RODEO CLOWNS: No trains lead to Finland!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2013

Part 2—The information vanishes: Did you happen to watch The Lady Vanishes on PBS Sunday night?

We happened to do that! That morning, we’d chuckled at the synopsis shown below, which appeared in the Washington Post.

Its author refers to several characters in the famous old tale:
CUTLER (8/18/13): Soon, Miss Froy simply vanishes from the moving train.

Many people definitely saw her, though they deny it.People have their own reasons for lying. Iris is made out to be mad or—as is more favored for 1931—a hysterical young woman in need of supervision.

[...]

But why? Why would a pleasant middle-aged lady vanish, and why would everyone who had seen her deny it?

A train is the perfect setting for such a mystery.
Knowingly, we chuckled at Cutler’s synopsis. With an air of condescension, we thought of the information which routinely vanishes from our American discourse.

One such piece of information concerns the Finnish Miracle. Needless to say, we don’t refer to that country’s alleged education miracle, which isn’t especially miraculous and gets beaten to death in our press corps.

(And in comment threads!)

Every journalist has memorized, and repeated, that stirring miracle tale. This mandated tale helps major journalists think that the United States has endured “decades of embarrassing decline in K-12 education.”

(For Bill Keller’s astonishing statement to that effect, see yesterday’s post.)

You endlessly hear about the Finnish education miracle, which isn’t very miraculous. But how odd! The other Finnish Miracle keeps vanishing from the train:
Health care spending, per person, 2011:
United States: $8508
Finland: $3374
Say what? The Finns spend $5000 less, per person, than we spend over here? Multiply by four for a family of four to get a sense of the size of the looting which characterizes our system.

Somehow, the Finns get by on $3374 per year! But how odd! This truly remarkable fact has generated no week-long junkets by American scribes to examine the wonders of Finland.

No one sponges in her Helsinki hotel typing the things she’s been told to type about this Finnish amazement. In this country, facts like these persistently disappear.

When it comes to health care, no trains lead to Finland! At least, none which suggest the obvious looting which characterizes our health care!

We thought of this standard vanishing act when we read Cutler’s review. Effortlessly, we engaged in some skillful rewriting:
CUTLER REWRITTEN: But why? Why would such a startling fact vanish, and why would everyone who is familiar with it deny it?

A newsroom is the perfect setting for such a mystery.
The Finns spend $3374 per year! Why has this remarkable fact vanished from our discourse?

Why do highly important facts vanish? We can’t exactly say. But this particular vanished fact is a fact about corporate looting. You don’t hear that kind of fact discussed a lot, not even on the very fiery One True Liberal Channel.

Tomorrow, we’ll return to MSNBC’s recent nervous breakdown about the bad acts of a rodeo clown, some of which may have been imagined. Last night, though, we listened to one MSNBC host as she did tell a tale about corporate looting.

Unfortunately, the tale she told is now sixty years old! In her closing segment, Rachel Maddow let us in on the CIA-sponsored coup in Iran in 1953.

This story had been told in detail long ago. In April 2000, the New York Times published this gigantic report based on CIA documents.

But yesterday, the CIA formally declassified a document about the famous old coup. Acting at times as if the facts were brand new, Maddow told this important though recycled tale, as if to six-year-olds:
MADDOW (8/19/13): It was called Operation Ajax. August 1953. So in Iran, the shah was the king. He was technically in power.

But Iran also had a prime minister who was democratically elected. And the elected prime minister in 1953 was Mohammed Mosaddegh. He was very popular. He also wanted policies that the shah did not want. And he scared the bejesus out of the West. So much so that Operation Ajax was hatched by the CIA to overthrow that prime minister in Iran.

The straw that broke the camel’s back, the reason they decided he definitely had to go, was him crusading for Iran to own its own oil. The shah had cut a deal with the British to essentially let England own all of Iran`s oil.

But Mosaddegh said that was ridiculous, it was a terrible deal for Iran, and frankly a majority of Iranians agreed with him. He was very, very popular among his own people. And he was very unpopular outside of Iran. Especially in the West.

Especially among leaders of the U.K., who until that time quite enjoyed totally running Iran’s oil operation with the blessing of their friend the shah.

And then here comes this democratically elected guy, this populist guy, telling the king of Iran and telling the prime minister of England and telling the president of the United States that he is going to reclaim his country’s oil industry because that’s what he thinks is fair, and most Iranians agree with him.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Obviously, that could not stand!
“Frankly, a majority of Iranians agreed” that the Brits shouldn’t steal their oil!

We’re glad that Maddow told this story, even if she smoothed it way, way down and spoke as if to first graders. But let’s try to get clear on the nature of this story:

Maddow was telling a story of looting, a story told sixty years later. But as we noted last week, the story of American health care spending is a story of huge current looting.

This looting is happening now. The American public is getting looted, not people now dead in Iran.

The New York Times is now doing a somewhat peculiar series of front-page reports about this massive looting. In our view, the series is being written in such a way as to disguise the fact that it concerns giant looting.

At any rate, this high-profile, front-page series hasn’t been mentioned on MSNBC, not even once. Instead, an invented outrage by a rodeo clown has clogged the channel’s arteries.

Even on The One True Channel, basic facts about corporate looting seem to get thrown from the train! Who decides that these facts must disappear?

Who makes the looting vanish?

Tomorrow, more on last week’s pitiful furor about that disturbing rodeo clown. In our view, a very old pattern in plutocrat rule is perhaps being revived.

Tomorrow: “Blackface,” she said!

Let’s take a look at the record: What the heck! Here are the most recent figures from the OECD.

We’re looking at major developed nations. Plus little miraculous Finland, whose miracle here tends to vanish:
Health care spending, per person, 2011:
United States: $8508
Canada: $4522
Germany: $4495
France: $4118
Australia: $3800
United Kingdom: $3405
Finland: $3374
Japan: $3213
Spain: $3072
Italy: $3012
Multiply for a family of four to see the size of the looting!

Where’s all that looted money going? Under current corporate/press corps arrangements, you aren’t permitted to wonder or care!

Instead, they let you eat rodeo clowns! Isn’t plutocracy grand?

59 comments:

  1. These countries in Europe do spend more in taxes or mandatory health insurance payments than we do in the US, but in return they are able to save more of their take home pay and they have far fewer anxieties about whether they will have enough to live on in old age, because they know they will have a pension and no unexpected health care expenses to worry about. Further, higher education is subsidized or free (and some students get a living stipend while in school), so families do not go into debt to educate their kids. There are so many advantages to this system that our avoidance of it makes no sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I'm not mistaken these countries in Europe pay less than half per capita what we do in the US on meical care. (What percentage per capita of what we pay on the military/security state apparatus do they pay I wonder also).

      Delete
  2. No one or very few people in the US talk about the fact that university education in Finland is free, Finns have paid family leave and a month off in the summer. In addition to universal health care (and much cheaper medications), Finns have social programs that we can only dream about. Finland has a unionization rate of well above 80% while the US rate is at 11.3% and falling every year because of the rampant and rabid union busting going on in this country. There is an all out nuclear war against unions in this country; there is no such war against unions in Finland. All the Finnish teachers are unionized. Finland does not have the equivalent of right to work states as we do in this country. Actually, it's right to work for less as practiced in this country, it's about busting unions not democracy or fairness, just blatant union busting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Somerby begins with a remake of a 1938 movie, segues into health care costs in Finland, then finishes by beating Rachel Maddow over the head because she reported on recently declassified and released documents concerning the CIA coup in Iran in 1953 that put the Shah back in power?

    All the while promising to get back to that critical rodeo clown story someday?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. was today's post too hard to follow?

      Delete
    2. Hard to follow? It leaves me worrying about Somerby.

      Delete
    3. Why does it leave you worrying about Somerby? The post was perfectly sensical. Is there something about it that you don't understand or need explained to you?

      Delete
    4. So who in the Obama administration do you intern for, or are you working at MSNBC?

      Delete
    5. Because I'm wondering why Maddow can't talk about the Shah of Iran and newly declassified CIA documents until she talks about health care in Finland.

      A point that is somehow underscored by a PBS remake of a 1938 movie.

      I'm sure the Somerby tribe finds nothing bizarre whatsoever.

      Delete
    6. Somerby can write about whatever he wants, in whatever order he wants. Maddow can talk about whatever she wants. However, it is fair to ask whether Maddow truly has the interests of her listeners at heart when she ignores current pressing problems in favor of rehashing a historical issue that has already been revealed and has no importance whatsoever for today's audience. It is fair to wonder why she and others in our media ignore social issues when they are supposedly representing liberal and progressive viewpoints on air.

      Delete
    7. Exactly. After all, Somerby is always right up to the minute. He never rehashes stories that are, say, 13 years old.

      And of course, we all know that the 1953 coup that put the Shah back in power has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to anything going on today.

      Delete
    8. Anon@1242: "However, it is fair to ask whether Maddow truly has the interests of her listeners at heart when she ignores current pressing problems in favor of rehashing a historical issue that has already been revealed AND HAS NO IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER FOR TODAY'S AUDIENCE."

      So how is it fair that when a commenter applies the same criteria - including the judgmental conclusion as to what is or isn't relevant to current times - to Somerby, his supporters resort to personal attack and name-calling (egs. "Was today's post too hard to follow?";"who in the Obama administration do you intern for...?")?

      Delete
    9. Sammy, on top of that, they apparently think that the CIA coup report was the only thing Rachel Maddow talked about.

      Here's a suggestion. Rather than take Somerby's word for it, go look up Maddow's show. Not asking you to watch it in full, or, God forbid, become a fan of hers.

      You'll find that she is often quite up to the minute, even if you don't agree with her.

      But then again, that won't fit the narrative Somerby is now selling about her, does it?


      Delete
    10. Is it a "narrative" that she's ignoring "up to the minute" work on US healthcare failure?

      Or is she really just ignoring it?

      Delete
    11. Is she ignoring it? Or did she simply devote last night's show to other topics?

      As I recall, she's done lots of segments on health care and will quite likely do more in the future. That she didn't do one on Aug. 19 means she's ignoring the subject?

      Delete
    12. My question, "Was today's post too hard to follow," was not a personal attack or name-calling. It was a rhetorical question meant to point out that you obviously do not understand today's post.

      The relevance of The Lady Vanishes is apparent to anyone without an ax to grid. It is a way to introduce an oft-repeated Somerby trope: just as the lady vanishes, so it appears that facts vanish (from the press). The issue of its timeliness is not comparable to Maddow/Iran because The Lady Vanishes is not the topic of the post, it is merely a whimsical entry.

      Delete
    13. It is quite natural for fans of Maddow and fans of Somerby to have deep-seated disagreements. Both think that they are progressives (with a couple of notable exceptions on Somerby's side), but they see completely different enemies holding down their interests. Maddow's presentation makes it clear that the blame is with the Republicans. Hers is the obvious, mainstream point-of-view. Gallant Democrats trying their hardest to defeat the evil party of the rich and backward. Somerby and his fans see the real problem is with liberals (Democrats), who's actions often end up supporting their financial interests instead of their rhetoric. Hench the oft-repeated "Potemkin" theme.

      Of course they will hate each other.

      Delete
    14. Well, that's an oversimplification.

      Is it also possible that at least some of Somerby's critics might not be Rachel Maddow fans at all?

      Perhaps they were once big "fans" (for lack of a better word) who have watched The Daily Howler descend into very hypocrisy and pettiness he once so well denounced, and who hope that those aliens who kidnapped the real Bob will soon return him.

      Or must it always be a case of Us vs. Them? Tribe vs. Tribe? True believers vs. non-believers?





      Delete
    15. I am sorry that I was talking about two groups that you don't happen to belong to. There was no implication in that comment that those two groups comprised the totality of the universe. You jumped to the conclusion that it was an explanation of the only reason one could not like Somerby. I also left out people who don't have a sense of humor, people who don't like literary allusions, people who are so literal that using the word "tape" to mean "copy" upsets them, people who don't like repetition, people who don't like long quotes or transcripts, people who think that being a hypocrite makes one unworthy, people who think MSNBC is nothing like FOX not even a little bit, people who think that our public schools are horrible, people who like to call Republicans racist, Maureen Dowd fans, people who think that if journalists try hard they shouldn't be criticized for poor work, people who think that big-time journalists are irrelevant, people who think Al Gore sucked anyway, and people who just god-damn hate that bratty little kid who couldn't even see those awesome new clothes.

      Delete
    16. anon @ 4:41 well done!

      Delete
    17. Oh, excuse me, 4:41. How silly of me to think your attempt to draw Maddow fans and Somerby fans into two tribes who naturally hate each other was an attempt to draw Maddow fans and Somerby fans into two tribes who naturally hate each other.

      I also didn't know you were such a mind-reader. My, my that's quite a long list of people whom you know exactly what, how and why they think the way they do.

      But if you really know why I do this, it is to see Somerby's remant of a blog base go absolutely ballistic when it is pointed out to them that their hero is nothing but a hypocrite suffering from a massive case of projection, railing about the speck in the eyes of others while ignorning the beam in his own.

      And yes, I guess a case could be made that MSNBC and Fox are mirror images of each other. If so, you ever wonder why your hero's popguns are always trained on MSNBC. My word, if you want to go to Disinformation Ground Zero, try Fox sometimes.

      Then again, we could also wonder why Somerby had to wait a whole week to take on that silly rodeo clown story, and when he did, he really had nothing original to say. He merely repeated the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh spin on it.


      Delete
    18. "remant of a blog base"

      But always, always including MSNBC/NYT apologists like you.

      Delete
  4. Bob? If you want to see Maddow take on the issue about how the American public is being looted NOW, then by all means, pick up a copy of "Drift."

    You know, that book you've been ignoring because it doesn't quite fit your narrative about Maddow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wahhh! Wahhhhh!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. What does Drift have to do with health care?

      Delete
    3. I dunno. Maybe the same thing The Lady Vanishes has to do with the Shah of Iran?

      Delete

    4. AnonymousAugust 20, 2013 at 12:58 PM
      "I dunno. Maybe the same thing The Lady Vanishes has to do with the Shah of Iran?"

      The reporting on the Shah was mentioned as an example of how 60 year old malfeasance is the news of the day on a liberal show, while the details of current looting go unacknowledged, like that metaphorical lady on the train.

      Don't hesitate to ask for help again. It's the least we can do for you who ride the short bus.

      Delete
    5. Since you have trouble connecting the past to the present, Cecelia, here's the short course.

      Way back in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup which re-installed a ruthless dictator in Iran and threw out a democratically elected government. Then the propped the guy up for the next 26 years until finally a revolution that the CIA couldn't control overthrew the Shah and the mullahs took over. (Does the name Ayatollah Khomeini ring a bell?)

      And the mullahs are still in charge.

      But never mind all that. That's now what Rachel Maddow should be talking about. In fact, if she doesn't do something soon about that series in the NYT, then obviously nobody will ever hear of it.

      Not that Somerby finds that series really all that good anyway. After all, how good can it be? It's in the NYT.


      Delete
    6. Oh, and as to your explanation of how clever Bob was to use "The Lady Vanishes," there once was a time, which now seems so long ago, when Bob used to abhor the practice of certain NYT op-edders and MSNBC hosts who would pull pop culture references out of their hindquarters in order to make some convoluted point.

      But I guess it's only an issue when someone else does it.

      Delete
    7. Oh, good, Anon 7:35pm, then you do see what a coy question was asked by Anon 12:58pm.

      And since you've managed to quit playing obtuse long enough to argue the blogger was wrong in pointing to irony of reporting on a decades old fleecing and rarely discussed issue of colonialism and CIA international plots...let me ask a question. Did Maddow tie this report to anything happening in Egypt? What of the CIA was arming of factions n Benghazi?

      Let me ask too if you're aware that the ACA is going to be rolled out next year? Have you seen the polls on it? Have you seen the compromises with various corporate entities? Are you aware of Republican maneuvering?

      So while you're criticizing a blogger and fellow liberal for having the temerity to suggest some priorities for media liberals, consider that if you'd quit loving the way the smooth wall if your colon reflects your face, you'd might process some things. You might stop balking at Somerby's heresy and understand that he's asking that you fight.

      Delete
    8. While I don't watch her show on the grounds of unwatchability, I think it is ok for Maddow to discuss the CIA's installation of the Shah about 60 years ago. What is not ok is Maddow and her supposedly progressive cohort on MNBC totally ignoring the whole subject that we pay disproportionatley so much more for health care in the US, a more relevnt issue.

      Delete
    9. Uh, yes, Cecelia, as a matter of fact, Maddow and nearly every MSNBC host has been all over the Egypt story.

      Now I realize you won't believe that since all your information about what is on MSNBC comes from Somerby, and he's already told you that the only thing Maddow talked about last night was the newly declassified CIA documents about the 1953 coup, which of course, can have no possible relevance to today.

      After all, Somerby already has given you your narrative. By all means, cling to it.

      Oh, and I DO hope you are sitting down, dearie, because this is going to come as quite a shock to you. But Maddow and every MSNBC host has also covered, and quite extensively, the rollout of ACA and virtually every aspect of that historic law.

      But again, don't believe the truth, sweetie. Go ahead and remain blissfully ignorant and disinformed by Somerby. Wouldn't want you to get one of your nasty headaches from all that thinking for yourself.

      Delete
    10. It doesn't take thinking for yourself to believe that Marrow or any media has "covered every aspect of that historic law".

      It takes the sort of true believer who earnestly attends to all the 101 voices in his head.

      Delete
    11. "Maddow and every MSNBC host has also covered, and quite extensively, the rollout of ACA and virtually every aspect of that historic law."

      Yup.

      These are the people thinking for themselves, that's clear.

      Delete
  5. Finns don't have to worry about going bankrupt from medical expenses while too many people in the US are just one illness away from bankruptcy (even those with insurance), from losing all their savings, their home and their job if they become disabled. Home schooling and even private schools are virtually non-existent in Finland. Their taxes may be high but they get value for their tax dollars like not having to worry about going bankrupt from medical bills and not having to go into debt for a university education. Hey, but at least we are freer in the US (sarcasm alert). We do have some great social programs in the US, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but the billionaire libertarians and right wingers are hell bent on undermining and destroying these programs that Americans overwhelmingly love. The right wingers repeat ad nauseam the lie that SS is a Ponzi scheme. This lie is repeated at least 100 times a day, every day for decades. There is no Charles Ponzi in the Social Security administration, the finances of SS are transparent and open for all to see and the administrative costs of SS are small when compared to some hedge fund or privately operated pension fund. SS does not have to pay some CEO millions of dollars a year as they do at Goldman Sachs, AIG, Morgan Stanley or Schwab.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Progress! In the 2009 survey I believe the US was more than double that of the second most expensive country in per capita healthcare spending. I see it's not quite double in 2013.

    I know the vanishing lady was only a tie-in to Howler's main point, but I saw the new version, too. Didn't really care for it, being so familiar with Hitchcock's film with Michael Redgrave. Now I'd like to get hold of the novel to see which movie takes the most liberties.

    I was sorry some reviewers felt the need bring up the alleged used of the old "hysterical women" saw. The new version went to the trouble of having the heroine suffer a nasty fall if only as a possible red herring explanation for any derangement on her part.

    Besides, if P.C. concerns were to succeed in eliminating the possibility that women often perceive things amiss in situations where men do not, or cannot, vast numbers of English mysteries in which such perceptions are for once proved correct would have to be taken off the shelves to be rewritten or recycled.

    I'm OK with dropping the concept of "hysteria" as an especially feminine malady (except in period pieces, lest historical "presentism" rear its annoying face). But that won't change the fact that it's still mostly women who hear things go bump in the night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But that won't change the fact that it's still mostly women who hear things go bump in the night."

      And that's a fact!

      Delete
    2. Male hysteria used to be called battle fatigue or neurasthenia. Freud has many examples of male hysteria. The intense medical interest in hysteria around the turn of the century arose because of male cases in the context of war, not from upper class women's problems.

      Delete
  7. What about the vanishing tales of government contract cost over runs that permeated the news pre-NBC take over?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey gang!

    All done pretending it's no big deal for Maddow to ignore a huge series on healthcare failures?

    Time to move up a post and pretend Somerby's wrong to call the NY Times' work on the the Clinton's foundation a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I get it. Rachel Maddow is under some obligation to discuss only what Somerby says it's OK to discuss, and anything else she decides to take on is irrelevant.

      In other words, on those days when it's tough to criticize Maddow for what she does say, let's criticize her for what she doesn't say.

      And on top of that, let's cherry-pick one segment and call that typical of her entire body of work. Never mind that it too was a pretty good segment. Surely we can cherry-pick even more.

      Yep. It's a 60-year-old story that has no relevance today. Right.

      Delete
  9. Here's Bob's point. Agree or disagree

    "The American public is getting looted, not people now dead in Iran.

    The New York Times is now doing a somewhat peculiar series of front-page reports about this massive looting. In our view, the series is being written in such a way as to disguise the fact that it concerns giant looting.

    At any rate, this high-profile, front-page series hasn’t been mentioned on MSNBC, not even once."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. You state things just the way Bob would if he could be concise. In our view.

      Oh, and I agree.

      Delete
    2. So if I understand correctly, the NYT series really isn't that good, but shame on MSNBC anyway for not mentioning it?

      Delete
    3. Anon 7:47, you seem to be in a delusional state, the cost of health care is an extremely important issue, and Maddow's ignoring the issue, along with MNBC and the MSM is of huge adverse consequence

      Delete
  10. These comment creeps seem to show up and attack Bob as a way of distracting attention away from his message, which is not that Maureen or Rachel stink, but that the American public is being looted and the press is not letting anyone know about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point taken.

      However, I have a couple questions: what is the essential difference between calling a commenter a "troll" and calling a commenter a "comment creep"? And isn't that sort of disparagement a distraction from whatever message is being blogged and discussed?

      Delete
    2. Yes, very clever of you to point it out, now go away.

      Delete
  11. Poo Poo Platter (Roasted Finn with hyperbole relish)

    "One such piece of information concerns the Finnish Miracle....
    Every journalist has memorized, and repeated, that stirring miracle tale."
    Bob Somerby, this post

    "Could that possibly be true? That’s what you might call a sweeping statement. But could it really be true?
    -------
    .... But Hayes seemed to be making a sweeping statement—a statement about all white people.

    Could it possibly be true? That all “white people” feel that way about affirmative action?

    Bob Somerby August 15, 2013

    Of course Bob, like Hayes, knows hyperbole in your entree builds an audience. Just compare commentary participation on this post to others.

    With Todays Platter: Side of Google (Choose One)

    Decline in U.S. K-12 education
    Decline in American K-12 education
    Decline in K-12 education
    Embarassing decline in K-12 education.(U.S. or American)

    Try the google sides. As Gail Collins stupidly might say, "everybody's talking about" them. Except those who aren't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you imagine you are accomplishing with your comments? No one is going to think that Bob's points are invalidated because you prove he occasionally uses rhetorical devices. You aren't going to rehabilitate anyone's opinion of Maureen Dowd or Rachel Maddow this way because Bob's criticism of them is substantive not stylistic. If you want to convince anyone of anything, focus on the substantive part of his complaints.

      We don't need your google game or 100% compliance to know that journalists and pundits spend a lot of time complaining about the decline in quality of education. We read it ourselves all the time and hear it lots of places. It is a cultural meme. If you are complaining that Bob misuses Google to make his points, that may annoy you but it doesn't change the fact that his point is correct -- people believe our schools are in decline when they are not.

      So, if you want to contradict Bob's point, you need to be posting figures showing that the schools are in decline, not criticizing how he writes. When he wants to make that same point, he cites NAEP.

      Delete
    2. "because Bob's criticism of them is substantive not stylistic."

      BWAAAHAHAHA!

      You must be new to this blog.

      Delete
    3. No doubt you'd find the statement that all accountants have used calculators to be a sweeping comment in the same mood and tenor as all blacks eat watermelon, Poo-Bear.

      Not to worry, You get that tin ear fixed and you'll be...well, a dumb disingenuous jerk still, but maybe a hair less concrete.

      Delete
  12. "Googles? We don't need know stinking googles!"
    Treasure of the Serious Bobfan

    Every Bobfan has memorized and repeated your comment.
    Every one of them. Bobfan's are much more likely to use your tactics than fans of other blogs. We read them all the time and hear it lots of places.

    I'm not refuting Bob's point about journalists. Just noting that one post's attack line becomes another post's "rhetorical device" to borrow your definition.

    But you do wound deeply with your assertion that I'm not going to rehabilitate anyone's opinion of Dowd or Maddow.
    You are so clever to know that Bob has done them so much damage that I feel obligated to help them without ever once mentioning either in this comment. In fact I am so devious in my effort I don't thionk you can ever find a comment in which I name either in a positive vein. I just abhor and silently fight sexism whenever I imagine it. You smoked me out.

    PPP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above comment was intended for Anon @ 4:56.

      PPP

      Delete
  13. Anonymous at 11:21AM and 12:36PM

    Looks like you need some Reading Common Core.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wait a second, are there people here who actually believe the following:

    1. That Maddow and Co haven't talked about the problem with the cost of healthcare and healthcare in general? I'm not even sure what to say about that because they have talked about pretty much all aspects of the healthcare issue/looting AND the Wall. St looting AND the workers rights issue on a regular basis. A simple search would easily reveal that fact.

    2. That the CIA sponsored coup in Iran which, the CIA just admitted to yesterday, and installed The Shah isn't relevant to the US today? The events following practically define our present day relationship with Iran.

    3. That there is somehow a problem with Maddow covering #2 above as opposed to following up on a NYT series about the cost of healthcare AND that by doing so, she, and MSNBC, are ignoring the massive looting going on regarding healthcare costs? Seriously, how can anybody be an even casual watcher of MSNBC and believe that?

    Although I generally find MSNBC a bit tiresome, this seems to be a case of believing your lying eyes or Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amazing, isn't it?

      And you know what? If Bob's Fan Club had taken the time to click onto The Rachel Maddow Show Web site just to see whatever topics she covered the very night she also covered the recently declassified CIA documents about the 1953 coup in Iran, they would have been in for a rude awakening.

      But why do that? Their leader has already laid the narrative out before them.

      Delete