TREMENDOUSLY DANGEROUS TIMES: Rachel and the pleasing fourth charge!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2018

Dangerous tribal times:
"May you live in interesting times!" According to an old urban legend, it's an old Chinese curse.

It seems that the old urban legend is wrong. That said, we're living in a time which has become increasingly dangerous—a time when the veneer of civilization, of rational practice, is being scraped away.

How dangerous are these times? Consider what happened yesterday:

First, Donald J. Trump tweeted an on-line video ad which is ugly, deceptive and vile. It concerns an unauthorized immigrant who murdered two police officers and says he'd like to kill more.

CNN responded with this lengthy on-line report. At that link, you can see Trump's ugly ad.

CNN's report about Donald Trump's tweet drops bushels of R-bombs all over the land. But good lord! Despite its length, it made zero attempt to address the factual claims included in Trump's ugly ad.

("Democrats let him into our country. Democrats let him stay.")

This terrible horrible "news report" points to an emerging age—an age in which the swapping of insults and accusations replaces the search for information and facts.

How interesting are these times? In our view, these devolving times have helped us see how we humans—we rational animals—are strongly inclined to behave.

"It's all anthropology now," we've thoughtfully said—and as our discourse falls apart, it becomes increasingly clear that we humans are really the tribal animal—the animal that tends to split into tribes and build pleasing novelizations in place of considered facts.

For the record, this behavior is happening Over Here, within our own liberal tents, as well as within Trump's world. Reports of our own overwrought behavior is often fed to viewers Over There as evidence that they should never believe the various things we liberals say.

The Others are told that they shouldn't believe us. All too often, they're afforded fairly good cause. Consider what happened when Rachel Maddow gave us our fourth accuser.

Warning! This takes us all the way back to the days when Brett Kavanaugh was being accused, perhaps correctly, of sexual misconduct during his high school and college years.

Christine Blasey Ford had alleged a sexual assault by Kavanaugh when the two were in high school. Eventually, everyone from Trump on down would say that her claim was "credible," though it should be said that "credible" isn't the same thing as "true."

How accurate was Blasey Ford's charge? In the end, we have no way of saying.

That said, there followed a rather fuzzy New Yorker report in which a second woman seemed to make a charge about misconduct by Kavanaugh during a drinking game at Yale. Then along came Avenatti the Great, promoting a third accuser.

Avenatti's client made dramatic charges on which she soon started to backtrack. Avenatti bombastically said that he'd provide corroborating witnesses.

When he did, two of the five corroborating witnesses were dead. A third said he didn't know Avenatti's client. The other two witnesses failed to respond.

Or at least, that's what Chris Hayes said. According to Hayes, there were no corroborating witnesses.

As usual in these "corporate tribal" times, we liberals have largely been shielded from knowing how embarrassing this whole episode was—how poorly it reflected on NBC News and on our tribe's "cable news" channel. At any rate, Avenatti had temporarily provided our third accusation.

On Wednesday evening, September 26, Maddow made it four.

Maddow began with a pleasing review of the three existing accusations. She stresses this quote from Avenatti:

"There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts."

You can read Maddow's full account in that evening's transcript.

Maddow quoted the claim from Avenatti—the claim which turned out to be wrong. Having summarized the three accusations, Maddow then made it four:
MADDOW (9/26/18): Well, now, tonight, there's a fourth one. This one reported out by NBC News. You see the headline here: "Senate probing new allegation of misconduct against Kavanaugh."

This was reported tonight just after 6:30 Eastern Time by Kasie Hunt, Leigh Ann Caldwell and Heidi Przybyla and Frank Thorp.
To watch this whole segment, click here.

Truth-seekers, can we talk? We think Hunt, Caldwell, Przybyla and Thorp embarrassed themselves in that credulous news report, which dealt with an unsigned letter from an unknown, anonymous person.

That said, Maddow was now serving us the product we very much love. As she continued, she gave us our fourth accusation:
MADDOW (continuing directly): Quote: The Senate Judiciary Committee is inquiring about at least one additional allegation of misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a letter obtained by NBC News and according to multiple people familiar with the process.

According to an anonymous complaint sent to Republican Senator Corey Gardner of Colorado, Brett Kavanaugh physically assaulted a woman he socialized with in the D.C. area in 1998 while he was inebriated. The sender of the complaint described an evening involving her own daughter, Brett Kavanaugh, and several friends in 1998.

Quote: When they left the bar under the influence of alcohol, they were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually, and there were at least four witnesses, including my daughter.
That last quotation came from the letter itself. Did we mention the fact that this letter was unsigned, and identified no one by name?

Unsigned letters about high-profile events will sometimes be the product of people who are mentally ill. The evidentiary value of such letters is nil. You'd almost think that someone like Maddow would understand such obvious facts and would want to warn viewers about them.

You'd think that Maddow would know these things! But as the program continued, she devoted two lengthy segments to this unsigned letter. As she continued, she used the word "importantly" then blew past what it meant:
MADDOW (continuing directly): Now importantly, the writer of the letter provides no names, but says the alleged victim was still traumatized and had recently spoken about the incident to somebody else who knew about it and had decided to remain anonymous herself.

NBC further reports, quote: Republican Senate investigators asked Kavanaugh about the new complaint during a phone call yesterday between Kavanaugh and committee staff. Sources told NBC News that Kavanaugh denied this latest allegation in the letter.
"Importantly, the writer of the letter provides no names," Maddow managed to say. But she never told viewers why that basic fact was important. Nor did she ever behave as if she herself found it important.

You can watch Maddow's opening segment here. Later, she devoted a second segment to an interview with Caldwell, one of the four reporters who embarrassed themselves with their report about a highly fraught letter which was unsigned and named no one but Kavanaugh.

Anyone can write and send an unsigned letter. When a letter like that is composed, the anonymous, unsigned writer can say whatever he or she wants.

You'd assume that every journalist would know this. Further, you'd assume that every journalist knows why such letters should be regarded with extreme skepticism and should, as a matter of basic fairness, be regarded as basically worthless.

People with mental health issues will often write letters like this. You'd think that every police officer, and every journalist, would understand this fact.

That said, Maddow ran with the unsigned letter. We'll offer some thoughts about that:

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had questioned Kavanaugh about the unsigned letter. They'd then released transcripts of what had been said.

They may have done so for a reason. Here's what we mean by that:

Blasey Ford's charge against Kavanaugh was widely described as credible. That doesn't mean that her charge was true. But it means that it very well might be true.

Republicans adopted a basic strategy in reaction to this problem. They seized upon the implausible claims by Avenatti's client to muddy the water concerning Blasey Ford's more credible accusation.

They also floated the transcript about this fourth accusation, and about several more. Around the conservative echo chamber, these less credible accusations were soon being mixed with the third accusation to create an air of implausibility concerning all the charges, including Blasey Ford's. (The fuzziness of the New Yorker report was an additional help.)

Avenatti's client was soon backtracking on her accusations. When Avenatti released his worthless list of corroborating witnesses, the sense that he was staging his latest gong show only increased.

People were told about these events on Fox. On our own tribal channels, we were largely shielded from awareness of these embarrassments.

Avenatti's gong show was highly useful to Kavanaugh's defenders. But in the end, Maddow was useful as well. A coda to this pathetic performance occurred last Monday night. Here's what happened:

Laura Ingraham quoted an anonymous charge of sexual assault against Cory Booker. Deliciously, it wasn't just an anonymous charge of sexual assault. Deliciously, it was an anonymous charge of sexual assault against a man!

So delicious! But Ingraham then cleverly said that charges like these aren't worth the unsigned paper they appear on. She said she'd only mentioned this anonymous charge to show how pointless it was when "NBC News" did the same thing in the Kavanaugh matter.

Ingraham was making a slippery play against Booker. That said, her assessment of "NBC News" was basically correct. She didn't mention Maddow by name. In our view, she should have.

Trump is peddling ugly bullshit this week. Maddow peddled a somewhat milder related product back then. Liberal viewers take pleasure when Maddow feeds us such porridge. But there's often a price to be paid.

Quite routinely, The Others are told, over on Fox, about the various ways our own cable stars behave. Often, they're shown videotape of our cable stars making unfortunate statements.

Frequently, the presentations are embellished, phony and fake. All too often, the complaints about our stars have merit. In the process, The Others are told that these presentations illustrate why They should never trust Us—why our various complaints and claims should simply be ignored.

In our view, Donald J. Trump is a deeply disordered person. This was already obvious back when he was Joe and Mika's best friend.

That said, the culture has also been breaking down within our own liberal warrens. This has been true for a great many years despite what your lizard may say.

CNN's report included no facts. We're living in dangerous times.

Tomorrow: As seen through the eyes of the Times

50 comments:

  1. "First, Donald J. Trump tweeted an on-line video ad which is ugly, deceptive and vile."

    Hmm, but could it be anywhere near as ugly, deceptive and vile as a typical liberal every-day hate-mongering during the last couple of years? No way Jose.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Bob.
    A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mao, you are a moronic cocksucker.
      Trump says bend over; you say: Drive Donnie, drive.

      Delete
    2. MY NAME IS VICKY AND I AM FROM SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA,I WANT TO SHARE A
      TESTIMONY OF A SPELL CASTER WHO REUNITE MY MARRIAGE WENT HIS POWERFUL SPELL
      CASTER.AND I ALSO WANT TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITIES TO WARN THOSE OUT THERE
      READING FAKE TESTIMONY ON SOCIAL NETWORK.BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED BY SO
      MANY FAKE SPELL CASTER. BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR
      EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVER BACK, TESTIMONIES OF MOST
      SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORE.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL
      SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM OF BEFORE, I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
      BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY HUSBAND BACK AFTER HE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2
      YEARS WITH MY 7 YEARS OLD SON HARRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 5 DIFFERENT SPELL
      CASTER HERE AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME
      YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER
      AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM WEST AFRICA UNTIL I SAW A POST ABOUT DR
      ALEXZANDER SPELL AND I DECIDED TO GAVE HIM MY LAST TRAIL.HE ASK ME FOUR
      THINGS MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND SAID MY EX WILL COME
      BACK IN 48HOURS, I HAVE SPEND ON SPELL CASTING AND NOTHING HAVE WORK FOR ME
      AFTER 2 DAYS I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MUCH I HAVE LOST SO FAR SO I SAID LET
      ME GIVE HIM A TRY SO I CALLED HIM AGAIN AND SEND MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY
      EX MOTHER NAME. BECAUSE I SWEAR IT WAS MY LAST TRY SO I WAS WAITING AS HE
      TOLD ME TO WAIT TILL NEXT DAY AND I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I
      REALLY LOVE MY HUSBAND AND WANT HIM BACK SO MUCH, THAT DAY I SAW MY HUSBAND
      WAS ONLINE ON FACEBOOK AND HE SAID HI AT FIRST I WAS SHOCK BECAUSE HE
      NEVER TALK WITH ME FOR THE PAST A YEAR AND 11 MONTH NOW I DID NOT REPLY
      AGAIN HE SAID ARE YOU THERE? I QUICKLY REPLY YES AND HE SAID CAN WE SEE
      TOMORROW I SAID YES AND HE WENT OFF-LINE I WAS CONFUSED I TRY TO CHAT WITH
      HIM AGAIN BUT HE WAS NO MORE ON LINE I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS I WAS
      WONDERING WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY, BY 9.AM THE NEXT MORNING HE GAVE ME A
      MISS CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK AGAIN HE
      CALLED AND I PICK HE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO HE END
      THE CALL. IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK HE CALL ME AND WE MEET AND NOW WE ARE
      BACK AGAIN I CALL DR ALEXZANDER THE NEXT DAY THANKING HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS
      DONE IN FACT I STILL CALL HIM AND THANK HIM AS MY LIFE WAS NOT COMPLETE
      WITHOUT MY HUSBAND PLEASE BE CAREFUL HERE I HAVE BEEN SCAM THOUSANDS OF
      DOLLARS IF YOU WANT A TRUE LOVE SPELL THEN CONTACT..alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com.

      Delete
  2. Trump is a standard-issue Reagan Republican.
    Anyone who isn't a bigot, left the Republican Party by 1990.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Women don't put their names on accusations of sexual assault because they will be attacked by people like Somerby, who wouldn't believe them without an unimpeachable eyewitness -- who commits rape or sexual assault in public like that?

    Somerby is wrong about Avenatti and wrong about this so-called fourth accuser. There were also accusations that were considered in closed session of the congressional hearings but no one heard about that.

    Notice how quickly the plot to falsely accuse Mueller fell apart. It would be similarly easy to find plotters against Kavanaugh if the accusations were cooked up, as the right has claimed. The women who make false accusations are generally found out via investigation. But the right didn't want Ford's accusations investigated. Why not?

    Somerby needs to consult his own conscience to know why he keeps defending the rights of men to commit rape and sexual assault with impunity and cannot empathize with the difficulty women encounter prosecuting and STOPPING crimes that occur in privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "CNN's report about Donald Trump's tweet drops bushels of R-bombs all over the land. But good lord! Despite its length, it made zero attempt to address the factual claims included in Trump's ugly ad."

    The racism is not contained in factual inaccuracies but by implication. One racist implication is that all immigrants are cop-killers. Another is that the Democrats let cop-killers in on purpose, overlooking or even condoning such crimes. Another is that there are many such cop-killing immigrants in our communities because there are a lot of immigrants, thus we all need to be afraid of being murdered. The implication is that if an immigrant can kill a cop, how are the rest of us who are not cops going to be safe? None of this can be addressed by doing a fact-check on the ad.

    The facts may be that this man did kill cops and was admitted during Obama's administration (so, by Democrats). If he successfully evaded capture in the US, that could be construed as Democrats "letting him stay." All that is needed to verify that is to show that he wasn't deported during Obama's term. Never mind that not all ICE or INS or police are Democrats, in fact most are not. The cops may have been killed in another country and he may have entered the US illegally and the US may have been unaware of his presence until he was ultimately caught for another crime. None of those facts would make the ad untrue. Just the implications.

    Technically, the facts may be true. That's why fact-checking doesn't work to curb racism.

    Other broader implications can be checked. We are not experiencing any kind of immigrant crime wave. Immigrants are not that numerous, especially ones who have killed cops. And so on. But how do you present the fact check in an ad that will have the same impact as the ad Trump ran?

    Somerby's idea is nonsense. No one cares whether Trump is a liar or not. He speaks a deeper truth. The corrections will appear self-serving and defensive. That isn't any way to correct Trump's racist attacks.

    Pointing out the racism from which the distortions and lies spring is more effective. People will know to distrust the rest of the content of the ad, once the speaker is said to be racist. It should put people on guard. If it doesn't, that is what is wrong with our discourse -- not the lack of fact-checking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Pointing out the racism from which the distortions and lies spring is more effective."

      Liberals calling someone 'racist' servers as a confirmation that he is telling the truth.

      And that's all it does. Everyone (who's not a zombie) knows that.

      Delete
    2. If Republicans consider "racist" an endorsement of that person, then that is a crucial difference between the two parties and it serves to confirm that people become Republicans because they are racists themselves and the party condones that and forwards racism as part of its platform and goals. In other words, Republicans in general tend to be racists these days.

      That is nothing to be proud of Mao.

      Delete
    3. "That is nothing to be proud of Mao."

      If liberals call you 'racist', then yes, that is indeed something to be satisfied with.

      That means that your said something that they hate, but can't refute by facts and logic (as 1:46 PM freely admits). The word-salad in the middle of your comment notwithstanding.

      Delete
    4. Mao illustrates the problem. Using a word such as racist to characterize Trump isn't going to convince Trump supporters of anything but it may influence people who think being racist is a bad thing.

      Like Trump and his supporters, Mao has no shame about racism. Trump only seems to be ashamed when it comes to things like the size of his hands or his crowds.

      Delete
    5. "it may influence people who think being racist is a bad thing"

      It may, but only those of them who are idiots (zombies), believing that being called 'racist' by liberals has any meaning other than routine liberal expression of hatred.

      There's not a lot of those left. And they probably don't need your influencing anyway.

      Delete
    6. If you don't know the Republican Party is a hotbed of bigots and fascists by now, you'll never know it.

      Delete
  5. “we were largely shielded from awareness of these embarrassments.”

    The notion that the allegations against Kavanaugh and the reporting on them represent embarrassments for “us”, ie liberals, needs to be examined.

    First of all, none of the allegations, as far as I know, stemmed from any concerted effort by Democrats or liberals to smear Kavanaugh. Whatever the truth of Swetnick’s claims or the motives of Avenatti, neither was working in concert with or with the blessing of the Democratic Party, let alone of all “liberals.” Avenatti is an independent actor, and cannot be silenced by Democrats.

    Second, where is the misconduct supposedly perpetrated by the media, in this case MSNBC? Somerby himself informs us that Hayes clearly noted the lack of corroborating witnesses for Swetnick, and that even Maddow relays the fact that the fourth accusation contained no names. There is no journalistic malpractice there. The fourth accusation was reported on, because it was a real accusation contained in a real letter that the judicial committee had actually investigated. That makes it news, and thus reportable.

    And this brings up another point. Somerby implies that maybe Republicans “investigated” and released the transcript of their questioning about the fourth accuser in order to muddy the waters. He therefore accuses Republicans of playing cynical games, rather than making an honest effort to find out the truth. And on top of that, he seems to feel that their game playing must factor into the news media’s decision to report on a story or not.

    Ultimately, since the media (MSNBC) is not an extension of the Democratic Party, it is unclear how their reporting of a story is supposed to reflect badly on Democrats, except in the minds of brainless individuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “…as far as I know…”


      Quite right. How was such a travesty allowed to occur? Let’s suppose it was the Dems who proposed that Ford’s allegations be presented. In fact, it seems impossible that it was instigated by the Repubs. Now, let’s look at how it went. Oh, right, a snarling Kavanaugh, disputing the allegations of things that occurred decades ago.


      I’m simpatico with Ford, but I see her as a patsy. It was a very weak attempt by the Dems to smear vitamin K, using the #metoo movement, when in fact all they would have needed to do was actually know his judicial history, and hang him from his own petard for his lies about said history.


      Am I wrong, or did the Dems contribute to his confirmation? Why yes, they did, because some of them voted to confirm. WTF?


      Perhaps my history is confused, and I would welcome revisions if I’m wrong. But there is no way any Dem should have voted to confirm the Kman, unless… The term Democrat no longer has any meaning. Which seems obvious to me, anyway. It’s all triangulation now. Thanks, WJC!



      One last thing. The media were simple spectators, and passed on the speculation. Can’t blame them for being totally incompetent. It’s what they do! Just like the Dems. Everything was out of their control.


      Leroy

      Delete
    2. Leroy, K was a mainstream conservative judge. Evidently he did a good job, because no opponent criticized his rulings as legally incorrect. Had the Dems managed to prevent K, they likely would have gotten someone more conservative, such as Amy Coney Barrett.

      Trump holds all the cards. With a majority of Senate (and thanks to Harry Reid's rule change), Trump can nominate whoever he wants.

      Delete
    3. "Trump can nominate whoever he wants."

      Which was the whole point of nominating a sexual predator, who had lied multiple times to Congress.

      Delete
    4. Leroy, you don’t seem to have a clear idea of the facts. The Democrats could not force the Republicans on the committee to call any witnesses at all. And Dr Ford came forward on her own, not at the urging of Democrats. Democrats asked for a thorough investigation. That’s all they could do. They didn’t get that.

      As far as votes, Kavanaugh had enough R votes to get confirmed without any D votes. Heitkamp potentially endangered her seat by voting against. But hey, for Democrats it’s all about “triangulation” in your view. By the way, only one Democrat (Manchin) voted yes. Would you prefer the far right Trump clone wins in WV?

      Kavanaugh was never not going to be confirmed. Are you naive enough to believe that Democrats could have convinced Republicans to vote against him based on his record???

      Delete
    5. 10:31. I didn't have clear understanding. Thank you for correcting me.

      As to your last question, at least a couple of Republicans seem to have a clue, but I'm sure those votes were rather the result of prudence, rather than conscience. For whatever that's worth

      Leroy

      Delete
  6. Here is Somerby defending men who commit sexual assault and rape again by attacking Maddow, a woman who is reporting on accusations. He pretends to be interested in truth and good reporting, but the women who bring such accusations are interested in truth too -- the truth of what happened to them. Somerby is on the side that wants to suppress that truth by pretending it cannot be known with sufficient certainty. What a piece of work he is!

    ReplyDelete
  7. And meanwhile, last night, Rachel Maddow did an excellent exposé on the goings-on in Dodge City, Kansas to suppress votes. It was real journalism.

    But you won’t hear about it in this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Case 1: Mueller apparently reported for jury duty in DC on the day he was accused of raping someone in NYC.

    Case 2: Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault at a party whose description is strikingly similar to the events noted at the time on Kavanaugh's own calendar.

    Is it really that hard to tell which claims are plausible and which are not?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is interesting about Trump's upcoming deployment of regular troops to the border:

    "From the papers, the military is preparing to defend against an “estimated 200 unregulated armed militia members currently operating along the [Southwest Border]. Reported Incidents of unregulated militias stealing National Guard equipment during deployments. They operate under the guise of citizen patrols supporting [Customs and Border Patrol] primarily between [Points of Entry].”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Somerby has constantly told us that the mainstream media are full of pseudoliberals. He also tells us that MSNBC, a purportedly left-leaning news outlet, is also pseudoliberal. And yet, in the minds of right wingers, these media outlets are liberal, and they are joined at the hip with liberals/Democrats. Thus, any problematical or embarrassing thing said by anyone in these media outlets must reflect what all liberals/Democrats believe.

    Somerby urges us to feel embarrassed at what is being said on MSNBC. Why? I may not like what I hear there, but in what sense should I be “embarrassed” about it? I know they don’t necessarily reflect my interests or those of the Democratic Party. And yet, Somerby thinks I should be embarrassed *because the right wing commits the logical fallacy of equating the two*.

    How’s that for allowing the right wing narrative to control liberal discourse and liberal reaction:

    “Someone said something stupid on MSNBC, and liberals should be embarrassed because the right wing thinks that MSNBC=liberals.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. interesting point. I'd be interested to hear what Somerby has to say about it. of course many liberals think MSNBC is awesome.

      Delete
    2. Including your 2 followers?

      Delete
    3. hey thanks for pointing that out! I didn't realize i had any followers. (I don't know who they are or whether they are liberals who love MSNBC.)

      Delete
  11. So Trump’s ad was “ugly, deceptive and vile”, according to Somerby. But no one should simply swap “insults and accusations.” Aside from the word “deceptive”, which relates to the factual claims in the ad, how are “ugly” or “vile” not simply insults and accusations? What about the ad is “ugly” or “vile”? Is it possible that the R-word is an apt description of the ad, and a reason why it is ugly and vile? Saying that the ad is a ginning up of fear of the “other” in order to appeal to bigotry or racism is 1) true, and 2) not accusing all Republicans of being racist. Every human being, as Somerby has pointed out, has irrational forces within them. All of us, liberal and conservative, can exhibit bigotry or racism if we are overly scared and allow ourselves to fall into irrational thinking. But that fact does not mean that charging Trump with making a racist appeal is incorrect in this case. And pointing this out is not antithetical to truth-seeking; it is in service of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But that fact does not mean that charging Trump with making a racist appeal is incorrect in this case."

      To anyone who's not a zombie, the appeal is, quite simply, anti-illegal-immigration.

      There's a procedure for gaining lawful entry into the United States, which is, according to the US law, race-neutral.

      Therefore, accusations of racism could indicate, in this case, a low intellectual ability -- or deliberate dishonesty.

      Delete
    2. Then why does Somerby describe the ad as ugly and vile?

      Delete
    3. No idea. I haven't seen the video myself, nor am I planning to. That's his impression, I guess. Because it's blaming Democrats for the crimes committed by some guy, I guess.

      Delete
    4. If you haven’t seen the ad, you can hardly be in a position to judge the claims being made about it.

      Delete
    5. To anyone who's not a zombie, the appeal is, quite simply, anti-illegal-immigration.

      So true! Now, the ad could have shown thousands and thousands of undocumented immigrants working in the fields, busing tables, cleaning rooms in hotels (including, perhaps, Trump's Mar-a-lago), etc. But that would have been so trite.

      Back in the good old days of the Stalinist Soviet Union, newspapers would regularly publish stories about crimes committed by Jews, whom, of course, the newspapers identified as Jews. I imagine many of those stories were true. Can't quite put my finger on what the problem is with that.

      Delete
    6. "the ad could have shown thousands and thousands of undocumented immigrants working in the fields, busing tables, cleaning rooms"

      Yes, suppressing wages of blue-collar citizens, for the benefit of capitalists and the upper-class segment (of which you're part, I'm pretty sure). They definitely should have ads like that, and I suspect they do.


      "Back in the good old days of the Stalinist Soviet Union, newspapers would regularly publish stories about crimes committed by Jews"

      Short period, less than one year, as I remember. And then it was stopped. Sadly, you sound like an anti-communist demagogue. Very similar (conceptually) campaigns happened in the US and other western countries. In fact, they are happening right now, as we speak. It's just that you don't care.

      "Can't quite put my finger on what the problem is with that."

      The problem is it was accusing an ethnic group. If you don't see the difference between an ethnic group, and the category of illegal migrants, who, by definition, are all criminals, who committed a crime of illegal border crossing - then yes, you're a zombie.

      Delete
    7. Illegal border crossing is a civil case, not a criminal case. I think you know that, but feel free to defend yourself, by joining the legions who call you painfully stupid.

      Delete
    8. Illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a crime, dembot.

      You're uninformed. Or dishonest.

      Delete
    9. Mao is basically right here, at least about it being a crime. Crossing the border other than at a border inspection point is a crime, see 8 U.S.C. sec. 1325. Under the same statute, it is also a civil violation. Dems, some of them anyway, seem to want to just open up the borders. I'm not an immigration lawyer, but I believe there are asylum laws also - they may apply if the undocumented person crosses at a border station and claims refugee status. Mao raises the argument that undocumented persons might take away jobs, or drive down the wages of citizens or green card holders - but if they are all expelled there could be a shortage of workers income areas, e.g. nursing homes. Undocumenteds may cost tax payers for their medical care, and education in public schools, though I don't think they are eligible for food stamps or Medicaid (but ERs would treat them for free). there are other issues. We've lived with it for years. How important is this issue? No doubt, Trump is demagoguing it, big time. There is the human decency element to it. There's a jingoistic, racist element involved. It'd be nice if there was rational, intelligent discussion of the issue.

      Delete
    10. "Dems, some of them anyway, seem to want to just open up the borders."

      Do these two people have names? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Delete
    11. "Yes, suppressing wages of blue-collar citizens, for the benefit of capitalists and the upper-class segment."

      Congressional Republicans have had the power to enact laws, which would make this (and exploiting immigrant workers) illegal and punishable by prison time.

      Perhaps, they too, have noticed illegal border crossings have been declining for years---making this, not a crisis, but something which can be safely ignored.

      Delete
    12. Congressional Republicans have had the power to enact laws? What an odd statement. And Madam Pelosi with her flunkeys are there just for show?

      Delete
  12. For Caesar

    https://youtu.be/Ld_-8oPe4K8?t=883

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Republican party is truly bankrupt if it cannot win without this kind of ad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The year 1988 called to agree.

      Delete
  14. The Moe Koffman Quartette perform "The Swingin' Shepherd Blues".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XtledXfq30

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well well. Here’s a fact check of Trump’s claims in that ad, thanks to the media:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/luis-bracamontes-cop-killer-in-trumps-twitter-video-actually-came-back-to-us-under-bush

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tribes can become too powerful, such as the state religions or colonial states but I doubt they're the real source of our worries. Avenatti and Trump are after more than tribalism, they're after power more power than they or really anyone can be expected to wield without succumbing to vanity and dealing from the bottom of the deck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't express that as well as I'd like, state religions and colonialism are evil precisely because of their exercise of power, not because of tribalism.

      Delete
  17. MY NAME IS VICKY AND I AM FROM SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA,I WANT TO SHARE A
    TESTIMONY OF A SPELL CASTER WHO REUNITE MY MARRIAGE WENT HIS POWERFUL SPELL
    CASTER.AND I ALSO WANT TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITIES TO WARN THOSE OUT THERE
    READING FAKE TESTIMONY ON SOCIAL NETWORK.BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED BY SO
    MANY FAKE SPELL CASTER. BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR
    EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVER BACK, TESTIMONIES OF MOST
    SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORE.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL
    SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM OF BEFORE, I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
    BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY HUSBAND BACK AFTER HE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2
    YEARS WITH MY 7 YEARS OLD SON HARRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 5 DIFFERENT SPELL
    CASTER HERE AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME
    YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER
    AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM WEST AFRICA UNTIL I SAW A POST ABOUT DR
    ALEXZANDER SPELL AND I DECIDED TO GAVE HIM MY LAST TRAIL.HE ASK ME FOUR
    THINGS MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND SAID MY EX WILL COME
    BACK IN 48HOURS, I HAVE SPEND ON SPELL CASTING AND NOTHING HAVE WORK FOR ME
    AFTER 2 DAYS I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MUCH I HAVE LOST SO FAR SO I SAID LET
    ME GIVE HIM A TRY SO I CALLED HIM AGAIN AND SEND MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY
    EX MOTHER NAME. BECAUSE I SWEAR IT WAS MY LAST TRY SO I WAS WAITING AS HE
    TOLD ME TO WAIT TILL NEXT DAY AND I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I
    REALLY LOVE MY HUSBAND AND WANT HIM BACK SO MUCH, THAT DAY I SAW MY HUSBAND
    WAS ONLINE ON FACEBOOK AND HE SAID HI AT FIRST I WAS SHOCK BECAUSE HE
    NEVER TALK WITH ME FOR THE PAST A YEAR AND 11 MONTH NOW I DID NOT REPLY
    AGAIN HE SAID ARE YOU THERE? I QUICKLY REPLY YES AND HE SAID CAN WE SEE
    TOMORROW I SAID YES AND HE WENT OFF-LINE I WAS CONFUSED I TRY TO CHAT WITH
    HIM AGAIN BUT HE WAS NO MORE ON LINE I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS I WAS
    WONDERING WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY, BY 9.AM THE NEXT MORNING HE GAVE ME A
    MISS CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK AGAIN HE
    CALLED AND I PICK HE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO HE END
    THE CALL. IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK HE CALL ME AND WE MEET AND NOW WE ARE
    BACK AGAIN I CALL DR ALEXZANDER THE NEXT DAY THANKING HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS
    DONE IN FACT I STILL CALL HIM AND THANK HIM AS MY LIFE WAS NOT COMPLETE
    WITHOUT MY HUSBAND PLEASE BE CAREFUL HERE I HAVE BEEN SCAM THOUSANDS OF
    DOLLARS IF YOU WANT A TRUE LOVE SPELL THEN CONTACT..alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 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