we read, to whom, to what, how, and how much we respond -- all up to us, as long as we follow the posting rules. Marty is complaining (incoherently as usual, in my opinion) that people who have left here and gone to TiO (which is only me, as far as I can tell), and things that are being said elsewhere than here, are ruining it here. For me, Marty was helping to ruin it.
Sh*t happens. People come together, they part, it happens all the time. I don’t know the magic for getting people to come back here; for me it would be a combination of what’s going on here and my ability to balance ObWi with other things.
We’ll see, on both counts. I miss a lot of people from here, however merely pixelish we may be to each other. Happy 2011 to all.
Posted by: JanieM | January 05, 2011 at 09:21 PM
I know I value what exchanges we've had, JanieM. I've also seen you get your buttons pushed, but I tend to stand back and let you vent, rather than talk you down. Sometimes people just have to let it out, even if it means deviating from some conversational ideal they have.
It's only words. You haven't damaged or abused anyone, as far as I can see. AFAIC any beef between you and Marty is ONLY between you and Marty, and doesn't affect my relationship with either of you.
Such as it is.
It's good to see you back here, and I look forward to further participation by you here, in the event that you choose to.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 06, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Since this is an open thread, though, this story is likely to cause some of the no-vaccines-for-my-child crowd a little heartburn:
RTWT as inclined.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 06, 2011 at 10:44 AM
some of the no-vaccines-for-my-child crowd
Vaccination for communicable diseases should be mandatory, regardless of parental wishes. This is such a no-brainer that even my former right-wing nut self thought this should be the case.
Posted by: Ugh | January 06, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Vaccination for communicable diseases should be mandatory, regardless of parental wishes. This is such a no-brainer that even my former right-wing nut self thought this should be the case.
Note that there are some people who for medical reasons cannot take some vaccines.
And while I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure this is the hill I want to do die on. People get completely irrational when you talk about government coercion and their children in the same sentence. Making it completely mandatory would trigger a firestorm of outrage and create a vast opportunity for demagogues. There are a lot of people who right now will happily get their kids vaccinated because the nice pediatrician said they should but who will totally flip out if a heavy handed mandate compels them to. Nice pediatrician can turn into an arrogant overbearing thug who "KNOWS BETTER THAN ME WHAT's GOOD FOR MY CHILD" in a heartbeat.
I think anti-vax sentiment and anti-GM sentiment that debbie raised in the other thread are closely related. People feel that the physical environment isn't safe (i.e., there are chemicals everywhere, Monsanto is resequencing genes left and right, etc.), but they have no clue how to protect their children from those invisible dangers. Impotence leads to rage and a certain gullibility. I mean, Jenny McCarthy, really? For real? Are you serious?
Posted by: Turbulence | January 06, 2011 at 11:24 AM
In the thread on Bradley Manning's conditions of confinement, I said that the Obama administration had countenanced the torture of at least one U.S. citizen.
Make that two.
Yes, their Kuwaiti clients did the actual torturing, but anyone who thinks this was done without the knowledge of the U.S. government is wilfully naive.
Gulet Mohamed's treatment is easier for many people to name as torture than the extended solitary and sleep deprivation to which Manning is being subjected.
But remember! "America" doesn't torture.
Posted by: Nell | January 06, 2011 at 11:30 AM
I do have to say that this whole business of the U.S. gov't using its foreign allies to torture U.S. citizens by proxy and then barring those same citizens from re-entering the U.S. by placing them on the no-fly list is a bit unseemly. Perhaps we shouldn't be doing that. Shining city on a hill and all.
Oh, this was a "Mr. Mohamed"? Nevermind.
Posted by: Ugh | January 06, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Nell, of course, beat me to it. Stupid, non-comment-updating-preview-function.
Turb - not sure I disagree with any of that.
Posted by: Ugh | January 06, 2011 at 11:43 AM
But remember! "America" doesn't torture.
Let's look on the bright side. America has always commanded its allies to torture or murder random people often for little or no reason. Traditionally, American citizens have been exempted. But now, that exemption is falling away! Now, American citizens can partake in the glorious treatment meted out by our government, without discrimination!
That bending you see isn't Mr Mohamed's tibia shattering in response to a club; it is the very arc of the universe bending towards justice.
Posted by: Turbulence | January 06, 2011 at 11:47 AM
I think anti-vax sentiment and anti-GM sentiment that debbie raised in the other thread are closely related.
One thing that seems common, from what I've seen, heard and read, is that anti-vax and anti-GM arguments tend to ignore or underestimate the problems with not having vaccinations and GM food. The ones making those arguments haven't experienced the horrors of, say, polio or, as Gary pointed out on the other thread, mass starvation. Vaccines and GM food didn't come about for nothing, or solely for profit.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Note that there are some people who for medical reasons cannot take some vaccines.
Which makes it that much more important that everyone else be vaccinated, thereby not serving as hosts for the organisms that will harm those who cannot be vaccinated. (But I agree about the likely bad reactions to gov't mandates.)
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Shining city on a hill and all.
ease of defense against rabble and ease of waste elimination are the best reasons to put your city on a hill in the first place.
Posted by: cleek | January 06, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Another pithily elegant restatement of "sh!t rolls downhill".
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 06, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Second what Slartibartfast said at January 06, 2011 at 10:21 AM to you, JanieM, particularly the last 'graph.
Slart:
After most of that crowd have died, possibly.People fixate on a cause like this because:
1) it's their child. The most important thing in the world to them, naturally, is the Find The Answer.
2) People will go for the easiest answer they can understand and latch onto.
3) "Vaccines" are an easy answer.
4) People have now fed and supported that answer, no matter they have no qualifications whatever to give an accurate answer, and don't, and in fact, make a cause and a living out of, to be sure, their own ignorant good faith, and belief they are helping others in need.
5) Once people have an idea in their heads, and it comforts them, they're far more resistant to changing their minds than they even normally are, and most people are resistant to changing their minds on anything, let alone anything important, let alone what they think will save the life of their child, and other people's children.
So I don't suggest any breath-holding on this.
It'll happen as soon as people stop believing in astrology, ghosts, life beyond the grave, auras, crystals, past lives, channelling, that all "radiation" is dangerous, that nuclear bombs can destroy all life on earth, or humanity, that the moon landings were a hoax, that aliens stuck probes up their rear end, and a gazillion other things people firmly believe that are far less important to them than their own children.
In my opinion. I could cite research, but won't. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 06, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Turb:
Firmly agree.Sad, but true.
It would be nice if we lived in a population where everyone were high-information, trained in critical thinking, and applying the scientific method, but that isn't something I expect to see in my lifetime absent the arrival of a Singularity I don't actually expect to "live" to see.
Though anyone who wants to freeze my head as soon as I'm dead, and is willing to pay for it, has my full permission, let me state for the record.
Put me in your freezer, where you can wave hi to me whenever you get out some frozen veggies or chicken. I'd like that.
:-)
Also, the rest of what Turb said, Nell said, Ugh said, Ugh again, Turb again, hairshirthedonist, and Slart, through 12:08 PM.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 06, 2011 at 01:28 PM
Now we're even, Gary. I made you laugh yesterday. You made me laugh today.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2011 at 01:29 PM
Also, what cleek wrote at 12:03 PM. Sorry, cleek: omission was purely accidental.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 06, 2011 at 01:31 PM
Cross-posted. I owe you now, since you made me laugh again.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2011 at 01:32 PM
The alternative to GM food is not mass starvation.
The alternative to vaccinations is mass disease.
Putting people who object to one in an "anti-science" bucket with the other and dismissing them both thereby is an un-thoughtful and uninformed move. Not up to the usual hsh standard.
Posted by: Nell | January 06, 2011 at 04:59 PM
Open thread on its last legs, but I thought this was funny. Well, as funny as ignoramuses can be funny:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-vot_n_805423.html
Washington Monthly has more about the difficulties this might pose for those Constitutional scholars who voted before being sworn in, as the Constitution demands under the stupidity clause.
Posted by: Countme--In | January 06, 2011 at 06:15 PM
But then, not to many elected morons were listening:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/6/933803/-If-a-Constitution-fell-in-the-forest...
Posted by: Countme--In | January 06, 2011 at 06:21 PM
"It'll happen as soon as people stop believing in astrology, ghosts, life beyond the grave, auras, crystals, past lives, channelling, that all "radiation" is dangerous, that nuclear bombs can destroy all life on earth, or humanity, that the moon landings were a hoax, that aliens stuck probes up their rear end, and a gazillion other things people firmly believe that are far less important to them than their own children."
Disbarring lawyers who buy fraudulent 'research' designed to give them an excuse to sue innocent people for a gazzillion dollars might be a good start, though.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | January 06, 2011 at 07:11 PM
When the anti-vaccine thing came up last time, I wrote something about the motivations of the anti-vaccine crowd and it might be worth repeating here, especially since the label 'anti-science' has come up. While I'm not against vaccines in any way, I think it is a bit harsh to paint with such a broad brush and it is useful to see what points led to their conclusion, aside from questions of emotional attachment
-autism seems to share a constellation of symptions with mercury poisoning
-there has been a rise in the number of children diagnosed with autism that correlates with the advent of mass vaccination
-the Thimerosal, (46% mercury) used in vaccines had never been tested (as indeed, most things have never been) for harmful side effects
-When reviewed, many of the studies that dealt with mercury toxicity noted a correlation between body weight and amount of mercury, which potentially could magnify effects in a new-born
-a number of conservative effects were seen when thimerosal was questioned, including companies trying to preserve their bottom line and lag time to create alternative vaccine delivery systems.
While on some levels, vaccines cause autism may have been an easy answer, but the history of science is replete with stories of easy answers that have turned out to be correct. (my favorite one, peptic ulcers and H. pylori, though this piece tries to argue that it's all in a days work for modern medical research. While I agree there is some mythmaking involved here, I don't believe that the medical establishment comes out smelling like a rose in this)
I say all this not to defend Wakefield in any way, nor to claim that anti-vaccine folks were right, but it seems that in a lot of scientific controversies, the desire to paint opponents are being anti-science leads to a narrative of 'gee, how could any idiot believe that'. You often get this flavor in looking at recountings of debates about ether as a medium of transmission of light, phlogiston as the burnable essence or early theories of motion as impetus. We would be much better served by understanding what things led people to posit and believe things that are subsequently proven false and how the proof addressed the issues that were initially raised. Often times, the proof doesn't directly address the issues raised, but creates a compelling framework that fits in better with our knowledge of other things. I suppose part of this is our natural impatience and our desire to have a knockout fact or observation that can be deployed rather than taking the time to draw together a range of facts, or as Gary says, the desire for an easy answer. But (and I am addressing this to myself as much as to anyone here) that temptation can really be problematic in both directions.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 06, 2011 at 08:07 PM
sorry I should have had this link for mythmaking
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 06, 2011 at 08:13 PM
Not up to the usual hsh standard.
ouch!/thanks?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2011 at 09:02 PM
open thread, right?
Gary, you're looking very slim on facebook - excellent!
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | January 06, 2011 at 09:07 PM
RE: increase in autism.
Is there really and increase in the number of children with autism spectrum conditions? Or just an increase in the number of children diagnosed?
Posted by: wonkie | January 06, 2011 at 09:42 PM
wonkie, I'm agnostic on that question, which is why I phrased it that way. I had an idea for a paper with the working title of 'The Japanese language student as autistic' because many of the behaviors of Japanese students in the language classroom (and in classrooms in general) have similarities to the autistic spectrum conditions so I spent bit of time reading about broadly about autism. Unfortunately, I couldn't really get the paper to the point of what I wanted to suggest, which was that we should look to the techniques used in teaching the autistic and try and adapt them to the language classroom without sounding dismissive of autism. I still have some vague notion of an argument that the Japanese classroom culture creates a sort of cultural autism in Japanese students that helps certain kinds of learning but hinders other kinds.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 06, 2011 at 09:55 PM
I didn't mean to imply, if I did, tht autism is over-diagnosed. However I do wonder if the increase is due to wider knowledge about autism, better screening, and a broader definition than an actual increase in occurance. Autism used to be called "childhood schzophrenia" and was a rare diagnosis of a pretty extreme condiditon. Now people who are quite functional in most respects (even exceptionally functional) are diagnosed as having one of the conditions within the spectrum.
I just don't buy the connection with vaccines when a simpler explanation is available.
Posted by: wonkie | January 06, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Washington Monthly has more about the difficulties this might pose for those Constitutional scholars who voted before being sworn in
I loved this:
The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised.
Comedy gold. All the money in the world can't buy that kind of pure and unadulterated boneheadness. It's a heaping helping of stupid, pressed down and shaken together. It's transcendent. Incandescent, even. It shines, gleaming in the light like a rare and precious diamond.
Sorry, am I being unkind?
THEY WATCHED THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY ON THE TV WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED AND THOUGHT THEY WERE SWORN IN.
Jeebus H Christmas, with bells on. Words fail me. We've become the Winky-Dink Republic.
The next two years (at least) are gonna be like a Three Stooges marathon.
Paging Rep. Howard, Rep. Fine, and Rep. Howard!
Posted by: russell | January 06, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Gary,
Regarding guest blogging, I may very well take you up on it. I have been extremely swamped at work for the past few months and had some personal/health issues that arose and demanded my attention. Nothing serious, but it resulted in less time available for blogging.
I'll keep you posted. Thanks.
Posted by: Randinho | January 06, 2011 at 10:54 PM
THEY WATCHED THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY ON THE TV WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED AND THOUGHT THEY WERE SWORN IN.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I love it when idiots make asses of themselves. On the other, I'm not keen on making a fetish of ritual.
Swearing an oath is a ritual, like shaking hands to conclude a deal. Performing the ritual in proper form is good manners, and good manners count for something. But it is only good manners.
I do laugh at Sessions and that other guy for trying to pass off their bad manners as honest ignorance of the proper form of the swearing-in ritual. The "I'm too stupid to know better" defense is always amusing. Coming from Pete Sessions of Texas, it's also believable.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | January 07, 2011 at 01:45 AM
Randy: do. Please.
hairshirthedonist: 193.5 lbs. this morning.
It helps that all I found time for as I went past the fridge today was a swig of milk in the morning, later a tangerine, then later a bit of cucumber, and three baby carrots.
I'm now nibbling something before falling asleep, having finally found time to do that while, hey, writing this.
This was after, well, let's just cut and paste an excerpt from Facebook, shall we? Yes, I thought you said "yes"! I must have misheard, but that's what I heard, so:
I hobbled down to Telegraph Avenue ( a couple or so short blocks, then down Telegraph a couple of long blocks, found a place where I bought a compass to add to my keychain of solar flashlight, combination tool, emergency whistle, turned around, hobbled back.
Extremely painful. Took from 4 p.m. to about 6:45 p.m. Pain much worse half way out, ever worse until back here.
Good to do.
Would have gone to DMV if I'd gotten out at 3:30 p.m., but instead chose to rant on FB for just enough minutes [about 15 to keep me from getting back to DMV in time, in fashion that is exactly why I'm trying to limit my FB for now to posting links to such like this, which I just posted: [link to my latest post, quoting Andrew on gays in military]
I'm being more efficient since arrving in Oakland, because I have to be. And thanks to the Buspirone and Lamictal since late 2008, I can be; only circumstances in Raleigh, specifically, living conditions and environment, aka the tiny room I was in, and people I was surrounded by outside the room, prevented me from better mental health, because I need three legs on my tripod to do okay, I've learned; no particular order, because all three are necessary:
a) meds that work (for me, for now, Buspirone and Lamictal
b) environment that I can cope with, and I'm ultra super sensitive to my environment, and most specifically, the people in proximity to me, or who will be if I open my bedroom door.
c) cognitive therapy techniques and knowledge I've 99.5% taught myself from my own reading and research, like almost everything else I know in life.
If I don't have these three legs on my tripod, my stool falls over, and I fall down.
C I've mostly had for quite some time, and only been increasing.
B I had in Colorado from mid 2002 through early 2008.
A I've only had since late 2008.
First time in my life I've had all three is now. We'll see how long I can have all three, and if that's enough, or I'll fall down again, get better, or what.
Got tons else done today. Wins all around, aside from typical mistake of otherwise saying something on FB.
Meanwhile:
Back to cats. And, oh, yes, now I can finally eat something besides the snatched couple of carrots, and tangerine I had early today.
And must fall over only in the sense of something called sleep, if I can manage it. But so many other tasks: some combination of relaxation that's also productive is in order, while eating, and....
Just like everyone else's life, really. Only different. Which is just like everyone else.
Only different.
Not an unintentional repetition.
There, that saved my time, but not yours.
Nobody asked, but it's my open thread, so hoo rah.
And now I must get up in about 5 hours, but still won't be asleep for a while, but I doubt I'll comment, because oooh, squirrel!
Expect a post tomorrow about Roy Edroso. Yes, I can.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 07, 2011 at 04:27 AM
Make sure you click through and read that whole HuffPo story about those two clown shoes that weren't properly sworn in, BTW. One of them may already have been conducting forbidden fundraising, too.
Posted by: Phil | January 07, 2011 at 07:02 AM
I did the same thing when Obama was sworn in, which...doesn't that make me President?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 07, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Arm-waving doesn't count.
John McCain, along with the rest of the Republican caucus, was swearing AT President-elect Obama during the ceremony with their fists raised and believed it made them all President.
Posted by: Countme--In | January 07, 2011 at 10:48 AM
What if the word "mendacity" was in the Constitution?
Is this one of the trash-can citizens we want parsing the meaning of Constitutional mendacity:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/rep-steve-king-accuses-gop-leaders-of-mendacity.php?ref=fpi
Posted by: Countme--In | January 07, 2011 at 11:11 AM
"Email Me" at the top left sidebar still says "[email protected]"
It's as wrong as ever. It won't work. Don't send email there, please.
ObWings At gmail Dot com
Send Obsidian Wings related email there.
Apologies to all.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 07, 2011 at 11:36 AM
One of them may already have been conducting forbidden fundraising, too.
Well, you can't expect Fitzpatrick to know all those pesky rules and stuff. It's not like he ever served in the House befo . . . oh crap.
Posted by: Hogan | January 07, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Expect a post tomorrow about Roy Edroso.
Speaking as a longtime fan of Roy's, thank you in advance for that, Gary.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | January 07, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Here, here. Viva Edroso!
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 07, 2011 at 01:00 PM
I *will* do Roy, but I need some brain cells to return first.
More cells, less pain, less exhaustion.
Comments I can babble. Posts = at least 3 brain cells necessary. 5, even.
Or, why I spent endlessly more time between 2004-7 responding, much of the time, to every single comment on ObWi, for thousands and thousands of words, rather than blogging on my own blog.
It was selfish, but more people did seem to like it than not.
That was then, this is now, of course, and I'll not do that much any more, save on, perhaps, threads of my own.
Meanwhile: Roy could still use the help later today, or tomorrow, and in fact, my experience tells me, there are some advantages to spreading out people linking to such a situation over a few days, in any case.
Right now: read this, and PayPal him some bucks, folks. We all owe him.
Yup, the folks he skewers owe him, too. Think of all the extra page views! And increased fame!
Do it NOW!
GO HERE!
Or if you can't use PayPal (and it only takes seconds to create an account, if you're... not one of the people who takes longer, and you can just USE ANY CREDIT CARD INSTEAD):
I just sent ten bucks.And I'm currently homeless, couch-surfing, staying with a kind friend.
As I've done far too much of my life, during which I've spent far too much time either being homeless and couch-surfing, or being evicted.
I have no idea where I'll be living after August 31st, though a few hopes and clues, and I hope it will be in the Bay Area, where I can con or pay someone to drive my limited amount of stuff, which all fits in one room.
And I CAN AFFORD TO SEND HIM TEN BUCKS, in my opinion.
So I kinda think YOU may be able to spare it, too. Give till it effing hurts, people.
I'd never ask anyone to help me in any way they would notice the spending.
But for someone else: yeah, I'll guilt-trip you all I have to and can, if that'll help. I have no trouble being an ar**h*le for a friend, since I have no trouble being an ar**h*le in general.
And I know exactly why Roy, or anyone would never want to ask for help.
There are people who become suicidal for long periods before they'll ask for help, and then just barely manage to ask, in hysterical and crazed and desperate fashion, and then loath themselves forever thereafter until they can cope with it eventually, maybe, in the future.
Then there are more mentally healthy people, who simply hate it.
Roy is, I'm sure, mentally healthy; but nobody should EVER need to ask for private charity to put a roof over their heads, find secure shelter that they can depend on for the future, to eat, or to meet any basic need in a country as rich as the United States of America.
Meanwhile, we have endless INVISIBLE homeless (to those who don't want to look, or those genuinely isolated or in rural areas, but there are other forms of extreme poverty, and still homelessness there, too), and hungry people in this country, most of whom are too crushed to ask for help, and don't want the shame and lack of pride that it's difficult for many to avoid feeling.
You can spare a few bucks, and for someone else, I'll beg for them without a moment's hesitation.
Help Roy. He needs it.
You never know when someone you really know and love might need help. Tomorrow, there might be an earthquake, and not only will you lose everything around you, but thousands of people will die in front of you; it happens all the time around the world.
Katrina can happen again. Disaster can strike you or your loved ones at any time, and eventually, we all suffer loss, pain, experience fear, and must cope.
Make it easier for someone else. Someone with a face you can know, and whose writing you can read.
It shouldn't take that, but it sometimes does.
Help out the Edrosothon.
Help Roy.
DO IT NOW.
And feel free to do it next week, too, and the week after.
The worst that will happen is that he'll get more then he's comfortable with, and PAY IT FORWARD.
That, or maybe he'll spend it all on hookers and heroin.
But is that for YOU to judge?
Yes, you get to make up your own mind about that. As you do about any and all of this.
But I'm here to tell you exactly why you shouldn't.
When I can.
Meanwhile, this comment requires no proofing or being careful, and I can delete it or edit it if I said something stupid.
A post I need to write more carefully.
This is a placeholder; post coming, Roy, when I can do that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 07, 2011 at 06:58 PM
If so, could they please respond here? Private email isn't getting any answers.
Could perhaps someone responsible who can answer this question respond, please?
I offer to take responsibility, with no authority whatever, to solely make changes to the template authorized by the ObWi collective, if someone will let me have the password.
I'm not going to abuse it any more than I've abused the fact that for many months I've had the ability to edit, change, delete, rewrite, or do whatever I want to my heart's content, and obvious madness, to everything Eric Martin has ever posted on Obsidian Wings, Democracy Arsenal, Newshoggers, and every single person's comments on every single one of those threads.
Ditto last I looked, I still had a working password for Winds of Change.
If there's some reason I can't be allowed to change the posted email address, please do let me know what it might be.
If there's an alternative plan for posting the new email address, please do let me know what it might be.
If there's a timeframe for when we'll have a plan in place, please do let me know what it might be.
If we have any plan at all besides wait indefinitely, please do let me know what it might be.
If you'd prefer to respond in email, please do so.
Meanwhile, I'm going to ask these questions in public, awkward as they are, until either there's some actual change, not just intent, or until someone tells me my posting services are no longer required.
I've asked these questions since 2005, and I'm used to being ignored, so that's not the issue. My issue is that we're still seeing no more update to the Posting Rules, Banning Rules, or EVEN THE EMAIL ADDRESS, which has gone unanswered for years, and I'm now 1/6th of the people responsible for answering questions about this.
I'd like to know what I'm supposed to tell people.
What's the answer to that question that I should respond with?
Does anyone who is otherwise a commenter have any questions or answers about this? If so, you're free and encouraged to respond in this open thread, the next open thread, or to ObWings At gmail.com
And, hey, if you get an answer from someone besides me, wouldn't that be interesting and nice?
Because I'm already having a lovely chat there with myself, but it'd be nice to talk with someone else beside just me.
Anyone?
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 08, 2011 at 10:48 AM
This is quite shocking. NPR is the only place that has news on it so far.
Posted by: Phil | January 08, 2011 at 01:35 PM
The Pima County, AZ sheriff's department now confirms that Rep. Giffords and six others are dead following the shooting.
Rep. Giffords, btw, was one of the 20 congresspeople represented by a set of crosshairs on Sarah Palin's infamous map, following her "Don't retreat, reload" statement. But I'm sure it's a coincidence, since witnesses report the gunman walked straight up and shot her in the head.
Posted by: Phil | January 08, 2011 at 02:27 PM
The shooting is horrifying. I'm so sad for the victims and their families, and so worried for the rest of us.
Posted by: sapient | January 08, 2011 at 02:33 PM
Sully also posts Dear Sarah's map and titles his post "An Assassination?"
Posted by: Ugh | January 08, 2011 at 03:07 PM
Actually, Phil, Rep. Giffords is still alive. Amazing considering a through and through GSW to the head. Of course she is still in critical condition. And this is a tragedy. 6 or 7 people who were shot have died. One of those was a nine month old baby.
The shooting is nothing short of political terrorism and it's high time the people of this country say "no" to the type of anger and malcontent that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk project and spread like cancer through our civil and political discourse.
Posted by: avedis | January 08, 2011 at 04:34 PM
She was reported as dead by the Sheriff and three news organizations at the time I posted. WTF kind of amateur-hour law enforcement organization reports someone as dead to the media without confirmation?
Posted by: Phil | January 08, 2011 at 06:44 PM
Given this is an open thread, I'm going to mention this unexpected email.
As I just wrote a friend in email: [...] Not that it's from my old pal (he said sarcastically), Richard V., but gee, even he has a small, shriveled heart. (He faithfully sends me his missives daily: along with anyone else whose email address he can find, of course; have I mentioned I get a lot of mail? :-))This is part of why I try to give everyone a chance, even those who might most suprise me. None of us *mean* to be evil.
And you never know when you might be surprised.
Pleasantly.
I know I'll be back to totally disagreeing with his next missive, and probably outraged and appalled (though mostly I'm just clinical; it's not as if his POV and precise views are little-known to me, nor those of so many of his friends), but I still let him in my inbox.
I don't always read it all, mind, or necessarily any of a given email from him, or various similar sorts of of folks whose mailing lists I'm on (trust me, or not, when you've been blogging as long as I have, your inbox gets very full every day with all sorts of... stuff that isn't spam).
But.
At times: it's educational. And informative. One way or another.
And once in a blue moon: surprising.
Life is full of those.
If we are open to finding them.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 08, 2011 at 10:28 PM
The old kitty email box is now open again: obsidianinfo at yahoo dot com
Don't use the gmail address, please, although that'll now get read, too. But it'll only be used for emergencies if Yahoo is down, and that's all.
The old kitty mail box is now functional.
And if you wrote to obsidianinfo at yahoo dot com in recent years, and received no answers, which has happened to many of you -- in fact, there was nothing personal about it, I assure you -- you weren't being singled out to be ignored.
Honest. It wasn't you. It's me.
I apologize. Blame me.
I'm fine with that.
But now you have an answer as to why you didn't get a response. Just assume it was me screwing up, as usual.
Meanwhile, your new mail will at least be read. If you wish to resend old mail, do so. No answers promised, nor any promises made as to when your new mail will be read.
Although simply mentioning the subject header, or sufficient keywords from your past email will enable, um, someone to find it immediately, so that works, too. What I can't promise are responses.
But efforts will be made, and it's now possible.
More formal announcement saying this, and not much, if anything else, to come later today, probably, but if not, as soon as we can get to it. From someone.
Don't worry, be happy.
If anyone would like to volunteer to help work on ObWi in any administrative ways, your applications will be accepted. Send email to the kitty, or to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com
Again, when we'll get back to you: dunno.
What else may happen? Dunno.
But good things, I hope. Eric has have great writers, -- and also my prolix crap -- and I hope to see even more great writers here.
Again: guest posts solicited.
*You* are invited to submit. See same addresses, same story as above.
Got any complaints? Send them to me either at the kitty or my personal email box. If you have to pick, use the kitty, but either will work for now, until you hear otherwise.
All praise: send to Eric, and Slarti, for all their amazing and unsung work, and particularly to Eric for administering the blog, and to Slartibartfast for endless invisible scutwork that none of you have any idea how much work he does on it; all praise to Jacob and Doctor Science, and Sebastian for their posts, and to Sebastian for his years here longer than any of us still left.
Complaints? Make them at me, publically or privately, and I'll do my best to respond as best I can, when I can.
Have fun: that's what blogging is all about.
Almost all.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM