THE RATIONAL ANIMAL WALK: Avenatti supplied five names!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2018

What happened when NBC asked:
"You can't fix stupid," the columnist said.

Because "stupid" generally reads as an insult, we decided to clean up his comment. Yesterday, we skillfully said that he really meant:

Simply put, you can't fix human. There is no cure for that.

Today, we'll admit that even we succumbed, in recent weeks, to the temptation of human. We did so when the Kavanaugh clash led us away from our earlier, high-minded pledge—from our pledge to examine certain "philosophical" topics, while leaving the world of the American public discourse behind.

The blinding stupidity of liberal discourse had made that previous effort pointless. Or so we said, until the dumbness of the Kavanaugh clash drew us in again.

In fairness to us, our own tribe's spectacular dumbness had been both transplendent and general. For one example, consider what Chris Hayes reported, ever-so-briefly but still to his credit, back on October 1.

Michael Avenatti, an obvious con man, had become a liberal god through his representation of Stormy "Stephanie Clifford" Daniels, another fairly obvious hustler and all-around fraudster. Just as conservatives can't see through ridiculous people like Rush and Sean, we liberals can't seem to see through ridiculous hustlers like Avenatti and Clifford.

Avenatti had become a god through his representation of Clifford. Now, he had produced the latest accuser of Kavanaugh!

Her name was Julie Swetnick. Her accusations were thrilling, but were her claims actually true?

NBC News asked Barrister Bluster if his client had any corroboration for her admittedly thrilling claims. To Hayes' credit, he ever-so-briefly let us know what happened when NBC asked:
HAYES (10/1/18): So far, three women have stepped forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh, on the record, of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. And one of those women, Julie Swetnick, has now given her first interview to NBC News senior national correspondent Kate Snow.

Swetnick does not accuse Kavanaugh himself of sexual assaulting her, but of being present at a party where she says she was gang raped.

Tonight, NBC News has not been able to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims. When we asked her attorney, Michael Avenatti, for any witnesses who could back up Swetnick's account, he provided four names of friends Swetnick says went to parties with her. One of them says he does recall anyone named Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends is deceased.

NBC News has reached out to the other two and has not heard back. Swetnick's mother's name was also provided, but she too is deceased.
By now, Swetnick was accusing Kavanaugh "of being present at a party where she says she was gang raped." As Hayes and Snow went on to note, Swetnick had walked back the original thrilling claims in her original sworn statement, which Avenatti had thrillingly produced.

By now, "Swetnick [did] not accuse Kavanaugh himself of sexual assaulting her," Hayes was willing to note. That said, the pathetic part of Hayes' remarks involve what happened when NBC News asked Barrister Bluster "for any witnesses who could back up Swetnick's account" of the parties at which she now said wasn't assaulted by Kavanaugh.

Avenatti provided five names. Pitifully, let's re-post Hayes' account of what happened next:
HAYES: NBC News has not been able to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims. When we asked her attorney, Michael Avenatti, for any witnesses who could back up Swetnick's account, he provided four names of friends Swetnick says went to parties with her. One of them says he does recall anyone named Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends is deceased.

NBC News has reached out to the other two and has not heard back. Swetnick's mother's name was also provided, but she too is deceased.
According to Hayes, our most brilliant liberal god had given NBC News five names. Two of these corroborating witnesses turned out to be dead.

A third of Avenatti's corroborators said that he or she can't recall anyone named Julie Swetnick. The other two didn't call back.

So it went when Barrister Bullroar gave NBC five names. On the one hand, this was just the latest gong show from the ridiculous Avenatti. But in truth, this kind of embarrassing, pre-rational nonsense has been general all through our liberal world in recent weeks, and in the past thirty years.

Avenatti supplied the names of at least two witnesses who are dead. To Hayes' credit, he did report this pitiful fact, though very much in passing.

Elsewhere, we liberals were kept from hearing about Avenatti's latest gong show. Almost surely, he'll soon be back on the air with Lawrence, with Lawrence staring at him in such rapt admiration that the analysts will surely shout that they need to go rent a room!

To his limited credit, Hayes briefly reported this tribal idiot's latest pathetic gong show. Elsewhere, we liberals have been spared the pain of knowing that this occurred.

Over on Fox, by way of contrast, viewers have heard all about this sort of thing from Avenatti. It's one more example of a fairly recent phenomenon, in which Fox viewers actually receive more information about various matters than we bottle-fed liberals do.

You can't fix [human], that columnist said. Beyond that, you plainly can't fix tribal.

In recent weeks, as in the past thirty years, we liberals have plainly established that we're extremely "human." Over those previous years, we helped build the world which has given us Trump in the White House. As the world has become more tribal, our "human" impulses have surfaced to an even greater degree.

When we went on our autumn vacation last weekend, we listened to Krista Tippett's weekly NPR program. We've long admired Tippett's sensibility, but we actually found this last program inspiring.

That said, the program aired in the midst of a vast sea of tribal stupidity. It drew us away from our earlier resolve—away from from the loftier story to which we expect to return next week

To his limited credit, Hayes ever-so-briefly let us know about Avenatti's latest folly. Aside from that, we liberals have been kept in the dark about Barrister Bluster, while our counterparts who watch Fox News are being more fully informed.

This is happening more and more often. You can't fix stupid, one columnist said. Also, you can't fix blindingly tribal (and corporate) to the point of dishonest, a point we'll consider tomorrow.

Today's report should be read to the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk. Baby elephants can be lots of fun. Our own species' Rational Animal Walk can, of course, be more destructive.

Tomorrow: Our Own Rhodes Scholar played us again. But then, what else is new?

79 comments:

  1. "Elsewhere, we liberals have been spared the pain of knowing that this occurred."

    Don't worry, Bob: zombies can feel no pain. Nor, for that matter, are they capable of 'knowing'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love you Mao.

      Delete
    2. FTFY: "I love you Comrade Mao."

      Delete
    3. My testimony on how i won £4,000,000 with the great help of Dr gbojie powerful lottery spell: Call him +2349066410185

      It's unbelievable how fortunate I feel after finding your website. For the past 14 years, I have been looking for a way on how i will win lottery. Money situation was one of the biggest problem to me. I had a huge amount of debt and I didn't know what to do. Out of complete and total desperation, I contacted many of those so-called individuals who promised powerful magic to win the lottery, witchcraft or black magic. None of them worked and none were as wonderful, affectionate and warm as Dr gbojie has been. He is definitely different from the others and I felt immediate hope and strength from hearing about the promises he had to offer. He carries an air of purity and divine strength that is as pure as fresh snow on the ground. I requested Dr gbojie most powerful spells and I was relieved right away that I had someone to solve my problems for me. His spells worked wonders,i won (Four Million pounds) my money troubles resolved itself after winning the lottery. My life change over night,i now have my own house and two cars,also i am free from my debts. Dr gbojie, I have no idea what I would have done without you being there to help me out. If you are there and you need a powerful magic to win the lottery,Dr. gbojie is the right person you need to trust and work with,i promise you that you will also win and share your own testimony. You can contact him via email:

      gbojiespiritualtemple@gmail.com Call or text him +2349066410185

      website : http://gbojiespiritualtemple.website2.me








      My testimony on how i won £4,000,000 with the great help of Dr gbojie powerful lottery spell: Call him +2349066410185

      It's unbelievable how fortunate I feel after finding your website. For the past 14 years, I have been looking for a way on how i will win lottery. Money situation was one of the biggest problem to me. I had a huge amount of debt and I didn't know what to do. Out of complete and total desperation, I contacted many of those so-called individuals who promised powerful magic to win the lottery, witchcraft or black magic. None of them worked and none were as wonderful, affectionate and warm as Dr gbojie has been. He is definitely different from the others and I felt immediate hope and strength from hearing about the promises he had to offer. He carries an air of purity and divine strength that is as pure as fresh snow on the ground. I requested Dr gbojie most powerful spells and I was relieved right away that I had someone to solve my problems for me. His spells worked wonders,i won (Four Million pounds) my money troubles resolved itself after winning the lottery. My life change over night,i now have my own house and two cars,also i am free from my debts. Dr gbojie, I have no idea what I would have done without you being there to help me out. If you are there and you need a powerful magic to win the lottery,Dr. gbojie is the right person you need to trust and work with,i promise you that you will also win and share your own testimony. You can contact him via email:

      gbojiespiritualtemple@gmail.com Call or text him +2349066410185

      website : http://gbojiespiritualtemple.website2.me






      Delete
  2. Kavanaugh was getting confirmed no matter what. If his blatant lying to Congress couldn't stop it, what do you think could?
    As for Liberals, i don't think tying a sexual predator around the neck of the Republican Party is stupid at all.
    Pointing out that Republicans are who we always thought they were should play to the non-bigot vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 11:21 - this isn't good. The problem with Kavanaugh is that he is a Scalia clone Federalist Society appointment - like all the judges Trump is now appointing. The case against him as a 'sexual predator' was weak, and I don't think very convincing to most voters out there. Maybe he jumped on her, but it was 30+ years ago, she was drunk, no witnesses, no evidence during his professional career of acting this way, etc. Things seem to be getting crazier.

      Delete
    2. AC/MA, there was no "case" presented against Kavanaugh as a sexual predator because the claims of his accusers were never investigated. It takes evidence to make strong claims and the FBI's hands were tied. Also, she was not drunk, there were corroborative contemporary witnesses, there are other incidents from subsequent years...etc.

      But mainly, the accusations were not investigated and we don't know whether they were true or false because the Republicans wouldn't let anyone find out. Attempts to cover up generally suggest guilt, but you don't seem to have a very open mind about the possibility that he did bad stuff to women (beyond his court decisions affecting them).

      We don't get to vote on Supreme Court justices. If we did, he would lose because the polls were against him. Most voters were not in favor of putting him on the court. Most wanted the FBI to actually investigate.

      I am especially put off by your phrase "Maybe he jumped on her" as a euphemism for lying on top of her, putting his hand over her mouth, and attempting to remove her clothes as a preliminary to rape. Your phrase minimizes how a young woman would be affected by this event. Maybe you are confused...it was Mark Judge who jumped on the bed, allowing her to escape. This was an alleged attempted rape, not someone jumping around.

      Delete
    3. AC/MA demonstrates perfectly how every goddam time, no matter what the issue is, the right wing radical (not conservative) narrative dominates and penetrates even to those on the progressive/liberal side. AC/MA sounds like a decent enough person who wants to be fair.

      There was a time when TDH was superb at deconstructing the wingnut radical narrative as it was happening in real time. Those times are long gone I'm afraid.

      Delete
    4. There is nothing right wing about noticing that a decades old allegation about a drunken stumbling pile-on involving high school kids, with no corroboration and a changing story, brought forth in the context of a political process that is more important than any other that will take place for another quarter century, should be DISMISSED out of hand.

      Not only is it not right wing to recognize this, but it's acknowledged by every liberal who understands the history of witch hunts and why our jurisprudence demands a presumption of innocence, not "believe women."

      Being a Democrat has nothing to do with being a liberal anymore.

      Once the "sexual predator" witch hunt against Kavanaugh began, all liberals were forced to support and defend him because the question shifted from a choice between confirming or not confirming a Republican conservative to the bench, or endorsing the Democrat's push to move us into a territory we haven't seen in this country since Salem.

      They don't appear to understand most people do not live in their rage-fueled identity grievance bubble they've decided is more important than our founding principles.

      Delete
    5. "There is nothing right wing..."

      Sure there is. The Right-wing dismissed the allegation out of hand, because that is who they are. They dismissed Kavanaugh's multiple instances of lying to Congress for the same reason. The same Right-wing, which dismissed Trump's admitting he's a sexual predator.
      This is who they are. Sorry if that hurts your fee-fees.

      Delete
    6. @2:12 -- So I guess it doesn't bother you that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied his ass off under oath during a Senate hearing. I'm not sure you understand how government is supposed to work.

      A "drunken stumbling pile-on" isn't OK when the woman being piled on isn't drunk and isn't participating but is being assaulted. And it doesn't matter when this happened unless she were pressing criminal charges, which she was not. Even teens should know that this is not OK, no matter how drunk. This girl was headed to the bathroom and was pushed into a bedroom and assaulted. Using language that minimizes what happened illustrates why you specifically should never sit on the bench, since you do not understand that the perspective of the victim is very different than that of the perps and their parents and uninvolved adults. She was traumatized by this seemingly harmless act, to the point that symptoms remained for the rest of her life. That is what happens when you are the one who has no control, and it doesn't matter whether the boys were drunk or sober.

      This is why there is now a widening gap between Republican male and female voters, and why women are switching from Republican to Independent and Democrat over this issue. Men don't seem to understand that many women identify with Blasey Ford because they have had similar experiences, thus they were able to believe in the possibility that she was telling the truth. That men were not is a betrayal of trust for many women. A judge must keep an open mind. How can Kavanaugh do that with respect to women's issues? I see no way in hell for him to rule fairly on such issues and that concerns me, as part of the 50% of this country who are female.

      Delete
    7. a drunken stumbling pile-on Translation: A planned and executed tag team ambush of a 15 year old girl attempting to go to the bathroom.

      a changing story BULLSHIT

      brought forth in the context of a political process

      She first raised the issue before he was even nominated by President Chickenshit.

      Again, you are framing the narrative exactly as the corrupt GOP majority wants you to frame it. The Democrats didn't drag this woman out of obscurity, she came forward on her own, as she said out of a sense of "civic duty". And the country thanks her by forcing her to live in hiding due to sick fuckers death threats. She had nothing to gain from this and she knew it. We never would have heard her name had it not been for someone leaking it to the public, my guess is someone at the Washington Post.

      It also became very obvious that Judge Rapey was fearful something in his past in this regard was going to get out.

      How amazing that in less than 12 hours the majority leader was able to produce a letter signed by 65 contemporary women, none of whom even went to his high school, all attesting to his unblemished character. (The chairman and leader of the Beach Week Ralph Club.)

      Then there was the oh so strange part of his confirmation where he trooped in a large group of 15 year old girls he coached.

      Then there was the evidence of him apparently trying to coordinate through emails and text message with friends a pushback to the story before it was made public. Kind of like witness tampering.

      I could go on.

      The fact of the matter is that President Chickenshit nominated a far right radical conservative party hack, and then hid his papers from the confirmation hearing. Even with the little we found out there were multiple instances of this clearly unqualified judge committing perjury.





      Delete
    8. mm & others - I'm a lawyer who has done a lot of litigation over the years. To win a case, you need to convince a jury or a judge. Having good witnesses is important. The case that Kavanaugh had jumped on Ford, at age 17, in my view was weak, on various levels. This wasn't a court trial (though it was about appointing a SCOTUS judge). Unlike a trial, you don't have neutral jurors, but politicians. It was a loser from the start because the GOP is in the majority. The Ford thing was a stab at stymying the confirmation, but it didn't work. If it was a stronger case, it might have, e.g., if you had a few women who worked with him over the years of his career who made "me too" type allegations. The thing is to get control of Congress, and again, you need more votes to do that. How does the Kavanaugh/Ford thing affect the next election? I don't know. Maybe it will help, but I wouldn't count on it. Believe me a lot of people are biased, including some of you guys in your view of this. It's very common that a client with a lousy case, thinks he/she can't lose, or fails to see the weakness of his/her position.

      Delete
    9. AC/MA: This was the Senate acting in their Constitutionally enumerated power to Advise and Consent to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. A lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land. The court of last resort. The final word on serious issues where the decisions will affect the entire country.

      The majority party decided to bring in a prosecutor to interrogate the victim. The minority party was limited to 5 minutes per Senator of questioning. No other witnesses were permitted, as ruled by the majority party. No preliminary investigation was conducted prior to the hearing as requested by the victim.

      This was the way the majority party wanted it. The entire process was of their design. Two witnesses, the victim and the accused. The victim to be interrogated by a prosecutor and the accused to be coddled by the majority.

      The American people were presented with a very stark choice of who to believe, who was more credible. That is how the republicans wanted it.

      This wasn't an issue of deciding whether Kavanaugh goes to jail, it was an issue of whether this man was able to show for a goodam couple hours the judicial temperament and composure to sit on our highest court for a lifetime making decisions that will affect all of us, Democrats and Republicans and Independents and Cherokees alike.

      And the fucking wingnut hack starts out with one of the most appalling displays of partisan bullshit you would ever want to witness. Supreme Court Ju8stice. Haaaa!!! And guess what, it turns out this was all the Clintons fault according to Mr. Tits and Clits, leader of the Ralph club.

      So, that was the stark choice given to the American people by the majority party and the American people overwhelmingly decided that man didn't belong on the SC.

      Of course we don't live in a Democracy any more so Judge Rapey and President Chickenshit won in the end. Just don't give me any shit and try to pretend there was anything resembling a fair hearing.

      I am sure when you litigate, you are not limited to one witness. But never mind.

      Delete
    10. Ford lied. Her story changed, and conveniently it changed to accommodate Kavanaugh's alibis and explanations, which he didn't bother concealing. I don't think "something happened and she was confused." I think nothing happened concerning Kavanaugh and she knows nothing happened. Except that maybe he scorned her. She struck me as exactly the kind of person who would make something up to target a specific individual. And her lies, changes, and areas of particular (practiced) emphasis in her testimony were obvious.

      She is a liar and a fraud as her ex-boyfriend exposed (she stole his credit cards and ran up charges on them).

      Delete
    11. Does anyone really think that smearing the victim establishes Kavanaugh's innocence? This woman is a professor, not a credit card thief. What a pathetic attempt to discredit a plausible witness. Republicans should have let the FBI investigate so that Kavanaugh's name could be actually cleared, instead of engaging in these ridiculous slurs that will mainly make a lot of women angrier at the right.

      Delete
    12. "(she stole his credit cards and ran up charges on them)"

      If she were a Republican, we'd call her a "smart businesswoman", and put her in charge of the Treasury.

      Delete
    13. She's a professor in a frivolous field, a credit card thief, and an odd duck.

      Delete
    14. "a credit card thief" makes her a smart businessperson.
      You'd have to be a liberal zombie to use your own credit cards.

      Delete
  3. I remember when the Swetnick claim was first reported and it did not claim that Kavanaugh had raped her. It claimed he was a bystander who helped organize the activity. That claim didn't change over time, as Somerby asserts.

    If Swetnick was asked by Avenatti to name others who might corroborate her story and she named several people, given the ages of the people involved, it seems likely a few may be deceased. It doesn't discredit her that one turned out to be dead. The other, her mother, she would surely have told Avenatti about. It says nothing about the veracity of the remaining possible witnesses that they didn't return a reporter's phone call. Somerby thinks this discredits Swetnick, but it is neutral with respect to the truth of her complaint about Kavanaugh.

    Somerby again calls both Stormy Daniels and Avenatti con artists. I do not believe that is fair, given that there is no evidence of any con for either person, other than their profession, which Somerby clearly has some puritan reactions to. Avenatti is a defense attorney. He is doing what they all do on behalf of clients. He is no better and no worse than others in his profession -- which is ATTORNEY, not con artist. Stormy Daniels is a porn actress. She is not a con artist either. She was unfortunately involved in one of Trump's cons, where she wound up the victim, and is now seeking redress. But Somerby again has a puritan reaction to her profession that makes anything she says or does suspect in his mind. As if she forfeited her rights to be treated as a human being when she acted in porn.

    I told you yesterday that Somerby would go back to Stormy Daniels today. He has become so predictable.

    AC/MA, I believe someone's professional career starts when they are in law school. Plenty of evidence of excessive drinking during that time. It is when he got in the bar fight. But witnesses to Kavanaugh's bad behavior were not investigated, not permitted to testify publicly (except Ford), and not reported in some cases (private questions were asked in a closed hearing about incidents the public has not heard about). He has been shielded from the consequences of his actions. Then there is all the questionable behavior done on behalf of Republican party efforts, such as for Ken Starr. He was a Republican ratfucker. That shows less than sterling character in the eyes of Democrats, but Republicans see this appointment as payback well earned by a party loyalist who will go on to protect Trump on cases coming to the highest court.

    And what is Somerby's role in this? He comes down squarely on the side of those poor accused Republicans, including Donald Trump, who is being persecuted by con artists like Avenatti and Daniels, people with legitimate grievances and the means to hold Trump to account. We now see Somerby's true colors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tippett, cited by Somerby above, describes her desire to find "a true back and forth marked at once by bedrock difference and goodwill, humor, and a willingness to bring our questions as well as our arguments, our humanity as well as our positions, into the room"

    Somerby says he admires Tippett's sensibility, but it is the guests, Kohn and Erickson, who created the civility that Somerby praises. Kohn is a liberal on Fox. She says that Trump supporters can be good people. In other words, she says all the things Somerby yearns to hear.

    Why does Somerby have such a strong need to see Trump and his supporters as good, decent, honest people? I believe it is because he feels guilty for helping to put Trump into office. He wants to believe that his failure to support Hillary, his months-long series of posts undermining her campaign, his vote for Bernie and perhaps ultimately for Trump instead of Hillary, have not done the evil that is so obviously happening because of Democratic Socialists (along with Russia, Comey and others). His guilty conscience has distorted his perception of everything that has come after the 2016 election.

    He tries to disguise his support for Trump and conservative causes as Kumbaya, but it is contradicted by his vitriolic attacks on Democrats and those who oppose Trump, today including Swetnick, Avenatti, Daniels, and those journalists who give them a forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Swetnick, Avenatti, Daniels." What a bench you Democrats have there.

      Delete
    2. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Jennifer Granholm, Kirsten Gillibrand, Maxine Waters, even Beto O'Rourke -- these are more typical of our bench.

      Swetnick and Daniels are women suing Republicans for bad behavior and Avenatti is their attorney. None of them are representatives of the Democratic Party. Even Avenatti's threat to run for president is an obvious jab at Trump.

      What do Republicans gain by portraying them that way? Distraction? Cover for Kavanaugh? Why is this particular lie being told and why is Somerby signing onto it?

      Delete
    3. I wonder why anyone would think Booker, Harris, Waters, Beto and the rest are more credible than Avenatti and his porny clients.

      Delete
    4. 4:59,
      It's called "paying attention". Funny thing too, because it doesn't cost a cent.

      Delete
  5. Has everyone noticed that Nader has come out against the Democratic party, urging that we split the vote in 2020? What better way to get Trump reelected? How much is he being paid, I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Nader was running back in 2000, siphoning votes from Gore, a fact I can't recall Somerby ever mentioning.

      Delete
    2. As I recall, back in 2000 some scumbag named Algore siphoned a whole bunch of votes from Ralph Nader, an excellent presidential candidate.

      Delete
    3. From Wikipedia:

      "Nader unsuccessfully sought a seat on the Harvard University Board of Overseers in 2016 as part of an insurgent candidate slate operating under the name "Free Harvard, Fair Harvard" which called for increased transparency by the university as to how it made athletic and legacy admissions decisions.[78] In February of that year he expressed support for Donald Trump making a third-party run for president, saying that such a move might help break-up the two party system."

      So, Nader is an avowed Trump supporter along the same lines as Susan Sarandon. The faster Trump blows everything up, the sooner the revolution.

      Delete
    4. But unfortunately, once something is blown up, it's pretty difficult to put it back together.

      Delete
  6. Avenatti, a "liberal God?" Who the hell thinks that?

    The "stupidity of liberal discourse"?
    Somerby only gives examples of Avenatti talking, on TV.

    There is plenty of "liberal discourse" going on that Somerby fails to even notice, much less discuss.

    Should we equate "Republican discourse" with, say, Giuliani, or Fox News? Why equate "liberal discourse" with Avenatti and MSNBC?

    There are hundreds of Democratic candidates running across the country. Not a one of them references Avenatti. Whether you think Avenatti hurts or helps them, he is an independent actor. There is no central command waiting to silence his voice.

    This notion that all liberals are burnished or tarnished by the actions of a single so-called liberal like Avenatti is simply illogical thinking. That that is what Republicans want liberals to believe is a form of gaslighting: "if one liberal says something stupid, then all liberals say and believe that stupid thing." Somerby should not abet this thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But sane, reasonable, admirable liberals running for votes face a more difficult task when media favored by our own base leads viewers down rabbit-holes or paints big targets on liberal candidates (by doing the sorts of things Somerby focuses his criticism on). The Right will always be better at the smearing and mis-directing - they have to be, because their agenda is contrary to the rational self-interest of their own base; they have organized to control message because weaving a tangled web is their key to success. And for liberals to follow suit is self-destructive, since our success depends on bringing "rational" self-interest and "perceived" self-interest into alignment.

      Delete
    2. "The Right will always be better at the smearing and mis-directing - they have to be, because their agenda is contrary to the rational self-interest of their own base"

      You are the Right, dembot. Globalist/imperialist far right; that's what your your zombie cult is. And hate-mongering is your cult's only chance.

      Delete
    3. Which "liberals" are following suit? The pseudo ones in the media? The careerists at the Times? Avenatti? Is he a "liberal?" What smear has he perpetrated? And again, even if you think he is playing dirty, he is not under some sort of central control. His actions do not reflect on all liberals, no matter how much Somerby or Republicans want you to believe that. You implicitly hold Democrats and Republicans to different standards, which of course benefits...Republicans. Somerby should be talking about how the so-called liberal media undermines liberal interests, not how liberals are bad because Avenatti, ostensibly a liberal, is supposedly a con man. That makes no sense.

      Delete
    4. Pseudos in the media, careerists at the Times, Avenatti - these are PRECISELY what Somerby talks about. They dominate the media that isn't beholden to the Right. Their actions do reflect on all liberals IN THE MINDS OF NON-LIBERALS (many of whom we want to vote for liberal candidates and causes, and believe they would if they could be helped to think more clearly about their own values and interests and who shares them, without these confusing and demoralizing sideshows) - and they "seem" or can be made to "seem" to reflect all liberals because they are the ones on the air all the time, and then amplified, falsified, vilified in the non-liberal media. Of course I hold my team to a higher standard - if you don't, why not? Is what's going on now working?

      Delete
    5. And BTW, I think your advice to Bob is perfectly put: "Somerby should be talking about how the so-called liberal media undermines liberal interests" - only that's exactly what he is already doing, I think. The impression that he's calling liberals "bad" comes - I think - from misreading his heavy-handed rhetoric and forgetting that he's criticizing liberal political speech, not liberal political values and goals.

      Delete
    6. Your "team"? You act as if all liberals must speak with one voice. If any one of them gets out of line, the whole project is doomed, apparently. It isn't a football team or an army, for heaven's sake. I'm not even sure what the "liberal team" would look like, given the split between the neoliberal-hating left and the traditional Democrats. There is a mixed bag of views on the left spectrum, as it should be with any group of "stupid" humans. Liberals should not be made to feel that any dissent or misstep spells disaster for liberals. Republicans will tar and feather the finest candidate known to man, misstep or not. As far as "not working", well, that's a long discussion. But it is not helpful to make false equivalences between what one person says and some fanciful construct such as "liberal discourse."

      Delete
    7. And, just to be clear, I am not convinced by what Somerby has written that Avenatti did anything wrong.

      Delete
    8. "...the media that isn't beholden to the Right..."

      Never heard of 'em.

      Delete
    9. Liberals elected Obama to two terms. Hillary would have won without Russian meddling, Comey and other meddling with the electoral process -- she did win the popular vote. We are now effectively fighting back against gerrymandering and voter suppression on state and local levels. I am seeing Republican incumbents retiring and in very close races all over my state of CA, for example. From what I read, that is happening elsewhere too.

      So how is what Democrats are doing "not working"? I think Democrats were a little behind the curve on use of social media but that is being remedied. Fundraising is at all time highs. There is enthusiasm that belies the doom and gloom being spread here and by critics of the Democratic party.

      I seriously do not understand why Democrats are undermining other Democrats by endlessly analyzing why Democrats always lose. Mueller will find that out for us about 2016, and "always" doesn't apply beyond that.

      Delete
    10. Oh, I don't know . . .um, state legislatures and governorships, the US House and Senate, the Supreme Court, nothing much. The White House is nice, but really! The Republicans have exercised overwhelming power for most of my adult life. We are living in the ruins they have made of our institutions and environment. Power-worshipping media have helped along the way ("but do you back Nancy Pelosi for Speaker?"). I lived through Gore-Bush in 2000. I watched Gore trounce Bush in the first debate and then watched the "so-called liberal" media undo it in the ensuing days. We would live in a very different world today without the brainless, corrupt, incompetent "so-called liberal" media that Somerby makes it his business to criticize. I have a lot more faith in Mueller than I do in the idiots who will be in charge of reporting and spinning what's in his report and what can or should be done about it. Just remember Chris Hayes reporting the Comey press conference about the email investigation - and he's one of the smart ones. Any "so-called liberal" media that can maintain day after month after year that Hillary Clinton has an honesty problem, or can't communicate what she stands for, or that can strain for weeks wondering in earnest if "collusion is even a crime," stands at the ready to turn Mueller's report, whatever it might contain, into toilet paper for Trump Tower.

      Delete
    11. David Stein, I agree about the media. It's just that Somerby simply is not just criticizing the media. Yesterday, he criticized Senator Warren, a liberal politician. He claims Avenatti is somehow part of "liberal discourse." He is not, at least in my view, making helpful observations. The mainstream media liberals pretty much all condemned Warren; so did Somerby, without a careful examination of the facts. A couple of days ago, he criticized Pete Seeger and Malvina Reynolds, because he thought their music mocked "The Others." That is a shameful view of two true progressive voices. Somerby advocates no policy, he never provides positive examples of liberal voices, he offers little in the way of positive advice on countering Trumpism. Hell, he doesn't even thoroughly lay out the facts the way he used to. He just piles on with objections that frankly sound like standard "Democrats can do nothing right" complaints that you hear from the mainstream media that he is supposedly critiquing.

      Delete
    12. I agree that Warren, Seeger and Reynolds are all true progressive voices, worthy of deep veneration - but not above criticism. I'm not sure about the song, but I am persuaded that Warren made a mistake. Everyone does. She shouldn't be condemned, but criticism is in order (indeed, she put fellow liberals in the position of having to criticize her). She can take it, and she remains a hero for me. And if Somerby often gets carried away, and very repetitive (!), I still think his basic point is right. Given his focus, he's bound to seem negative - but I do agree he should include more positive examples.

      Delete
  7. "Simply put, you can't fix human. There is no cure for that."

    Why would anyone want to?

    Somerby has truncated his equivalence: stupid = human = Democrat is the way it should read. The last part is implied because he states the first part and then goes on to castigate examples he considers stupid, all drawn from liberal behavior. He leads us by the nose to his conclusion, that liberals are all stupid-heads who will never be any better and cannot change, so what comes next? Be a conservative? Be a Democratic Socialist (progressive) who has nothing to do with Democrats/liberals? Join Antifa? Give Trump a chance? Jump off a bridge? Adopt a posture of apathy because everything is hopeless...that's the ticket! All Somerby has to do is suppress a few liberal votes by infecting others with his nihilism and he has earned his rubles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Somerby is doing, and as you have described it, correctly in my opinion, is called gaslighting.

      Delete
  8. Somerby had to interrupt his "loftier" (yeah right) posts to return to attacking liberals.

    Must be midterms!

    ReplyDelete
  9. What is "liberal discourse", pray tell? Is it the sum total of what every liberal says?

    Well, in my survey of liberal blogs, web sites, and other publications, I experience differing views on many issues. For example, self-professed liberal Bob Somerby says Elizabeth Warren screwed up. Other liberals say she did the right thing. Many liberals at our mainstream media outlets say she screwed up. What is the "liberal" position on this?

    Some liberals in my red state are avid hunters. Some are members of PETA. What is the "liberal discourse" on the issue of hunting?

    Some liberals I know are religious. Others are atheists.

    Some liberals believe that economic issues are of primary importance. Others feel that issues of race and bigotry are more important.

    And on and on.

    Somerby wants to be the one who decides what "liberal discourse" is. But it is a construct without a clear meaning.

    He should criticize individual examples of speech that he objects to, such as Avenatti's, but he has no right to claim that it represents "liberals" and their "discourse."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What is "liberal discourse", pray tell?"

      Why, it's identity-politics and hate-mongering. Mixed with a generous dose of virtue signaling. And that's all it is.

      Delete
    2. This is a perfect example of how stereotypes stunt thinking on the right.

      Delete
    3. "it's identity-politics"

      Donnie the Great and his white racial resentment vote send their regards.

      Delete
    4. Bob,
      The lack of self-awareness of you and your fellow travelers is absolutely amazing!
      You all are the kind of people who picnicked at a lynching.
      I could refer to conservatives including Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to illustrate my point. But why bother. You know without me telling you.

      Those "beautiful" black children you taught in Baltimore? You would rather see them dead.
      But you and your cohorts do not have the balls to say what you really believe and would really like to see happen.

      Liberals rely on identity politics and hate mongering?
      Ha!

      Delete
    5. Mao, I don't disagree, a lot of dems, or at least a lot of the ones who publish or appear on tv, have gone overboard on identity politics, and this probably has resulted in election losses. And all of a sudden, its dems/liberals who are like the old cold warriors against Russia. There were a lot of reasons why "Trump the Magnificent" (or maybe "President Bonespurs", as an alternate moniker, given his style toward others) and Russian interference was at best one of many reasons. Where do you get the idea that dem/libs are globalist/imperialists, as opposed to Trump and his GOP? It's more the GOP's doing that NAFTA was ratified than dems. I'm pretty sure the banksters are fine with Trump. So he's renegotiated NAFTA - have we seen the details? Is it much of an improvement? I don't know. If it is it's to his credit, but I would be skeptical. What's his thing with Iran? if that's not globalist/imperialism, what is? What's so great about the Federalist Society choosing all these judges? You got some splainin to do, instead of just lazily lame dembot zombie insults.

      Delete
    6. Mao's already explained it. He has a deep, deep love for Establishment Elites. His gaslighting, on a daily basis, is done in service to them.

      Delete
    7. Banksters definitely aren't fine with Trump, otherwise the establishment media would've been producing completely different content.

      I don't know if the election of Trump was a spontaneous act of workers' rebellion against globalization, or if he represents the sector of domestic producers. In any case, from the POV of the average US citizen, what he's doing is much preferable to the alternative.

      "Vote for the lesser evil" has been D's sales pitch since forever, and - surprise, surprise - that led to them sliding to the position where they are it...

      Delete
    8. ...or, rather, "where they aren't it"...

      Delete
    9. That 'establishment media' is hostile, to some extent, to Trump doesn't prove that 'banksters' are upset with Trump, or that even if they are, it is for the wrong reasons. I don't read many right wing websites (or other ones for that matter) but I don't see anything in Fox that globalization is a big concern, other than opposition to the US maybe being held liable for war crimes. The National Review seems to be all in for free trade; seems to be basic GOP ideology, though Trump maybe is a bit different. And I don't know if 'globalization', when you weigh the pros and cons, is a net bad thing. Opinions differ. I'll add that I'm no expert on economics (it's been called the 'dismal science;' I agree with that except for the science part). I guess you can't defend the Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society being the de facto bodies that choose the judges. Or about the treatment of Iran. And now it's not Russian interference in elections, it's Chinese.

      Delete
    10. I don't care about judges. They are mere humans, and I'm interested in systemic approach.

      Similarly, I don't know what "basic GOP ideology" is. Both 'parties' constantly re-align, change their sponsors, whose interests they serve. Assigning permanent "basic ideologies" to them is a fool's errand.

      Delete
    11. ...which, incidentally, becomes painfully obvious observing ongoing D's mccarthyist onslaught...

      Delete
    12. Here, the top google hit:

      "The banking industry is spending big on red-state Democrats in 2018"

      "Senate Democrats trying to hold on to vulnerable seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016 have found an ally that might seem unlikely: the banking industry."


      https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/19/17874240/banks-heitkamp-tester-banking-bill-donations

      Delete
    13. "I don't know what "basic GOP ideology" is."

      Bigotry, ignorance, and a desire to please elites, are the three legs of the GOP ideology stool. You're not even close to being programmed like a human, if you haven't figured that out by now.

      Delete
    14. Turns out the Russian is a Senator Warren fan.
      Good on you, Mao!

      Delete
  10. This post, like yesterday's about Senator Warren, perfectly illustrates the idiocy of the "received wisdom" about liberals/Democrats that Somerby seems to now swallow hook, line, and sinker, the "wisdom" that emanates from the pages of the New York Times.

    Trump's campaign was one gaffe after another, mocking a disabled man, mocking women, mocking a federal judge, mocking Democrats, Mexican immigrants, etc. But Hillary says one thing ("deplorable") and it is the world's worst political gaffe in the history of politics.

    It is an insane double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I heard he sang a good song, I heard he had a style. And so I came to see him, to listen for a while.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxY47jh9owA

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jimmy Carter says Kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme Court justice. What more do you need to hear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimmy Carter, the guy who owns the tire shop downtown? That Jimmy Carter. That's believable. Anyone who isn't a Right-wing bigot (but i repeat myself) knows Kavanaugh isn't fit for "People's Court, never mind the Supreme Court.
      If beating off to the Starr Report becomes "job one" on the Supreme Court, Kvavanaugh will finally be fit for it.

      Delete
    2. Someone should accuse Jimmy Carter of systematic drugged gang rapes as a teenager on the Senate floor purely for political purposes and when he politely denies it we can call him out for being weak and tell him it makes him sound guilty. Some "Christian". Now we know he's just another Democrat hack.

      Delete
    3. He's 99 and likes reading his name in the paper.

      Delete
    4. %;11,
      Is Carter a blackout drunk with a history of lying to Congress?

      Delete
    5. Excellent question %:40! According to your twisted logic, anyone who has stumbled while drunk has certainly suffered a blackout and anyone who has experienced a blackout has certainly run a gang-rape train that they cannot remember, provided you can provide a willing accuser. These are your tactics so yes all it takes is a con artist to point the finger and all the rest falls into place. Jimmy Carter has been drunk, therefore has also blacked out and probably committed rape. We just need the #survivors to come forward and the next politically advantageous opportunity.

      Delete
    6. 2;08,
      I like the cut of your gib(berish).

      Delete
    7. You'd have to have been raised by some real piece of shit parents, to support a rapist on the Supreme Court.

      Delete
    8. %:04 believes the tall tale of Julie Swetnick -- from two towns away and three grades above -- demonstrating their sub-90 IQ. Thinks other people were raised wrong. Can't figure out why everyone isn't taking the Democrat s at their word as they keep losing elections.

      Delete
    9. %:04 if you wanted to stand with survivors you could start a GoFundMe for Swetnick to help her raise the $400k she needs to fix her nose owie she got while riding the DC subway. Did that news item not penetrate your liberal bubble?

      Delete
    10. Have you stopped masturbating to the Starr Report?

      Delete
    11. Excellent work, 2:08.
      Now pull Kavanaugh's other finger.

      Delete
  13. My testimony on how i won £4,000,000 with the great help of Dr gbojie powerful lottery spell: Call him +2349066410185

    It's unbelievable how fortunate I feel after finding your website. For the past 14 years, I have been looking for a way on how i will win lottery. Money situation was one of the biggest problem to me. I had a huge amount of debt and I didn't know what to do. Out of complete and total desperation, I contacted many of those so-called individuals who promised powerful magic to win the lottery, witchcraft or black magic. None of them worked and none were as wonderful, affectionate and warm as Dr gbojie has been. He is definitely different from the others and I felt immediate hope and strength from hearing about the promises he had to offer. He carries an air of purity and divine strength that is as pure as fresh snow on the ground. I requested Dr gbojie most powerful spells and I was relieved right away that I had someone to solve my problems for me. His spells worked wonders,i won (Four Million pounds) my money troubles resolved itself after winning the lottery. My life change over night,i now have my own house and two cars,also i am free from my debts. Dr gbojie, I have no idea what I would have done without you being there to help me out. If you are there and you need a powerful magic to win the lottery,Dr. gbojie is the right person you need to trust and work with,i promise you that you will also win and share your own testimony. You can contact him via email:

    gbojiespiritualtemple@gmail.com Call or text him +2349066410185

    website : http://gbojiespiritualtemple.website2.me
































    My testimony on how i won £4,000,000 with the great help of Dr gbojie powerful lottery spell: Call him +2349066410185

    It's unbelievable how fortunate I feel after finding your website. For the past 14 years, I have been looking for a way on how i will win lottery. Money situation was one of the biggest problem to me. I had a huge amount of debt and I didn't know what to do. Out of complete and total desperation, I contacted many of those so-called individuals who promised powerful magic to win the lottery, witchcraft or black magic. None of them worked and none were as wonderful, affectionate and warm as Dr gbojie has been. He is definitely different from the others and I felt immediate hope and strength from hearing about the promises he had to offer. He carries an air of purity and divine strength that is as pure as fresh snow on the ground. I requested Dr gbojie most powerful spells and I was relieved right away that I had someone to solve my problems for me. His spells worked wonders,i won (Four Million pounds) my money troubles resolved itself after winning the lottery. My life change over night,i now have my own house and two cars,also i am free from my debts. Dr gbojie, I have no idea what I would have done without you being there to help me out. If you are there and you need a powerful magic to win the lottery,Dr. gbojie is the right person you need to trust and work with,i promise you that you will also win and share your own testimony. You can contact him via email:

    gbojiespiritualtemple@gmail.com Call or text him +2349066410185

    website : http://gbojiespiritualtemple.website2.me




















    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello Every One Out Here
    I'm from United States North Bergen(US). I read some testimony about Dr. Iyaryi on how he has helped people in bringing back there ex within 48 hours i was just thinking if that was real,And decided to call a lady who made a testimony and also dropped her number,So i called her and ask her about Dr. Iyaryi she said Dr. Iyaryi is a trustworthy man and he his ready to bring back my lover for me,i was just so happy and a little bit relief that my lover will be back to me soon,Then i decided in contacting Dr. Iyaryi which i did,And before i could share him my problem he has already told me what i came for,And he said everything will be okay within 48 hours that my lover will be back to my arms,So he said he would be casting the spell and that within 48 hours my lover would call me,So i hoped so truly before the 48 hours i got a call from a man who has left me for the past 6 years saying he is sorry and he wants me back,i was happy and i said i also want him back,Then i traveled to Canada to meet him up,And he apologized for what he has done to me now he proposed to marry me and we are both preparing for our wedding soon, All thanks to the great and World best spell caster, Dr. Iyaryi His private mail driayaryi2012@hotmail.com Or (driayaryi2012@gmail.com) And also Reach him on WhatsApp Number: +2349057915709 Thanks Dr. IyaryI

    ReplyDelete
  16. GREETINGS everyone out there.. my name is (Robert Lora) I am from CANADA i will never forget the help Dr Ogudugu render to me in my marital life. I have been married for 8 years now and my husband and i love each other very dearly. After 6 years of our marriage my husband suddenly change he was having an affair with a lady outside our marriage, my husband just came home one day he pick up his things and left me and the kids to his mistress outside at this time i was confuse not knowing what to do again because i have lost my husband and my marriage too. i was searching for help in the internet, i saw many people sharing testimony on how Dr Ogudugu help them out with their marital problems so i contacted the email of Dr Ogudugu i told him my problem and i was told to be calm that i have come to the right place were i can get back my husband within the next 48hours, to my greatest surprise my husband came to my office begging me on his knees that i should find a place in my heart to forgive him, that he will never cheat on me again, i quickly ask him up that i have forgiven him. Friends your case is not too hard why don't you give Dr Ogudugu a chance, because i know they will help you to fix your relationship with your Ex Partner. Dr Ogudugu his the best spell caster around to solve any problem for you.
    {1} HIV/AIDS
    {2CANCER
    {3}HERPES
    {4}DIABETES
    (5}HERPERTITIS B

    Email: GREATOGUDUGU@GMAIL.COM
    Call/WhatsApp:+27663492930

    ReplyDelete