The things they don't book-learn at Harvard and Yale!

SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 2017

Who is Alexandra Petri:
We're off on a mission of national import involving a Charlottesville sojourn.

Full services will resume Monday morning. As an interim reading assignment, we'll recommend Alexandra Petri's column from this morning's Washington Post.

Who is Alexandra Petri? As the leading authority explains, she hails from the Eastern elite:
Alexandra Petri is an American humorist and newspaper columnist. In 2010 she became the youngest person to have a column in The Washington Post...

Petri grew up in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., the only child of Wisconsin congressman Tom Petri and nonprofit executive Anne D. Neal, and attended the National Cathedral School...She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard University with a degree in English.
Petri was released from Harvard in 2010. Her new column helps us ponder the sorts of things many "privileged" children don't seem to learn during their Harvard years, or even while prepping before that.

Long story short: Petri extends the mocking of "rural whites" which is so hot among a certain class of Harvard/Yale/Princeton types. Her contribution to the emerging literary form?

She seems to feel that rural whites are especially comical if they have hilarious "white ethnic" names. It's a good solid observation!

We expect to return to Petri's column on Monday. It's astonishing to see the love of kicking down which prevails among "liberal" children of this highly privileged type—among "highly educated" "liberal elite" children of all ages.

It's dark as a dungeon inside many minds! Once again, we'll recommend the Johnny Cash version of the Merle Travis song, which possibly wasn't taught at Harvard during the Petri years.

60 comments:

  1. Can't read it without a subscription. Too bad Somerby was so cryptic about what she said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's a snippet, Anon

    In the shadow of the old flag factory, Craig Slabornik sits whittling away on a rusty nail, his only hobby since the plant shut down. He is an American like millions of Americans, and he has no regrets about pulling the lever for Donald Trump in November — twice, in fact, which Craig says is just more evidence of the voter fraud plaguing the country. Craig is a contradiction, but he does not know it.

    Each morning he arrives at the Blue Plate Diner and tries to make sense of it all. The regulars are already there. Lydia Borkle lives in an old shoe in the tiny town of Tempe Work Only, Ariz., where the factory has just rusted away into a pile of gears and dust. The jobs were replaced by robots, not shipped overseas, but try telling Lydia that. (I did, very slowly and patiently, I thought, but she still became quite brusque.)


    BTW even if jobs are eliminated by technology, rather than imports, Trump's policy is still better than Obama's. Less burdensome regulations and lower taxes will make it easier for new jobs to be created.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Less burdensome regulations and lower taxes will make it easier for new jobs to be created."

      Leaving aside the fact that clean-drinking water is just a scam, designed by left-wing commies to hold back business, let's talk about those tax breaks creating new jobs.
      So, you have a warehouse of inventory, because there is a lack of demand for your products. Can you please explain to me how you getting a tax break will lead to new jobs? Will you build a new factory to double production?

      I ask, because I'm hoping you'll think it through and not just repeat failed Conservative ideology.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, David.

      Tempe is a suburb of Phoenix and home of Arizona State University. Not a city where plants are rusting. This is obviously intended as humor and not fact.

      There is no "if" about jobs being eliminated by technology. Analysts say that is now the major impact on job loss, not relocation by employers.

      Regulations need to be examined one-by-one to see what is being regulated and why. For example, safety regulations that protect workers are very important. Regulations that affect zoning in local cities, maybe not as much, although most regulations were created for good reasons, in my opinion.

      Bill Maher's show last night cited a number of EOs that roll back regulations "just to be a dick." He cites the one protecting bald eagles from lead poisoning and another protecting children from lead paint, and the regulations against asbestos. Why would anyone roll those back -- but that is just what Trump is doing. It seems to be good enough for Trump's base if some regulation is removed -- who cares what it did and why it was enacted.

      Savvy politicians worry about the bad optics of removing those types of regulations, because of the damage done to kids or our national symbol. Trump doesn't care because his actions will be buried among all those fake news stories and his base will think the stories are false.

      Back to the satirical article. Whoever Trump's voters are -- they voted for a guy who would poison eagles. How stupid are they? As stupid as it gets. You don't need someone like Petri to point that out (although that doesn't sound like what she was doing).

      Delete
    3. "Why would anyone roll those back"

      To massage a mode of thinking that is all but lost but is essential to the prosperity of a country that hopes to be free, and as a result a consequential world power that can protect that freedom. We should view regulation as a last resort, and freedom as the default. Hurting already strapped taxpayers to protect bald eagles from lead poisoning doesn't pass that test.

      Delete
    4. "they voted for a guy who would poison eagles."

      No offense but this sounds like an analysis one would expect from a second grader.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps you could present an actual argument?

      Delete
    6. How does requiring hunters to use non-lead ammunition hurt taxpayers?

      Delete
    7. Can't read it without a subscription.

      If you're stateside you probably have had too many views of Washington Post articles this month. Not that it would be the corporate friendly thing to do but you can dump your WaPo cookies and get around that block or use another browser. Get in the habit of opening your links in a "private" or "incognito" window- they'll dump your cookies for you each time you close them.

      Delete
    8. "We should view regulation as a last resort, and freedom as the default."

      As I said, Trump supporters don't care what the regulation is about or why it was enacted. It is the idea of regulation they are against, not the reasons for or against a specific regulation.

      So "anything goes" is apparently their mantra and we will be back to the days when species disappeared because of human carelessness or greed, small businesses were exploited, consumers were cheated, and workers had no recourse against dishonest employers, all in the name of "feedom."

      Freedom isn't anarchy. It includes the "wise restraints that make men free". There is nothing wise about repealing everything willy nilly, just to please the NRA or a noisy minority who doesn't understand or care about how to maintain a society that benefits all citizens.

      Delete
    9. Thanks CMike

      Delete
    10. Robert, you're right. If you have a warehouse of inventory, because there is a lack of demand for your products, then lower taxes won't help.

      But, suppose your warehouse is full because foreign firms can sell the product for less. Then, lower taxes and less burdensome regs lower your costs and may make you competitive with the foreign firms.

      Delete
    11. David,
      Those regulations were put in place because some businesses, in attempting to increase their profits, engaged in practices that harmed people.
      If business are excused taxes, the workers will have to make them up or lose vital government services.
      They won't be able to pay the slightly lower prices with their diminished incomes and benefits.
      What's more, they will be hit with more out of pocket medical expenses due to air pollution and water pollution, resulting from relaxed regulations.
      Foreign firms make products more cheaply because their labor is cheaper and their governments are corrupt.
      Are you suggesting most Americans be reduced to the life style of the people in emerging nations?
      That is the logical consequence of your position.
      Thanks to you and others that believe in your flawed theories of economics, we are heading down to the level of third world countries.

      Delete
    12. Comrade DinC, if a company produces warehouses full of product that they can't sell because their product is not competitive, I would have to say that they need a new CEO cause the current one would have to be one dumb fuck, sort of like you.

      Delete
    13. gravymeister -- in theory your comment is correct. However, in the real world, there are other considerations:

      1. Regulators are sometimes bad at writing regulations. I know this from personal experience with insurance regulators. So, there are many regulations whose cost is greater than their value.

      2. Large, established companies lobby for regulations that will hamper competition. There are many such regulations. They benefit only large companies.

      It's not all or nothing. Trump isn't proposing to eliminate all regulations. But, many regs can be eased without harming Americans' quality of life.

      Delete
    14. How about eagles quality of life?

      Delete
    15. D in C
      Both of your statements are correct.
      However, it is clear that the beneficiaries of condition two are winning.
      Agencies in condition one are being captured at an alarming rate.

      Delete
    16. DavidinCal,
      That's exactly what I wrote. Tax breaks do not lead to job creation. Thanks for the agreement.
      BTW, now start thinking about the demand side of economics. Soon you'll see the problem of businesses stiffing labor, and how a rise in the minimum wage will increase demand, and create jobs. Once you realize Reagans "supply-side" economics are nothing more than 100% bullshit, designed to move the money from the working classes to the rich,you can start to move the economy forward for the citizenry.

      Delete
    17. Robert -- International trade has destroyed the effectiveness of focusing on the demand side. The purchaser of an American product is apt to be living in some other country. And, American consumer spending is apt to be for a product manufactured in some other country.

      Futhermore, actual experience supports the theory. Reagan's tax cuts were followed by a decade of rapid ecnonomic expansion. OTOH Bush's and Obama's various stimulus programs did nothing for the economy.

      You can also see the effect by looking at the successful economies of countries with low tax rates, like Ireland and Bermuda.

      Delete
    18. It's amazing how wingnuts like Comrade DinC have completely erased GWBush from their history. How did his tax cuts work out, comrade?

      Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were followed by tax increases in 1982,1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988.

      President Bill Clinton raised taxes and averaged 242,000 job growth per month for his 8 years. Ronald Reagan averaged job growth of 166,000 per month.

      So, once again how did GWBush do? Big tax cutter, right?

      **********************************
      President George W. Bush’s record is highlighted by tax cuts largely aimed at giving the wealthiest Americans more money with which to invest, and a looser regulatory regime on businesses. President Obama implemented the Keynesian-style American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as “the stimulus”), repealed the heart of the Bush tax cuts, greatly expanded the federal government’s role in health care with the Affordable Care Act, and tightened regulations on several industry sectors including finance and energy.

      How do their economic records compare?
      Bush lost private sector jobs over the course of his eight years (the Wall Street Journal declared it the “Worst Track Record On Record” on jobs), while Obama has created a net of 11.6 million private sector jobs during his presidency, and nearly 15 million if you start counting after the Great Recession Bush handed Obama technically ended in mid-2009.

      Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment Rate

      Similarly, while Bush’s policies drove up the unemployment rate, Obama’s has pushed it down.
      *********************************

      It's amazing how wingnuts forget GW.

      Delete
    19. mm - there is a popular lie that Bush's tax cuts didn't work. Go find the GNP by year or federal taxes collected by year. You will see that starting 1 year after those tax cuts, the GNP rose by over 20% for two years in a row.

      Delete
    20. Change in GDP in real dollars:

      2001-12.71 trillion, 2002-12.96, 2003-13.53, 2004-13.95, 2005-14.37, 2006-14.72, 2007-14.99, 2008-14.58, 2009-14.54.

      Growth by year: 2002-4.3%, 2003-4.3%, 2004-3.1%, 2005-3.0%, 2006-2.4%, 2007-1.8%, 2008-(-2.7%)= average yearly growth 2.7%

      Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

      You are lying David. If this is a standard belief among conservatives, they are mistaken. The numbers do not support your claim.

      Delete
    21. bwahahaha! Hey dickhead,

      You started this by claiming tax cuts stimulate job creation. Suddenly, as though we're not supposed to notice, you switch to talking about GNP. Fuck you, comrade.

      Comrade DinC, you've been reading this blog for years and years, and Somerby has shown again and again how the lie that cutting taxes increases tax revenue is such much balderdash. Here you are trying to promote that exact disproven ridiculous proposition. Why don't you bring out the Laffer curve while you're at it?

      **********
      Over Bush’s two full terms, federal revenues dropped 13 percent.

      http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/17/ron-christie/gop-strategist-christie-tax-revenues-rose-after-bu/
      ************************

      ***
      So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.


      By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure.
      ****

      Delete
    22. Federal taxes collected by year: 2001-1.99 trillion, 2002-1.85, 2003-1.72, 2004-1.88, 2005-2.15, 2006-2.4, 2007-2.57, 2008-2.52, 2009-2.1.

      I don't see 20% growth there either.

      Delete
    23. not mm, you obviously don't live in the alternate universe that Comrade David does. Don't you understand, you're using facts and data? This is all a "popular lie". It's very popular among the professionals who actually study the facts and data. Not so popular among the alternate reality borg people.

      Delete
    24. DavidinCal,
      So, thanks to International trade, the American business-owner has zero interest in the plight of his fellow Americans (since his customer is apt to be in a foreign country). So, quick question, if the American business-owner doesn't give a shit about his fellow countrymen, why should Americans give a shit about the American business-owner? I'm sure the American business-owner, who would fuck you over for a nickel, appreciates you spending your time and energy to get him a tax-break.
      And to think, someone, somewhere (but not in the boardrooms of America) doesn't think you are a complete sucker.

      Delete
  3. Petri seems to be complaining about the journalists, not Trump's base. Her point seems to support Somerby's, that journalists are stereotyping Trump voters and that stereotypes of people who live in small towns and rural areas are unfairly negative.

    About half the commenters seem to have missed her point. In fact, the satire seems to have flown right over their heads. That is the problem with satire. Trump voters, especially, seem to be taking her literally. Did Somerby do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your assessment, and am surprised Somerby missed it.

      Delete
    2. Or..., She could be trying to spoof the sentimentality of the endless journalism sentimentalizing rural Trump supporters, stuff Bob likes just fine.

      Delete
    3. Also, Petri is a Republican Congressman, so I am not sure his daughter is a flaming liberal just because she went to Harvard. After all, so did George W. Bush.

      Delete
  4. Did they never teach guys at Harvard that Johnny Cash didn't write his own songs, that he was wealthy for most of his life and that his themes were those of country music in general?

    Johnny Cash grew up on a family farm but worked as an appliance salesman and was in the military before signing with Sun Records and entering a full time career in music. You can call him a working man, but not in the sense of those guys in the mines.

    Merle Travis grew up in mining country but he too became a professional musician at the age of 18 and didn't work in any mines.

    Effete intellectuals romanticize the work of men who get their hands dirty, as if there were something shameful about white collar work. It is only those who haven't done back-breaking physical labor think there is something pure or noble about it. The people who do that work have no illusions and would be happy to do something else.

    Somerby's idea that we have to respect the poverty and suffering of Appalachia as part of some American tradition is insulting to people living those lives. If you want to preserve traditional America, stop the mining that is destroying the beauty of the area and eliminating the lives of people kicked off family farms and out of their generational homes by strip mining and topping of mountains, polluting streams and destroying tourism. Mining needs to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Back in the 60s, I had a college friend who went to work during the summer as a longshoreman, out of solidarity with the working class. He returned in the Fall with a desire never to do such work again and a renewed commitment to his education. The people who do such jobs for a living do not have warm feelings towards idealistic occupational tourists. One of his disappointments was that he wasn't welcomed by his coworkers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Bob. As always, another great post. Looking forward to more insight on these important issues that other's don't seem willing to touch.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Somerby accurately placed "highly educated" in quotations, because what these institutions are turning out today is something entirely at odds with that status.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Universities present the opportunity for learning. They cannot guarantee that it will occur. Harvard has the finest library in the US. There is no reason any undergrad cannot use it freely while attending Harvard. Education depends on the learner, not the teacher.

      Delete
    2. Maybe but when teachers are there to stifle any impulse toward actually learning and thinking in favor of indoctrinating, including punishment for asking the wrong questions, or thinking the wrong thoughts, or worst of all, holding the wrong opinions, learning is not going to happen. Can we get some muscle over here? Someone would be an idiot to pay for that kind of "education."

      Delete
    3. Clearly, you went to the wrong school. Sounds like you went to a religion-based charter school or a military academy. It has never happened anywhere in my experience and I've attended and taught lots of places. But even if you were in such a place, what prevents reading subversive books from the public library?

      Delete
    4. I disagree, I think it is 100% on the teacher. Or should be. As a teacher myself, I am 100% responsible for their learning. I realize though that most teachers pass the buck and don't take responsibility.

      Delete
    5. How can you possibly be 100% responsible for their learning when you do not have control over all of the factors that affect learning. I do not believe you are a teacher.

      Delete
  8. I've done a bit of everything, among others, worked as a mechanic, drove a truck long haul, dug ditches on a construction crew, and spent eight years as a member of the United Steelworkers as a fabricator/assembler. I also went back to school and later became a "professional".

    It's comical to hear liberals describe working people as some sort of exotic species. "I once knew someone who worked one of those jobs..." Believe me, they're really not much different than you, and they care nothing about your pity. As for judging intellect and skill, I'd take a 30 year master carpenter over some "educated" Comparative Lit major who spends 30 years working his way up the corporate ladder to become a Claims Adjustment manager, for example. Not even close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Working class is different than professional or white collar as a class. Their values are different, vocabulary and socialization is different, attitudes and beliefs are different. You should know that, having transitioned.

      Kids who are the first to go to college in their extended families learn that they cannot go home again. Regardless of what they feel, their family members will believe they are being looked down upon. Any injection into conversation of some fact or idea originating at school will be considered some sort of put down or showing off or trying assert dominance. You will hear "I'll bet you think you're smart" and its variants, every time you come home. Eventually you realize home isn't home any more.

      You will try to avoid conflict by sticking to the topics others are discussing but you will have less interest in them as time goes by. You will hear discussions in which people propose stupidities and you will learn not to butt in.

      Here is one of the starkest examples. Many working class families believe that a child should be supported until high school graduation, then the child should get a job, and if they live at home, pay rent and contribute to the family, somethings the entire paycheck, minus walking around money. Middle class families believe parents should support a child through college. They think college education is essential and that a child's life is ruined without admission to a good school.

      If working class kids get admitted to college, parents will want them to study something practical, such as accounting or business. Middle class parents want their kids to pursue their dreams and study whatever they want, encouraging them to take a variety of subjects and find out who they are. Professional families want their kids to study something that will pay well, such as computer science, engineering or biology (aiming for medicine).

      Working class families may want a child to follow the dad into one of the trades, with access to union apprenticeship or a job with his employer -- a sure route to success. They don't understand if the kid says no. If it was good enough for dad, why not for son. They consider education to be wasted on daughters. They don't want a daughter to marry someone who will move away so she won't see the family any more. Middle class and professional families are more likely to encourage girls to do well in school and go to college, where she will meet a man with good prospects.

      And so on. So, yes, working class people are different from middle class and professional people in many respects. There are innately smart people in both groups, but there is no extra skill involved in being a master carpenter compared to white collar success and being a "claims adjustment manager" after 30 years is not an equivalent level of accomplish in white collar world.

      Despite your experience, you have apparently never had your friends and family laugh at you for returning to school, saying "why are you going back to school when you will never find a job that pays as much as you are making right now?" The profound difference between the worlds lies in that lack of understanding why someone might seek more education.

      Delete
    2. Some other differences between working class and middle class families. Middle class parents have their kids teeth straightened. Working class families are autocratic and dad is the boss. Middle class families are democratic and kids get to have opinions. Middle class families talk and read to their kids more, so they raise verbal kids competent in language. Because they are competent when they enter kindergarten, they learn more and do better in school. Working class families have a different relationship with debt -- they do not see borrowing as instrumental (an investment in a business or home) but as something that indicates failure, to be avoided. Working class families are likely to cling to a job and don't see job changing as a way to get promoted or get a better position. They think working hard earns promotion. Pets are more likely to be companions in middle class homes but watch dogs in working class homes (or an unnecessary mouth to feed).

      These are generalizations, but they are some of the reasons why it isn't likely middle class and working class voters are going to come together to achieve the Sanders utopia any time soon. Many of the working class voters who went for Trump did so because of some of these differences. For example, working class homes where the mom is not allowed to earn more than the dad (and there are many like that), weren't likely to pick Hillary over Donald. They like how respectful Donald's kids are and the way Melania never says anything unless spoken to and not even then.

      Delete
    3. "Despite your experience, you have apparently never had your friends and family laugh at you for returning to school, saying "why are you going back to school when you will never find a job that pays as much as you are making right now?" The profound difference between the worlds lies in that lack of understanding why someone might seek more education."

      You assume the person who makes a good living and who is interested in higher education must seek more education by enrolling in an indoctrination center. There is no way around securing required college credentials for a line of work if that is the goal, but if making money and education are the goals, he would be stupid to give up a good job to attend an institution that will leave him less educated instead of seeking knowledge on his own. Everything is available for free, even Yale courses. If you scrap the high paying job to get a degree in Native American studies you will be looked down upon for a good reason.

      Delete
    4. Only 5% of people who start a free online course ever finish it, much less a degree program. Guess those ratty teachers do provide something.

      Delete
  9. Johnny Cash covers Soundgarden!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtbuUlSGXzc

    ReplyDelete
  10. Petri's piece seems to concern the "journalism" being conducted about Trump voters more than about the voters themselves. Her title: "Every story I have read about Trump supporters in the past week".

    Whether her work will stimulate reporters to show more understanding toward such voters, or whether it will instead encourage the smokin' and jokin', is the question. Unfortunately, it's probably the latter. Unfortunate because it reinforces those voters' resentment that was part of their attraction to Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The things they don't book-learn at Harvard and Yale!"

    The best book to come out of Yale was "God and Man at Yale."

    That WaPo lady writer need to read it and learn to fear God. Only then will she cease to laugh at the God Fearing folks of the Heartland. Good for you Bob, you're doing God's work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It's dark as a dungeon inside many minds!"

    How can Somerby say this about one side while decrying that it is being said about the other side? The silliness of this should make him stop and think before he writes this crap.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For CMike:

    June 9, 2015

    "As a general matter, we wouldn’t describe ourselves as “fans of Hillary Clinton.” ...By any normal political reckoning, it would be hard to elect Candidate Sanders in a general election. (Unless the GOP nominates Candidate Carson, in which case all bets would be off.)

    That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t support Candidate Sanders. We would say it means this:

    We have an obligation not to get stampeded, or swept away, in our overall thinking. When we go ahead and elect the greater evil, it can have tremendous effects."

    Feb 5, 2016:

    "In many ways, we think Bernie Sanders is a phenomenal pol."

    April 8, 2016:

    "This year, Candidate Sanders is highly authentic, unlike Candidate Clinton. If Sanders wins the nomination, we'll be first in line to vote for him, as would have been true with Tsongas and Bradley before him....In November, we'll be first in line to vote for Candidate Sanders. That said, this ancient, tremendously stupid pattern really does get a bit old."

    June 8, 2015:

    "The commenter plans to vote for Bernie Sanders. We like Sanders’ politics too, but we think this comment is very poorly reasoned:"

    Oct 16, 2015:

    "On the whole, we thought Candidate Sanders was superb in Tuesday night’s debate. We thought Candidate Clinton was very good too.

    We’ll happily vote for either one depending on who gets nominated. That said, an early question from moderator Anderson Cooper helps us see where things will go if Sanders heads the ticket."

    May 4, 2016:

    "By traditional norms of American politics, Candidate Trump can't get elected. Of course, by those same traditional norms, neither can Candidate Sanders—and Candidate Clinton is damaged goods and a gaffe machine who is loathed in wide swaths of the press."

    Somerby discusses the possible attacks on Sanders but points out that Clinton has been damaged by Sanders and that Trump can win despite the craziness, so he leaves it that all are damaged and anyone can win.

    "By traditional norms of American politics, Candidate Trump can't get elected. Of course, by those same traditional norms, neither can Candidate Sanders—and Candidate Clinton is damaged goods and a gaffe machine who is loathed in wide swaths of the press."

    Feb 10, 2016:

    "Candidate Clinton could still win the Democratic nomination. So could Candidate Sanders, of course. At this point, we wouldn't want to bet either way....Come November, we'll be voting for Candidate Sanders or for Candidate Clinton, whichever one gets the nod." after a long discussion of the attacks on Clinton and the way liberals are not fighting back.

    -----------

    From this sampling, it seems clear that Somerby would have voted happily for either candidate, intended to support the party nominee, but preferred Sanders and his politics, and considered Clinton too badly damaged to win. Somerby did worry about how Republicans might attack Sanders if he were nominated, but he said several times that he preferred his politics and considered him a "phenomenal pol [politician]". In December 2016, Somerby defended Sanders against attack by Professor Dyson because Sanders criticized Clinton and the Democratic party for emphasizing identity politics.

    These two claims: (1) Democrats ignored white working class males, (2) Democrats focused too much on identity politics and not enough on class issues, are the marching platform of Bernie and his Bros as they launch their campaign 2020. For them, Comey, the Russians, the leaks, the bots, none of that ever happened. Hillary blew it because she wasn't Bernie. Somerby seems to be supporting those themes.

    I think I have made my case. You could have Googled this yourself. I just put Sanders and vote into this webpage's search engine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 8:29 - I cannot come up with a sensible reason for doing this, but I checked the posts you cite. You have not made your case that TDH is a Sanders zealot who gave the shaft to Clinton. (While you have previously opined that TDH didn't vote for Clinton in the general election, you now concede that he did. Duh!) As for the posts you cite:
      2/5/16 - I skimmed it but couldn't find the part about Sanders being a "marvelous pol" - even if he said it, so what - Sanders, a comparatively far left candidate came from almost nowhere to give Clinton a run for her money - what's wrong with saying he is a marvelous pol?
      6/8/15 - a commenter Sanders supporter says won't vote for Clinton if she is nominated - TDH while saying he "likes Sanders too" (not saying will vote for him in primary) - basically says commenter is dumb (but in a nicer way)
      6/9/15 - you quote from this post out of context. he makes it very clear he would vote for Clinton, but notes she has weaknesses (pretty obvious ones i.e. that so many voters, including democrats, claim to 'distrust' her - the result of media's inept response to right wind anti-Clinton propaganda), but also points to Sanders weaknesses (old, plus not in the mainstream) - he's talking about electability, not merits of candidates.
      2/10/16 - criticizes liberal pundits for trashing Clinton over a whole gamut of things, thus being responsible for negative views of her - TDH has been doing this for years, defending her constantly.
      4/8/16 - I didn't find the part about Sanders being authentic - I am sure if TDH said this, he meant that according to the bad faith scripts that the media is so addicted to, that's how Sanders is portrayed.
      4/8/16 here again TDH is defending Clinton.

      No you have completely failed to prove your case. You seem to take after our new POTUS in sticking to a completely invalid premise based nonsensically on irrelevant evidence.

      Delete
    2. AC/MA -- straw horse.

      I never said Somerby wouldn't vote for Clinton. I said he preferred Sanders. Go back and read the beginning of my comment.

      If you cannot find these quotes, include key words from the quote itself (e.g., "phenomenal pol") as search terms.

      I see that I mistakenly quoted the same paragraph twice. Not sure what was in the second Somerby quote I had intended to put there. More of the same, probably.

      You are expecting me to make a case for something I didn't state. I didn't say Somerby wouldn't vote for Clinton. He obviously says he would, repeatedly.

      I think he probably didn't vote for Clinton because his latests posts suggest a guilty conscience over how he voted. He keeps arguing that Trump voters had good reasons for their votes. I suspect he is actually worrying about the good reasons all those Sanders and Stein voters (and the ones who stayed home) had for their choices. He is perhaps worried about whether they are good people despite ruining the country by giving the election to Trump. If he had worked his heart out for Clinton, like many of us, he wouldn't now be so concerned that we understand that those who voted differently are still good people.

      Delete
    3. anon 3:39, first you deny saying that you think TDH didn't vote for Clinton. It's true, not in the comment in this chain, but in comments to other posts you have. Then here you assert that TDH "probably" didn't vote for Clinton. You are apparently missing a few marbles with your absurd interpretations of our current state of affairs. I should give up responding to you as you seem estranged from reality.

      Delete
    4. The Daily Howler 10/16/2015 [LINK]

      [QUOTE] ...On the whole, we thought Candidate Sanders was superb in Tuesday night’s debate. We thought Candidate Clinton was very good too.

      We’ll happily vote for either one depending on who gets nominated. That said, an early question from moderator Anderson Cooper helps us see where things will go if Sanders heads the ticket.

      Cooper asked Sanders about socialism. He then worked the honeymoon beat:

      COOPER (10/13/15): A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?

      SANDERS: Well, we’re going to win because first, we’re going to explain what democratic socialism is....

      Those are some of the principles that I believe in, and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.


      COOPER: Denmark is a country that has a population—Denmark is a country that has a population of 5.6 million people. The question is really about electability here, and that's what I’m trying to get at.

      The Republican attack ad against you in a general election—it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist.

      Doesn’t—doesn't that ad write itself?


      Should Cooper have asked these questions? On the whole, that line of questioning makes perfect sense.

      But good lord! He certainly ran to the honeymoon fast! And that’s exactly where things will go as soon as Sanders is nominated.

      We were ten minutes into this first debate and Anderson Cooper wanted to know about that honeymoon! [END QUOTE]

      Delete
    5. As to what was said in the previous thread [LINK]:

      twitter sucks April 8, 2017 at 12:16 AM

      How's your vote for Jill Stein working out for you now, BigMike?

      CMike April 8, 2017 at 12:22 AM

      I wrote in Sanders.

      Anonymous April 8, 2017 at 12:30 AM

      I'll bet Somerby did too.

      CMike April 8, 2017 at 2:50 AM

      You're wrong, Somerby voted for Clinton and she was his preferred candidate throughout the primaries. You have been thrown by Somerby's repeated suggestions throughout the process that in the general election Clinton might not be invincible- a sacrilege to a Clinton devotee like yourself.

      Anonymous April 8, 2017 at 9:43 AM

      Somerby said several times that he preferred Sanders but would happily vote for Clinton. I am not going to dig the quotes out again, but you and AC/MA keep ignoring what Somerby said.

      CMike April 8, 2017 at 12:35 PM

      No, go ahead and dig out those quotes. I've been through his posts and Somerby was clear, he didn't think Sanders would be a viable general election candidate.

      Anonymous April 8, 2017 at 9:49 PM

      I posted them already. Use Google.

      Delete
  14. Anon 829,
    Good luck following David Brock on his next sleazy campaign!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know what you're talking about.

      Delete
    2. Anon 1217,
      I think you do.

      You seem to like Brock's work--enough to bleat out the nonsense about "Bros"--and Brock will be moving on to do what he does for someone else. (And it's not policy advice.)

      As far as the "marching platform," do you suggest that Dems continue to follow Clinton's hawkish foreign policy--the one informed by insights from her pal, Henry Kissinger?

      Delete

  15. Hello, i am Jessica Wayne from TX, USA. Life without my husband was a real mess for me and my children I am so happy to get my Ex back through the help of Dr Noble the spell caster . My greatest surprise was that 48 hours after the Doctor prepared the spell for me, my husband who has abandoned me for 4 years suddenly called me unexpectedly and am so happy that we have come to become one again through the help of Dr Noble and am so happy to be with my husband once again. Dr Noble is a very wonderful spell caster, you can contact him if you need his assistant because i know he can also help you. contact him through his email: templeofjoyandprosperity@gmail.com immediately

    ReplyDelete
  16. What a cool article! I think it will be very informative for students, who are going to apply for Yale and Harvard universities. Still, they need to know one more thing - the academic process is really complicated but there are essay writing services that produce creative essay for affordable prices. As essays are the real prblem for some students, such services can be really handy!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey guys my wife and I have been married for 15 years. For over five years I have been dealing with jealousy issues because of flirting and her having emotional type affairs with other men. I felt like my masculinity was in question and if I said the way she was acting bothered me, it seemed to make matters worse or I was accused of being controling. During this period I did state I wanted a divorce if the behavior was not going to end: texting men a night, leaving for the weekend without letting me know where she was going or not responding to messages. We do have a son and basically it's been him and I for the last year on the weekends. She disconnected completely from being a good wife and mother. In April she said she wanted a separation and I said no we need to get into marriage counseling. We did try that, but she was not very responsive and didn't give any effort. Afterward she was adamant about separation and divorce. I continued to say no and that we needed to save our family. She presented a separation agreement and I had to hire a lawyer. Because of the above behavior my lawyer suggested a private investigator. The investigator discovered my wife was having an affair with a close friend of the family who also is married with children. We know the extended families. I feel like I should tell this man's wife about what happened. This adultery has devastated me emotionally, I feel betrayed and I'm physically drained. I know my wife is passionate in terms of her sexuality, and I can't get the thought of them out of my head. It makes me question my own manhood, and I feel very inferior or that he must be a better lover or what ever. The problem is my wife pursued him. She would go to him and she lured him into this adultery. I felt this was coming for some time and could not stop it. She was not only lying to me but also to our son about what she was doing and where she was going. My family is important, my son loves her and as crazy as it sounds so do I. Can you respond with a course of action on how to proceed? I was still have a very huge place in my heart for her. so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Ahmed can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my wife came to me and apologized for the wrongs she did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I, my son and my wife are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Ahmed. as it is a place to resolve marriage/relationship issues, do you want to be sure if your spouse is being faithful to you or Do you want your Ex to come back to you Contact.: E-mail: Ahmedutimate@gmail.com or call/Whats-app: +2348160153829 save your crumbling home and change of grades its 100% safe. I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you.
    David L. Ollis, 43yrs, UK

    ReplyDelete