STORYLINE / NARRATIVES / NARRATORS: Intellectual leadership down!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022

Alex Wagner flunks: Two years ago, more than 158 million people voted in our nation's presidential election.

A smaller, though very large number of people will vote in this year's House elections. Very few of those people have a detailed understanding of any specific policy question. None of us can speak with authority on all such topics and questions.

Most of us get our understandings, and our Storylines, from journalistic / political / intellectual leaders—or perhaps from those who "play them on TV." At present, with our very large nation coming apart, it's astounding to see the degree of bad judgment some of these people are putting on display as they make their pronouncements.

Last night, we saw Tucker Carlson over a truly crazy assessment of Tiffany Cross, the anchor of a weekend show on MSNBC. In our view,  Cross is a massively limited tribal intellectual leader—but no, she isn't the equivalent of Hutu radio in the days which ked up to Rwanda's 1994 genocide, as cable's top-ranking "excitable [and disordered] boy" aggressively claimed.

(For transcript and video, click here.)

So it went on Fox! On a local PBS station, we rewatched a bit of a new PBS show about Michael Flynn, who continues to craft the Storylines which animate quite a few voters. 

Personally, we regard Flynn as largely disordered. Our neighbors and friends who adopt his narratives take a different view.

Along the way, we also watched a remarkable presentation by one of our own blue tribe's "cable news" journalistic leaders. We refer to Alex Wagner, host of the nightly MSNBC program, Alex Wagner Tonight.

In the first four minutes of last night's program, Wagner presented a remarkable grab bag of surface non sequiturs concerning a congressional redistricting issue. We'd break it down like this: 

Some of Wagner's statements simply didn't make sense. Some of her statements may have made sense, but Wagner failed to explain them.

One hour after Carlson's lunacy, Wagner was serving a basically incoherent stew to our own blue tribe's many viewers. This is the way things fall apart when a large nation's basic points of consensus have long since come undone.

We discussed the basic logic of redistricting is just the past few weeks. Wagner started with one of the surface non sequiturs we discussed at that time:

WAGNER (10/19/22): Let's start with the great state of Louisiana... White people are now less than 60% of Louisiana's population, and about a third of the population there is black. And yet, this is Louisiana's congressional delegation:

[A set of six photos appears]

Five are white Republicans, one is a black Democrat. Because even though Louisiana is one-third black, only one congressional district has a majority black population. That's how state lawmakers drew the congressional maps.

Fuller disclosure! As Wagner spoke, a visual appeared on the screen, saying this:

"Louisiana's population identified as nearly 56% white, more than 31% black." 

On the basis of such data, Wagner voiced concern about the fact that only one of the state's six congressional districts is majority black. Also, about the fact that only one of the state's six House members is black. 

We return to a point of basic logic:

If a state's population is roughly 31% black, there is no obvious reason to assume that any of its congressional districts will be majority black. 

In the case of Louisiana, if its population is evenly spread across the state, black voters could conceivably constitute roughly one-third of all six of the state's congressional districts, depending on the way those districts are drawn.

Under that arrangement, if the state's white voters all vote Republican, there is no reason to assume that Louisiana would have any Democrats in the House, instead of the current one.

Wagner seemed to working from an implied assumption, one we've discussed in the past. She seemed to assume that, if some state is one-third black, then that state's congressional delegation should also be one-third black.

That may seem to make a type of sense as a type of basic fairness. But in a state which is one-third black, there is no reason to assume that any of its congressional districts will be majority black—unless a special effort has been made to create some such district.

In her presentation, Wagner was doing what our highly privileged "cable news" TV stars will quite typically do. "Glorying in the power of her strength," she blew right past a basic logical point—a point her presentation erased.

In fairness, it's also possible that Wagner had never thought, for even one second, about this basic matter. Cable news stars get their basic understandings from other cable news stars—from the long history of tweaked presentations which now constitute our idea of news within both our failing tribes, our own blue tribe as well as the red,

Let's return to Wagner's presentation:

As she continued, Wagner made a snarky, low-IQ claim about the way Louisiana's districts had been created. Skipping a minor irrelevant point, we'll show you what she said:

WAGNER: Louisiana's white Republican lawmakers managed to magically, once again, draw five majority white districts, and just one black majority district. Imagine that! Can you imagine that?

Louisiana's legislature had "magically" managed to create only one black majority district! Snarking very, very hard, our tribe's multimillionaire "cable news" leader then asked us if we could imagine such an outcome.

In fact, it's astoundingly easy to imagine some such outcome, for the reasons we've cited above. But the dumbness of this presentation only grew as Wagner continued to script our failing, mistreated blue tribe.

How did the dumbness of the presentation grow? It did so as Louisiana's congressional map appeared behind Wagner on the screen. It clearly showed that, for whatever reason, Louisiana's legislature had gone to something resembling heroic lengths to produce that one majority black congressional district!

(To see that map, click here.)

As every viewer could plainly see, the oddly-shaped district snakes across the southeast section of the state in an east-to-west / west-to-east direction. It's plainly the type of weirdly-shaped congressional district which would normally be described as "gerrymandered," barring some alternate explanation.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would understand that this is a congressional district whose elongated, irregular shape reflects a basic fact about its birth—the district was deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it majority black.

There is no "magic" involved in this practice, which is of course quite common. The magic may lie in the fact that a massively privileged corporate millionaire was on the air creating a pleasing but deeply under-explained story for trusting blue tribe viewers.

As Wagner proceeded from there, her story got even dumber. She blew past one point after another, handing blue voters the type of story we very much like to hear. 

(This involved a disputed part of the Voting Rights Act which no one ever tries to unpack or explain. Each tribe simply powers ahead, presenting its preferred and pleasing cartoon.)

Grading on the curve, the massively privileged graduate of Brown had offered us a D-minus presentation. If we throw the curve away, her presentation truly deserved a failing grade—and yet, this is the kind of intellectual leadership our tribe is routinely offered by the corporate entities who pay Wagner's (undisclosed) salary.

The craziest thing we saw last night came from Tucker Carlson. In fairness, he was making crazy claims about a weekend cable news player whose work is very slack.

On PBS, we saw Michael Flynn at work, among the large number of voters who think his claims make sense. And then again, there was Wagner, narrating a presentation which was crushingly dumb.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our nation has long since come undone. 

In fairness, it's hard to maintain a very large nation like ours. But as people like Wagner keep cashing those checks. this basic historical fact is being played out once again.

Wagner's presentation was very dumb; Carlson is deeply disordered. We the people of the U.S. get our ideas from them!

Tomorrow: When Ezra interviewed Rachel


133 comments:

  1. tl;dr

    "Personally, we regard Flynn as largely disordered."

    Is there anyone outside your brain-dead liberal tribe who you don't regard as largely disordered, mentally ill, or crazy, dear Bob?

    If there is, we would like hear the name. If not, then -- alas -- You, dear Bob, Might Be a Liberal...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Declaring political enemies "disordered" is a classic tactic of the left, and is useful when they gain enough power to execute them. Normal and good people readily identify the disordered regressive party and regressive ideology that currently dominate and poison every institution and amount to a religion and a death cult.

      Delete

    2. Obviously, one can only be "ordered" (good-decent) when they sincerely believe in wimmin trapped in men's bodies and similar hilarious BlueAnon tales.

      Y'know, it's the 'inmates running the asylum' thing.

      Delete
    3. 10:19,
      Good point. If you're ever in Texas , look me up. I'll pay for your first four abortions.

      Delete
    4. Ordered doesn't mean "good-decent" as Mao suggests. There are good-decent mentally ill people who are certainly disordered but not violent or hurtful to others.

      Somerby certainly means something different when he uses the term disordered. It is his catchall excuse for not rationally considering the excrement hurled by the right in lieu of rational thought.

      My current theory is that he chides the left on the basis of rationality because we are the only rational thinkers left. The right has convinced its supporters to vote their emotions, and that makes their thinking appear disordered. Freud taught us that you can't let the id takeover without paying a price. But if you attracting voters by scaring them, they aren't going to be thinkers. But oddly, Somerby displaces that onto the liberals today, when we are not the fear and death party. We are the "let's fix things and make life better for everyone" party.

      Delete
    5. Unfortunately, based on their behavior, many people on the right are obviously disordered.. If some people haven't yet figured that out, they are disordered.

      Delete
    6. Wagner is hot. Unlike Maddow she doesn't feel the need to feed helium to lambs. Where does it stop is my question.

      Delete
    7. The right wing A holes on this thread who are dumb enough to take klan trash like Mao seriously might be surprised to know that for many moons Bob would have found calling right wingers “disordered”, to be horrible liberal snobbery. But, along came Trump and exposed the Republican Party as largely, well, Klan Trash. Bob had to move the goal posts. Just a little perspective for the garbage people.

      Delete
    8. "We are the "let's fix things and make life better for everyone" party."

      Drugging youth and the mentally ill with puberty blockers, mutilating their genitals, and sterilizing them makes life better for everyone.

      Delete
    9. no one does that

      Delete
    10. 8:45,
      That's no more provable than the lies about a Republican voter who isn't a bigot.

      Delete
  2. "In fairness, it's also possible that Wagner had never thought, for even one second, about this basic matter. "

    And also in fairness, it is possible that she had thought about this basic matter but disagreed with Somerby's take on it. Somerby rushes to call her ignorant instead of considering that she may hold a different opinion about the goals of districting and redistricting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Anyone with an ounce of sense would understand that this is a congressional district whose elongated, irregular shape reflects a basic fact about its birth—the district was deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it majority black."

    It seems not to have occurred to Somerby that if you create a district that is nearly all black, you need not put any black voters in white districts and thereby prevent having two districts that are 60% black and thus capable of electing two house members, not one. Two out of 6 is more nearly 31% than 1 out of 6, which is only 16% of the total representatives. That constitutes drawing boundaries (which Somerby admits appear oddly shaped) in order to prevent two representatives instead of to achieve one representative in a state where they could have eliminated ALL chances of black representation. But 16% is fine with Somerby because, as he says, it could have been worse for black voters.

    And he claims that there is no reason why there should be parity with state demographics in the creation of voting districts. Why not? He doesn't explain why abandoning that type of fairness makes any sense. He says it is because black people are not evenly distributed across the state, but neither are the district boundaries drawn to produce 6 geographically equal districts. As long as some consideration is given to inclusion and exclusion of certain people in oddly shaped districts, why shouldn't racial fairness be a districting criterion? Somerby doesn't explain that.

    Instead, he calls Alex Wagner incompetent for disagreeing with him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Very few of those people have a detailed understanding of any specific policy question. None of us can speak with authority on all such topics and questions."

    Here, Somerby calls us all too stupid to research the policy positions of candidates and make competent decisions about who to vote for. He goes on to say that we must all rely on "thought leaders." But aren't we also too stupid to choose such thought leaders, without any knowledge of even one policy issue?

    Somerby may consider himself too stupid to vote, but I doubt many voters agree with that assessment of their own choices. Farmers certainly know their own business. So do those in finance or education or car repair or various other fields. And there is nothing preventing anyone from watching debates and reading news articles and attending coffees with candidates and figuring out who best represents their own opinions and interests. That is how democracy works. We do not blindly choose some "thought leader" to tell us what to think and how to vote.

    When people do not feel competent to vote, they largely don't vote at all. Because why invest the effort of doing so, if you don't know which boxes to check.

    The idea that MTG or Trump or Cawthorn or Gaetz or Ron Johnson or Boebert (who is dumb as a rock) or Abbott represent "thought" leaders when they barely think and cannot speak intelligently to any issue, is ludicrous. People who give such candidates their votes are not thinking, whatever else they may be doing to screw our country and themselves.

    But Somerby comes here daily to insult our intelligence and encourage us to blindly support someone besides the people we respect and think will be good legislators in our own blue tribe. Even an infant can recognize that Warren has expertise and Warnock is a better choice than Walker. So who does Somerby think he is fooling here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So who does Somerby think he is fooling here?"
      The usual suspects. Mao, Cecelia, AC/ MA, David in Cal, etc.
      You know, the people desperately trying to feel condescended to by him.

      Delete
    2. I’d say most people have a fairly clear understanding of Abortion, a huge policy issue in this election. That’s why Bob doesn’t write about it. He’s also no doubt fairly at ease with women being put
      in jail for having an abortion.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse11:56am, I’ve several times said that Bob harbors the old-school ideological type of noblesse oblige towards his political contrarians that is strikingly different our current time and which was far more serviceable to the betterment of the country than your distain toward your fellow man.

      Delete
    4. Cecelia,
      Equating me to Republican politicians is a low blow, even for you.

      Delete
    5. @1:53, I don't think many men have a clear understanding of what is involved when a woman seeks an abortion at all. They also seem very confused about female anatomy, based on the stupid things male politicians have said. Somerby was raised Catholic, so he has the Church's attitudes about abortion and I doubt he has supplemented that with much else, given the way he dislikes women and his lifelong unmarried state.

      Delete
    6. @cecelia:
      “Noblesse oblige” applies to more than just “liberal” journalists. What about plutocrats like the Kochs or Trump?

      Was there ever a time when industrialists and wealthy people actually supported, say, a war effort or believed in paying their fair share to help the less fortunate? Maybe. But the Republican Party has been dedicated to eradicating the very idea of noblesse oblige for a century at least.

      We could all be “nicer”, for lack of a better word. But the GOP spews hatred on a daily basis, a tactic endorsed by Gingrich in the 90’s.

      Criticizing the lies, hate and propaganda coming from your side (including its “journalists”) is necessary these days, if we are going to have a functioning society, because your side (with its great privileges, by the way) will never exhibit noblesse oblige towards anyone, and in fact is increasingly dedicated to just throwing out votes they don’t approve of.

      Delete
    7. Cecelia, blue tribe members are Somerby's political contrarians and he shows no noblesse oblige (an incorrect use of that word) toward us. He calls us dumb and says no one likes us.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse2:20pm, I don’t equate you to any politicians.

      I don’t equate you to the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker.

      Nor to a rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief, doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief.

      I equate you to the Borg.

      Delete
    9. Keep Star Trex out of it. I like that show and I don't want you to spoil it for me by making it political.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse3:07pm, you’re on a blog calling a liberal blogger a stealth conservative who is getting paid to undermine Democrats.

      I think you can handle a bit of politicalization.

      Delete
    11. And you are treating all anonymous commenters as if they were all the same person, when they clearly are not.

      Although it really isn't clear who you are talking about, Somerby is referring to thought leaders and politicians. If you mean commenters instead of Somerby's target today, you should say so. Somerby doesn't read his comments and he doesn't reply to any commenters in his essays either. How can commenters be Somerby's contrarians when he never interacts with them?

      Delete
    12. mh, my remark was in response to a quip by Anonymouse 11:56am that conservatives on this board are here to be condescendingly patted by Bob.

      My response was/is that, at least the least, this mentality is more politically effective and has accomplished more in governance than our time now where people see anything less than extreme partisanship as being “centrist” or as indulging evil.

      Delete
    13. "at least the least" ????

      Delete
    14. conservatives here are trolls, not "politically effective" and not accomplishing anything here except annoying others. No one "on this board" has been involved in governance. To conclude, people who are not extreme are centrist, by definition. The middle falls between the extremes. And you are still not making any sense.

      Delete
    15. Anonymouse 3:38pm, if you don’t want to be lumped in with every anonymouse, get a name and register it.

      I was commenting to Anonymouse 3:07pm. You’re highlighting the difficulties inherent in your decision not to have a distinct nym

      Delete
    16. Anonymouse2:41pm, as a conservative, I have a slew of conservative never-trumpers representing the “real” Republicans on tv.

      David Brooks is my conservative champion at the NYT… An editorial by Tom Cotton got a respected editor fired there.

      I think you can manage Bob Somerby saying (the obvious) things about you.

      Delete
    17. "As a conservative," why do you imagine anyone here cares what you think of Brooks or Cotton or anyone else, including Somerby? You will vote for a bunch of harmful people who will contribute to the destruction of democracy in our country. It will be your fault when Congress decreases social security and medicare, when Biden (who has done a fine job) is impeached (making a mockery of the impeachment process). It will be your fault when our schools cannot find teachers because they are afraid of being targeted by whackos and don't know what it is safe to say any more. You don't give a damn about Trump being prosecuted for his crimes, even though Republicans have paid dearly for them in both their lives (due to covid myths) and in money donated to his specious causes. You are not anyone that any serious person should pay attention to, since you cannot even figure out who to vote for in an election that should be clear to everyone. And you have the nerve to tell other commenters here what to use as a nym!

      Delete
    18. There is no controversy in the upcoming election. Only self-interest.

      Delete
    19. Anonymouse 5:21pm, I was replying to Anonymouse 2:41pm.

      I’m not imagining that she doesn’t like feeling misrepresented by Somerby, she stated as much as justification for hating on him daily.

      I told her that I feel misrepresented by nearly every conservative the MSM allows on their medium for 1.5 minutes.

      I’m not on the blogs or Twitter feeds excoriating those conservatives all day long and accusing them of heresy because they don’t see things my way.

      Don’t whine to me about how cruel Bob is when he says you’re not likable.

      You aren’t.

      Delete
    20. Star Trek was political, purposefully presented a vision of future society positioned somewhere between Socialism and Utopia; right wingers like Cesillyia have no interest in ideology, they just like it when Kirk dominates the aliens.

      Cesillyia imagines a world where people are oppressed, yet super polite and courteous to their oppressors. "Yessa, massa!" is what Cesillyia wants to hear.

      Those oppressors sure do make a nice world, being able to sit out on the porch with some nice iced tea on a summer day, and when the breeze dies down, a little Black person fanning them. Some world!

      Just make sure you are cooking that peach pie in the right oven, you don't want to be picking Jew bone out of your teeth.

      Cesillyia's strange nonsense and diction - you almost think they have to be plant, a laughable caricature, the non sequiturs are too funny to be from obtuseness. But then the content is so mean spirited, ah the telltale indicators of a black heart, a truly wounded lost soul.

      Delete
    21. Anonymouse 7:31pm, you’re the soul of kindness in endlessly telling others of their grave faults. Just as you are about Republicans in general and Somerby in particular. You generosity is … you’re sort of generosity.

      The Borg certainly wouldn’t be eating peach pie as made by the hands of an oppressed darkie NFL football player or Harvard grad Joy Reid.

      There wouldn’t be much legislating among them either. No debate. No statesmanship. No compromise. Not even the facade of good will.

      Just “Resistance is futile” and you’re a terrible human being if you try” sort of thing, all the way.

      Noblesse oblige looks downright Democratic in comparison.



      Delete
    22. Aw Cesillyia, stop proving my point so well!

      We all love you Cesillyia, even though what you write is always goofy and generally incomprehensible.

      We want you to do well in life!

      Delete
    23. A smart person would have looked up noblesse oblige by now and know how to use it in a sentence.

      Delete
    24. 7:31,
      Hear, hear.

      Delete
    25. Anonymouse9:56pm, I feel the love.

      I want anonymices to do well in life too. I take it for granted that your standards for that are lower, but rock on.

      Delete
  5. Again, as with the Alabama case, Somerby fails to mention that a federal court found, back in June, that the Louisiana congressional redistricting map violated the Voting Rights Act, that it diluted the votes of black people.

    Somerby seems to imply that these courts are just operating by the seat of their pants, when in fact there is a defined method for determining compliance with the act, given in Thornburg v Gingles (1986).

    This makes Wagner’s discussion … not dumb, but in agreement with federal courts.

    It is dishonest for Somerby to simply disappear such facts from a discussion of this matter and resort to insults.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Bob says here may be technically true. But has the map been drawn to avoid creating any black majority districts? Bob doesn’t care, but he probably knows.

      Delete
    2. Since the court ruled the map was a violation of the voting rights act, it’s clear that the districts could have been drawn differently, based on the formula that exists in Thornburg. This formula is well-known to anyone familiar with the law. The Louisiana legislature could have availed itself of this before it drew its map. I haven’t researched the genesis of this particular case, but it’s hard to see how it wasn’t deliberate, although Somerby wants to call the legislature “heroic” for producing even one majority/plurality black district.

      Delete
  6. “Louisiana's legislature had gone to something resembling heroic lengths to produce that one majority black congressional district!”

    Heroic?? Jesus F Christ, has anyone ever put more thumbs on more scales than this?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Non sequitur. = Doesn’t follow.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “if its population is evenly spread across the state, black voters could conceivably constitute roughly one-third of all six of the state's congressional districts”

    As I mentioned above, there is a way to determine this, based on a Supreme Court case from 1986. Plaintiffs have to provide numbers and maps. In this case, the court ruled against the Louisiana map, which implies that the black population is not evenly spread there.

    It’s also the case in Alabama, where there is a region called the “black belt”, where there is a much higher concentration of black citizens than elsewhere. (Why that is would take us into the forbidden wokeness of CRT).

    It’s similar in my state, Arkansas. The percentage of black residents in the North and Northwestern parts of the state approaches zero. In fact, the headquarters of something called the “Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” has been headquartered in a town called Harrison in far northern Arkansas for some time.

    The percentage of black residents is highest in central Arkansas (places like Little Rock) and the eastern delta.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here’s the link to Carlson calling out a tv news host who broadcasts that white America is intrinsically racist, and is spiritually, mentally, and physically destructive toward its black citizens.

    To Bob, Tucker saying that the atomizing rhetoric of Tiffany Cross and Joy Reid incentivizes race war is more overblown, dangerous, and disordered than their stoking such abject fear and resentment in the first place.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-open-race-hate-forms-much-msnbcs-substance.amp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are those the whites who Tucker says are being erased by immigrants?

      Delete
    2. That TV news host needs to expand his view beyond just Republicans in Congress.

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

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse2:26pm, the largest demographic in this country that does not monolithically vote Democrat, and until the advent of the Tucker Carlson Show, was openly, widely, and hopefully opined upon in Democratic circles as soon to be a minority population due to immigration.

      Thie happy result would be to render the Republican Party the equivalent of the Naderites.

      Delete
    5. For 350 years, blacks were told that their blackness made them different from whites. Now, suddenly, they are being told that if they consider their blackness, they are being divisive and racist. It’s perverse.

      I’m white and not privileged, but I don’t feel the need to react with anger and rage, like a snowflake, when Reid makes comments like this, which stem from her own experiences. Her viewpoint is interesting to me. If right wingers weren’t so intent on quashing the discussion of race in schools, we might produce generations of Americans who actually are race-neutral.

      There is no reason Reid’s discussion ought to create “fear” or “resentment.”

      Delete
    6. Cecelia, whatever you just said here makes no sense at all.

      Delete
    7. mh, why would equating some of the most successful people in the world to being brutalized slaves under the control of white masters strike fear and resentment in anyone?

      Delete
    8. Here is an example of a sentence that makes no sense at all. Who are you talking about and who is being equated to whom, and by whom?

      Delete
    9. Let me see if I can decipher what you are saying:
      “some of the most successful people in the world”

      I assume you are referring to Cross and Reid. Let’s just say that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk might disagree with that, but anyway.

      And I assume you are implying that Reid is stoking fear and resentment… among black people. You might want to check your assumptions. I know white people respond with fear, but I doubt that black people do. Whether they are resentful is an open question, relating partially at least to how much attention they give to Reid or Cross, but I would argue that, given the circumstances, resentment might be justified.

      As to what that might lead to, it’s probably not going to be a race war, as whites have long feared.

      On the other hand, recognizing that one is oppressed might lead, not to resentment, but to … greater determination, greater achievement, shaking off the legacy of racism, etc. Is that really such a terrible thing according to Fucker Carlson? Is Carlson trying to cancel Reid?

      Delete
    10. The people hoping for a race war are largely middle aged white men with guns, who practice warrior games on the weekend and dream about being in a militia that secedes from the blue states. Then they would get to shoot people, especially black people, and protect their white women from some fate worse than death while making the world safe for their white kids and dogs. Or some such.

      Boogaloo Bois went to BLM demonstrations with guns to loot and destroy property that could be blamed on black protesters so that they could trigger such a race war. This is by their own admission, after they were stopped by police and put in jail for attempted mayhem (and weapons charges), before they got to do any serious shooting. That's why they have made a hero out of Kyle Rittenhouse -- he got'er done.

      Who do you think feels fear as the result of their antics?

      Delete
    11. mh, I always seem to make the mistake of thinking that Bob’s critics actually follow his links.

      I assumed that you had actually watched the video highlighted on Tucker of what Cross said on her show.

      Again, I assumed that you actually did that before commenting upon it.

      Delete
    12. Is Somerby's assessment of what Carlson said incorrect? Somerby never returns to discuss it, after calling it lunacy. I doubt mh disagrees with that and Somerby doesn't say anything more about it, so why does mh have to watch Carlson? That would be mind pollution and a waste of his time.

      mh has been commenting here about redistricting. What does the Carlson segment have to do with that?

      Delete
    13. Cecelia, if you want to discuss what Carlson said, first quote or refer to the segment itself, so we know what your reference point is, then state your opinion. That way people will know what you are talking about. No one here is going to watch Tucker Carlson voluntarily.

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse 4:40pm, how can you opine on what you didn’t see? In the course of watching the episode that was blogged upon, I saw and heard Cross making her statements too.

      Don’t say you’re not willing to pull up a vid Carlson’s commentary and then accuse me of not making sense when I reference specific things that were in the show.

      Delete
    15. I don't have to watch porn to know what it is either. Tucker is political porn for haters. It isn't good for the soul to watch a guy like that. No one here is discussing Cross because we take Somerby's word for it that Tucker was unfair to her (equating her with Rwandan hate radio). You didn't reference anything specific, didn't tell people what you were talking about and made no sense. And NO, people here are not going to start watching Tucker because you or Somerby reference his show. I don't have to watch Tucker to know what he is. Neither does any other halfway intelligent person -- there is dog shit on the street too, but we don't have to step in it to know what it is.

      Delete
    16. Right, you don’t have to watch a segment of tv to know what it is about, you can jump straight to telling someone they don’t make sense about a tv segment you never watched.

      Saves time.

      Delete
    17. It doesn't matter what it is about. It is filthy garbage with no redeeming value. You rarely make sense, but people were trying to help you out. I'm done with that. It isn't worth the effort.

      Delete
    18. Anonymouse 5:40pm, as gratifying as it is to hear that you were just trying to help me by saying that I made no sense when I commented upon a tv segment that you refused to watch. I’m even more gratified to read that you’re going to cease trying to help me.

      Thanks very much.

      Delete
    19. You never said you were commenting on that TV segment.

      Delete
    20. People here tend to quote specific lines from Somerby's posts, so that other readers and commenters will have a context for the comment that follows. It is a courtesy but also prevents misunderstandings. You could do the same Cecelia. Then people would understand that you were talking about Tucker and Cross, even though you mentioned neither of their names (in the initial comment that made no sense).

      Delete
    21. mh: “I’m white and not privileged, but I don’t feel the need to react with anger and rage, like a snowflake, when Reid makes comments like this, which stem from her own experiences. Her viewpoint is interesting to me. If right wingers weren’t so intent on quashing the discussion of race in schools, we might produce generations of Americans who actually are race-neutral.

      There is no reason Reid’s discussion ought to create “fear” or “resentment.”

      Me: “mh, why would equating some of the most successful people in the world to being brutalized slaves under the control of white masters strike fear and resentment in anyone?”

      Learn to scroll.

      Delete
  10. “Massively limited tribal intellectual leader?” Does that mean “black woman who got a show?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does to you.

      Somerby called this individual by her name.

      Delete
    2. Actually, it clearly does to you. But thanks for playing.

      Delete
    3. Alex Wagner is of Burmese ancestry.

      Delete
    4. No, Anonymouse 2:52pm, you putting your words into someone’s mouth. does not mean that they “actually” said it or thought it.

      YOU get all the credit for both those things.

      Delete
    5. Cecelia, please calm down and think before you type your next comment. You are cluttering up a reasonable discussion with garbage and no one needs to read half the things you have been typing in the last 5 min.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse3:09pm, if true, how would that be different from three or four anonymices daily typing ten posts each of the exact same drivel?

      Delete
    7. They make sense. You don't, especially when you get into one of these frenzies.

      Delete
    8. Bob talks about the left and right as two tribes, particularly in the context of presenting the preferred storyline. He does not use "tribal" to indicate a minority, and my first reaction to the suggestion that he was doing so here was, well... wondering where somebody's head is at that would even think that.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 3:34pm, it makes sense, you just don’t agree with me.

      However, if you find my opinions confusing, notice my name above them and skip to the next post.

      Easy peasy.

      Delete
    10. Why should you be given a pass that allows you to post comments without making any sense at all, while others are held to a higher standard? Hint: no one much agrees with you here.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse4:01pm, how am I being given a pass on anything?

      I’m trying to help you out.

      You can skip me or you can keep complaining that I don’t make any sense (while incongruently saying that no one agrees with me).

      It’s all the same to me.

      Delete
    12. When you use phrases such as "noblesse oblige" without having a clue what they mean, no one is going to skip your comment. Similarly, when you say ignorant things about politics, no one is going to skip it. Most people here care about getting facts right and living in reality. That's why people will not just bypass your ignorant garbage without saying anything. If you don't like it here, go back to your conservative blog home and leave people alone here. You add nothing, distract from discussing actual issues, insult people and generally waste everyone's time. Beyond that I personally don't like you, largely because of your mean-spirited remarks and jokes that show cruelty to others. If you poke your nose into a liberal blog, you are not going to be allowed to post crap without others remarking on it.

      Delete
    13. Some people are crazy.

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse4:30pm, don’t tell me people care about getting the facts right when anonymices have been commenting about a tv segment they did not watch.

      That is invariably the case here.

      Don’t tell me I don’t know the meaning of noblesse oblige or the spirit of such a culture.

      And finally, take my advice and skip my posts rather than writing 75 words essentially saying nothing other than shut up.

      Delete
    15. No one commented on it but you. The rest of us were talking about redistricting. You made a garbled comment that mh tried to decipher and then you accused him of not watching Tucker. No one here in their right mind is going to watch Tucker.

      You don't know the meaning of noblesse oblige because you used the phrase incorrectly. If you can't take the heat here, go away.

      Delete
    16. Tucker never saddled lambs.

      Delete
    17. mh, made a comment about Cross that I specifically addressed as to what the vid showed (which he had never watched) and I answered an anonymouse’s comment (which you very likely did not read) saying that conservatives are here to be patted by the blogger.

      There’s no “heat. It’s just you getting piqued and telling me to shut and go away.



      Delete
    18. Anonymouse 5:16pm, did you ask him to do that nicely?

      Delete
    19. Cecelia, don't you have a lamb to saddle somewhere yourself?

      Delete
    20. Tucker never slaughtered lambs for their tendon meat.

      Delete
    21. Cecelia, who chides others about posting to much, is really sucking up a lot of the air in the room and it comes out as Ayn Rand farts. I know it’s fun to argue but She is a troll who might be fed more selectively, and maybe she’ll crawl back
      under the bridge. Her creepy racism
      is boring too.

      Delete
    22. Good luck with that. I’ve been reading and commenting for years and will keep doing that whether you respond or not.

      Anonymices are solely on this blog in order to diss the blogger.

      The presumption from jump is that all your commentary is static.

      Delete
    23. You idiot, some of the anonymous commenters agree with Somerby. The one who only talks about abortion is also anonymous. You have no idea what you are talking about, and those of us who actually have been here for years know exactly how long you have been commenting.

      Delete
    24. Cecilia, do you want to go vote together?

      Delete
    25. Anonymouse 11:49pm, no, you don’t know anything. Yes, anyone could cut-n-paste any comment you made a month ago under today’s blog and no one would notice the difference.

      Delete
    26. Anonymouse 6:10am, sure.

      You can carry my wine thermos and Shih Tzu.

      Delete
  11. As to Flynn, I wonder how many friends Bob has who approved of him trying to overthrow our government?

    ReplyDelete
  12. We also see today the George Conway (on CNN) says the new Eastman emails will show that Trump was clearly advised his claims about the election in Georgia (perhaps Trump's most blatant criminality?) were made in light of being clearly advised he had lost the State.
    This is an interesting development, does it matter
    that when Trump was advised by all his reality based
    staff that he lost the election, does it matter if he was
    advised the same thing by one of the nutcases?
    At any rate, Bob may have to stick his fingers in
    his ears extra hard as he screeches in a high
    voice "Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump Jail!!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The matter doesn't hold much interest at all for a huge majority of American people. You're in an extremely small niche of people that care about it.

      Delete
    2. Ah, the old “nobody really cares” bullshit. Where would Republicans be without it? Sorry, but CNN and MSNBC would not be covering it if nobody cared. They switch back to Republican stories when their finger in the wind tells them that’s going to help their profit margin.

      Delete
    3. No, I'm not saying nobody cares. I'm saying that only a minority cares. I'm saying the majority does not care. CNN and MSNBC both have tiny tiny audiences. If you're in that audience, then great you care. I'm just saying it's a small nation people and a majority of people are not concerned with that issue. That is the way it is my man.

      Delete
    4. It's a very small niche of people that are concerned with it. That's indisputable. But maybe it's an important issue. It's very scummy what he did. The people, majority of Americans are not concerned with it at all. In any way at all.

      Delete
    5. “Nobody” “not a majority” get your bullshit straight. Do a majority think Trump is above the law? Dubious.

      Delete
    6. How do you get to celebrate the death of Ashli Babbitt, if you have to pretend you don't care about January 6th?
      The Right is always trying to take the fun out of everything.

      Delete
    7. The Eastman emails and Trump's conduct in Georgia doesn't hold much interest for a majority of American people. But if you are interested in it, that's great.

      Delete
    8. It's like inflation. People just pretend they care about it to justify their voting patterns.

      Delete
    9. Traditionally half of us don't vote.

      Delete
  13. "Alex Wagner flunks:"

    No, she hasn't flunked anything. This is an unkind way to characterize a disagreement.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is what happens when you trust people because of their politics and don't do due diligence. The right wing is full of grifters, there to take advantage of the willingness of the right to believe conspiracy theories and other nonsense they are fed by those who present themselves to conform to the MAGA image:

    "An attempt to make a Confederacy-promoting right-wing super hero movie has reportedly "ended in disaster" after $1 million in funders' money has gone completely missing.

    The Daily Beast's Will Sommer reports that the planned movie, called "Rebel's Run," was based on a comic book character created by far-right blogger Vox Day that features a hero named Rebel who is "sometimes depicted in a Confederate flag bustier" and who fights against "a global police force hunting down freethinking conservatives."

    The film's troubles started when Day, whose given name is Theodore Beale, decided to use a Utah-based firm called Ohana Capital Financial to hold the $1 million he'd raised in donations for the movie in escrow.

    Beale went with Ohana because it was a rare financial institution who would do business with him given his long history of unabashed racism and sexism.

    The trouble, as Sommer writes, is that Ohana appears to have been a sham institution set up by a con artist.

    "Ohana was the creation of James Wolfgramm, a self-described cryptocurrency billionaire who posted pictures of sports cars that supposedly belonged to him on social media," he writes. "But in fact, according to a federal indictment filed last month, Wolfgramm’s wealth was a sham. The sports car pictures, for example, were pulled from other websites. Wolfgramm’s business also sold what were billed as high-tech cryptocurrency mining rigs — but those too were a hoax, according to prosecutors, with their screens just running on a loop to create the illusion of mine."

    Day told disappointed supporters recently that their money had, in fact, gone missing while under Wolfgramm's care.

    "I wouldn’t count on us getting the money back," said Day, who also baselessly claimed that the theft was part of a grander plot "intended to break our community."

    This is little different than trying to trace what happened to the millions supporters donated to Trump's funds to advance his causes (build the wall, stop the steal). That money too has disappeared without realizing the promised results.

    ReplyDelete
  15. From Alternet:

    "Fox News' Tucker Carlson recently attempted to twist the words of MSBNC’s Tiffany Cross when she delivered her assessment of the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

    On Wednesday, October 19, Carlson accused Cross of demonizing white women. During the recent segment, Cross insisted white women played a significant role in the insurrection.

    The MSNBC host went on to express how white women were more of “enablers to this very dangerous domestic terrorist movement.”

    According to HuffPost, white women played a “front-facing role” in the insurrection and more than 100 of them participated in the insurrection. The report also compared white women's insurrection role to the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan.

    With the emergence of social media, far-right factions now have more outlets to spew hatred and spin conspiracy theories. HuffPost notes that Cross' assessment appears to align with the historical timelines.

    However, Carlson is arguing otherwise. The Fox host, who has been pushing the so-called "great replacement" theories over the last several months, accused Cross of fearmongering.

    “So it’s not just whites, it’s white women,” Carlson said. “Their women are bad too! The women, of course, are the key to reproducing the white race, which is clearly a threat, as she says again and again to you and your family. They’re dangerous. They want to hurt you.”

    However, he didn't stop there. Carlson went on to suggest that the assessment was based on one theory: that white women are a danger to the United States.

    “The gist of it is very, very clear. White women are dangerous because white people are dangerous. They are, by the nature of their DNA, potential domestic terrorists.”
    ----------------------

    Here is what Cecelia thinks we need to watch in order to evaluate. Cross said that white women participated in 1/6 and Tucker layered hysterical hate speech over it, as if Cross were maligning all white women instead of talking about the ones who were present on 1/6. Somerby doesn't go far enough in denying that Cross said anything like what Tucker is spewing.

    And why does Cecelia want to discuss this? No liberal believes a word of it. We all know what Tucker is like. Cross didn't say what Tucker says she did. And no one is trying to get anyone to hate white women, whereas Tucker is clearly trying to aim his partisans at Cross herself, targeting her with his own hate speech. There is nothing to discuss. It is Tucker as usual.

    When people like Somerby or Cecelia suggest watching propaganda like Tucker Carlson, they aren't trying to have a serious discussion. They want to expose more people to the disinformation contained in such segments, with the hope of undermining liberal efforts to get out the vote in favor of Democratic candidates. Somerby's participation in this effort against Democrats makes it clear that he is no liberal himself and that his efforts here have nothing to do with helping Democrats win more seats in Congress.

    Note that Somerby and Cecelia both think Brooks is A-OK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everyone sees the world the same way you do.

      Delete
    2. So what is the objective of your comment?

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse5:38pm, yes, it’s truly a puzzle as to why someone would think you should have actually watched the linked video of an interview, before chiding the people who did watch it as not understanding it.

      It’s yet another puzzle as to why there would be disapproval of video content in which people by virtue of their race are excoriated continuously on a mainstream cable news channel.

      That you won’t watch how many times Tiffany Cross and company blast “white people” by the term “white people” over and over and over again is just proof that you don’t have the cajoles to actually watch and listen to what you defend.

      That Cross soon waxes on into warnings about “white women” insurrectionists is no surprise despite the fact that the only intentional fatality at the “coup” was a “white woman”.

      In the meantime, Bob thinks Kigali is an over the top reference, but “insurrection” of the entire country and military apparatus is just fine.




      Delete
    4. Whites aren't that great.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 5:38pm: “Note that Somerby and Cecelia both think Brooks is A-OK.”

      Actually, I said that David Brooks does not speak for the Republicans who voted for Trump. That’s the majority of Republicans, Einstein.

      So we’ve got an MSM that will only tolerate Republican representation that does not reflect the majority of Republicans.

      Yet, Bob says it’s Republicans who have already seceded from the Union.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 10:51pm, red and yellow, black and white… nobody is.

      Delete
    7. Yeah but blacks and Hispanics are so much better than whites. That you can't argue with.

      Delete
    8. I do argue with it. Whether it’s your blog troll formulation or it’s the mirror image sentiments of white Supremacists.

      Delete
    9. You think of whites are as good as Hispanics and blacks?

      Delete
    10. No,,I think people, in general, are good, but not great.

      Delete
    11. Go to church why don't you?

      Delete
  16. "When Ezra interviewed Rachel"

    Klein's interview of Rachel Maddow is very interesting. I recommend it to anyone interested in analysis of how we got to the dilemma we are in now with Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Turns out people are losing their taste for killing a million humans a year at Planned Parenthood, think mutilating children is criminal, and are realizing serious white-on-black racism that isn't a hoax by Jussie Smollett or Bubba Wallace doesn't exist.
    November will be the end of the Democrat agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At 8:53, some of us are sick of weirdo religious fanatics. See you at the polls!

      Delete
    2. I'm voting straight Dem ticket. But yes, they are going to get their ass slaughtered.

      Delete
    3. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

      Delete
    4. 10:03, that must be from the sermon on the Mount.

      Delete
    5. "I'm voting straight Dem ticket."
      Same. I'm way too cool for fascism.

      Delete
  18. This is what the upcoming midterms are about:

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/10/the-radical-right-and-the-coming-of-fascism-to-america

    ReplyDelete