An open thread on July 4th

by liberal japonicus

The comments on the previous post are closed (because we are obviously a Communist collective that can't tolerate a diversity of opinion) so here is an open thread. Have at it.

Comments

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Wait, I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist collective...

[wonkie]

I celebrated by hanging up a flag with black streamers attached

I also spent the last 24 hours in the fetal position, moaning. Not over the degeneracy of America: the combination of a covid shot and a shingles vaccine.

[wj]

I'm spending the day hanging out with folks who are doing the grunt work required to put on the local fireworks show. (Not the "damned amateurs" you hear making loud bangs in your neighborhood. This is a professional operation, led by a licensed pyrotechnician.)

The sort of apolitical patriotism that has been drowned out by the fanatics. But it still lives on in the real world. My sense is that these are the folks who will rise up and crush the fanatics. Rise up slowly and reluctantly, not least because fanatics are so rare in their immediate environment that they struggle to get their heads around the idea that anybody could be like that. But once the reality breaks thru? Fanatic, meet junk heap of history -- at least for a generation or two, until the memory fades again.

[wj]

I hope everyone in the U.S. had a great 4th of July. Especially, I hope everyone who loves them got to see a great fireworks show. Because, going forward you can expect fewer shows and smaller ones.

The thing is, virtually all of the fireworks used in the US are made in China. Which means they will be much more expensive in the future as Trump's follies tariffs kick in. Of course, drone shows are supposed to be the latest big thing. Color me underwhelmed.

[Pro Bono]

I understand the ban on McKT under whatever name, but I'd like to see him back. I urge him to apologise to the powers-that-be for having accused them of holding malevolent beliefs which they do not, and I urge those powers then to rescind the ban.

[liberal japonicus]

Well, libjpn@gmail address is working and he's not written. I don't want to pile thing up that he has to do, but I'd add that he also needs to admit that he snuck back here to try and set commenters against each other. In the normal cut and thrust, you can suggest that some person agrees with you, but trying to gin up conflict is really not acceptable and there needs to be an acknowledgement of that.

[liberal japonicus]

And I should add, that's just me talking, we would have to discuss it between Russell, wj, Janie and me and that might be a pretty fraught discussion.

[Donald]

McKT aside, we are a pretty narrow group ideologically most of the time. Wj is the token conservative and he is more centrist really. Of course things get real heated real fast when there are serious disagreements about important issues. I said this to LJ privately the other day, but the amazing thing about the hilzoy era was how she and whoever else was in charge kept things under control. I didn’t necessarily agree with her on everything, but this was one of the few places I knew about where there was a wide range of views for a few years. Of course people gradually dropped out or in a few cases were banned for being offensive. I remember a couple from the far far left like that.

The culture might also have gotten more polarized, but I am not sure about that. It was pretty polarized with Bush, esp in the early years when he was more popular, I think. Now I can’t remember when I first came here.

It would be difficult being polite with a MAGA type. I don’t think we have had any.

Weirdly,for a couple of years Rod Dreher had a wide range of views in his American Conservative blog comments. For a bit he was repentant about his Iraq War support and would sometimes critique the right. But his anti gay and anti trans mania got more and more evident and his Islamophobia came back if it ever fully left and he got super culture war paranoid and started taking like Franco was justified. I got more and more sarcastic and was eventually banned. Then he wrote his famous root wiener post and got eased out.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm not positive, but I'm thinking that we are a pretty narrow group in terms of age, gender and probably ethnicity. So I'm not how we diversify ideology without dealing with those other categories.

This is an interesting video between Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes, but more specific to the observation of lack of diversity is the fact that both Klein and Hayes, after talking about how Mamdani used the TikTok genre to win, confess that they could not do it, or at least it would take a long time to get to the level that Mamdani showed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E2KYhDLDQY&t=3s

Just curious, has anyone here made a Tiktok video? If not, does anyone have a Tiktok account?

[bobbyp]

What is this "TikTok" you speak of?

[GftNC]

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.

[russell]

It's true, there used to be a much greater variety of points of view here back in the day. Von, slarti, bc (who still pops up now and then). Lots of others, some quite good.

Now we're mostly liberal-to-left, mostly (I think) boomer and genx.

It's actually really hard to participate someplace where you are the contrarian voice. It's a lot of work, and is not always particularly rewarding. People yell at you a lot, it takes time and patience to build some credibility. So I can understand why conservatives might not want to hang here.

That said, I'd welcome more conservative voices here. I'd just ask that they not just show up to trumpet their point of view and yell at people. Actual conversation would be good.

I appreciated McK's presence here, but a lot of the time he seemed to just be here to scold us all for being such hypocrites. It was rude and tiresome, which is why he was banned the first time around. And it's why he was banned the second time, having popped up as BigBadBird.

I'm sorry to say but I'm not sure it's possible to have the kind of mixture of voices that were once available. Not because anyone has any intention of excluding anybody for their point of view, but because things have become so polarized. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people's feelings run high.

But I personally would be willing to give it a shot.

Regarding the 4th of July, suffice it to say that I was just not feeling it this year. Went to my niece's for her daughter's 16th birthday, ate a hot dog and some birthday cake, hung with family, came home, read a bit, went to sleep. That was my exciting 4th.

In many ways, I feel like I'm about done with this country. Not that I plan to go anywhere else, I just am losing my belief that we are ever gonna get past the same toxic bullshit we started out with. It just never seems to end.

The cruelty - pointless, sadistic, nihilistic cruelty - we are capable of is freaking crushing me.

I don't know if any other place is better, I just know what we are right now, and what we have been, and it breaks my freaking heart.

So that's my 4th of July story.

[CharlesWT]

Of the regular commenters, the age range is 52-78.

[russell]

Thought I posted a comment, don't know if it's lost in the intertoobz or if I just did Preview and forgot to hit Post before I refreshed the page.

Stupid computers! :)

Anyway, if it's floating around out there and somebody can find it and repost it, great. Otherwise I'll try again later.

ETA: 12:20 comment released from confinement. -Ed.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I really do appreciate the "somewhat right-wing" contingent here: (wj, Marty, CharlesWT). In fact, I often find Donald's comments more annoying than wj's. Go figure.

When was it that McTx was banned? I don't remember that? But I do recall the most annoying features of McTx's style of argumentation: claiming authoritative knowledge of everything, and imputing opinions to others, mostly in the context of strawmanning.

If there is ONE thing that drives me to an incandescent rage, it's someone trying to tell me what my opinions/desires/thoughts/experiences are. That's all stuff that one owns more profoundly than any property, being the stuff inside your own brain.

[CaseyL]

I am a woman, and a Boomer.

I used to spend some time seeking out conservatives sites and voices, hoping for rational conversations about policy ends and means, but then they reached the logical end of modern US conservativism and went nuts.

I mean, this isn't me saying "Conservative thought is nuts" just because I'm liberal.

This is me saying "Conservative thought is nuts because it actively celebrates things that conservatives once swore they were opposed to, purely because their media leaders have told them to"... or, I dunno, just because they own the US government now and they can do whatever they want...?

And what they want is neo-feudalism, with concentration camps...?

I still drop in at Volokh Conspiracy once in a while, but the lunacy is in full swing with most of their FPers... and the comment sections are cesspools.

I could re-subscribe to The Atlantic, where some non-rabid conservatives have found a home, but they don't represent any actual political movement - and not enough of an opposition to their Party's current manifestation - so I'm not sure what the value is.

[Tony P.]

I actually miss most of the commenters who have been banned during my roughly 2 decades here. Does anybody have the full list?

Like the poor sod in the Monty Python sketch, I come here for an argument. Maybe I'm too emotionally inert, but I can't remember ever feeling hurt by a blog comment to or about me. Annoyed, sure, but annoyance tends to inspire me to argue back, rather than depress me.

Arguing with pig-headed opponents can be a bore, but what's a better way to waste time? Watching a horror movie? Listening to a sermon? Tastes differ, of course, and everyone is free to choose their own favorite time-wasting activity. For me, that was Obsidian Wings, once upon a time. I hope it becomes that again, someday.

--TP

[CharlesWT]

I still drop in at Volokh Conspiracy once in a while,

Brett Bellmore is a regular commenter there.

[wj]

Donald: we are a pretty narrow group ideologically most of the time. Wj is the token conservative and he is more centrist really.

I'd go with moderate conservative on most issues. I think that the "centerist" perception is mostly because the label "conservative" has been (successfully, to the point that liberals believe it) hijacked by the radical right and reactionaries. I am old enough to actually remember the 1950s and early 60s. For me, it was a wonderful, idyllic time. But then, I was a white kid in a small town California setting. There are some bits of that culture that I wish we hadn't lost, but I have no desire to go back to the 1950s culture overall, even that one.

Not that, here in the real world, it's possible to do anything like that. Hmmmm, an argument for rapidly developing virtually reality systems -- so the Steven Millers can sit in their parents' basement, muck up their private world, and leave the rest of us in peace.

russell: I'm sorry to say but I'm not sure it's possible to have the kind of mixture of voices that were once available. Not because anyone has any intention of excluding anybody for their point of view, but because things have become so polarized. Real harm has been, and is being, done, and people's feelings run high.

I think the challenges are twofold. The first is: how do we find those centerist/conservative voices? Does anyone here know how to do recruiting? Second is: if someone like that stumbles across us, can we refrain from assuming that someone who says she's a conservative is some sort of rabid reactionary? I note that a new chum arriving could read some comments here** and feel unwelcome before she ever moved from lurker to commenter. As you say, feelings run high on a variety of issues. I've certainly been moved to rant occasionally. ;-)

So I'd say that increasing our diversity of views is definitely a "nice to have." But I'm not sure how we might get from here to there.

**Donald leaps to mind. Not because he's wrong about how outrageous some things are. It's possible to be pretty damn conservative and agree completely on that. It's more a matter, as far as I can explain it, of tone. And an assumption (again as I perceive it) that anyone who agrees, but thinks there are other, more achievable, priorities is at best an utter moral dullard.

[GftNC]

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.

[novakant]

What CaseyL said. To me, it's just not worth the bother anymore.

But let's also remember that the good old days were those of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

I'm perfectly happy to haggle with wj on occasion, though :)

[russell]

This has me reminscing, mostly fondly, about Brick Oven Bill and the alien space bats guy. I don't think either of them were banned, I think they both just moved on to greener pastures...

Anyway, if there are any conservative lurkers out there who are pondering participating but are afraid it's just too lefty in here for them, please consider this your invitation to jump in. We will do our best not to jump all over you! At least not right away... :)

[Donald]

“ often find Donald's comments more annoying than wj's.”

Interesting. You mostly seem to agree on the war crimes thing, which is most of what I post about when ranting. In fact, that is virtually all of my rants as best I can recall.

“ anyone who agrees, but thinks there are other, more achievable, priorities is at best an utter moral dullard.”

That’s about right. Not supporting genocide is pretty low bar stuff.. You know who we lack here? Palestinian- American posters.

The pie in the sky material is in domestic policy and just keeping Trump from destroying what we have is sort of the best we can hope for.

I like Mamdani for example, but if he wins will be amazed if he can get a fraction of what he wants for nyc.

[Hartmut]

Of the regular commenters, the age range is 52-78.

That would make me the youngest. Strange feeling.

[novakant]

How did you figure that out again, Charles? Thanks.

[Donald]

Though of course with Trump in office we have a purely random foreign policy. based on whims. Best hope for Gaza would be if Netanyahu ticks off Trump in some way,

[CharlesWT]

Most everyone here at one time or another has either implicitly or explicitly revealed their age or birthdate. Odds are that anyone who hasn't is within the range.

[GftNC]

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.

[GftNC]

Do you keep a spreadsheet, Charles?

[CharlesWT]

A text file. I was mildly curious about the regulars' ages and started noting them as I learned them some years ago.

[Donald]

I was wondering about Charles’s age range myself. I think I have given away my approx age once or twice.

Thanks, Gftnc. But the tone thing sort of makes my eyes roll a bit. People should get a Twitter account, ignore the crap ( I have no idea what “the algorithm” wants me to see most of the time— I know about some people and they interact with others) and read Palestinians first hand. Some over there, some here. You will get tone, all right. Some Western lefties, some antizionist Israeli and American Jews. And plenty of pro Israel people respond, I am a cuddly little teddy bear in comparison to most of that crowd. I mean the substantive ones— there are of course plenty of people who only cuss out the side they are against, but you see plenty of bigotry on both sides with those folk, so even with them you get to see what sort of sewage is out there.

Supposedly seeing things on TV helped turn people against Vietnam. I think you see vastly more on Twitter. I almost never see anything on TikTok, which is supposed to be a site that helped turn young people against Israel in Gaza.

I probably need a break.

More on ranting. I visit LGM fairly often and that entire blog is one long almost continuous rant session, but they have their own culture there and while I think I get the unwritten rules and one or two of the inside jokes, they are a different type of ranter. I wouldn’t fit. It involves how and in what manner you are supposed to criticize the Democrats. The focus is on politics along with policy but mostly how it fits with politics. Nowadays they really hate the feckless Democratic leadership. I learn things from reading them.

[Donald]

“ . I almost never see anything on TikTok,”
Meaning that I almost never visit, not that there isn’t material there.

[CharlesWT]

I was wondering about Charles’s age range myself.

I'm about four months younger than wj and have the same birthday as bobbyp.

[nous]

I'm a 13-year-old shiba inu raised by a murder of crows that were terrorized by some dude in a George W. Bush mask. If you know that, then the rest of my politics comes into focus.

[russell]

Supposedly seeing things on TV helped turn people against Vietnam.

True this. But, it was a different time.

There were three national broadcast TV networks, many if not most people got there news from those or newspapers. Or both. So there was a common set of news sources for most of the country, and those sources generally provided the same basic set of information, although with a somewhat different slant.

The cliche is that everybody trusted Walter Cronkite (CBS, through 1981) and Chet Huntley and David Brinkley (NBC, through 1970). They didn't necessarily agree with everything they said, but they were seen as basically truthful, reliable voices.

And, the cliche continues, when Cronkite in particular began questioning the war, that was the tipping point.

Vietnam was also (I think) the first war where there was a lot of video coverage, and it was timely, i.e., you would see things fairly soon after they happened. The photomagazines like Like also provided a lot of coverage.

Net/net, most people got their news from the same places, and those places were trusted, and they were all fairly consistent in the information they presented.

I don't think any of that is true now.

Re: Gaza in particular - I read a couple of foreign news sources - the Guardian, the BBC, Reuters, El Pais, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera has a *lot* of coverage of Gaza, but I don't think very many people read it. It's based in Qatar, no small number of USians would probably not read it for that reason alone.

On the US side, I read the AP, which has a fairly "just the facts" stance (I think?), but they don't have the same level of coverage of Gaza as others do.

And I think everybody has basically forgotten about the Ukraine at this point.

I read Krugman on substack, but that's about it. I signed up for a bluesky account but basically never read it.

Don't do TikTok or similar.

News and information is a remarkably fragmented and siloed universe these days.

I wish there still was something with the ubiquity and trust level of the old 6 o'clock news guys, I think it would help make some of horror shows going on now more widely visible.

But they're more or less gone.

[russell]

I'm a 13-year-old shiba inu raised by a murder of crows...

LOL

I'm a 68 year old American geezer raised on duck and cover, Kennedy assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon and CREEP, J Edgar, MLK Jr and his assassination, race riots and cities on fire.

Early adulthood was Reagan and AIDs. We gave up on duck and cover somewhere in there and were basically just crossing our fingers.

Middle age was W Bush, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding for fun and profit.

And, here we are now.

What a long strange trip it's been.

[liberal japonicus]

I actually miss most of the commenters who have been banned during my roughly 2 decades here. Does anybody have the full list?

I don't have a list, but we may have different definitions of banning. In my definition, we've only 'banned' a few people while I have had the keys, which to me, means blocking them from commenting. There is a longer list of people who caused issues and were contacted off list and issues were discussed and at the end of that, the person said something to the effect that they didn't, for reasons said and unsaid, want to change and so stopped. Some might say that was 'banning', but there seems to be a difference, at least to me. of asking someone to leave and they choose not to come back and having to do something to stop that person from coming.

[CaseyL]

novakant:

"But let's also remember that the good old days were those of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. "

I think that's when the split started on ObiWi. We had 500+ comment posts about torture, with people who recognized torture as an atrocity, full stop, arguing with people who thought torture was justified and useful. IIRC, most of the original front pagers were still around, and most of them were Iraq War hawks.

[liberal japonicus]

If you are talking about the original crew, that was before my time, but we had Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn't be put in a Iraq war hawk box. I would try and take a look, but the whole Typepad architecture is very slow and creaky.

But I can pull up the first blog post in case you want a starting point.
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/11/howdy_howdy_how.html

which has this
Second, this is not, strictly speaking, a Right-wing blog: it's pretty much a centrist one. While I carry my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy card with pride, my fellow-bloggers do not. They aren't froth-at-the-mouth Bush-haters, mind you - which will probably disqualify them as being on the Left for a very small yet vocal group of people - but they are most assuredly not Republicans. I look forward to their insights and challenges to my own ideological leanings. I also have a somewhat larger list of people (of varying political beliefs) whom I'm going to hit up for special guest posts from time to time: but for at least the start, three bloggers is probably an optimal number to regularly post here.

Again, this is before I was here, but my understanding is that Moe Lane started the blog, and he was on the conservative side, and worked hard to get voices from the other side, which then moved the blog to the left of center slant it has today.

Talking about good old days, during Iraq/Afgahnistan/Libya, a common plaint (out on the internet) was gee, I wish we could go back to the old Cold War days.

[liberal japonicus]

And going forward from that post, the three original bloggers here were Moe Lane, Katherine and von.

[novakant]

Hilzoy, Katherine (who did pro bono work for detainees) and Publius who probably wouldn't be put in a Iraq war hawk box

These three were definitely not hawks.

I think the general consensus was that Afghanistan was the necessary war. And people were quite positive about Libya, at least initially - because of Obama/Clinton.

I am talking about having conversations with people who would excuse every atrocity and defend the use of torture. It's quite similar to the positions taken regarding the Gaza war now.

Besides the actual torture apologists there were those who grandly conceded that torture is wrong, but strongly justfied blowing scores of people to bits in the name of freedom a la "you have to destroy the village to save it". I'm glad those people left.

[bobbyp]

What a long strange trip it's been.

Indeed. My apologies to all for angering you at one time or another over the course of the years.* The "all" would seem to include just about everybody here.

But as a famous sage once said, "(You'll) get over it."

The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.

An injury to one is an injury to all.

* list of the greatest hits available upon request.

[GftNC]

The discussions here are unique, and greatly appreciated.

Hard agree.

And bobbyp, FWIW, you have never angered me.

[rdldot]

lj, thanks for the link to the original post. I have been a perennial lurker since the days of Moe but I didn't know when the blog actually started. I miss those days because there was a good mix of voices at the time. I think your analysis is correct when the blog switched to mostly liberal voices. I don't know if the conservatives didn't want to engage anymore or if the just felt overrun. I think that overrun feeling has happened to a few people as the blog moved majority liberal. I still love coming here - never stop, please!

[wj]

For those who would like to see a greater diversity of views here (diversity! What a concept!), it might be useful to ask a couple of questions:

How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate? Full on MAGA cultists? (I'm guessing generally not, but I suppose that could be projection.) Religious fundamentalists, of whichever religion? (Not, I think, those demanding that society generally conform to their views, but perhaps those who think the world would be a better place if more people embraced some of their views. Again, that could be projection.) Straight up conservatives: "I don't much care for change, but can be convinced that it's necessary in specific instances"? Moderate conservatives: "There are things that need changing, but I'd generally prefer gradual changes, small changes that can be reality checked as we go, to sweeping changes"? Centerists-- those who see merits in both liberal and conservative views, and want to create compromises between them? New voices even further left than what we have now?

What ideas do you have for reality checking, both of new and existing commenters? Which mostly comes down to What is an authorative sourse? Does it have to be reliable across the board, or just in some areas? How much agreement do we need for something to be accepted as authorative?

Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.

[russell]

Yes, I realize that I'm assuming a general preference for reality. Challenge that if you wish.

bring back alien space bats guy! :)

[russell]

More seriously:

How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

tl;dr - anybody sensible, for any reasonable definition of "sensible", is probably OK with me.

I'm OK with people who voted for Trump, per se. Not sure about full on MAGA cultist, they yell a lot and don't seem to understand the concept of argument from fact. But, I'd be willing to give it a try.

Also re: MAGAs, I personally would draw a bright line around gender- or race- or ethnic-based theories of human value and superiority, they just trigger my inner impulse to invite them to f*** right off. It's a personal failing, I know - judge not, keep an open mind, right? - but one I am willing to own. We all have our limits.

I'm probably more comfortable with religious fundamentalists than most folks here due to personal history, but conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.

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.

Also, it's a fraught time, it's easy for things to go sideways. If there actually are conservatives of any of the varieties you name interested in joining the party, we might need to update / reinstate posting rules, just to make sure everybody stays in bounds.

[GftNC]

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.

[GftNC]

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!

[wj]

conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.

Thus my discussion of what constitutes an "authority". I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with "the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says". In the other hand, someone who starts with "I believe that" or "My faith holds that", but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.

To take one example, suppose someone starts from"Thou shalt not steal.". Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes "stealing." Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what's the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it's possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.

** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we're not looking at a null set.

[russell]

russell, please stop taunting me with the alien space bats guy.

I've tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of "alien space bat". No joy.

If anyone has better Typepad-fu than I do (which is probably everyone) and wants to give it try, I will appreciate it. I think it was quite a while ago, but I'm not sure of a particular time period.

It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.

I'll also note that a random walk through the archives will show that we've had more than a few... interesting characters here over the years.

Anyone besides me remember Brick Over Bill and his recipes for rice and beans? :)

Maybe I'm living in some kind of fantasy ObWi populated by the bizarre flotsam and jetsam of my imagination....

Also, wj - I'm fine with people who refer to their faith-based beliefs as part of why they think what they do - I've done that myself here on a few occasions. But folks coming from that perspective have to respect that many or most folks here may not find that persuasive.

[Pro Bono]

How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

Anyone who's willing to engage in reasoned, fact-based, and tolerably polite discussion.

I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we're not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority. And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.

[GftNC]

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".

[Hartmut]

I just posted twice but after refreshing the post disappeared each time .

[wj]

It's also possible that I hallucinated the whole thing.

Nah. More likely the alien space bats purged it.

[liberal japonicus]

A couple of observations. I'm probably a/the fly in the ointment. I'm happy to discuss things, but I am pretty big on examining unexamined assumptions. I'll try and illustrate this with an example that's on me.

GftNC and I had an exchange on manipulate and draw out. However, I went back to the comment and I said in the very same comment
What I see (after reflection) was that it was becoming evident to me that it was a loser on the internet pretending to be someone else because they couldn't have a proper conversation with adults and admit they were wrong and that the said loser was pulling your strings.

GftNC could say I was wasn't being honest, cause "pulling strings" conjures up the image of a marionette. But I hope that the full quote shows that I'm making the assumption that she wouldn't have started the conversation if she knew she was just being recruited as a foot soldier in the war on cultural Marxism. But she was right to point that out. Hopefully, we won't have to worry about sockpuppets for a while.

Unfortunately, a lot of arguing on the internet takes running off the other side as winning. While that was true for folks like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, not so true now. The whole concept of sealioning springs from this, but it shares a notion with other similar interactions, which is to goad a person taking one side of the argument into blowing up and then taking the moral high ground.

From this, I think that it isn't so much the topic, it is the way the argument is processed. I was looking at the old posts and the big debate was gay marriage, which invited as much feeling back then.

Another thing, I imagine some people were a bit taken aback by Charles' text file of our ages, which seems a bit Stasi-like. In a lot of places, especially if people don't have much of a reason to play nice, there would have been fireworks at the comment giving the age range. 'how the F would you know that?' might have been a response. But I'm pretty pleased that this didn't happen here. I can't speak for others, but the whole thing seemed very Charles-like.

[CharlesWT]

Well, since I've collected most everyone else's birthdate or approximate age, my birthdate is 11/14/47.

[GftNC]

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.

[Michael Cain]

I've tried searching the blog many times for all possible variations of "alien space bat". No joy.

From back at the time when it looked like the hosting service was going to drop Typepad, and the Typepad export-content function was broken, and I pulled all of the site's content out the hard way...

I still have a flat text file with everything up to that point. Thumbing through on the word alien (case independent), there are numerous mentions of space aliens. Someone flat out states that Moe Lane is a space alien. Someone follows that with, "No, I meant intelligent space aliens." There seems to be agreement that Alien vs Predator is the definitive example of film franchises that have gone on too long. Nothing in a context suggesting alien space bats.

[wonkie]

I think that the diversity--meaning the self-defined conservative voices---lessened because they simply couldn't justify their positions. This is a very smart, well-informed, articulate group of people and the self-defined conservatives found their positions being picked apart, analyzed, scrutinized and rebutted. So they either got nasty or left or moderated. Or redefined "conservative".

I think it is weird but sort of cute that someone has been recording birthdays. Like an odd hobby.

Male, neutered, orange, and about fifteen years old, if anyone is wondering. Birthday unknown.

[Michael Cain]

and I pulled all of the site's content out the hard way...

I've mentioned that I have wound up as the extended families' archivist, and have thousands of pages of stuff that has been dumped on me over the years. One of my uncles spent years after he retired building a blog site where he posted content about the tiny town in Iowa where he was born and (for a while) raised.

One of the first things on my list of stuff to get safely tucked away in digital form when I decided to be serious about it was that blog content. Quite a bit of what I learned pulling everything out of Obsidian Wings was useful for pulling his stuff out of Blogger. Multiple copies are stored away now.

[Tony P.]

Pro Bono: I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we're not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority.

"Expected" by who? Surely not by the hosts, than whom there is no higher authority in a blog comment section. Also, to "follow" an argument can mean two different things. I can follow an argument that the earth is flat, for instance, without feeling obliged to follow it up with a refutation.

I called myself "emotionally inert" earlier. What that means is: if a god-botherer citing chapter and verse declared in these pages that I am doomed to hell, I would not be offended, frightened, or otherwise annoyed. If I had a bit of time to kill, I might comment back sarcastically or contemptuously -- but only for my own amusement.

Basically, I can't get worked up about much of anything in a blog comments section. "Yo mama wears army boots" may be ad hominem but I figure sensible people hardly expect me to deny it lest I appear to accept it.

Some people (perhaps the "self-defined conservatives" wonkie speaks of) may be more sensitive than I am, of course.

--TP

[russell]

Nothing in a context suggesting alien space bats.

Time to adjust my meds. :)

Before I began commenting here, I hung out at RedState for a while. Earlier today it occurred to me that maybe alien space bat was over there. Which kind of tracks, maybe.

So I went to RedState to see if they have a search feature. I didn't see one, and I didn't really want to spend any more time there.

So I guess alien space bat guy will remain a mystery. And I promise not to bring it up again, GFTNC.

[GftNC]

Perversely, I feel a sense of loss....

[CharlesWT]

I've encountered ASB scenarios in some of the SF/F I've read, but don't remember such scenarios ever being described as ASBs.

Alien Space Bats in Fiction

[liberal japonicus]

About what topics get people's dander up, I'd go to Martin Luther's observation that "Most human affairs come down to depending upon whose ox is gored." The earth being flat is not on the list of most people's oxen, but other topics can end up being more ox-like.

[Hartmut]

And for the third time my short post disappeared.
I only answered a question from russell concerning a former poster and whether anyone remembers him (yes) and something food related (no).
No idea what the system sees as problematic there.

[wj]

I've long since resigned myself to the reality that anything and everything that I have ever written on the Internet is available to someone willing to expend the effort to track it down. Including stuff I have long since forgotten, which I wrote when the Internet was new, and the preserve of a very small number of geeks. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

I figure I'm still better off than those today who (apparently compulsively) write every detail of pretty much every they do. I expect it will come back to haunt a significant number of them.

In 50 years or so our culture may have adapted to the Internet. We'll make use of its strengths where appropriate. And kids will be taught, about the time they learn to read and write, how to use it safely and responsibly. Until then, about the best we can do is damage limitation.

[liberal japonicus]

Hartmut, sorry, I dropped in and saw your post, but thought one had been freed. I think we put a textblock on He of the oven made of masonry units, so that may be why, though Russell did post the name twice, so I'm not sure.

[liberal japonicus]

wj's comment reminds me of Ena Matsuoka, a member of Japanese girl idol group

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3052704/japanese-sex-pest-jailed-stalking-pop-idol-ena-matsuoka-using

A Japanese man has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for stalking and assaulting an up-and-coming pop idol after finding clues to where she lived by enlarging reflections of scenery and landmarks in her eyes in photographs she shared on social media.

[Pro Bono]

"Expected" by who?

I might have expressed myself more precisely. I was merely discussing what I'm interested in reading.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Please expand on any memories of what the alien space bats commenter was up to.

WE CAN'T STOP HERE
THIS IS BAT COUNTRY

[GftNC]

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.

[CharlesWT]

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.

My life is complete... :)

[russell]

Hey, open thread!!

Ringo Starr, aka Sir Richard Starkey, turns 85 today. The most musical drummer on the planet, his drum fills are melodies. The chillest Great Big Pop Star on the planet, too.

A personal hero, on a few levels.

Peace & love, as the man says. May it be so.

[Michael Cain]

A personal hero, on a few levels.

A friend once remarked that the only measure of a drummer's contribution to music was their technical virtuosity. "Yeah?" I asked him. "How many more great songs might have been produced if Ginger Baker were as good at keeping a band full of huge egos together as Ringo was?"

[nous]

The people who downplay Ringo's drumming are the same people who go on about how Jimmy Page was a sloppy, overrated guitarist, and probably the same people that complain about what a terrible word "moist" is...mostly because that seems to be the sort of thing that other edgy people are saying and getting praise for saying. They've never actually sat down to really listen to the songs in any detail or approach them with an open mind.

Ringo had a feel and sensibility all his own, and knew how to leave space in the song for the other players' genius to show through. That's a rare thing. The other player that comes to mind for me right away with this trait is John Paul Jones.

I don't believe that Ringo and JPJ have ever collaborated on anything, but then I don't know that it would work, either. They might end up being too mannered and respectful with each other.

[russell]

The other player that comes to mind for me right away with this trait is John Paul Jones.

Jones was the glue in Zep. And a brilliant player, definitely the undersung member in that band.

Check it, the bass in this is just a perfect counterpoint to everything else that is going on. Funky, solid, he ties the different sections of the tune together and keeps in moving forward.

And if it's a Zep tune and it isn't a guitar or drums or voice, it's JPJ playing it.

Re: Ringo, you can always tell a young green drummer who doesn't understand how making music with other people works yet, because they don't like Ringo.

[novakant]

I have to admit that I only remember Paul McCartney secretly rerecording Ringo's drum track in the studio at night - is that true? And stills from the film were Ringo plays a caveman or something. But he seems to be a nice guy.

[Donald]

Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.

Anyway, thought I would post a reply I got from Schumer’s back in May after I wrote Schumer’s, Gillibrand and Latimer ( my House rep) a ( polite) several paragraph long email asking them to push for a ceasefire. Gillibrand and Latimer didn’t respond. No surprise in the last case and Gillibrand prob thought I was a global jihadist or something. So I gave the Schumer office some credit for a polite response. The response, however, was nonsense. Here it is —

————
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding U.S. aid to Israel and your request for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I share your concerns about the security and well-being of innocent Palestinians.

I've always said that Israel has 4 goals: Radically reduce Hamas' threat, free the hostages, minimize the loss of innocent Palestinian lives and maximize the amount of humanitarian aid to innocent civilians in Gaza.

Like you, I am deeply troubled by the suffering of those who have been caught in the cross fire of this conflict. My heart breaks at the loss of so many civilian lives in Gaza. I am anguished that the Israeli war campaign has killed so many innocent Palestinians. I know that my fellow Jewish Americans feel this same anguish when they see the images of dead and starving children and destroyed homes.

I agree that the current political situation has created horrible living conditions for many Palestinians living in Gaza. That is why I have been supportive of opening up additional humanitarian aid routes to Gaza and increasing U.S. humanitarian aid contributions. Just recently Congress passed H.R. 815, the Emergency National Security Supplemental aid package that includes $9.3 billion dedicated for humanitarian aid, including for innocent civilians in Gaza.

I will continue to support a strong peace process through direct negotiations and look forward to the day when the Israeli and Palestinian governments can work together to achieve a two-state solution. I am committed to doing all that I can to encourage a productive and meaningful dialogue between the two parties.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.


Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

[Donald]

On his list of Israeli goals, numbers three and four are fantasy. In theory those are American goals but for Americans the first one was and is the one that mattered more than all others. By far. Keeping civilian deaths low would be nice, but not that important. For Netanyahu, staying out of jail and in power was the number one goal. For some others, the goal is ethnic cleansing.

So Schumer or whoever wrote this can’t really be that stupid. And from reading my email he or the actual writer knew I would think any of that was true. We need a better class of liar in DC. Or maybe even honest people.

The summary of HR 815 regarding Gaza is misleading, But too tired to rant.

On a positive note, I watched the hour long discussion with Brad Lander that Peter Beinart had on July 4. Lander was really impressive, a politician I could support with enthusiasm. Though I like Mamdani a lot, if I were a NYC voter I probably would have put Lander as 1 and Mamdani as 2 based on Lander’s experience. ( On Palestine Landervis a liberal Zionist unlike Mamdani, but Landercreally would be willing to pressure Israel, which is what I care about there. But I am mostly talking about his qualifications for being Mayor and all his other positions, very liberal, maybe a bit closer to achievable than what Mamdani wants. )

And he had a funny anecdote on his arrest. The two guys didn’t really like doing it. One was a Pakistani Muslim and said he would rank Lander and Mamdani as his top choices. The other said his wife wanted him to quit his ICE job because of what they were doing but he didn’t feel he could because he had a mortgage. Lander said it was funny but of course said it was also terrible.

No point linking— I think you have to subscribe to Beinart’s Substack.

[GftNC]

Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.

(Wo)man shall not live by misery alone.

[nous]

So Schumer or whoever wrote this can’t really be that stupid. And from reading my email he or the actual writer knew I would think any of that was true. We need a better class of liar in DC. Or maybe even honest people.

Assuming that anyone actually read it in any detail and stopped to consider what you were saying. I always assume that emails to representatives go to interns, who are mostly just skimming them for keywords and sending out form responses that are 80% LLM content. These letters aren't so much responses, from what I can tell, as position statements meant to address keywords in your email. They are meant to clarify the representatives position. In this case his position is the equivalent of hope and prayers.

But hey...your email probably did go into the tally on the side of Gaza that he uses to determine how much concern he has to express while refusing to intervene, and how much he has to worry next time he's up for re-election.

I'm starting to think that in the post-Citizens-United era the only way to actually get long time Dems to listen may be to organize (union, interest group, something) and throw support behind Democratic Socialists in primaries until we've picked off the ones with deep donor support.

Their worry with Mamdani shows that this is what they are running most scared from.

[Priest]

I know this is a peculiar thing to note, but as minutiae I believe Russell mistyped a former commenter’s name as “BrickOverBill”, r instead of n, which presumably would have made it past the filter. We’ll see if this comment appears.

[Michael Cain]

My question for Schumer is my now-standard question for anyone advocating for a two-state solution: precisely where to you think the second state will be? And who is going to evict the current owners?

[Donald]

Nous—

That’s probably right. I hadn’t even considered LLM’s but maybe.

My theory is that there is a standard form letter for people asking for pressure for a ceasefire, using our aid as leverage. Maybe a different letter for people who support Israel’s position. I hadn’t thought of them using AI, but that just shows I am still stuck in 2023 or so in my thinking.

Supposedly it is more effective to call them in the phone but I have done that and get nervous.

On the solution, I can’t imagine it. People argue about a 1ss vs a 2ss, but it is really hard to picture the two sides in the same country and also really hard to imagine the settlers leaving or agreeing to live under Palestinian rule. No acceptable solution seems realistic for now. Just stopping the slaughter and getting surviving hostages back is about the limit of my imagination here.

[bc]

Just my two bits on the ObWi diversity question:

The recognition of how one-sided it has become is refreshing. The introspection even more.

For myself, there is are a few barriers to entry on commenting if you are a conservative. You know you your comments will often draw "hostile fire" rather than curiosity. And you are surrounded. It's not just from one direction. Expect to carry a heavy load if you are going to have a complete conversation because you are responding to many people when the opposite is not true. I have a full-time job, I'm married and a kid still at home. And I'm in my late 50's (as CharlesWT likely knows). As much as I (usually) like the conversation, I don't always have the time to read AND comment.

It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn't completely responding to some of the counterpoint. That was in fact true, due to time. Recently, frex, Donald responded to me with some really good points, noting that my comment appeared to only blame Hamas and not Israel. His comments merited a response. If I only had the time. (Sorry, Donald). And I had a lot to say about the transgender issue and found myself very aligned with GftNC's point of view and would have wanted to wade in, but by the time I could particiapte the conversation had moved on. In the past, some have assumed I had nothing to say and said as much when that simply wasn't true.

So I just read and pop up from time-to-time.

It was easier under the Hilzoy era when I first was drawn here. Hilzoy had a way of interacting that I consider model. She was curious, respectful, and stepped in and politely (and sometimes firmly) called commenters out on both sides. Russell is a lot like Hilzoy; others too. Many not. And that era had several conservatives of many different stripes. While we were in the minority, it was a strong minority.

Lastly, in order to attract conservatives, IMHO, you have to at least want to hear another point of view. That's why I am here. That's why I turn on Urban View and Progressive Talk Radio from time-to-time when I'm on long drives. A recent opinion was voiced that conservatives left ObWi because they couldn't justify their positions and noted that the group here is smart, well-informed and articulate, implying that the conservatives were not. That doesn't help. However, I agree with the assessment of the characteristics of my left-leaning, liberal friends here on Obwi. You are a smart, well-informed and articulate bunch. Overall, I very much enjoy our discussions and hearing your points of view.

[liberal japonicus]

It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn't completely responding to some of the counterpoint.

I feel you. I only participate in the comments of this blog because in other blogs, there is an often an assumption that everyone is in the same room/time zone and people push the advantage without thinking of that. The way I write comments grows out of that, trying to put down enough for people to chew on, but also trying to slow down the pace of the conversation, at least where I am wading in and why I often suggest that piling on is not really so good.

A bit of unsolicited advice, it's always possible to say something like 'let me put a pin in that, and give me a day or two to reply. Some people may just ignore that and try to get in their licks, but most of the people here would understand that (and would probably think less of the people not accepting that)

[Pro Bono]

My long experience of writing to MPs is that, since word processors came into common use forty-odd years ago, one usually receives in reply a letter relevant to the general subject but not actually addressing one's points. Schumer's reply seems to be of that kind.

[Donald]

Another topic. I know Ian Welsh is not a favorite here. I sometimes think he goes too far or is wrong. . But this piece about the authoritarian use of a cashless economy seems correct to me.

https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-end-of-cash-the-rise-of-the-non-person/

[GftNC]

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!

[Donald]

I should say I know nothing of Hüseyin Doğru— never heard of him before. But the general topic I agree with—ostensibly democratic governments have a new tool for repression.

Normally Christian fundamentalists would be screaming about this— it fits in perfectly with their fears about the mark of the beast. Maybe some are. But since their guy is in power in the US I suppose their concern will be postponed.

[GftNC]

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.

[wj]

I like GftNC's idea of checking that someone is connected to the real world. Just two details:
-- while most of us are in the US, and therefore closely attuned to events here, not everyone is. In addition to the several folks in the UK (and lj domiciled in Japan) I seem to recall that Lurker is in Finland. There might well be others, either currently or in the future. Do we need a question or two for reality checks of those elsewhere?
-- Just for equity, we probably ought to have a question or two that would reality check those on the left. (Maybe acknowledgement that such a category exists...? ;-)

[Pro Bono]

If this is a suggestion that we should have political shibboleths for commentators, I'm against it.

I don't mind discussing whether Trump lost the 2020 election - he plainly did, but I see no harm in demonstrating the fact in response to an honest enquiry.

[hairshirthedonist]

If this is a suggestion that we should have political shibboleths for commentators, I'm against it.

It seems to me that it's GftNC's personal filter for whom to bother discussing politics with.

Every bit of time we spend doing something is time we are not spending doing something else. Our time is limited. Spend it wisely.

It kind of reminds me of a friend's suggestion that I read Project 2025 after I mentioned that tRump was full of sh*t when he said he didn't know anything about it, even though there was a long list of major contributors to it in high-level positions in his administration.

Whether I read it had nothing to do with the point I was making, and I had better things to do with my time than read that crap.

The same goes for arguing with deluded people.

[Pro Bono]

Everyone's wrong about something, possibly including me. The question is whether they'll listen to reason.

[Pro Bono]

I had a lot to say about the transgender issue and found myself very aligned with GftNC's point of view...

I mostly agree with GftNC's viewpoint, but didn't find time to write a carefully phrased comment when the question was live.

[GftNC]

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.

[Hartmut]

Keyword 'elections'
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-irs-says-churches-can-now-endorse-political-candidates-pulpit-rcna217495

The headline leaves out the even more scandalous part: ONLY churches, not other tax exempt entities. Those still have to obey the rule of either partisan or tax exempt but not both at the same time.