On once again looking at Maddow’s first segment!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2014

A heinous, clowning performance: MSNBC is slow today posting Rachel Maddow’s transcript.

We can’t say we blame them. Maddow’s opening segment last night was a heinous 21 minutes of Fort Lee fiddle. To watch the whole clown show, click here.

(A second, shorter segment about Fort Lee followed. Maddow devoted about 60 percent of last night’s program to her distortions, inventions and clowning concerning this topic.)

When people put up with a person like this, those people will get what they’ve bargained for.

We want to discuss that first segment in some detail, and the transcript still hasn’t been posted. We’ll put the topic off till tomorrow.

Coming next, back to Hawking!

33 comments:

  1. Yes, by all means. Let's discuss Maddow pointing to the Bergen Record's reporting of a naked conflict of interest on the part of David Samson.

    Proceed, governor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Somerby doesn't even have to say anything, and already you disagree with him. Engage your brain before you begin speaking.

      Delete
    2. I think Mr. Somerby said quite a lot.

      Delete
    3. Even the troll admits that Maddow's reports are so useless that they are not worth criticizing.

      Delete
    4. Useless? Absolutely not. Rachel Maddow gave a very important story from the Bergen Record the national attention it deserves, just as she has done throughout this allegedly "ginned-up controversy."

      Samson, a major player in all of this, has managed to fly under the radar -- until now. I am glad there are reporters on the job looking into his entire record as Port Authority chairman, and how much Wolff & Samson clients have benefited during his tenure.

      Delete
    5. Perez, A & Anon 12:18

      Many of us are upset that Bob is once again falling behind on keeping up with Rachel. It humiliates us not to be able to refute her during water cooler conversations with those who actually watched the show.

      Delete
  2. "When people put up with a person like this, those people will get what they’ve bargained for."

    Sure sounds like a threat to me, Somerby. You could get someone almost killed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then tens of thousands will die as Somerby waits for the WMD cache Bush convinced him, along with all but those scruffy antiwar types cruising for a fall, were there.

      Delete
    2. Please stop pretending that because TDH thought in April 2003 that WMDs might be found it Iraq, he thinks they'll be found even yet.

      Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps when Somerby quits blaming writers who ever said unkind things about Gore for the election of Bush and thus became complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands we may give cooperation due consideration.

      He did not, for the record, say WMD might be found. I recall he said he would be "surprised" if they were not found. As you know, TDH does preach patience.

      Recognizing as always your persistence.

      Delete
    4. Well, Bob has never come on his blog to express his "surprise" that WMDs have never been found.

      Thus it is "possible" that Bob still believes they will turn up. Any day now. It has never been disproved, on a journalistic basis. And won't you look silly when they do turn up.

      So thanks in retrospect for your showing us how to "speculate" before every possible scrap of information is gathered.


      Delete
    5. Anonymous @ 1:03P,

      Journalists (and those that pass for such) did more than say unkind things about Gore; they made up and passed on lies about him. For that, it's fair to say they're complicit, if only in a minor way, in the election of the WPE.

      This is not a blog about US foreign policy and WMD containment. TDH's erroneous opinion on the matter from over a decade ago is pretty much irrelevant, and there's no evidence his stance is unchanged.

      I see I shouldn't have thanked you in advance.

      My bad.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @1:03P,

      Why should TDH announce his revision of a passing comment containing an erroneous judgment from 2003?

      Again, this isn't a blog about US foreign policy and WMD containment.

      The existence of Iraqi WMDs has pretty much been disproved on a journalistic or any other basis. The involvement of Christie in Bridgegate and the motivations for the lane closings, not so much.

      Please stop pretending that the two issues are the same or that "every possible scrap of information" has been gathered in the latter case, enabling us to jump to our favored conclusions.

      If you don't mind, I won' be thanking you in advance.

      Delete
    7. Oh, I don't know. Perhaps he would do it so that rubes like you wouldn't get the impression that he actually knows what he is talking about, instead of being some bloviating old goat still spouting nonsense off the top of his head in a vanity blog.

      After all, if it weren't for loyal, committed Bob Fans like you, this blog would only be at the mercy of people who think for themselves.

      Besides, Bob depends on you to have someone around here to look like an even bigger fool than he is.

      And if you don't mind, you've already worn out your new closing schtick. But thank you for at least trying.

      Delete
    8. I will take "Fools who religiously read bloviating old goats on vanity blogs" for $100, Alex.

      Delete
    9. And thank you so much for teaching me how to think for myself.

      Delete
    10. And the answer is: "He once proclaimed Bob Somerby entirely correct because it took another hour for Gov. Ultrasound to be indicted on 14 felonies."

      Delete
    11. Oh, I don't know. What would happen if there were no more rhetorical questions?

      I guess it would save you from answering them.

      Sometimes I think TDH is spot on, and sometimes I think he's off base. I'm only guessing, but I doubt TDH takes much notice of what I write or how big a fool you think I make of myself. After all, if it weren't for ignoramuses like you who think they can read TDH's innermost thoughts, ….

      Sorry, there just isn't an anything after all.

      I'm sorry you've tired of my closing shtick, but it's worth at least as much as you paid to read it. I know that the least I could do is come up with something that would amuse you, especially considering the humor you've provided by implying that you're one of those "people who think for themselves."

      I know why I read TDH. Why again do you read a blog by a bloviating old goat who spouts nonsense?

      Delete
    12. Deadrat, I've explained this to you before, but apparently your long term memory skills don't function for longer than a week.

      So I will repeat myself:

      It is none of your goddamned business what I chose to read or not read. So stop worrying your pointed little head about it.

      And I thank you in advance for kissing my ass.

      Delete
    13. I, for one, admire deadrats closing shtick. I disagree with you assessment of his long term memory skills. He still remembers when he disagreed with Somerby.

      I'll bet nobody else can.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous @3:55P,

      Alas, my memory isn't as good as it was, but I have a vague recollection of having this conversation before. As I recall, I said something along the lines of "It's a rhetorical question. I'm not really inquiring or worrying about your choice of reading material. It's just a trope saying that you're a sorry fool for spending time making worthless comments on something you find so worthless."

      Or at least that's what I remember. Let's go with that now and the next time I forget and ask you the same question.

      You're welcome in arrears for my kicking your ass.

      I mean that rhetorically. I wouldn't want to incite any of the insane lurkers to violence. Oh, wait. I forgot. Nobody reads this blog that you waste your time commenting on.

      Never mind.

      Now, where did I put my glasses?

      Delete
  3. OMB ( Blog commentary made easy)

    "Won’t stop teasing Chris Christie (RACHEL MADDOW): Just eighteen minutes (TWO POSTS) into the show, Maddow (SOMERBY)was teasing Chris Christie (RACHEL MADDOW)."

    She (BOB) wanted us rubes to watch her full hour (KEEP THOSE CLICKS COMING). So she he)started teasing the short (LONG) and somewhat dishonest segment with which she would end the program (HE PROMISES WILL COME SOMETIME):

    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW, FYI & LMAO (at You Earthlings Favoring the Blogospheric Portion of Your Warming Globe)

      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/12/maddow-proves-it-all-night-long.html

      KZ

      Delete
    2. Maddow criticizes Christie and Somerby criticizes Maddow. So what? If Somerby were complaining about criticism, then it would be hypocritical but this is just a superficial parallel. What is your point, other than to make Somerby seem somehow wrong?

      Delete
    3. Are you serious, seriously stupid, just or trying to out snark the snarkster?

      Delete
  4. All of us have read hundreds of blogs. We keep reading ones that we like. Yet some of us keep reading (and commenting and commenting on) blogs that we just can't stand. Not one bit. Feel the need to denegrate those that read and enjoy. Explain nit by nit why this blog is so importantly wrong. Defend those criticized by the blog to their last breath.

    Why? Why? Why care so deeply to discredit? It's as if they had some juice in the game.

    It is very hard to believe that there is such a committed crowd of concerned citizens with the message, "get your hands off my infotainment!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSNBC intern downtime, perhaps?

      Delete
    2. I would guess MSNBC interns spend their downtime sending their resumes to leading media outlets where most of them will be hired and assinged to the "education beat" backwater.

      My guess is the typical troll here is a pissed off Finnish or Polish teen chuckling to themself over their better than the American average English composition skills.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @2:18P,

      I can understand commenters who reads this blog because they think the blogger discusses important issues but find that the blogger gets critical things wrong. What baffles me are people who keep reading what they declare to be useless. I'm also somewhat bemused by the percentage of those who are on a first-name basis with the blogger. Are any of these complaints familiar:

      Bob doesn't discuss the topics I'm interested in, say what a fat fuck Chris Christie is or what a predatory stalker George Zimmerman was.

      Bob supports the people I hate when he raises questions about critical coverage of these people.

      Bob isn't really a liberal.
      Bob is a geezer.
      Bob is a failed teacher.
      Bob is a failed standup comedian.
      Bob is a misogynist.
      Bob is poor and jealous of richer people.
      Bob once got something wrong and won't apologize.
      Bob won't answer his critics in his commentariat.
      Bob responds to those critics but cloaked under a nym.
      Bob is desperate for clicks.
      Anyone who disagrees with me about Bob is brainwashed.
      Nobody reads Bob's blog.

      And you know who you are.

      Delete
    4. Brilliantly put and thanks for saying what many probably feel too intimidated to say themselves.

      Delete
  5. Maddow is guaranteed to make shit up and create fake scandals about Hillary in order to boost whoever is the Daily Kos/Democratic Underground favorite.

    ReplyDelete