COUNTRY MUSIC MEETS IMPEACHMENT: Country music voted for Trump!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2019

Charley Pride (may have) voted for Clinton:
Kevin Drum isn't a country music star, no matter what he may tell you.

He does remain our favorite blogger. Last week, he wandered into the ongoing debate about the 16-hour Ken Burns film, Country Music.

Politically speaking, the PBS film emerged at a somewhat peculiar time. Burns was exploring part of the national culture of Southern and rural white working-class America. He was doing so at a time when this part of the blessed community has become especially unpopular among PBS contributors and other top people who know.

The blessed community has split into tribes. And on the whole, Nashville's tribes have aligned themselves Over There:

Kathy Mattea grew up in West Virginia—and her family had come from coal. The state, the industry and the lingering culture of coal are all aligned Over There.

Merle Haggard grew up in central California, not on the state's golden coast. He grew up in a family which had been derided as Okies.

According to a 1969 Rolling Stone review,
his songs "romanticize[d] the hardships and tragedies of America’s transient proletarian." He "addressed himself exclusively to Nixon’s 'silent majority,' the suburban working class."

In the present day, California is massively blue, but central California is red. And even as early as 1970, country music was part of the national culture of much of the white working class, with Tex Montana starring on stage in far-north Massena, New York.

The remarkable Dolly Parton grew up without running water in rural eastern Kentucky. Eastern Kentucky is part of the red tribe today.

The remarkable Charley Pride grew up the son of a sharecropper in rural Mississipi. Across the nation, the descendants of Charley Pride's people are part of the blue tribe today.

Tomorrow, we're going to journey all the way back to the young Minnie Pearl, before her years at the Opry. But for today, we'll only note this:

As Burns related the stories of these musicians and their families, he was largely describing the national culture of today's Trump voters, the people found Over There.

Over Here, in PBS country, those people are frequently seen as Those People. This gave the Burns film a somewhat peculiar political feel, one Burns almost wholly avoided.

Out in Cali, Drum waded in last week, offering an interesting post which many readers disliked. Truth to tell, we thought Drum was pretty much wrong in the part of his assessment which drew tribal complaints, but his post helps direct us toward an important point.

"Conservative Kool-Aid Is Powerful Stuff"—so read the headline on Drum's post. And just for the record, there is no doubt that this claim is true.

Drum listed four crazy things The Others believe, one of which didn't necessarily strike us as crazy. But then, he turned the tables on blue-tribe voters, eventually offering the highlighted remark:
DRUM (9/30/19): And besides, even if Trump was a little over his skis in his conversation with Ukraine’s president, there really is a huge scandal surrounding Joe Biden. Right? Clearly the guy tried to call off the Ukrainian dogs in order to help his son make a ton of money, and used a billion dollars in taxpayer money to make his threat good.

Don’t just shake your head at this. Lots of Republicans believe it. And frankly, a lot of you probably believe equally crazy things about them. The big difference is that while some liberals may watch more MSNBC than is good for them, they also ingest other news that prevents them from going entirely over the edge. A great many conservatives don’t. It’s just Fox and Hannity and Breitbart 24/7.
Uh-oh! Readers disliked the possible suggestion that we liberals believe as many crazy things as they do Over There.

We liberals don't "go entirely over the edge," Drum was quick to say. But readers didn't like the highlighted statement, and we think it mis-assesses our own tribe's role in the destructive national schism we have described above—in the division and conquest which lets the powerful rule.

Do modern liberals believe as many crazy things as modern conservatives do? In our own knee-jerk instant assessment no, we probably don't.

At present, we don't have a corporate apparatus directing as many factual absurdities at us as The Others do. Our long-standing tribal problem mainly lies somewhere else.

To what tribal problem do we refer? A few months before releasing Okie From Muskogee, Haggard described a deeply unhelpful tribal impulse in his song, Hungry Eyes.

He was describing the struggles of the "Okie" class during an earlier era. But we'd have to say that his basic indictment basically holds true today:
Another class of people put us somewhere just below;
One more reason for my mama's hungry eyes.
Another class of people put them somewhere just below? By all accounts, that was true when (white) Dust Bowl refugees arrived in California in the 1930s. But we'd have to say it's basically an accurate picture of one part of our national struggles today.

Blue-tribe members, please! By the time of our own struggle with Tex Montana at the Golden Horseshoe, the nation's bicoastal pseudo-elites were deeply invested in free-floating disparagement of the white working-class. (Far-left politics of that era tried to address this problem.)

This condescension has never gone away. It's what keeps Donald J. Trump in power. Before that, it's what got him there.

Don't get us wrong! We liberals do believe all kinds of things which aren't true, most of which involve our frequently self-flattering, performative stances concerning race and gender.

We believed that Michael Brown had his hands up and that he said don't shoot. We believe that women are paid 80 cents on the dollar for doing the very same work.

(When candidates repeat the latter claim, we praise them for their candor. When candidates say Michael Brown was "murdered," we praise them for not backing down.)

(When candidates criticize an opponent for having opposed mandated busing way back when, we ignore the fact that they themselves don't support mandated busing today. Up in Gotham, we'll slander Asian-American parents and kids in the most unprincipled ways, insisting that they're fiendishly taking our own tribe's seats in the best schools away.)

There's no mandated claim in these areas that we won't rush to support. And as we engage in this endless ridiculous conduct, we never stop telling the world that The Others are crazily dumb.

Bicoastal liberals, please! We're so dumb that we were able to see Stormy Daniels as a "feminist hero" and as a "feminist icon" when she shook down Donald J. Trump for a big sack of cash. We're so spectacularly dumb that when we gazed on her visibly crazy lawyer, we actually thought that we were seeing a guy who should run for president!

When The Others see us doing these things, they think that we're stupendously dumb. Anthropologists tell us that this view can't exactly be said to be wrong.

Do blue-tribe voters believe as many crazy things as red-tribe voters do? It's hard to say, but we would say that we probably don't.

They've been told, by people they trust, that climate change is a hoax, and they've long been inclined to believe it.

They were told that Obama was born in Kenya. According to surveys which we were too lazy to "interrogate," a large percentage of red-tribe voters believed that crazy claim too!

Maybe Drum wasn't all that wrong in the outlandish thing he said. Red-tribe voters have swallowed a lot of Kool-Aid down through the years. But in fairness, we blue-tribe voters have done our share of swallowing too.

That said, the basic tribal stance that defines our role in our current national breakdown is our condescension toward the white working class. Topping the charts is our tribal insistence that Those People pretty much have to be racists.

Each of our tribes has a very strong tendency to be extremely dumb. Anthropologists keep telling us that nothing is going to change that.

They tell us that our blue-tribe dumbness is a function of basic human wiring. They tell us we're wired to spot the dumbness, but only when it's found Over There.

Tomorrow: On the road with the young Minnie Pearl

56 comments:

  1. "Do modern liberals believe as many crazy things as modern conservatives do? In our own knee-jerk instant assessment no, we probably don't."

    You should avoid making 'knee-jerk instant assessments', dear Bob. Concentrate on your own crazy 'beliefs'.

    You simply have no idea what non-zombies - human beings of all walks of life - do or don't believe.

    Take this, for example: "...in order to help his son make a ton of money...".

    Not "to help his son", dear Bob. The only reason that Ukrainian company was paying his junkie son millions of dollars, was to use, to exploit Creepy Joe's powerful position in the US government. And they did get what they paid for.

    This is the most obvious explanation. You don't 'believe' it? Great, why keep guessing - investigate, and be done with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Investigate?
      I think you mean waterboard the entire Trump Administration, and see what they're hiding.

      Delete
    2. Hello everyone i Am williams pater and i am from USA i am here to give my testimony about an herbal doctor called Dr,olu I was heartbroken because i had very small penis,not nice to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but could not offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the internet about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to email him on his email i saw on the internet,(drolusolutionhome@gmail.com ) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal product for Penis Enlargement, Within three weeks of me use it, i began to feel the enlargement, " and now it just 4 weeks of using his products my penis is about 8 inches longer, and i had to settle thing out with my ex girlfriend , i was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my performance in bed and i now have a large penis.thanks to DR OLU for is herbal product. you can also reach him with emsil  drolusolutionhome@gmail.com though is..number WHATASPP him today on this number [ +2348140654426 ]   









































      Delete
  2. Today Somerby gives us a list of the things he himself has criticized, and attributes those beliefs to all liberals, saying "we" believe his favorite straw men.

    A young black man can be a criminal and yet still not deserve to be shot down by a cop. A woman can sue to evade a nondisclosure agreement about a sexual affair and still not be a shakedown artist. No one thought Avenatti should run for president, except Avenatti. And notice how Somerby leaves out Roy Moore on his list of crazy stuff we all supposedly believe.

    I don't consider disagreeing with Somerby to be an example of crazy liberal belief, and I certainly don't consider Somerby any kind of liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A young black man can be a criminal and yet still not deserve to be shot down by a cop.

      True, but Brown was killed in a struggle with a cop. The DOJ (back when it was a DOJ) concluded that the cop acted in self defense.

      A woman can sue to evade a nondisclosure agreement about a sexual affair and still not be a shakedown artist.

      True, but when she shops her story to the tabloids, she’s a grifter just like the guy she fucked.

      And notice how Somerby leaves out Roy Moore on his list of crazy stuff we all supposedly believe.

      At least one commenter here believes that Moore’s legal dating habits are evidence of his pedophilia. Crazy enough for you?

      I don't consider disagreeing with Somerby to be an example of crazy liberal belief

      I don’t either. I sometimes disagree with TDH.

      and I certainly don't consider Somerby any kind of liberal.

      You mean you don’t consider him your kind of liberal, a tribal one.

      Delete
    2. The DOJ conclusion was political in the Brown case, if you examine the case you will see the cop created the tense environment that led to Brown's death, in the moment it may have been self defense but the cop was guilty of creating that moment. A better trained cop, and Brown would be alive.

      Stormy is not a grifter for shopping her story around, she is not swindling anybody, there is no fraud.

      Moore being sexually attracted to children is uncontroversial, he pursued and possibly assaulted girls as young as 14, others were 16, etc.

      Someone politically liberal is tribal definitionally. Does Somerby support liberal policies? Who is to say, supposedly he only offers media criticism.

      Somerby's makes an assertion without evidence:

      "This condescension has never gone away. It's what keeps Donald J. Trump in power. Before that, it's what got him there."

      Judging just by liberal policies (neoliberalists are another story), it is clear that condescension never existed, much less accounts for Trump. Trump ran on racism, xenophobia, sexism. Liberals should offer material benefits to those that suffer, and do, but it will not motivate Trump voters, they are driven by other factors.

      Delete
    3. The DOJ conclusion was political in the Brown case, if you examine the case you will see the cop created the tense environment that led to Brown's death, in the moment it may have been self defense but the cop was guilty of creating that moment. A better trained cop, and Brown would be alive.

      It was Obama’s DOJ, so no I don’t think the conclusion was political. Given the above, we’re in agreement. It wasn’t murder; we shouldn’t be calling it murder. That’s all TDH is saying.

      Stormy is not a grifter for shopping her story around….

      She tried to make money from a private sexual encounter; she reneged on her NDA after accepting hush money. If that doesn’t meet your definition of a grifter, then fine. She’s a piker compared to the guy she fucked and hustled for $130K. I’m glad she got paid; I still think it was a grift.

      Moore being sexually attracted to children is uncontroversial, he pursued and possibly assaulted girls as young as 14, others were 16, etc.

      True enough. And that’s of public interest. His consensual, legal romantic interests are not, even though you may not approve of the age gap between Moore and the women involved.

      Someone politically liberal is tribal definitionally.

      Speak for yourself. I’d like to think liberals attained their membership by reason, not by blind loyalty.

      Does Somerby support liberal policies? Who is to say, supposedly he only offers media criticism.

      Plenty of tribal actors here say. That’s the problem.

      Somerby's makes an assertion without evidence:

      TDH makes plenty of assertions without evidence or without sufficient evidence. Plenty of room for valid counter-argument. What’s your point?

      Trump ran on racism, xenophobia, sexism.

      So what?

      Delete
    4. Somerby suggests liberal condescension resulted in Trump. This is broadly the overarching theme he presents almost daily.

      Do you agree with his assessment?

      Does his assessment suggest any course of action, and if so, what is the predicted result of said action?

      Delete
    5. In case you're talking to me, Anonymous on October 5, 2019 at 1:59 AM,

      No, I don't agree with his assessment. Ignorance, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and a glee at destruction resulted in Trump. Pending, of course, any investigation that shows vote totals in swing states were diddled with.

      No, TDH hasn't suggested any concrete course of action.

      It's hard to predict what a human being will do in response to the action of another. But Republicans merely walk amongst us as human, so the predicted results of "said action" would be nothing.

      Delete
    6. Does not TDH suggest liberals treat Trump voters with less derision, and that in doing so will result in liberals acquiring more votes, and thus avoid more odious leaders?

      If not, what else could he possibly mean:

      "This condescension has never gone away. It's what keeps Donald J. Trump in power. Before that, it's what got him there."

      Delete
    7. You have your timeline wrong on Stormy Daniels. She had sex with Trump. She told her story of her encounter with him at parties and then mentioned it on a talk show. That inspired a tabloid to contact her and she was offered money for her "story" but that fell through and the article was never published. Trump heard about it and had a goon threaten her and her daughter to keep her quiet. Then she was offered the NDA and $140,000 a month before the election, to keep her from joining the chorus of other women claiming to have been assaulted. Daniels never said she was assaulted. She described other unflattering details of her encounter with him. After signing the NDA, she refused to talk about him. Later, after the election, she offered to give the money back in order to remove the NDA and she then took him to court.

      She didn't seek Trump out for sex in the first place. He demanded it as a quid pro quo for talking with her about an appearance on his TV show. She says she went to the bath room and when she came out, he was sitting on her bed, unclothed. She went ahead and had sex with him rather than make a scene at that point. That is clearly coercion, even if it is not physical. She is not a "grifter" for wanting to be on his show. She was then and remains a celebrity among adult film fans, so she had some legitimate hope that he might put her on his show, especially given that he moved in those circles himself as a so-called playboy. Note that it was Trump who was cheating on his wife, who was then pregnant.

      Women may see this situation differently than men do. But your belief that she approached him for the money, instead of Trump approaching her, is contradicted by Daniels and her original attorney, who is someone who worked with Cohen to finalize other NDAs with other women (e.g., McDaniels). If she had sought her own attorney to negotiate a payment, it would surely have been someone else, not connected with Trump or Cohen (a conflict of interest).

      Delete
    8. Does not TDH suggest liberals treat Trump voters with less derision, and that in doing so will result in liberals acquiring more votes,….

      That’s how I read him, but “Play nice!” isn’t much of a “concrete course of action," is it?

      Delete
    9. I think you’re talking to me, Anonymous @10:24A, but it’s hard to tell:

      You have your timeline wrong on Stormy Daniels.

      When did I mention timing? I don’t think the order of events is important.

      Daniels never said she was assaulted.

      Did I say she was? Nobody claims her encounter with Trump was sexual assault. She did say she was threatened in a parking lot. That would be assault if it actually happened.

      She didn't seek Trump out for sex in the first place.

      Did I say she did? Of what relevance is this?

      She went ahead and had sex with him rather than make a scene at that point. That is clearly coercion,….

      It’s not coercion unless leverage is involved. At the time Stormy Daniels was already a force in the so-called adult entertainment business and was already starting to get cross-over jobs. She wasn’t a desperate newcomer who needed Trump’s ridiculous TV show. Basically, she tried to trade sex for work. That’s the business she’s in. I find nothing wrong with that, and practicing her trade is not what makes her a grifter.

      She is not a "grifter" for wanting to be on his show.

      Of course not. Did I say her wish to cross over to mainstream TV made her a grifter?

      Note that it was Trump who was cheating on his wife, who was then pregnant.

      Actually Trump and Clifford had sex in July 2006. Baron was born in March. Trump is a sleaze; that’s a given. What difference does that make?

      But your belief that she approached him for the money, instead of Trump approaching her, is contradicted by Daniels….

      It’s not my belief, and why is that relevant?

      None of the above matters, especially the parts I didn’t claim. Clifford tried and succeeded in monetizing a private sexual encounter, and when she got her money she reneged on her NDA. In my book, that makes her a grifter. YMMV.

      Let’s see what you have to say:

      That inspired a tabloid to contact her and she was offered money for her "story”….

      Then she was offered the NDA and $140,000 a month before the election


      I don’t know why you put the word story in scare quotes, and the $140K was a one-time payment, but thanks for making my point for me.

      Delete
    10. Does not TDH suggest liberal condescension is a major cause of media's failing?

      "It's what keeps Donald J. Trump in power."

      TDH suggests we rid ourselves of liberal condescension, we rid ourselves of Trump and his ilk. This is TDH's main theme going on a decade or more.

      Delete
    11. Who condescends to racism? The only thing worse is ignoring it.

      Delete
    12. I doubt we will see answers to these questions, as the answers would admit to Somerby's folly.

      Delete
  3. "U.S. job growth increased moderately in September, with the unemployment rate dropping to near a 50-year low of 3.5%, assuaging financial market concerns that the slowing economy was on the brink of a recession amid lingering trade tensions."

    Not too shabby, for some sort of mentally ill, eh, Bob?

    The only logical conclusion I can fathom here is this: either your zombie cult high priests are tenfold as crazy, or they are deliberate saboteurs.

    Which one is it, dear Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Job growth is down from previous months.

      Delete
    2. Not only is job growth significantly down, and workforce participation near historic lows, but the employment rate is following a decade long trend, Trump has had no impact.

      Delete
  4. “This condescension has never gone away. It's what keeps Donald J. Trump in power. Before that, it's what got him there.”

    Republican primary voters had more than a dozen candidates to choose from in the 2016 primaries, most of them traditional Republicans with government experience. And yet, it was liberal condescension that caused them to pick Trump over all of these?

    Is Somerby also going to say something about liberal condescension to explain Obama’s two terms? Or the Democratic takeback of the House In 2016, which involved a fair amount of districts flipping from red to blue?

    Somerby’s analysis is missing something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BS: Sorry, not drinking your Kool-Aide. The other believes in crazy stuff ten times more than this side. FULL STOP. (PS. Almost nobody cared about Stormy's attorney btw).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Drum wrote: The big difference is that while some liberals may watch more MSNBC than is good for them, they also ingest other news that prevents them from going entirely over the edge. A great many conservatives don’t. It’s just Fox and Hannity and Breitbart 24/7.

    I assume the final sentence is true. No doubt many conservatives ingest only conservative news.

    However, I don't think liberals are any better. Yes, they have news sources other than MSNBC, but the mainstream media also tilts left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These days, all you have to do to "tilt left" is to not repeat the garbage that appears on Fox and Breitbart.

      The point isn't whether it is left or right, but whether the news is true and accurate. On tests of current events knowledge, liberals consistently do way better because the sources they listen to tell them facts instead of propaganda.

      Somerby likes to pretend otherwise. He claims that conservatives are hearing things that are more true than what liberals hear. But then how can liberals know more about current events if that were true?

      Somerby's examples include Michael Brown and Stormy Daniels. Personally, I think liberals are correct when they say that too many young, black men are being shot by police, regardless of the specifics of Brown's case. Similarly, I believe that men shouldn't escape the consequences of sexual assault using nondisclosure agreements that women are forced to sign in order to gain any restitution, regardless of the specifics of Stormy Daniel's affair with Trump or how much money she was paid for her silence during the election.

      Somerby can't see nuances like that. He doesn't see that these cases represent larger issues that ARE important to liberals. He doesn't see that arguing over the specifics is a way that conservatives use to discredit and evade the larger issues.

      When Somerby argues about the specifics of these cases, ignoring their larger meaning, he aligns himself with the right and can no longer claim to be liberal in any meaningful sense of the word.

      Delete
    2. Try to focus, Javelina. I fear you may impale yourself on your nym.

      He [TDH] claims that conservatives are hearing things that are more true than what liberals hear.

      No, he claims that conservatives hear some things that are true and that liberals don’t hear those things.

      Personally, I think liberals are correct when they say that too many young, black men are being shot by police, regardless of the specifics of Brown's case.

      Good on you, but we’re not talking about those too many young, black men. The topic is whether Brown was murdered by police.

      Similarly, I believe that men shouldn't escape the consequences of sexual assault using nondisclosure agreements that women are forced to sign in order to gain any restitution,….

      Again, good for you, but the topic isn’t the coercion of the powerless victims of sexual assault; it’s about the specifics of what followed from Stephanie Clifford’s encounter with Trump. She was not assaulted and by all accounts is a successful businesswoman.

      When Somerby argues about the specifics of these cases, ignoring their larger meaning, he aligns himself with the right and can no longer claim to be liberal in any meaningful sense of the word.

      When TDH argues about the specifics of cases, he’s talking about upholding the accuracy of our accounts of the political world and the eschewing of pleasing narrative. Liberals should embrace the former and leave the latter to right-wingers. Anyone who doesn’t see this can no longer claim to be rational in any meaningful sense of the word.

      Delete
    3. FYI, a Javelina is a small wild pig that lives in Big Bend National Park along the Texas border with Mexico.

      Everyone here knows that you agree with Somerby that these specific nitpicks are more important than the larger causes that concern liberals. It is why Somerby is not particularly liberal. You say you are liberal but you defend Somerby and don't seem to care much about the larger issues that Somerby hopes to discredit and undermine with his nitpicks.

      Stormy Daniels (who doesn't like being called Stephanie Clifford, her given name) is not a con artist. Trump is. Whatever Michael Brown did or did not do, he was killed and that seems like too high a price to pay for anything he did. You and Somerby only care about how the press reported the details but that is a smokescreen for not caring about racial injustice in interactions with police -- black men are more likely to be shot than white men because of invidious racial stereotypes that cause police to be more afraid of them, thus quicker on the trigger. The rest of Brown's story is irrelevant when you care about the larger issue. Somerby doesn't care. You can decide for yourself whether that matters to you.

      Your willful misunderstanding of my comment is noted.

      Delete
    4. "Try to focus, Javelina. I fear you may impale yourself on your nym."

      That's as far as I got, this guy is just garbage.

      Delete
    5. FYI, a Javelina is a small wild pig that lives in Big Bend National Park along the Texas border with Mexico.

      I’ve learned something. Thanks. I thought it was a small javelin, and I was worried that you might impale yourself. Imagine my relief to be corrected.

      Everyone here knows that you agree with Somerby that these specific nitpicks are more important than the larger causes that concern liberals.

      Everyone? Whadjado, take a poll? I’m sorry you think the issue of whether Michael Brown was murdered or not is a “nitpick.” We’re gonna have to agree to disagree on that. This blog isn’t about the “larger causes” you’re interested in. Plenty of other places discuss those. And maybe TDH should as well, but it’s his blog.

      It is why Somerby is not particularly liberal. You say you are liberal but you defend Somerby and don't seem to care much about the larger issues that Somerby hopes to discredit and undermine with his nitpicks.

      Please quit telling me what I care about. And one person’s nitpick is another person’s javelin.

      Stormy Daniels … is not a con artist. Trump is.

      They’re both grifters in my book. She’s a minnow compared to Trump’s whale, but they’re both swimming in the same sea.

      Whatever Michael Brown did or did not do, he was killed and that seems like too high a price to pay for anything he did.

      I agree. He still wasn’t murdered.

      You and Somerby only care about how the press reported the details

      This is a blog about how the press and politicians report things. I think they should get things right in matters large and small. You don’t. We’re just gonna have to disagree again.

      The rest of Brown's story is irrelevant when you care about the larger issue.

      I’m sorry you think that the matter of whether Brown was murdered or not is irrelevant.

      Somerby doesn't care.

      Have you talked to him about it? What did he say that struck you as uncaring?

      You can decide for yourself whether that matters to you.

      Why would I do that when apparently I have you to decide these things for me?

      Your willful misunderstanding of my comment is noted.

      I quoted you directly and extensively. What of your comment did I mischaracterized?

      Delete
    6. That's as far as I got, this guy is just garbage.

      So you didn’t bother to actually read my argumentation, but you still think I’m “garbage.”

      Contemptible.

      Delete
    7. You are garbage because of the way you treat people.

      Delete
    8. The cop who shot Brown lied in his police report. That doesn't mean Brown wasn't murdered in my book.
      If you want to prove Brown wasn't murdered, you'd need the cop to tell the truth.

      Delete
    9. The cop who shot Brown lied in his police report.

      I can find no reliable source that shows evidence for this claim, but I didn’t spend a lot of time looking. Perhaps you can help.

      The DOJ report says that eyewitnesses and forensic evidence corroborate Wilson’s account.

      That doesn't mean Brown wasn't murdered in my book.

      Let me remind me that your burden to to show that Brown was murdered.

      If you want to prove Brown wasn't murdered, you'd need the cop to tell the truth.

      Not the way it works. If you want to prove that Brown was murdered, you’d need to show the cop committed illegal homicide under Missouri statutes. Generally, that requires showing things like unlawful intent.

      Delete
    10. You are garbage because of the way you treat people.

      You have little idea how I treat people. All you know is that I’m impolite in my online expression of disdain for ignorant and irrational argument. That’s a pretty low bar for “garbage,” but if that’s your standard, so be it.

      Now that we know you don’t like my style, do you have any comments on the actual content of what I have to say?

      I didn’t think so.

      Delete
    11. The cop who shot unarmed Mike Brown to death said Brown reached into his car, and when he sopped the car and got out, Brown ran 30 feet from him, turned around and charged at him, which is when the cop unloaded his gun and shot unarmed Mike Brown to death. Mike Brown's body lay more than 150 feet from the cop car.
      That seems like a lie to me, but I didn't read the Justice Department Report. Did the Justice Department prove the cop was a Conservative. if so, then I agree it's not a lie, because Conservatives can't do math.

      Delete
    12. which is when the cop unloaded his gun and shot unarmed Mike Brown to death.

      How do you shoot someone with an unloaded gun?

      Mike Brown's body lay more than 150 feet from the cop car.

      Who cares how far Brown was from the car? How close was he to the cop (Darren Wilson)?

      That seems like a lie to me, but I didn't read the Justice Department Report.

      Well, that’s OK then. You don’t need to read official reports as long as you can rely on what seems to you.

      Did the Justice Department prove the cop was a Conservative.

      The report showed that there was corroborative eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence that backed Wilson’s story, namely that there was a struggle in the car, Brown fled and Wilson followed, Brown turned and charged the cop.

      The report also showed that contradicting witnesses either admitted they lied or admitted they hadn’t been present to see the incident.

      This was miserably conducted police procedure in a town known for bad and biased policing. But the evidence does not support the claim that the Wilson murdered Brown.

      Got a reliable source that says that Wilson lied on his official report of the killing?

      Delete
    13. "Got a reliable source that says that Wilson lied on his official report of the killing?"

      Yes. It's called math.
      Per Officer Wilson's police report.
      Officer Wilson got out of his car.
      Mike Brown ran 35 feet away from the officer. (Who just got out of his car).
      Brown then turned and charged at the officer (who was not retreating).
      The cop unloaded his weapon at Mike Brown.
      ---
      Brown's body lay more than 150 feet from Officer Wilson's car.

      Again, this would be a lie, unless Officer Wilson is a Conservative, or has some other mental issue in which he can not understand mathematics.

      Delete
    14. So that's a no, then. You mistakenly type "yes."

      Brown ran; Wilson pursued him. The location of the car is irrelevant. "Mathematics" can't help you prove either perjury or murder.

      Care to try again? Perhaps eyewitness testimony that says Wilson fired from beside his car, which was 150 feet away from Brown when he fell mortally wounded.

      Even if you could present a convincing case that Wilson was untruthful in his report -- and you haven't yet -- you'd be no closer to proving that Wilson murdered Brown.

      Delete
    15. "Wilson pursued him"

      That's not in his police report. Maybe you should read that report, and bore everyone with a long soliloquy glossing over every error and telling us what Wilson really meant when he left it out.

      Delete
    16. That's not in his police report. Maybe you should read that report,

      Is that the report that news outlets found didn’t exist, in spite of department regulations requiring one? Maybe you should quote that report.

      In lieu of that, here’s part of Wilson’s testimony before the grand jury:

      I see him start to run…. I then get out of my car…. We start running … [a]cross the street like a diagonal…. And there is a light pole right there, I remember him running towards the light pole. We pass two cars….

      So let’s get this straight. In spite of Wilson’s testimony and eyewitnesses confirming his account, you claim that there’s a report in which Wilson doesn’t say he pursued Brown, but instead stayed by his patrol car, waited until Brown was 150 feet away, took careful aim with the gun he “unloaded.” Brown looks over his shoulder to see he’s not being chased and instead of making a clean getaway, he turns and lunges across the gap of 150 feet, at which time Wilson fires.

      Thus we can’t conclude that Brown wasn’t murdered, so it’s OK to say he was.

      You’re either a troll or mentally deficient.

      In either case, I’m done with you.

      Delete
    17. Regardless of whether Officer Wilson murdered Mike Brown, he shouldn't have lied in his police report.

      Delete
    18. So Wilson changed his story in front of the Grand Jury after his first story turned out to be a lie.

      It really is amazing how few police officers are killed on this country.

      Delete
    19. Nice of deadrat to go with Officer Wilson's story which is backed up by the eyewitnesses, instead of the one he told which was a flat out lie.

      Like the saying goes, it's not a lie if you change your story after you've been caught making shit up.

      Delete
    20. Can't tell one Anonymous Ignoramus from another.

      Regardless of whether Officer Wilson murdered Mike Brown, he shouldn't have lied in his police report.

      Do you have a pointer to this police report? My understanding is that there isn't one, contrary to Ferguson PD policy, which requires that someone other than the shooter prepare the report. If a report by Wilson exists, and if Wilson lied in the report, then bad on him. Doesn't make him a murderer, and responsible people shouldn't be saying he is unless there's evidence to that effect. An omission from this report isn't evidence.

      That's all I'm saying.

      Delete
  7. Blue states are not just bicoastal elites. They include IL, NV, NM, CO, WI, MI, PA and most of New England too (except for the last election, which I consider to have been stolen).

    People who vote blue are not generally college professors and they do not necessarily believe in the things Bill Maher regularly mocks: being woke, safe spaces, trigger warnings, PC, vegan diets, indulgent parenting, animal rights, goat yoga, and so on.

    We do believe in civil rights, humane treatment of immigrants and refugees, measures to address global warming and environmental issues, unions, fair wages, equal pay for women, abortion rights, access to higher education for all, paid family leave, universal preschool, the UN and international cooperation to end war and prevent nuclear proliferation, opposition to tyranny and human trafficking, and all of the things that appear in the Democratic platform each election.

    These are not the things that appear in Republican platforms. Hence the need for two parties. We do not go around spitting on Okies or looking down on red staters. There are Democrats living in every red state. These people who support Trump and vote Republican are our neighbors.

    But Trump is a different matter. As a blue bicoastal elite (note, no quotes on that word), I recognized Trump as anathema from the beginning, scorned watching The Apprentice, found him abhorrent before I saw his pussy grabbing tape, and did not understand how he could be elected until I learned about Russian meddling, Roger Stone and what I believe to be a conspiracy to put him into office, with Trump as a puppet of other interests.

    But I have always listened to country music, along with other genres, and I don't consider it the sole possession of red staters as Somerby does. Many of the people who live in CA came from other states. The Okies were at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder because they arrived destitute, uneducated, unskilled, took jobs from others and lived in squalor. Californians fed them and shared with them and they became part of CA culture. Now they too are bicoastal elites, along with the Spanish speaking, Indian, Asian, black, and Canadian immigrant people who live here. What characterizes CA now is diversity, especially in the Central Valley, which is predominantly Hispanic now.

    Diversity is the issue that most divides red from blue. But it isn't going away, so red staters can either adapt or move to Idaho. Harassing immigrants will not make any red state white again.

    Somerby never talks about white supremacy but that is at the heart of today's red/blue divide. It is the elephant in Somerby's living room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forcing white women to birth more babies is their current plan.

      Delete
    2. And you even understate the situation a bit - all cities are now blue, this why there is a big movement among Republicans to preempt cities.

      Here's what the US electoral map looks like adjusted for population

      Thwarting Cities in the Trump Era

      Delete
  8. About conservatives:
    “They've been told, by people they trust, that climate change is a hoax, and they've long been inclined to believe it.”

    Climate change represents an existential threat to the nation and the world, and yet, the GOP, AS A PARTY, hold the insane view noted by Somerby.

    What does Somerby list as liberal “Kool Aid” to set against this:

    Stormy Daniels was a feminist hero...a single edgy op-Ed writer made that claim, not all liberals

    Avenatti should run for President...the number of liberals who believed that was vanishingly small

    One candidate criticized another candidate for a past stance on an issue...this is supposed to be kool-aid?

    A candidate claims that women are paid 80 percent of what men are paid for the same work, when the actual discrepancy may be smaller...(note that the candidate in question has sunk to 5 or 6% in the polls)

    A candidate believes an unarmed black man was murdered by a cop...and no, that isn’t the same thing as “We believed that Michael Brown had his hands up and that he said don't shoot.”

    Trying to change entrance requirements at eight high schools in New York City to allow more blacks and Latinos is really about slandering Asians...that is a bizarre interpretation, and anyway this is an issue that is local to EIGHT schools in one city.

    These are Somerby’s examples of liberal Kool-Aid?

    Some of them are things that only a tiny handful of liberals believe, others are the beliefs or claims of individual candidates, and when placed against the ridiculous things in the GOP PLATFORM, they pale in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For every one of Somerby’s liberal Kool-Aid items, a liberal rebuttal or fact check can be located, including at Drum’s blog, but also at many other blogs and even in the pages of the mainstream media.

    Where is the Republican Somerby or Drum, ie a conservative fact-checking or debunking Republican lies?

    ReplyDelete
  10. “Bicoastal elite” is just a lame cop-out. Somerby always ignores that it was the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights in the 1960’s that caused the mass exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party and the extreme polarization that exists today.

    “Bicoastal elite” is a made-up Republican slur to justify their own rejection of civil rights. “It’s not that we hate civil rights, it’s just that the Democrats are a bunch of bicoastal elites who look down on us.” It’s learned victimhood, and it isn’t attractive. And Somerby plays right along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby uses a lot of these Republican slurs. What does that mean? Too much Fox watching or does he really think in those terms?

      Delete
    2. Don't use the word 'think' in the context of Somerby. His main goal is to attack liberals and defend Trump.

      Delete
  11. Rude Pundit explains how Democrats can take back the mantel of patriotism and redefine what the Democratic party stands for.

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2019/09/impeachment-is-chance-for-democrats-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bob, I know that compassion, empathy, forgiveness, and love are traits that one should strive for, as you have been writing in support of, lo, these many years. I confess, however, that it is difficult when Those Others, in that Red tribe, seem so readily prone to violence rather than engage in a dialogue. You have given the example of the pitcher Jim Bouton wrote of who said that after a few words, people from where he came from "start hitting." I was struck by the female singer in episode 6 of "Country Music" who spoke of some Vietnam war protesters who attempted to get her to participate in a march. In the program she said that her oldest son was killed in Vietnam, and that her youngest killed himself out of anguish over his brother's death (I suspect that there was more to it than that). She told the people at her door that day that she respected their right to protest, but that if they ever came around to her door again she would shoot them in the face with a .357 Smith & Wesson, as I recall.
    You write of your experience at a wedding in 1970, where Tex Montana instantly "judges" many young people who he knew nothing about, and then go into song, indicating his hostility to them. I have experienced that judgement by others just because I had long hair in the '70s as well.
    These are some of the difficulties I have with those Others, who profess to be "Christian," and yet express and live a non-Christian lifestyle, while confident that "in the by and by" they will be in glorious heaven, with Jesus, and...? Who, their fellow Red tribesmen and women? Or will all be singing together, as Mark Twain mockingly wrote?
    However, I know that "All We Need is Love," and to be kind, as we are all engaged in some sort of struggle, and we all have our shortcomings.
    Especially Mao.
    As you keep saying, man [sic] does not seem to be the rational animal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "That said, the basic tribal stance that defines our role in our current national breakdown is our condescension toward the white working class. Topping the charts is our tribal insistence that Those People pretty much have to be racists."
    Bob,I'm with you.
    The only Trump voter who is a racist(besides Trump)is Faron Young. And he is still dead.
    Feel better?


    ReplyDelete
  14. 'Topping the charts is our tribal insistence that Those People pretty much have to be racists.'

    You mean your tribe of Trumptards, Somerby ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm a "lefty" who likes old school and outlaw country music. I think Merle changed quite a bit over the years. When the country music establishment abandoned him, and he was championed in part by a younger audience, that and cannabis, seemed to change his view on conservatism.

    ReplyDelete