THE RATIONAL ANIMALS FILE: On C-Span, Scully talks to the animals!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018

Aristotle's key error exposed:
We know Steve Scully the tiniest bit, from way back in the award-winning guest star appearances on C-Span's Washington Journal days.

We know Steve Scully the tiniest bit. Like everyone else, we like Steve Scully a lot.

Last Sunday, at 7 AM Eastern, Scully fielded a series of calls from the rational animals. We're going to say that these phone calls may have exposed Aristotle's error.

Back in the day, Doctor Dolittle gained worldwide fame by talking to the animals. By way of contrast, Scully speaks only to rational animals, the ones who pick up the phone and call Washington Journal.

Last Sunday, the topic was the Kavanaugh hearings and the way it might affect voting patterns in next month's elections. Steve's second caller, Jim from Delaware, took a shot at Aristotle, though only indirectly.

Trigger warning! This is not what we liberals have been hearing on our own cable channel since last Thursday's Senate hearing. Beyond that, Jim's comments, which we'll post in three parts, may not always seem to make complete total rational sense:
JIM FROM DELAWARE (9/30/18): Good morning! Based on the reaction of my friends, I think a lot of them are going to vote now that probably weren't going to vote.

They're going to vote Republican, definitely, because I think Trump and this whole hearing has exposed the fact that, no matter who they put up, they would have drawn people out of the woodwork to testify against, against whatever the nominee was going to be. This has just become a standard tactic of the Democrats in order to thwart the Trump agenda.

And it's just made people sick, this whole thing, especially here in Delaware, where she's been hiding in Delaware for the longest time. And I truly believe that our senators are complicit in this, the whole conspiracy to keep Kavanaugh or anybody that is nominated by Trump off the Court.

So I think people have blood in their eye and they're ready for a fight this time around, big-time, to support the president.
Jim was calling on the Republican line. After Scully asked a follow-up question, Jim further detailed his views:
JIM FROM DELAWARE: If they do an FBI investigation, I want them to investigate everybody. I'm talking about all the associations that Feinstein dealt with, all the associations that Ms. Ford had over the years with Democratic operatives.

I want her to have those people who she talked to on the beach in San Francisco talked to. I want everybody that she talked to down at Rehoboth Beach, [Delaware,] or wherever she was down at the beach, I just want everybody talked to. Let's get to the bottom of where this came from. And that's the only way an FBI investigation is going to satisfy me.
Jim's position? He hopes the FBI speaks to everyone Blasey Ford spoke to on the beach in San Francisco.

When was Blasey Ford on the (cold, forbidding) beach in that (foggy) place? Like you, we have no idea! But in Jim's view, Blasey Ford was drawn "out of the woodwork" to lodge her accusation as part of "the whole conspiracy to keep Kavanaugh or anybody that is nominated by Trump off the Court."

According to Jim, Blasey Ford "has been hiding in Delaware for the longest time." She seems to have had quite a few suspicious conversations with people on various beaches.

Blasey Ford has been conspiring with various people on the shores of two different oceans. Jim wasn't asked to explain this idea, but so it goes, on a regular basis, when we the people call Washington Journal to air our political views.

Jim went on a bit longer this day, occasionally flirting with the possible truth:
JIM FROM DELAWARE: I just have a feeling that there are so many RINOs on that Senate committee that are so sensitive to being criticized in the press for being anti-woman that they are not going to really push as hard as they should. They have to stand up. This is a big issue, because no matter who was appointed was going to face this sort of stuff.

I am sure there is a war room somewhere in this country where they just strategize on how to destroy this individual, that individual. It doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative or moderate, if you are put up by Trump, there is an effort out to put a target on your face, without a doubt.
"Jim, thanks, from New Castle, Delaware," Scully said. On Washington Journal, by rule, moderators tend to accept whatever the caller has said.

In our view, Jim may have been a tiny bit weak on the shape of Trump-era politics. He seemed to think that there is a chance that Trump might nominate a liberal to serve on the Supreme Court.

He thinks the Dems will try to destroy such liberals if Trump decides to name them. He thinks the Senate Judiciary Committee is largely peopled by RINOs.

No, that doesn't seem to make perfect sense. But neither does the famous definitional claim which is widely attributed to Aristotle—the famous claim in which we the people are defined as the "rational animal."

Are we humans "the rational animal?" Does that famous statement capture who, or what, we actually are?

As the weeks and months roll on, we'll be exploring that question in more detail. This Sunday, though, Scully's next rational animal had called on the Independents line—and he took a novel approach:
ALLEN FROM OHIO: Well, it's not really going to impact my vote. I consider myself independent, but I have a tendency to vote Republican. When I was watching the hearings—and I have a four-year degree in urban studies from Cleveland State, and I understand Ms. Ford, or Dr. Ford, has this Ph.D. And you know what, I've had a lot of experience, and I hate to sound judgmental, but I have had a lot of experience with professors, and people with Ph.D.'s, they can be a little goofy, OK? And you know, there is something—she just doesn't seem to make sense. She's not credible. Not credible at all.
According to Allen, Blasey Ford had possibly seemed a bit goofy, and she wasn't credible at all. To Allen, who has a lot of experience, it looked like a Ph.D. thing.

"Allen, thanks for the call," Scully politely said.

As the first half hour rolled on, so did the off-kilter calls from all the rational animals. We can't transcribe every call, though you can listen to all the calls here. But the seventh caller, on the Republican line, heatedly offered the thoughts and the claims shown below.

Warning! We can't vouch for this caller's "facts:"
HOWARD FROM FLORIDA: This has been a headache. OK? Because since the inauguration, OK, since the inauguration of Donald Trump, the lawyer representing Miss Ford was at the Women's March. She stated on that stage that she's going to do whatever it takes to take down this president and everybody that he nominates.

This woman said that! There's also word that Miss Ford was also at that march. This has nothing to do with rights of a woman. Yes, if that happened, then by all means she deserves justice. But if Kavanaugh did not do it, OK, then he deserves to be heard.
In Howard's view, this was all prefigured long ago, at the women's march.

Rationals, can we talk? It would hardly be surprising if Blasey Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, attended the women's march. That said, we find no report which says that she did, and we certainly find no report which say that she made the statement Howard reports.

Blasey Ford did not attend the march. "Howard from Fort Lauderdale, Florida," Scully said at the end of the less than fully rational call.

Scully's eleventh caller this day called on the Democrats line. She too wants to see a tough probe—a probe of Blasey Ford's "drinking habits" and her "drinking background:"
CAROL FROM NEW YORK: Good morning. I'm a woman. I'm a lifelong registered Democrat. However, I have some problems with the situation going on with Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford.

First of all, I guess I'm glad to have an investigation, but I would like it to also investigate Dr. Ford and go into her drinking habits.

On the night, or the day, of this occurrence, I'd like to know how she got to the house and how she got back. I'd like to know what her parents thought of her behavior that day.

I'd like to know about the money track that Dr. Ford was talking about. Immediately afterwards she had 500,000 in her GoFundMe page. Where did that come from? What's the trail of that? How did she get 500,000 so quickly?

I would like to thank Mr. Flake for encouraging more and more protesters to trap our legislators in elevators and scream at them. There's going to be a lot more of that. Those two women are going to be heroes, and this has nothing to do with the MeToo movement...

I'd like to wait this out, but she needs to be a little more investigated into her drinking background. Perhaps she drank so much that night that when she was pushed from behind, maybe she was not correct on who pushed her into that room. I just have a lot of questions so thank you and have a good day.
"Carol, from New York."

Carol wants to know what Blasey Ford's parents thought of her behavior that day. Since Blasey Ford says she didn't tell her parents about what allegedly happened, this doesn't necessarily make complete perfect total sense.

Carol is also concerned that protesters will now be encouraged to trap our legislators in elevators and yell at them. She seems to think that Blasey Ford is the one who may have been drunk that evening—which of course is always possible.

The next caller completed Scully's "daunting dozen." It was Jacqueline from Philadelphia, calling on the Republicans line. She loves to people watch:
JACQUELINE FROM PHILADELPHIA: Hi! I was questioning Dr. Ford. I love to people watch and watch their actions, and first of all, if I have a "Doctor" in front of my name, I don't think I would be speaking in that teeny-tiny voice. I noticed that right away.

I'm a kindergarten teacher and I don't talk to my kindergarten children that way. I speak firmly, I speak up. And I noticed that right away. I don't know if she's guilty or innocent.

And then as far as Brett Kavanaugh, I'm not so sure I liked that he was crying. I was people watching him too and I don't know if I like that. So I just wanted to make that comment. I kept the sound off on some of the things.
This caller didn't like Blasey Ford's teeny-tiny voice. She doesn't know if she liked Kavanaugh's crying.

By now, it was 7:30 AM Eastern. Several of our youthful analysts had gone semi-catatonic.

"They don't sound like rational animals," one youngster managed to cry. "What was Aristotle talking about when he authored that famous assessment, the one we hear all the time?"

We thought the youngster was asking good questions. That said, we warned this youngster against going totally tribal.

You see, we also thought that some less-than-rational, great ape talk had been coming from some in the mainstream press, even from some on the left! Skillfully, we warned the youngsters:

We humans have been fashioning this great ape talk for an extremely long time.

Tomorrow: Doctor Dolittle meets sacred Descartes

73 comments:

  1. Well, David in Cal is certainly a rational animal. He supports Mr Trump by quoting the lines of a Shakespearean VILLAIN.

    Did I ever post this link to Mozart's overture to Don Giovanni? I'm too irrational to remember. Anyway, it won't hurt to listen again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjVCbTo5F0

    By the way, Don Giovanni = Don Juan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes Shakespeare put valid and important thoughts in a villain's line. E.g.,

      I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
      and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

      And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

      Delete
    2. I have never thought of Shylock strictly as a "villain." He has very legitimate grievances relating to his treatment at the hands of "Christian" Venice: he lends money to them, which they willingly take, but then spit on him for charging "interest" which their "piety" prevents them from doing. In other words, Shylock is providing an essential service to Venice, is reviled, and does not have the rights of a citizen, even though he was born there. His only "villainy" is that he demands that the merchant be held to his contract, which the merchant willingly signed.

      Delete
    3. Shylock is not the villain of Merchant of Venice. He is a tragic figure, like Lear. Iago is the villain of Othello and Othello is the tragic figure.

      Next, David will be telling us that Polonius was wise because he said things that have been quoted too. Neither a lender nor a borrower be...

      Does David think Shylock was a villain because he was a Jew? Don't go there David.

      Delete
    4. Yes indeed, 12:57. Anti-semitism prevailed when the play was written. Did you know that when this play was written, the Jews had been driven out of England?
      The Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290, expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. The edict was not an isolated incident, but the culmination of over 200 years of increased persecution.

      You and I may find Shylock a tragic figure, but Shakespeare's audience was thrilled to see his downfall.

      Delete
    5. It's hard to say. Shakespeare wanted to give Jews a voice, but he couldn't really make one a good guy. Demanding a pound of flesh is a bit over the top, although, perhaps, not by payday lending standards of today's world. I think Shakespeare was clever. We see that in movies sometimes, where the bad guys do express legitimate grievances, even if their tactics are deemed reprehensible.

      Delete
    6. I'm not sure how Shakespeare's audience reacted. There were other plays at the time with a Jewish character that was meant to be reviled. The Jewish character in Marlowe's "Jew of Malta" is far more one-sided and monstrous than Shylock. But Shakespeare refused to create stock one-dimensional characters, and I believe he intended Shylock to be view as a human being and not as a stock villain. He played on the expectations of his audience, but subverts them.

      Delete


    7. ✅COMPOSITE HACKS✅

      •• Are you Seeking for the Best Legit Professional Hackers online?
      Congratulations Your search ends right here with us. •• ⚡️⚡️

      ✅✅ For Years Now We have Been helping companies secure there Infrastructures against malicious Attacks, however private individuals have been making use of our services to provide Optimum solutions to their cyber and Hacking related Issues, such as providing them unlimited Access to their desired informations from their Target. 📲

      ✅✅ COMPOSITE HACKS is a vibrant squad of dedicated online hackers maintaining the highest standards and unparalleled professionalism in every aspect.
      We Are One Of The Leading Hack Teams In The United States With So Much Accolades From The Deep Web And IT Companies. ••
      ••We Offer Varieties Of LEGIT Hacking Services With the Help Of Our Root HackTools, Special HackTools and Our Technical Hacking Strategies Which Surpasses All Other Hackers.
      Our Major Services Includes:
      - PenTesting ⚡️
      - JailBreaking 🚀
      - Website & Blog Hacking 💻
      - PHONE HACK (which allows you to gain unnoticeable access to everything that is happening on your Target’s Phone such as Calls, Text Messages, Chats, Social Media Apps etc)📲📲
      - RECOVERY OF LOST FUNDS ON BINARY OPTIONS AND BTC MINING ⛏
      - Retrieval Of Lost Files and Datas.💻📲
      - Credit Card Loading (Strictly USA and UK Cards) 💳 💳
      - CLEARING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS ❌❌
      - SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT HACK etc

      ✅ We have a team of seasoned PROFESSIONALS under various skillsets when it comes to online hacking services. Our company in fact houses a separate group of specialists who are productively focussed and established authorities in different platforms. They hail from a proven track record Called “HackerOne” and have cracked even the toughest of barriers to intrude and capture or recapture all relevant data needed by our Clients. Some Of These Specialist Includes ⭐️ PETER YAWORSKI ⭐️FRANS ROSEN⭐️ JACK CABLE ⭐️JOBERT ABMA⭐️ ARNE SWINNEN ⭐️And More. All you Need To do is To Write us a Mail Then We’ll Assigned any of These Hackers To You Instantly.

      ✅✅ COMPOSITE HACKS is available for customer care 24/7. Feel Free to Place your Requests.

      ✅CONTACT:
      * Email:
      compositehacks@cyberservices.com
      * Hire a Hacker!
      * Want faster service? Contact us!
      * HackerOne©️LLC 2018.
      * All Rights Reserved ®️

      Delete
  2. "Blasey Ford has been conspiring with various people on the shores of two different oceans."

    She hasn't been conspiring shit, and most definitely not with any people. She's a member of the lib-zombie death-cult, doing whatever lib-zombies do. And that's all there is to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...doing whatever lib-zombies do."

      It's called "not supporting treason against the United States of America." Unlike the Establishment Elites on the Right.

      Delete
    2. I watched part of the hearings the other day, and I kind of came to the same conclusion that Sen. Flake did, that I was more confused after than before. Dr. Ford seemed sincere and didn't give the impression that she was a lying "lib-zombie death-cult doing whatever lib-zombies do." At the same time, Kavanaugh's testimony was also compelling. What really happened I do not know. What was a little bit of a turn off for me was the general disrespect and evasiveness that the Judge showed toward the process and Senators. I am willing to give him a little leeway (if he is telling the truth he has a right to be pissed)...but I thought he was way out of line at times, not really answering the questions others...Dr. Ford didn't take that approach and Judge Kavanaugh shouldn't have either imho.

      Delete
    3. "Dr. Ford seemed sincere and didn't give the impression that she was a lying "lib-zombie death-cult doing whatever lib-zombies do.""

      But being sincere is exactly what lib-zombies do. They are not lying, they are just being zombies. Sorta like, y'know, those 'sleepers' in Telefon, 1977. No cognitive reflection, just an automatic reaction to external stimuli...

      Delete
    4. Anon 11:41. What exactly did you find so compelling about the good judge? His belligerence, arrogance and utter contempt for the process and the solemn proceedings? Maybe his supercilious sneering willingness to commit perjury with impunity? Please, I'm really curious.

      Delete
    5. Exactly. What was so compelling about Kavanaugh's testimony? It was notable for two things: one is how he tried to dance around his drinking and overall behavior in high school; secondly, the way he implied some sort of a conspiracy on the part of the Democrats.

      Delete
    6. What do you care, dembot, if a 53 y.o. judge was drinking and partying in high school? Do you also care if he shit his pants 50 years ago?

      As for 'conspiracy', obviously it isn't a conspiracy, since it all is happening quite openly. But it is a smear campaign, and everyone who isn't a zombie knows it...

      Delete
    7. You're a populist, right Mao? Bwahahahaha!!!!!

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. I didn't say I cared about what he did in high school. But if he had responded in Mao's faux-snarky, slightly pathetic refrain -- what do you care about what I did in high school -- he would have come across as honest and maybe even compelling. As it was, he just came across as being dishonest about trivial shit. Put it another way -- Kavs is a pussy. Something you can probably relate, to, Mao.

      Delete
    10. He's a politician of sorts, trying to get confirmed by the senate. Obviously, he can't act like an anonymous commenter in a blog.

      I feel that your impression of his testimony has no value, because (I feel) you aren't capable of being swayed by whatever he might've said. You're irrelevant.

      And we'll find out soon whether his testimony was or wasn't successful -- when he is either confirmed, or rejected, or forced to quit. Simple as that.

      Delete
    11. That would have been politically wise to admit to mistakes and say that you learned from them.

      Note that I did not proffer any opinion as to whether he assaulted Ford. And I still say that there's no way to know. I am certainly not being partisan. However, it's pretty much indisputable that he was not forthright about his drinking in high school or college. That gives ammunition to all the dembots, libtards -- or any other such invective of your choice -- to accuse him of lying. And he was.

      Secondly, as a point of fact, he did imply conspiracy on the part of the democrats. That was without any basis in fact. Once again, I am not being partisan here.

      Delete
    12. "That would have been politically wise to admit to mistakes and say that you learned from them."

      Not necessarily; depends on the groups you're targeting, and possibly many other considerations. The guy is a lawyer, so presumably he knows what he's doing.

      Dembots don't need ammunition: they are bots. They'll produce the same stream of bullshit no matter what.

      "Secondly, as a point of fact, he did imply conspiracy on the part of the democrats."

      I have no idea, I didn't read, didn't listen, I don't like soap operas. If he did, then he and his advisors decided it was the right thing to say. They are professionals -- and what are you?

      Delete
    13. I am also a professional.

      Delete
    14. i don't care if Kavanaugh shit his pants 50 years ago. I'm more concerned that Republucans elected it as their President.

      Delete
    15. "I have no idea, I didn't read, didn't listen, I don't like soap operas. If he did, then he and his advisors decided it was the right thing to say."

      of course it was the right thing to say. The despicables (AKA Republicans) eat that kind of white male privilege up like ice cream.

      Delete
    16. Mao,
      Is that because you were as blackout drunk as Kavanaugh usually gets.

      Delete
    17. You sound like you might be a software professional or something. Not a professional political consultant.

      Delete
  3. ...anyhow: what this sad story appears to be all about, Bob, is that your cult leaders have done some internal polling for the upcoming elections, saw the writings on the wall, and decided, in desperation, to shake things up a bit, to change the dynamics.

    But, as your c-span callers indicate, what they're likely to get is a backlash, and even higher losses... And that's good, Bob...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wait, I thought the polls are wrong? now they are accurate? I am having trouble keeping all the bullshit talking points straight, please help me out...

      Delete
    2. Did you miss the word "internal", dear? Do you understand what "internal polling" is?

      Delete
    3. "internal'.
      That reminds me. My colon is full of Republicans.

      Delete
  4. OT -- From Johanna in comments at We Hunted the Mammoth:

    "Some more interesting points about Donna Strickland [who just won the Nobel in physics for her work on lasers]:

    She got the award for research she did during her PhD. I don’t have exact numbers, but this is really uncommon. People usually have to work for years after their PhD to make Nobel-worthy contributions to their field.

    She’s still just an associate professor. Not a full professor. I wonder if it has something to do with people like this dude. [Strumia who made an anti-woman speech at a CERN conference on gender]

    She didn’t have a Wikipedia page until an hour after the announcement that she won the Nobel prize. If Twitter is to be believed Wikipedia editors rejected a page for her as recently as May this year, stating that her research was not significant enough to merit a page."

    To Somerby -- is there no possibility that conservatives had these folks teed up to comment on CSPAN? Why take it at face value that these are run-of-the-mill commenters and not scripted operatives intended to undermine Ford's credibility?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Scully's eleventh caller this day called on the Democrats line. She too wants to see a tough probe—a probe of Blasey Ford's "drinking habit" and her "drinking background:""

    It always bothers me that conservatives use the Democrats line to call in. They also use the Independent and Republican lines. So they get more representation of their views than Democrats because they are willing to break the rules and don't care about abusing the system, whereas Democrats follow the rules.

    Somerby is foolish if he thinks this person is an actual Democrat, complaining about Ford's drinking habits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It always bothers me that conservatives use the Democrats line to call in."

      Why would anyone be bothered by it? Surely there might be registered Democrats who don't belong to the zombie cult.

      Delete
    2. When someone calls in to criticize Democrats in a public forum, they are not Democrats.

      Criticism takes place out of the public eye, at Democrat-only meetings, not in public. This is why progressives like Bernie Sanders, who criticizes Democrats in public and undermines Democratic candidates, is not a Democrat. It is better if people who are not Democrats own up to that and call in as Independents (or Other, or Democratic Socialist, or whatever). Similarly, Libertarians are not Republicans.

      Maybe we should all take Mao's suggestion and start calling the Bernie Bros the Zombie party. They are the walking dead, and even though they can do nothing positive politically, they can torpedo legitimate candidates, just as Zombies cannot create life but can certainly make people dead. Democrats are not the Zombie cult, because the analogy just doesn't work that direction. But Mao doesn't think anything through. He is just here calling names.

      Delete
    3. "When someone calls in to criticize Democrats in a public forum, they are not Democrats."

      Seriously? And do you not feel you're a cult member, of a totalitarian cult? Just curious.

      Delete
    4. So, not only blog commenters can be trolls. C-span callers can be trolls, too.

      Delete
  6. 1. "we also thought that some less-than-rational, great ape talk had been coming from some in the mainstream press, even from some on the left!" Like what? How about some examples?
    2. What would a thorough analysis of all the calls on the hour-long c-span program reveal? Was one group of callers generally more fact-based than the other? Yes? No?
    3. Carol, the "Democratic" caller from New York, doesn't sound like a Democrat.
    4. "This is not what we liberals have been hearing on our own cable channel since last Thursday's Senate hearing." Meaning what? That "our channel" hasn't been rife with bizarre crackpot claims like these? On the other hand, "official" Republican arguments, i.e. those being made by the congressional GOP and Trump, have been covered and debated there.
    5. Is it possible that some of the calls are not genuine? That there is a coordinated effort to influence public opinion? Something like that was alleged to have happened in the 2016 election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great ape talk? The only great ape that can talk is Homo sapiens.

      Delete
    2. Maybe they were talking about great apes? At a Harari speech?

      Delete
  7. "Jim's position? He hopes the FBI speaks to everyone Blasey Ford spoke to on the beach in San Francisco."

    She talked to lots of people on the beach because her hobby was surfing (Santa Cruz, not San Francisco). She was at the beach a lot and this was her circle of friends.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't like Blasey Ford's tentative hesitancy, her fear, her tiny voice either. I also didn't like the way her hair kept falling in her face. It would drive me crazy if my hair did that. I didn't like the way she looked so much older than Kavanaugh despite being two years younger. These are personal reactions that have nothing to do with whether she was telling the truth or not.

    As to Kavanaugh, I didn't like his haircut. I didn't like the unpleasant expression of contempt that his face seemed to fall into at rest and I especially didn't like his angry voice, his complaints which came across as petulant whining (perhaps because of his permanent sneer). But again, these have nothing to do with whether he was telling the truth or not.

    I think it is foolish to waste your life with surfing, but I think it is worse to devote your life to being a conservative operative, enacting policies that hurt other people. What Kavanaugh did to Vince Foster's family was unforgivable. His persecutions of the Clintons was wrong and unfair. His views on Roe v Wade are evil. And his self-righteousness is disgusting. I felt sorry for his stone-faced wife sitting behind him and never showing any expression whatsoever. Where does someone learn to do that and when has that come in handy before in her life?

    But again, that is no basis for deciding who was telling the truth. I don't know what the prompt was for the callers who called in to that show. Somerby doesn't say. None of the people calling in seemed to be responded to anything vaguely related to Somerby's paraphrase. So I'm not sure what Somerby's complaint is. People have a lot of opinions! Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Was it a caller to c-span who claimed that the hearing with Dr Ford and the airing of her allegations were payback for the way Bill Clinton was treated? Now where did I hear that rational idea? Which rational animal made that claim?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kavanaugh teared up at such odd moments.

    He is choked with emotion when talking about his 10 year old daughter. Again, when he mentions that he kept calendars like his father did. That emotion would make sense if his father had passed away, but his father was sitting right behind him, alive and well. So why the affect over that?

    It is almost as if Kavanaugh threw in emotion just for its own sake, to generate sympathy for him. He wouldn't want it to appear related to any potential wrongdoing, so he made sure it would occur only during innocuous statements. About his young daughter praying or about his calendar.

    A therapist would wonder what he was thinking about at those times, to produce tears. A therapist would ask questions to probe. In Kavanaugh's case, I would bet it is nothing more profound than "It is so unfair that they are putting me through this for an appointment that I deserve and that President Trump told me was mine -- all on account of these stinking women, who just want to keep me from getting what is mine! This is unjust!" That would do it.

    I don't believe for a moment that he was shedding tears over anything related to his own misspent youth, the harm he did to others, or the shame of what he did being revealed to those he loves (presumably his wife, parents and friends). If he were any kind of man, his tears about his daughter might have been related to having to tell her what a jerk he was in high school -- but again it is about HIS loss, his looking less heroic in her eyes, his diminished stature to a child, not what he did to others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are talks to have when she is a teenager and wants to go to parties like the ones Ford attended, and she is rightly prohibited. Right now, she has to learn about the levels leftists will sink to destroy someone with allegations of rape over abortion, because they don't believe in anything except rage.

      And then he'll encourage her to pray for them because he's decent.

      Delete
    2. 1:18,
      That's nothing. The Right wanted to impeach Obama because he put dijon mustard on a hamburger. Dems are probably only going with the "Kavanaugh lied" stuff because that was what was served to them in the situation.

      Delete
    3. I wanted to impeach him because he literally ate his dog.

      Delete
  11. Do Catholic schools teach students that there are consequences for their behavior or do they teach that confession and absolution of sins is all that is needed? Does Kavanaugh think that if he stays right with God, he can do whatever he wants? Doesn't his church teach that you have to make restitution or amends for sins against others? Isn't the service Kavanaugh did connected to his duty to others, his obligations to humanity? Why didn't these ideas creep into his political beliefs, his philosophy? Why are beer and fun with guns compartmentalized, as they obviously are, in his thinking? Sounds like a failure of Catholic education and parenting, to me. He doesn't sound like a devout boy or man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. typo: fun with girls, not guns. Where did that come from?

      Delete
    2. Kavanaugh was a virgin in high school because of his Catholic education, which puts him above almost all other males his age. He was never going to use a girl for sex and dump her or impregnate her, or offer to pay for an abortion, or bring an unwanted child into the world. He testified he was proud of it even though he was also ashamed of it because of peer pressure.

      He succeeded where nearly every one of his left wing critics failed. He's a better man than they are, and was a better young man.

      Delete
    3. How the F would Kavanaugh remember if he was a virgin or not? He was blackout drunk during (at minimum) his puberty.

      Delete
    4. 3:29,
      Do you think Kavanaugh regrets masturbating to the Starr Report?

      Delete
  12. "Back in the day, Doctor Dolittle gained worldwide fame by talking to the animals. By way of contrast, Scully speaks only to rational animals, the ones who pick up the phone and call Washington Journal."

    People are not animals. Bad things happen when one group starts to characterize another as subhuman, animal. Talk about Other! Somerby needs to stop this. It is not only offensive, but it encourages violence and mistreatment of other people by placing them in a non-human category, a category of people who can be treated as less-than us.

    Somerby does this on the basis of rationality. In history, bad things have happened when one group considered itself smarter, more intelligent, more rational than others and thus entitled to do their thinking for them, to make rules, to decide for the masses too stupid to participate. Somerby needs to stop this too.

    We aren't going to join him in laughing at those irrational callers to Washington Journal. We aren't going to join him in laughing at the human race either. Because by the act of writing his posts, he excludes himself from that characterization -- and I don't think anyone here agrees with that characterization of Somerby.

    We are not apes and we are not subhuman and we are not silly or irrational or unintelligent. We all do the best we can with what we have at hand, and that collective winds up being quite a lot. This year's Nobel prize in medicine went for a cure for certain kinds of cancer that uses the immune system to fight cancer cells. That is something important! I didn't do it, but the species I belong to did. And my accomplishments this year and in past years aren't nothing either. I'm sure many other feel the same, with justification. So Somerby needs to back off this theme.

    We need to be considering what is gained by convincing us that we are subhuman apes unworthy of rationality -- who benefits and how, if we thinks such things about ourselves? And why is Somerby serving those interests?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who puts children in pens at the border? Animals can be locked up without due process. Who puts reporters in cages at rallies? Who encourages rally attendees to shout "Lock her up" about Ford and Clinton now?

      Who can be left to die during natural disasters? The same effort is not expended to save animals in floods and hurricanes and earthquakes, as to save people. Who leaves people to die without help after a major hurricane?

      Animals are put down when their medical care becomes too expensive for a family to afford. Who leaves people to suffer and die because their agencies don't want to pay for their health care? Who redirects money from health care and other services to pay for a wall to keep "animals" out of our country, and to pay for pens to keep human children in?

      Delete
    2. So you're not an ape and not an animal.

      Are you a mammal?

      Are you a vertebrate?

      Delete
    3. Somerby is not using the word animal or ape in a scientific sense. That's why it is offensive -- those other connotations.

      Delete
    4. Somerby is using the phrase rational animal. Is that offensive? Do you deny that you are a rational animal?

      Delete
    5. There's no denying that royko sums it up the best:

      "If you took everything wrong with this country, extracted it, distilled it, and shaped it into the form of a man, that disgusting, evil blob would be Donald J. Trump."

      Delete
  13. Is anyone who has been around or worked with PhDs in psychology and related pseudosciences really going to argue the point that they're, to put it politely, "a little goofy"? Careful because your credibility goes out the window if you claim it's not the absolute truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not any goofier than anyone else. Maybe goofy in a way the average person isn't used to, since they are statistically rare in the population.

      Delete
  14. Bob Somerby is a sick and senile freak. Check out how hard he's trying to discredit a victim of attempted rape. You're loathsome and dumb, Bob. You can explain your attack on an attempted rape victim to St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, Bob. Do you consider yourself a Christian , Bob? Your attacks on a victim of attempted rape doesn't seem very Christian, Bob. When did you decide slut-shaming was your thing?

    Who cares. Bob Somerby is old and will be burning in HELL soon. So many disgusting lies, so much bearing false witness against thy neighbor- Somerby has done that for years, bearing false witness, constantly. Sheer partisan hatred against liberals and Dems. All the time, as Trump destroys our government and Fox News pumps hateful propaganda all day, poisoning peoples' minds all day long on a national level.

    Somerby don't care! Somerby is senile and will be dead soon, but he has chosen to spend his last days hating liberals and democrats, as Trump and his toadies destroy the United States and its ideas of fairness and liberty and justice as we once knew it. These ideals are now considered radical.

    Somerby is absolutely for Trump's vast dictatorial powers and vicious abuse and traumatic separation of young children from their parents at the border, traumatizing these kids forever. Bob Somerby doesn't care, it owns the Libs by viciously abusing 1,200 children, ripping kids from their parents. Somerby doesn't care and never mentions this horror, because Hillary did emails. The same!

    Somerby is old and will thankfully be dead soon. We'll be glad there's one less booster of Trump's horrors is gone, just because they hate liberals and democracy. Somerby hates liberals, and I look forward to reading news of his death. I'm not kidding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dembots are so funny. Thank you, Soros Gyorgy.

      Delete
    2. Ah, Belvoir. You invoke Christian ideals but they sound more like Old Testament-style, God-condoned hatred, written by men long before Christ ever existed. If he actually did. Well done!

      One thing is for sure: If Kavanaugh goes down in flames, as he should, there will be another and another and another Heritage Foundation-approved candidate waiting in the wings to take his place. The Republicans have ample time to ram someone else through if Kavanaugh is not, and they will not make the same mistakes Kavanaugh has made. It’s going to end up a game of attrition. I just hope the Dems can keep up the heat, no matter what, and that constituents of the wavering Repubs can do the same.

      Here’s a good synopsis of the event, for people who are intimidated by Nathan J Robinsons 10,000 word essay on the issue in Current Affairs:

      https://youtu.be/3UEptP-dQSw

      Belvoir, do you perhaps accept Belvita as the body of christ? I’d recommend the blueberry, it’s quite nutritious.

      Leroy

      Delete
    3. Belvoir - alledged victim is the proper term.

      Delete
    4. Is it too much to ask for a moderate judge?

      Delete
    5. Bobby Knight StinksOctober 3, 2018 at 10:11 PM

      "https://youtu.be/3UEptP-dQSw"

      That dude's almost as patronizing as you.

      Delete
    6. Ruth Bader Ginsberg raped me in college and you don't see me bitching and moaning.

      Delete
    7. 6:21,
      No. Instead you bitched and moaned because a lying sexual predator might not get a lifetime gig on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
      And to think, some still believe the Right-wing just have differing opinions and are not really despicable excuses for human beings. It takes all kinds.

      Delete
  15. So Bob, I wonder if you still think that these people vote republican because liberals allegedly look down on them? I look down on ignorance, misogny, and bigotry. Hillary was being way to kind when she called these people deplorable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't care who you look down on. They think leftists are morally bankrupt. They don't like being judged by their moral inferiors but ultimately don't care what those moral inferiors think of them.

      Delete
    2. "They don't care who you look down on."

      Then why all the whining about 'liberal intolerance"?

      Delete