THE PROBLEM: "No respect at all," Parker says!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2019

Fails to see that's the whole point:
What does unintelligent politics look like?

It has a thousand faces! For our money, Rep. Schiff provided one example as he spoke to Fiona Hill during last Thursday's impeachment hearing.

Hill was born in England, emigrated to the U.S. Two other impeachment witnesses were immigrants too, though each had come to this country as toddlers with their immigrant parents.

Many observers found Hill to be a remarkable witness; we had that reaction ourselves. That said, we groaned when we saw Schiff make the statement shown below. We thought someone as sharp at Hill should have challenged Schiff's assessment:
SCHIFF (11/21/19): First of all, thank you both for being here. Thank you for testifying.

Dr. Hill, your story reminds me a great deal of what we heard from Alexander Vindman. The few immigrant stories that we’ve heard just in the course of these hearings are among the most powerful I think I’ve ever heard. You and Colonel Vindman and others are the best of this country, and you came here by choice, and we are so blessed that you did. So, welcome.
Hill came to the U.S. as a graduate student. Vindman arrived as a toddler.

That said, set aside whatever you may think about the testimony they provided. Ask yourself if you agree with Schiff's unfortunate statement.

Is it true? Are Hill and Vindman and other immigrants really "the best of this country?" Because that's what Schiff oddly said.

For ourselves, we thought Hill was a stunningly articulate witness. For that reason, we were disappointed when she let this assessment stand.

It's very, very, very bad politics to make a statement like Schiff's. It's very, very, very bad politics to make such invidious statements.

It's also very hard to defend the accuracy of Schiff's assessment. Are immigrants really "the best of this country?" Are they better, for example, than the people Bernie Sanders praised when he made the statement shown below at a town hall meeting, held with Chris Hayes, in West Virginia coal country?
SANDERS (3/3/17): Well, let me be honest and say two things.

I think—and disagree with me if you think I'm wrong on this. But coal in this area has been in decline, I think, since the '70s and the '80s. It's not anything that's new. And I think—

And second of all—and I know not everybody, you know, will be happy with me saying this. But I happen to believe, unlike the president, that climate change is real and it is a threat to all. But having said that, I don't hold this gentleman and the coal miners responsible for climate change. In fact, in fact, these guys are heroes.

I remember, I grew up in a rent control apartment house in Brooklyn, New York, and I will never forget the piles of coal. I don't know if it came from here or wherever it came. You kept my house warm. Thank you.

So you're not—you are not my enemy.
Sanders was describing people who aren't immigrants. Beyond that, they don't hold advanced degrees, but Sanders said they were his heroes for the bone-crushing, underpaid service and work they've performed.

Are the people addressed by Sanders also "the best of America?" Schiff's statement kicked them to the curb, and of one thing you can be sure:

Across wide swaths of red-voting America, that's what people heard.

Our highly self-impressed "liberal" team is amazingly good as such counterproductive politics. Using our many "identity" markers—"race," gender, citizenship status—we now create invidious distinctions in much the way other folk breathe.

Brilliant as Hill so plainly is, we were disappointed, and also surprised, when she let Schiff's assessment stand. That assessment is part of the problem we all [currently] live with, and that problem is very hard to solve.

Our brilliantly self-impressed liberal tribe is often amazingly tone deaf. We don't seem to grasp the way we sound to less highly valued people, nor do we seem to care.

This produces a cluelessness which enables The Problem. With that in mind, we were struck by something Kathleen Parker said in her latest column.

Parker's column appeared in Sunday's Washington Post, for whom she has written for years. She praised the merits of the impeachment witnesses, citing Hill in particular.

As she started, Parker said that "Americans should be gratified by the quality of the people who testified and who actually do the nation’s work abroad." We don't necessarily disagree with that, but we were struck by the part of her column in which she discussed Jim Jordan:
PARKER (11/24/19): One after another, the men and women who testified, subjecting themselves to the sometimes scurrilous scrutiny of political profilers, maintained their focus and their cool. It was grating to hear the screech of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), whose raised voice surely signaled a stretch-and-restroom break for many viewers. While we’re on the subject, can’t the man put on a blazer? Jordan appeared without one, putting in mind a teenager who refuses to play by his parents’ rules.

May I remind him and others that dress codes are intended to show respect for the occasion and for others in attendance? Surely, our congressional leaders owe their constituents—and, in this case, the process—the small personal sacrifice of dressing appropriately. To do otherwise is to telegraph to the world that you think you’re more important than everyone else. Jordan also proved that age and maturity can be mutually exclusive.

There, I got that off my chest. (Parents may clip for personal use.)
Quite routinely, Jordan strikes us as deeply unfortunate too. That said, we were struck by an unfortunate fact as we sat and watched those hearings:

Our own team is so far out over its skis in certain respects that Jordan actually got to make several points which weren't completely ridiculous. In several of his colloquies, he didn't even seem to feel the need to yell!

That said, consider what Parker said. Does Parker fail to understand that Jordan's refusal to wear a jacket, along with his patented hectoring tone, is intended to show that he lacks respect for the occasion and for (many) others in attendance?

Does Parker fail to know that that's the whole point of Jordan's demeanor and appearance? Also, that these persistent signals of disrespect are an important part of The Problem—of a problem which is very, very, very hard to address or solve?

We were surprised to see Parker scolding Jordan for his lack of respect. The lack of respect to which she refers is the whole point of his performance.

People who felt disrespected by Schiff's remark—and by three million others like it—feel respected by Jordan's lack of respect. Our team is very, very dumb when it can't come to grips with this obvious fact, and when it can't see the various ways our own team furthers The Problem.

As Parker continued, she praised Hill for certain specific things she said. In our view, Hill was perhaps a tiny bit over her skis when she made the remarks in question, a point we'll examine tomorrow. Conservative voters have heard about that. Liberals voters are persistently shielded from such possible points of concern.

The red-voting public gets propagandized over on Fox. They're hearing all about the ways Hill may have overstated.

Over here, within our own tents, we have our own propaganda too, though we have a very hard time understanding this deeply human fact.

Tomorrow: And now for the rest of the story...

58 comments:

  1. Alas, it seems that your goebbelsoids 'witnesses' and bullshiffs all failed in the end, dear Bob.

    From what I hear, it seems likely that your zombie cult doesn't have enough votes for the impeachment.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. My deeeepest condolences, dear Bob.

    But all is not lost, dear Bob, there will be (most likely) the whole second term, to try again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They'll impeach in the House easily.
      The Senate, OTOH, is full of Republicans, who love treason against the USA almost as much as they love the Establishment, so there will be no conviction. Tough break for those who love humanity.

      Delete
    2. The blatantly obvious criminality of Trump aside, Mao is correct that Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump.

      Republicans are exactly the treasonous pieces of shit we always new they were.

      Delete
    3. People thought this during Watergate too. Then Republicans realized the game was up and switched in order to preserve their own careers. I expect that something similar will happen this time -- the main question is when and what will make it obvious to Republicans that Trump is going down and they should abandon ship.

      Delete
    4. I wish I could be as sanguine about the chances in the senate as Anon@11:31. However, I think that if Democrats manage to sway 3 or or 5 Republicans in the senate, it'll be huge.

      Delete
    5. Those Republicans expressing support, such as Amash, are leaving the party, being forced out. The Republicans cannot afford to lose 4 because that would give Democrats a majority in the Senate. Not enough to impeach, but enough to perhaps get some work done and it will put McConnell out of his job.

      I believe that if 3-5 are swayed, there will be a mass exodus and that would be huge.

      Delete
  2. "Our own team is so far out over its skis in certain respects that Jordan actually got to make several points which weren't completely ridiculous."

    Somerby is upset because Schiff praised Hill and Vindman, counteracting the criticism and even death threats they were receiving because of their testimony from the right. Hill did choose to become an American citizen instead of returning to the UK after grad school. She served in several hardship appointments and has been a dedicated foreign service public servant, and she ignored White House prohibitions to testify to the committee because it was the right thing to do. That does make her the best, better than the others who were following Trump's demand not to testify, because her commitment was to the American people and our country, not to party and not to Trump. Schiff's statement was intended to shore up her strength as a witness, not to knock non-immigrants.

    Yesterday deadrat suggested that many of Somerby's remarks are intended as sarcasm. I don't see that anywhere in his remarks today, nor in statements like the one above, that Jordan had valid points to make because "our team" had gone too far. And he says this without any evidence of over-reach unless he considers Schiff's praise of Vindman and Hill to be such.

    When Somerby says directly that "our team" is over its skiis, he undermines the efforts to convince the public that Trump and his staff have done impeachable things. There is no point to such a statement unless it is to undermine the hearings.

    Not only was Jordan rude, shirtsleeves aside, but he deliberately disrespected the people who serve our country behind the scenes, in order to support Trump. Jordan was sarcastic. Somerby has not been, despite deadrat's insistence that Somerby's support for conservative goals and memes is actually sarcasm. Sarcasm needs to be signalled and Somerby hasn't done that. I agree that he is wrong and over the top often in his stupid references to Solon, Aristotle, Malala and his gang (Thoreau?), but that isn't sarcasm. It is sophistry.

    Today he argues seriously that praising one group is an insult to others. If you say you love your son, you imply you don't love your daughter. So we cannot use any demographic labels, whether immigrant or coal miner, and say good things about that group. This is pure idiocy and no one actually hears things that way. It is just Somerby's latest attack on so-called identity politics, as if that were what makes people vote for Trump. And we certainly cannot praise Schiff because that will upset Jordan supporters (yes, this is sarcasm).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesterday deadrat suggested that many of Somerby's remarks are intended as sarcasm.

      Why can’t you get the simplest things straight? Neither yesterday nor any other day have I “suggested” that many of TDH’s remarks are sarcastic. Yesterday, I noted the sarcasm of one remark, namely that obvious buffoon Devin Nunes was a solon. Do you understand now why I say you can’t read for comprehension?

      deadrat's insistence that Somerby's support for conservative goals and memes is actually sarcasm.

      Nowhere have I “insisted” that TDH is sarcastic in supporting conservative “goals and memes.” First, I don’t believe that TDH supports conservative goals, and in fact, you can’t name a single instance of such a goal. Secondly, I take TDH at his literal word when he criticizes liberals. Sometimes I think he’s wrong; sometimes I think he’s right; sometimes I think he’s despairing.

      Would you care to apologize for mischaracterizing what I wrote?

      Have I mentioned recently that you’re a terrible person?

      Delete
    2. You would have to be a mind reader to know whether Somerby was being sarcastic or not. He doesn't signal his intent. You have asserted that he was joking before, without evidence.

      When someone mixes sarcastic statements among serious ones without signaling their intent, they run the risk of being misunderstood. But you cannot take the statements you agree with at face value and declare the ones you disagree with to be sarcasm or humor.

      If Somerby ever indicated support for liberal attitudes or values, I would be inclined to think he was saying the conservative stuff as a joke, but he doesn't do that. He just attacks liberals without ever affirmatively writing like a liberal.

      That's why I believe he is a Russian disinformation troll, intent on sowing discord among liberals, or else has become senile and conservative in his old age.

      Deadrat, you advocate taking him at face value. If I do that I must conclude that Somerby is conservative, pretending to be liberal, since everything he writes (except for stray posts on baseball) contributes to a more favorable view of Trump and Republicans and/or attacks liberals.

      I don't want to be in a pissing contest with you. I cannot write anything here without you pissing all over it, usually over nitpicks (you can't seriously be arguing that Melania meets the purpose of that visa, for example). Somerby attacks liberals every day in his posts, then you come along and attack the liberals who comment on him. You may think you are upholding truth or some such nonsense, but you are being a pain in the ass and helping the forces of darkness. Who needs Russian meddling with folks like you around?

      Delete
    3. Somerby is not being sarcastic, he is merely being a Trumptard.

      Delete
    4. You would have to be a mind reader to know whether Somerby was being sarcastic or not.

      Sometimes. (And that would go for any writer.) But in the case of calling buffoon Devin (“The Democrats Want Nude Pictures of Trump!”) Nunes a “solon,” you’d have to be as dumb as Nunes to think the reference was serious.

      You have asserted that he was joking before, without evidence.

      When did I do this? Perhaps I did, but as enjoyable as it might be, I’m not going to review everything I’ve written here. And there is no “evidence.” You either get a written joke or you don’t.

      When someone mixes sarcastic statements among serious ones without signaling their intent, they run the risk of being misunderstood. But you cannot take the statements you agree with at face value and declare the ones you disagree with to be sarcasm or humor.

      I agree with both those statements. But my criticism of your comment has nothing to do with what TDH has written. It has to do with mischaracterizing what I write.

      That's why I believe he is a Russian disinformation troll, intent on sowing discord among liberals, or else has become senile and conservative in his old age.

      But you believe lots of ridiculous things. You even believe contradictory things. Thus you can write that I claim that TDH is often sarcastic but that I “advocate taking him at face value.” That’s because you can’t read for comprehension. You also won’t acknowledge that you’ve mischaracterized what I wrote. That’s because you’re a terrible person.

      I forget: have I mentioned that before?

      I don't want to be in a pissing contest with you. I cannot write anything here without you pissing all over it, usually over nitpicks….

      I’m not “pissing all over” you or your writing. I’m criticizing you for not being able to get even the simplest things right.

      you can't seriously be arguing that Melania meets the purpose of that visa, for example

      In 1996, Melania applied for an H1-B3 visa, a category for foreign fashion models. Applicants must demonstrate that they’re nationally or internationally known and recognized by fashion houses, modeling agencies, and the like. They need a portfolio of published fashion work. According to Wikipedia, at the time of her application, Melania had been a professional fashion model for ten years, working in Paris and Milan, as well as her home country of Slovenia.

      I’m not an expert on fashion models of the 1990s, so I can’t tell you whether a disinterested party would have judged Melania worthy of the visa, but her case wouldn’t have been frivolous.

      You may think you are upholding truth or some such nonsense, but you are being a pain in the ass and helping the forces of darkness.

      Upholding truth? Are you kidding? I’m here because it entertains me. Pain in the ass? OK, fair cop and a widely held opinion. But “forces of darkness”? What’s wrong with you?

      Besides not being able to read for comprehension and being a terrible person, I mean.

      Delete
    5. deadrat attempting to outyell the typhoons again.

      Delete
    6. Melania was not sufficiently well known to obtain that visa without help from wealthy friends. Models hang out with rich men in order to benefit from more than their modeling fees. Trump was running a supposed modeling service from Trump Tower. He also owned an Escort service. Remember that Melania sued for being called an escort instead of a model, but the confusion perhaps arises from Trump's ownership of both kinds of businesses. He and his cronies imported many women from Eastern Europe during that same time period. It is not surprising that he would "help" Melania enter the country and work legally, once he showed an interest in her. Recall also that Melania inflated her bio and claimed college degrees that she didn't actually have, and that the extent of her fame as a model may have been similarly inflated. For one thing, I doubt any serious model poses nude if she is doing well in her career, which argues against Melania's stature as a model. She might perhaps sue someone over that, if the pictures didn't exist.

      But you go ahead and keep arguing that Melania deserved that visa ahead of others with actual stature in their fields.

      Delete
    7. I liked Bob's sarcasm right after the last Presidential election, when he was all "Trump voters aren't all bigots." That was a much more effective use of sarcasm than his more recent stuff.

      Delete
    8. Why isn’t enough for ignoramuses like you, @8:29P, to simply make your case, in this instance that Melania didn’t qualify for her visa? I suspect the reason is that you can’t.

      Was Melania “not sufficiently well known”? Bold claim. Any evidence?

      Models do hang out with rich men. What does that have to do with her visa?

      Melania did sue (the Daily Mail in the UK) for calling her an escort. She got an apology and a settlement for damages. What does that have to do with her visa?

      Melania did claim a college degree she apparently didn’t earn. So what? H1-B3 visa requirements do not include a college degree.

      You doubt any serious model poses nude if she is doing well in her career, eh? You mean like Emily Ratajkowski?

      So you can’t prosecute an argument. Around here your name would be Legion if you didn’t insist on Anonymous, so no big deal. But can’t you at least get straight what I actually wrote? But no, you can’t do that either, writing

      But you go ahead and keep arguing that Melania deserved that visa ahead of others with actual stature in their fields.

      Here’s what I said. You can check. It’s right here in this comment section:

      “I’m not an expert on fashion models of the 1990s, so I can’t tell you whether a disinterested party would have judged Melania worthy of the visa, but her case wouldn’t have been frivolous.”

      What I didn’t say is that I did have some experience with 1990’s H-1B visas for computer programmers. The positions for these visas were supposed to be “particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation.” Enforcement of this provision was lax, as my company hired dozens of run-of-the-mill H1-B visa holders for run-of-the-mill contract programming.

      Was enforcement as lax for fashion models? I don’t know for sure, but I’m sure you’re no more informed than I. All I’m saying is that her application wouldn’t have been rejected out of hand.

      I’m not arguing that Melania “deserved” her visa. You’re arguing, unpersuasively, that she didn’t. It’s a hard case to make: we’d have to know who got visas and who was rejected.

      But representing correctly what I write should be easy. And you can’t seem to do that either.

      Delete
  3. What points did Jordan make that weren't completely ridiculous? I watched most of the hearings and didn't hear any. If Somerby heard Jordan say anything reasonable, he needs to get his ears cleaned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He said he would tell you tomorrow.

      Delete
  4. First Somerby says our team is over its skiis, then he says that Hill was over her skiis.

    Does Somerby realize that Hill is not part of "our team"? She is a non-partisan who has served both Republican and Democratic administrations in foreign service. She is not a Democrat and she is not testifying in order to "get" Trump (as many of us might wish over here on our team), but to answer committee questions in an investigation designed to get at the truth of what Trump and Giuliani and others did. Hill is non-partisan, not on our team.

    When Somerby uses language like this, referring to both Hill and our team as over our skiis, it shows that he is lumping all of us together in his mind in an us versus them dichotomy.

    What is unclear is which side Somerby takes. Is he really on our team when he is constantly criticizing us? Or is he on the other team, with the goal of undermining our team with his attacks in sheep's clothing? It is hard to tell because he so rarely supports or praises anything consistent with the beliefs and values held by liberals.

    Today he attacks the idea that those who voluntarily disobeyed Trump's orders in order to support American values at personal expense might be praiseworthy. He insists that those on the right will regard this as an affront to themselves and be repelled by it. So presumably liberals are not supposed to say anything good about anyone on our side because it will make red voters feel bad, develop resentment and continue as red voters. No wonder Somerby considers Jordan reasonable (at times).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "First Somerby says our team is over its skiis, then he says that Hill was over her skiis.

      Does Somerby realize that Hill is not part of "our team"?"

      He does not claim each was over their skis for the same reason. Are you OK?

      Delete
    2. Given that he never explains why anyone was over their skiis, how can you claim that? You don't know any more than the rest of us what Somerby means by it.

      Delete
    3. Does Bob know what skis are?

      Delete
    4. I can claim it because it's true. He does not claim each was over their skis for the same reason. Really, are you alright? Are you suffering?

      Delete
    5. 'What is unclear is which side Somerby takes'

      It's very clear. Somerby is a Trumptard

      Delete
  5. Every time Somerby attacks an elitist, a conservative angel gets its wings. He has been attacking Parker for a long time now. And this is a two-fer, since he can attack both Parker and Schiff and Hill (obliquely).

    I agree that Jordan was disrespecting the American people when he intended to disrespect those testifying (and the process). But that is what Republicans are doing overall. They are disrespecting government, their oath of office, the Constitution, and their duty to their constituents -- all to support a criminal grifter and criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Liberals work to hide the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. They like to pretend that enforcing laws applying to illegal immigrants means that Trump and other Republicans are bigoted against immigrants. Then they call Trump hypocritical for marrying an immigrant. In fact, the only inconsistency is that Trump's behavior doesn't match liberals' false beliefs about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently, uou missed the part where Republicans were implying that Vindman had dual loyalties.

      Of course, legal and illegal immigrants are different. They even have different DNA; not even the same biological species.

      Delete
    2. The distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is a recent invention, not something that applied to those who were our grandparents. It is not surprising if those who grew up with immigrants in their families do not tend to think about whether auntie is a citizen whereas grandpa didn't come here legally.

      No one can argue that Melania came here legally. She worked on a tourist visa (work not permitted) and then had her powerful benefactors pull strings to get her a special visa in a category intended for star atheletes, prize winning writers and movie stars, to enable her to stay in the country. And now she has engaged in chain migration, bringing her parents to America using family unification rules that Trump has been trying to do away with. Both Melania and Trump are hypocritical about immigration.

      Why didn't you come right out and say that liberals favor open borders? You know you are thinking it.

      Delete
    3. David,
      I believe the words you are looking for are "All Lives Matter".

      Delete
    4. Powerful benefactors = boyfriends and/or employers.

      Delete
    5. Melania may have come here legally, but It seems from her statements that she violated visa rules, so her stay here may not have been legal. To be fair, her H1B visa category also covered fashion models.

      The law may allow the gov to apply different procedures to aliens and citizens, but the Constitution protects the same rights of both.

      Delete
    6. It covers top fashion models, not newcomers with middling career prospects like she was.

      Delete
    7. @1:13 - I think liberals are confused about Open Borders. If asked, they will say that they do not approve of Open Borders. Yet, they tend to oppose policies necessary to control the borders. E.g., the Washington Post says enforcing immigration law by prosecuting illegal immigrants is bigotry.

      Delete
    8. Ilya - thanks for illustrating my point.

      Health is one difference between legal and illegal immigrants. When my father immigrated here from Poland, his older brother Morris was not allowed into the country, because of possible infectious illness, even though Morris was still a teenager. He joined the family several months later. Illegal immigrants have no check on their health. E.g.,
      "Infectious Diseases Making the Border Crisis Worse"
      https://cis.org/Arthur/Infectious-Diseases-Making-Border-Crisis-Worse

      Delete
    9. David,
      Haven't you heard? All Live Matter.
      Or are you implying that statement isn't true, but just a Right-wing retort to Black Lives Matter, designed to short-circuit discussions of police brutality in the black community?

      Delete
    10. Immigrants don't bring illness to the USA, illegal or not. Last I heard, they are not anti-vaxxers. Ebola came here via a health worker returning to the US. Zika comes via insects. Is David planning to stop butterfly migrations too? Health care for poor people is better in the countries most migrants have left than it is in the USA. There is no evidence supporting the idea that immigrants (legal or illegal) bring diseases. They get sick at the same rate as everyone else but are much less likely to bring MMP diseases now rampant in the USA.

      Delete
  7. Those others are all just bigots.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The obvious mistake in Schiff praise for Vindman and Hill was that Vindman did not come to the US by choice; he was a toddler. Beyond that, Schiff's remarks need to be taken in context, as counteracting Republican insinuations that Vindman had dual loyalties. It's not like Schiff was making a sweeping generalization that immigrants are better as a class of people. He wasn't snarking, as I am wont to do, that without immigrants -- including undocumented immigrants -- Americans would just starve in their own filth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way the sentence was worded, it refers to "Vindman and others", thus the last part about choosing to come need not apply to Vindman if others in the group did choose to come, as Hill plainly did.

      Delete
    2. What Schiff said is in no way controversial, except in the CrazyTowne right wing fever swamps. I have heard some version of his remarks my entire life.

      Bonus points: Who said “some of the best Americans are the newest Americans.”?

      Delete
  9. “Are immigrants really "the best of this country?"

    “Are the people addressed by Sanders also "the best of America?" Schiff's statement kicked them to the curb, and of one thing you can be sure:

    Across wide swaths of red-voting America, that's what people heard.”

    This illustrates the problem with Somerby. On the one hand, he seems to say that Schiff’s statement was just “bad politics”, that red voters *heard* condescension and contempt in Schiff’s remarks, and presumably that’s why “they” hate “us.”

    But then, Somerby flat out asserts that “Schiff's statement kicked them to the curb”, which sounds as though Somerby actually believes that Schiff’s remark *was* condescending and contemptuous.

    So, it seems futile to argue with Somerby, since he doesn’t take a clear stand.

    Was Schiff really being condescending and contemptuous of red voters when he praised Vindman and Hill as the best of America? That is a completely ridiculous view, and it is a giant straw man. Schiff didn’t intend his phrase “best of America” to mean “only immigrants can be best”, or “you government workers are the best, while others are not.” He was referring to the values they exhibit, such as public service, patriotism, hard work, and dedication to the truth, as the best. It is a standard trope. That any non-immigrant red voter sees this as insulting is due to massively twisted logic. Somerby also ignores the attacks on the character of these witnesses being perpetrated by the GOP that Schiff is trying to counter.

    Now, it may be true that red voters do take exception to Schiff’s remarks, especially since their grievances are being amplified by the GOP and Fox News.

    But here we come around again to the debate about whether Somerby thinks Schiff really was being contemptuous. It seems clear that he does, given this statement of his:

    “We liberals are the problem now too! We’re lazy and we aren’t very smart. We exude a moral squalor.

    We’re lazy and dumb and our morals are bad. There’s little reason for people to like us. Presumably, nobody does.”

    (http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-problem-is-us-as-we-liberals-emerge.html)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby is a clown. Whether he really believes this nonsense about taking bad faith arguments from Right-wingers serious, or whether this is his own bad faith argument, nobody should pay attention to his idiotic blatherings.

      Delete
    2. Somerby is a clown ... nobody should pay attention to his idiotic blatherings.

      And yet here you are in the clown car of Anonymous Ignoramuses blathering away. Go figure.

      Delete
    3. deadrat is a clown … nobody should pay attention to his idiotic blatherings either.

      Delete
    4. deadrat is likely TDH posting under a monicker.

      Delete
    5. If I'm actually TDH, then that would mean that Somerby has actually read your comments. I'm guessing that would be a dream fulfilled for you -- attention from Bob Somerby. But why would TDH read a commentariat filled with trolls and ignoramuses?

      Alas, I'm not TDH, so your longing for Bob's attention goes unrequited. Sucks to be you, eh?

      Delete
    6. deadrodent, I'm not the one who posts para long missives defending TDH, trying to show that I'm an entity distinct from TDH. I confine myself to pithy short sentences pointing out that TDH is a fan of DJT, Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Roy Moore, and hence is a Trumptard.

      Delete
    7. 3:03,
      Hmm. No pushback on Somerby being a clown, who should be ignored, but instead a vain attempt at being clever.
      You work with what you have, not what you wish you had.

      Delete
    8. Of course Somerby (or his employers) read the comments. How else will they compute his pay? Same with the other trolls.

      deadrat shows the same thought and writing habits and patterns. No one here cares about "attention" from Somerby. Most of us are writing for lurkers and other commenters (excluding Mao, deadrat, DinCal, Leroy, Cecelia and the other conservatives, Nazis and sociopaths who visit).

      Delete
    9. I'm not the one who posts para long missives defending TDH

      You’re just a troll who posts insults. Do you think that’s unclear?

      trying to show that I'm an entity distinct from TDH.

      You think I’m trying to show that I’m not TDH? That’s impossible to prove here. I’ve denied that I’m TDH, but that took all of three words. My “para long missive” was dedicated to your longing for attention from the blogger.

      And, hey, if telling yourself that I’m Bob Somerby satisfies that need, I can’t object. Whatever gets you through the days.

      Delete
    10. Hmm. No pushback on Somerby being a clown, who should be ignored

      If you actually thought TDH was a clown who should be ignored, then you would ignore his blog. Yet, here you are, apparently compelled against your own judgment to read and comment on that blog.

      instead a vain attempt at being clever.

      Oh, I’m sorry, Sparky. Are my comments not clever enough for you? Well, they’re worth at least what you paid for them.

      Here’s an idea: don’t like what I write? Then don’t read my comments. It should be simple since I alway post using my google id.

      But you’re the one who can’t stay away from a blog he knows he should ignore.

      Never mind.

      Delete
    11. deadrat shows the same thought and writing habits and patterns.

      This should be rich. Please proceed to delineate those "patterns."

      No one here cares about "attention" from Somerby.

      'Fess up, Sparky. You're practically gasping for it, aren't you?

      Writing for the lurkers. Pathetic, but understandable. Lurkers won't challenge you.

      Delete
    12. "Here’s an idea: don’t like what I write? Then don’t read my comments."

      Or write a dissertation defending Somerby for using Right-wing memes to attack liberals.

      Delete
    13. 'My “para long missive” was dedicated to your longing for attention from the blogger.'

      I'm referring to your other para long missives, not what you may have posted here. But you are the one who feels compelled to engage with someone you describe as an annoying troll.

      I confine myself to pointing out that TDH is a Trumptard.

      Delete
    14. Trying to engage with trolls on substantive issues is indeed a waste of time, and I long ago gave up doing that with you. As you say, you "confine yourself" to endlessly parroting the same thing.

      But making fun of trolls like you is harmless fun. Did I describe you an annoying? Sorry, but I don't find you annoying. You at least have the courtesy to use a nym so I can skip your comments should I wish. Easy-peasy.

      Do you think Bob Somerby will eventually pay attention to you if you call him a Trumptard enough times? Seems an odd hobby, but it's your time to waste as you see fit.

      Alas, history still says Bob doesn't care. Sucks to be you, eh?

      Delete
    15. "Bob doesn't care"

      Your naivete is adorable.

      Delete
  10. There’s no greater sign that the blogger is all growed up with his big boy pants on than his decision to call something not “bad politics”, not “very bad politics”, not even “very very bad politics”, but “very, very, very bad politics.”

    Three times “very” definitely doesn’t make the blogger look like a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  11. i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346










    i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

    ReplyDelete
  12. My Name is Dr sebi you can Contact Me via Email drsebicurecenter@gmail.com For Penis Enlargement Product to help you get as long as 8inches Long with good Erection. Contact Me Via Email : drsebicurecenter@gmail.com Via WhatsApp +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete