WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2022
What Oz is said to have said: It's stunning to see how truly pathetic our blue tribe leadership is.
Consider the way they're paraphrasing Candidate Oz today. More specifically, consider what Candidate Oz is now said to have said.
We refer, of course, to what Candidate Oz said last night about abortion. Here are the words in question—the actual words he said:
OZ (10/25/22): I want women, doctors, local political leaders, leading the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive, to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.
Instantly, those words began being subjected to acts of "creative paraphrase." For the record, Oz had already said, several times, that he doesn't favor the adoption of any federal abortion policy.
Personally, we would favor the adoption of a federal abortion policy. We'd favor adoption of a federal law which would basically follow the framework adumbrated in Roe v. Wade, cleaned up to eliminate the massive inroads produced by many states when Roe was still "law of the land."
That said, Oz said that he doesn't want a federal law in this area. Also, he said the words we've posted above, and those words are now being paraphrased.
In truth, they're being paraphrased clownishly. That's the kind of conduct you'll see from a tribal leadership cadre with nowhere else to go and virtually nothing to offer.
So far, we've seen no paraphrase as dumb as the one offered last night by Stephanie Ruhle. That said, our blue tribe's ship seems to be sinking fast. Our corporate tribunes are being paid millions, but they have almost no skills at all.
Tomorrow, we'll show you what Ruhle said last night, unless we've managed to spot something even dumber. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but the friends we enjoy on our "cable news" programs are programmed to talk about just one thing:
Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail!
They talk about that, and about little else. We'd vote for Fetterman ourselves, but many voters will disagree, and we fear that he's going to lose.
ReplyDelete"Personally, we would favor the adoption of a federal abortion policy. We'd favor adoption of a federal law which would basically follow the framework adumbrated in Roe v. Wade..."
Hmm. But would it even be constitutional, dear Bob?
Would the US congress imposing pro-abortion legislations amount somehow to regulating interstate commerce?
...or do you, dear Bob, even care about the fundamental principles of the US of A? We'd guess you really don't. ...being, you know, what you are. A liberal...
How does a medical procedure on an individual qualify as "interstate commerce"?
DeleteIf it doesn't, then the feds probably have no business regulating it.
DeleteThe US, you see, is a federation where powers of the federal government are limited by the constitution.
...but then legal chicanery easily overcomes common sense. Roe v. Wade being a prime example...
I see. Since abortion is not "interstate commerce" congress has no business regulating it. Whether that's true has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade; that decision had nothing to do with interstate commerce. The right to privacy did not originate with Roe v. Wade.
DeleteLegal chicanery is, perhaps, finding the right to defend yourself in the second amendment, which says nothing of a kind. Perhaps, it is finding the right to pray in the middle of the football field on school grounds. These are all political decisions.
The constitution is malarkey.
DeleteLeaving aside all the word-salad, yes, since the medical procedure known as 'abortion' is not interstate commerce, it should be difficult for the congress to find a good reason to regulate it.
DeleteThat won't stop them, of course.
It is embarrassing how little Mao understands about the power of Congress to legislate - a tip to Mao, dig deeper, only a millimeter even, and you will learn how wrong you are.
DeleteTo be frank, I am amazed at Mao's faceplant.
“Word salad” has become a go to
Deletetrite cliche put down, used by people
too lazy to consider an opposing
viewpoint. Both sides use it this
way. I do not mean to imply Mao
is not a particularly obnoxious
know nothing chump.
Missed it. Did Stephanie Ruhle foolishly call Oz "Doctor Horsepaste", because Oz made his millions pushing a bunch of other useless "miracle cures", not horse paste.
ReplyDeleteRuhle had a decent interview with Janet Yellen on Monday about the economy and economic anxiety.
ReplyDelete“…about the economy and economic anxiety.”
Deletehmmmm…. Evidently, Ruhle and Yellen don’t know that such concerns are merely rhetorical hoods for KKK members.
Ruhle has never shied away from economic discussions, ( in fact, that is her forte), and she doesn’t frame it around racism. So when will you and Somerby admit you’re wrong?
Deletemh, no, Ruhle and Yellen don’t frame such concerns around racism. That sort of framing is an anonymice devise.
DeleteBut you know that.
Why would expect an apology based upon your reference to an interview of a Biden official done prior to what was said in a live debate between the candidates?
Because you both, Cecelia and Somerby, tell us, constantly, that liberals only care about racism and sexism. Ruhle doesn’t do that, so Somerby mocks her wealth.
DeleteBut you knew that.
I am a proud anonymouse and I have never talked about economics in my life.
DeleteI thought the plural for anonymous is 'anonymoose'...or is it anonymii.
DeleteKKK members are good, decent people. But liberals demonize them because they disagree about policy.
DeleteNo, liberals demonize them because they engage in domestic terrorism.
DeleteOh, mh. this post may disappear, but you crowing over Ruhle and Yellen discussing economic problems is a delight and a triumph.
DeleteWe’ve been told there has been no recession. That inflation is transitory and already waning, that high gas prices are necessary.
Anonymices have endlessly called such concerns subterfuge for racism.
Let’s both tip our glasses to Ruhle and to Yellen. Welcome to reality.
Anonymouse 5:22 pm, thank you for your public service.
DeleteAnti-trust and anti-monopolistic regulation and enforcement will lower inflation. So will taxing the excess money Republicans pretend to care about, out of the economy.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:20am, Republicans?
DeleteDo it with your business allies.
7:27,
DeleteIts Republicans who say they believe inflation is caused by excess money in the economy.
What's the comment about my business allies mean. The corporate media? I can't keep up with you kids and your slang.
That's right, Sister Cec, us commie socialist Dems and our 'business allies" with our blackjack boots on your poor abused populist republican necks. Power to the People, Sister Cec!
DeleteI'm just guessing here, but I think Cecelia is referring to those New York Jews and their plot for a New World Order, when she refers to "business allies".
DeleteAs much as MSNBC does cover the lawless, insane
ReplyDeleteantics and the legal troubles that have Donald Trump
and now many cohorts as well (Lindsey Graham going
to slide on what he was trying to do, which is tamper with
the election), Bub has no interest in this. He may
be being paid to post the Daily Howler who insist
he NOT be interested in such things.
But MSNBC still covers a range of issues,
sometimes well (the war) sometimes not so well
(race in general) and the economy.
"Little else." Bob is full of shit.
It still sounds pretty weird: women, doctors, local political leaders leading the democracy? That's just a very weird formulation. The context, of course, was abortion, so I don't see that as too much of a stretch to point out just how garbled up and weird it sounds. It does seem like he's suggesting that abortion decisions abortion decisions should be decided by the above-named participants. That's just what happens when you're trying to walk a very fine line.
ReplyDeleteThere's an obvious question here: why is it more appropriate for the local politicians to get involved and not federal.
Yes. It’s like saying that the question of women’s suffrage should be left up to local politicians.
DeleteExcept slightly worse: we are talking about a medical procedure on one's own body.
DeleteOz was too clever by half and got ridiculed for that. Seems fair enough to me.
Oz ain’t no wizard.
DeleteYes. abortion could have been ruled against entirely from the SCOTUS bench , rather than giving it to hokeys in the states.
DeleteI understand that you like your benefactions to be absolute and from on high.
Human life should begin when you can pour cornflakes on your own.
Delete"I understand that ..."
DeleteNow everyone on TDH knows your character here is an act. Not just you.
Anonymouse 6:27am, I understand that you’re delusional, if you imagined that I’m pro abortion.
DeleteOr human.
DeletePronouncing others as less than that is very much your thing.
DeleteHuman life should begin when you can pour cornflakes on your own.
DeleteOr at least when you can be listed as a dependent on a tax return.
Yes. abortion could have been ruled against entirely from the SCOTUS bench , rather than giving it to hokeys in the states.
DeleteNot given the case before the Supremes. There was no claim of embryonic personhood in front of them. However, there may be one coming sometime in not too distant future.
"The power to paraphrase is the power to spin!"
ReplyDeletePeople paraphrase to save time and space. Surely Somerby doesn't expect anyone on cable to stop paraphrasing when they refer to debates or speeches? It would eat up too much of a cable show to have to repeat everything verbatim.
"So far, we've seen no paraphrase as dumb as the one offered last night by Stephanie Ruhle. "
ReplyDeleteNotice that Somerby first blames people for paraphrasing Oz, telling us what he actually said, but never telling us what the paraphrases were, not even one or two examples.
Then he castigates Ruhle, again without telling us how she paraphrased Oz's statement. We are just supposed to take his word that Ruhle did something badly, even though the paraphrase must surely be shorter than the Oz quote Somerby did provide.
So, Somerby thinks it is important to defend Oz but unimportant to tell us what Ruhle did wrong. He threw in his own opinions about abortion to convince us that he is not biased in Oz's favor, does not agree with Oz, but why then did he give Oz the benefit of a quote but not Ruhle? Surely sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (wait, backup, turn that around).
Maybe Somerby is saving space by leaving out what Ruhle said, but why does it not occur to him that Ruhle deserves the same courtesy as Oz, when it comes to quoting? And why does he again criticize someone and then run without bothering to make an actual case -- just by assertion and accusation without evidence, much less proof? That is what people do when their intention is to smear. And then one must ask, why would someone who supposedly agrees with a Democratic position be smearing Ruhle for what she said about Oz? Something is fishy.
People who are dumb enough to believe Oz said what was deceptively paraphrased are already Democrats. People who are opposed to restrictions on abortion and think the baby whose life hangs in the balance deserves no one speaking on her behalf are already Democrats.
ReplyDeletePeople who think women's bodies change when you cross a state line are dumber than Democrats.
DeleteWhat was it that he said? Rather, what was the intended meaning of his odd pronouncement?
DeleteSomerby doesn't trust us to know how Oz's statement was paraphrased. He wants to convince us first, then give us the facts later.
DeleteHas Oz revised what he said at the debate? I haven't heard anything about him retracting anything or walking back what he said.
Most Republicans support abortion - poll after poll indicates this, so 5:10 you are just humiliating yourself, sorry to say.
DeleteDems also support restrictions on abortion, relating to notions of sentience and viability, and this was part of the Roe decision as well. Dems and a sizable portion of Repubs support exceptions that allow for late term abortions, such as the health or life of the mother, or developmental issues with the baby.
So again 5:10, you couldn't be more wrong, you are just absolutely embarrassing yourself, but we appreciate the insight into your dark heart and soul.
"Notions of sentience and viability" have nothing to do with human value or worthiness of protection. No one is viable when they are dependent on other humans or machines and this does not make them subhuman or justify killing them. Lacking cognitive aptitudes because of age as all youngsters do, with those abilities expected to continue to develop, also does not mean we can kill them due to impatience with the normal pace of human development.
Delete"The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but the friends we enjoy on our "cable news" programs are programmed to talk about just one thing:
ReplyDeleteTrump Trump Trump Trump Jail!
They talk about that, and about little else."
Yes, we are all tired of waiting for Garland to get his act together, but even Trump deserves due process. I don't know what Somerby thinks any of us can do to speed up this process -- we just have to wait until it is done.
Meanwhile, Somerby's constant chorus of "are we there yet?" is getting tiresome.
I don’t think you get it. Clearly for Bob “there” is when we simply turn the Country over to Trump.
DeleteMaybe Democrats can recover in 2024 from their forthcoming electoral flogging. They will have to change their rhetoric. But they should be able to continue to support and fund and really worship war, which is what they love more than anything.
DeleteIt just seems like Democrats love war, because of how much Republicans hate our soldiers.
DeleteEvery zygote is a human being and therefore has a soul. Sometimes God gives a zygote two souls, it splits, and it becomes identical twins.
ReplyDeleteSouls and God are beliefs that are not part of science and not shared by the majority of people in our country. Laws are not made based on the idiosyncratic beliefs of individuals. You are, of course, welcome to live your own life according to your religion, but you may not dictate what others do based on your own religious views.
Delete6:01 is mocking the anti choice stance.
DeleteIt is worth noting, though, that the Bible does not mention abortion, after all, it has been practiced freely for most of human existence.
Abortion is not in the Bible, but the Bible makes clear that life starts at first breath, and that a baby in the womb is not a human, but merely property of the mother.
God and religion offer no quarter for the anti choice movement.
Until the late 70s, generally only Catholics opposed abortion, but then right wingers discovered they could weaponize the abortion issue in furtherance of their empty goals.
Right wingers are those that have suffered in such a way as to warp their minds into wanting to castigate everyone else for their own sins.
Killing innocent humans is wrong and most atheists agree.
DeleteIf we’re talking religion, we might want to look up scripture as to John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother’s womb at the news of her cousin Mary’s pregnancy.
Delete"Yet another lawsuit shows how abortion bans violate religious freedom" by Jennifer Rubin
Delete"In July I wrote about a lawsuit in Florida challenging the state’s abortion ban on the grounds that it violates the religious beliefs of Jews — and members of other faiths — who do not believe in the Christian dogma that human life begins at conception. Now, three Jewish women from Kentucky have filed a similar suit.
One of the plaintiffs is undergoing in vitro fertilization. Another one is storing nine embryos. And another is “of advanced maternal age and faces many risk factors if she chooses to have a third child,” the complaint explains. It adds, “Individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry have a heightened risk of passing on genetic anomalies, like Tay-Sachs disease, for which there is no cure and the average life span of those with the condition is four years of age.”
Yet Kentucky’s abortion law, the complaint argues, would arguably make both an abortion after genetic counseling or the destruction of IVF embryos capital murder.
Contrary to the officiousness of the right-wing Supreme Court justices, who seem not to understand that they applied their own religious views in their ruling overturning abortion rights, the complaint explains:
'Judaism has never defined life beginning at conception. Jewish views on the beginning of life originate in the Torah. ... Millenia of commentary from Jewish scholars has reaffirmed Judaism’s commitment to reproductive rights. Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. Under no circumstances has Jewish law defined a human being or child as the moment that a human spermatozoon fuses with a human ovum.
The question of when life begins for a human being is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions.'
The last sentence is key. The so-called state interest in preserving “fetal life” depends on the assumption that a fetus deserves the same protection as a toddler. But for Jews, “the necessity of protecting birth givers in the event a pregnancy endangers the woman’s life and causes the mother physical and mental harm” must [take precedence]. Moreover, “the law forces Plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges.”
For that reason, the complaint alleges that . . .
. . . the Kentucky abortion law violates the First Amendment and the state constitutional protection for religious freedom — as well as the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ...forcing others to comply with the religious-based edicts of one sect flies in the face of the constitutional guarantee of free religious expression.
DeleteThe complaint also alleges that the Kentucky law should be void for vagueness under the 5th and 14th Amendments. As with so many laws triggered by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that predate modern medicine, it’s not clear whether the law requires preservation of the embryos. Moreover, the complaint argues, Kentucky’s abortion law “does not impose clear standards, rules, or regulations regarding the potential experiences of potential birth givers with regards to their access to reproductive technology.”
Regardless of whether the lawsuit succeeds, it raises three critical issues that apply in legal challenges to abortion bans. First, it pulls back the curtain to reveal that judges are acting on a religious, not scientific, view of personhood. The arrogance in assuming that everyone buys into a specific Christian sectarian viewpoint reveals the degree to which right-wing courts and legislatures ignore or disfavor Americans who are not Christian. It’s critical to force politicians, media, pundits, doctors, researchers and ordinary voters to recognize this.
Second, the lawsuit makes clear the negative impact on IVF, which was not in existence when many state abortion bans were passed in the 19th or early 20th century. The current crop of state lawmakers and Supreme Court justices seems willfully oblivious to the implications for such reproductive care. Do they really want to make a commonly used process for procreation effectively impossible?
Finally, it’s not just the Kentucky law that is vague to the point of unintelligibility. Many state statutes use vague, nonmedical terms to put doctors and patients in untenable positions. Should physicians render care to a pregnant woman experiencing a dangerous pregnancy, risking prosecution under the opaque language of a 19th-century law, or should they let the patient’s condition become so acute that she might fit within an exception for preservation of her life? The uncertainty these laws have imposed seems designed to chill the willingness of doctors to provide care, even if it turns out to be legal.
If the Kentucky lawsuit forces state legislators to wrestle with the real harm and chaos these laws have created, then it will be a success." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/09/kentucky-abortion-lawsuit-jewish-religious-freedom/
One part of the dystopia right-wing extremists are creating in the U.S.:
Delete"Support for abortion has never been higher, with more than two-thirds of Americans in favor of retaining Roe, and fifty-seven per cent affirming a woman’s right to abortion for any reason. Even so, there are Republican officials who have made it clear that they will attempt to pass a federal ban on abortion if and when they control both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Anyone who can get pregnant must now face the reality that half of the country is in the hands of legislators who believe that your personhood and autonomy are conditional—who believe that, if you are impregnated by another person, under any circumstance, you have a legal and moral duty to undergo pregnancy, delivery, and, in all likelihood, two decades or more of caregiving, no matter the permanent and potentially devastating consequences for your body, your heart, your mind, your family, your ability to put food on the table, your plans, your aspirations, your life.
. . . The future . . . will not resemble the past before Roe, when women sought out illegal abortions and not infrequently found death. The principal danger now lies elsewhere, and arguably reaches further. We have entered an era not of unsafe abortion but of widespread state surveillance and criminalization—of pregnant women, certainly, but also of doctors and pharmacists and clinic staffers and volunteers and friends and family members, of anyone who comes into meaningful contact with a pregnancy that does not end in a healthy birth. Those who argue that this decision won’t actually change things much—an instinct you’ll find on both sides of the political divide—are blind to the ways in which state-level anti-abortion crusades have already turned pregnancy into punishment, and the ways in which the situation is poised to become much worse.
In the states where abortion has been or will soon be banned, any pregnancy loss past an early cutoff can now potentially be investigated as a crime. Search histories, browsing histories, text messages, location data, payment data, information from period-tracking apps—prosecutors can examine all of it if they believe that the loss of a pregnancy may have been deliberate. Even if prosecutors fail to prove that an abortion took place, those who are investigated will be punished by the process, liable for whatever might be found.
Five years ago, Latice Fisher, a Black mother of three from Mississippi, who made eleven dollars an hour as a police-radio operator, experienced a stillbirth, at roughly thirty-six weeks, at home. When questioned, she acknowledged that she didn’t want more kids and couldn’t afford to take care of more kids. She surrendered her phone to investigators, who scraped it for search data and found search terms regarding mifepristone and misoprostol, i.e., abortion pills. ...There was no evidence that Latice Fisher took an abortion pill. She maintained that she had experienced a stillbirth—an occurrence in one out of every hundred and sixty pregnancies in the U.S. Nonetheless, she was charged with second-degree murder and held for several weeks on a hundred-thousand-dollar bond. The district attorney, Scott Colom, had campaigned as a progressive reformer; advocates pushed him to drop the murder charge, and to provide a new grand jury with information about an antiquated, unreliable “float test” that had been used as a basis for the allegation that Fisher’s baby was born alive. The grand jury declined to indict Fisher again; the ordeal took more than three years."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse?fbclid=IwAR0FlDy1W_QLYEQHp4v8z7PLlEBqW5QAyop_B0lU535hJ-SoANAY10AHc9c
We don’t have laws permitting one religious group to legally kill others based on religion.
Deleteit's a religious belief that abortion is the same as "kill[ing] others."
DeleteAny ideas on how a newborn infant is less “dependent” upon its mother, in any realistic way, simply by having taken a breath of air? Or a five-year-old for that matter?
DeleteThat asininity wouldn’t apply to a puppy or a kitten, let alone a human being.
Human being being the point.
We're all dependent on each other. Thats why it's "The United Sates of America", and not "The Republic of Everyone for Themself".
DeleteWord.
DeleteCecelia has no time for the sophistry of the pro abortion arguments. At some point Democrats will have to face the fact of what they stand for without relying on contortions of language and logic.
DeleteDeep down a few of them must feel like some citizens of Nazi Germany who benefited from the mass killing and relied on a constant diet of self-inflicted propaganda to keep their nagging conscience and reason at bay.
Jews weren't really human and even if they were they weren't as valuable and were actually a threat. Same mindset different year.
And don't even get you started about how Democrats want black people to have political representation.
DeleteHoly shit don't look at the polls. It's getting worse.
ReplyDelete