TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2023
Back in 2021, his comments were even stranger: Days earlier, his son had been killed in the Lewiston mass shooting event.
As we noted yesterday, he himself was an elected official in nearby Auburn, Maine. For us, his comments to CNN's Poppy Harloe struck us as highly enlightened, in several different ways:
HARLOW (10/27/23): I'm struck by your remarks yesterday that you do not harbor hate or anger for the man who took your son's life. And I wonder how that's possible despite your grief.
AUBURN RESIDENT: Uh, you have to put that part of it—you have to put it out of your mind. You have to let the Lord do whatever needs to be done. And if this person was, at the time, in his right mind, I believe he would have been a loving person just like we are. There's something that went wrong.
And I just can't hate him. I believe in the Lord and I think the Lord will prevail in the end here. And I guess we can make our choices on people but I can't—I can't hate this person. I've been taught different than that—I hope, anyways. And I believe in the Lord and I have to feel that way.
"You can't run around this world hating people," the Auburn resident said. "If you do, these kind of things will happen more and more."
Continuing, he added this:
AUBURN RESIDENT: And I'm sure this man— Whatever happened to his mind, I'm sure he wasn't born to be a killer. And he's got, I'm sure, a father and a mother that would have never believed this would have happened with him. So all I can say is, I'm sorry that it's happened to all of us, and I'm sorry what may happen to him. And God will prevail.
The killer had started his life as "some mother's darling son." But "there's something that went wrong" in his mind, the Auburn resident said: "If this person was, at the time, in his right mind, I believe he would have been a loving person just like we are."
The Auburn resident said he couldn't hate the person who killed his son. He even said that he "was sorry what may happen to him."
These statements struck us as highly unusual, in several ways which we explained in yesterday's report. We thought of a less than famous song by Hank Williams. We thought of a less than famous statement by Dr. King.
We thought of the way some of the families in Charleston reacted after the mass shooting there back in 2015. But along the way, the Auburn resident also authored an odd remark:
AUBURN RESIDENT: We have—we really have a loving community. We have two cities here—sister cities. They both believe that their city is the best city, and that's the way we are. But we love each other.
We travel back and forth to all businesses. We make plans together. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. And as a city councilor, I know a lot of their feelings and they know a lot of mine. The two cities try to make the cities the proudest place to be.
Diversity, of course, is here and we know that, but we don't go around shooting each other. So you know, I just hope we can move on through this and get it behind us so that we can start healing. And thank God we have you people to keep our loved ones alive for a few more days.
HARLOW: Your son—it is clear that all the good in him came from so much good in you. Thank you for sharing about him with us this morning. And we're here for whatever you need.
"Diversity is here, and we know that, but we don't go around shooting each other?" What in the world could the Auburn resident possibly have meant by that?
As the term is commonly understood, "diversity" issues had nothing to do with the mass shootings in Lewiston. The Auburn resident had inserted his comment about "diversity" for no apparent reason.
We thought we knew what he was talking about, but we weren't entirely sure. And when we conducted a bit of research, we learned that the resident had made an even stranger set of comments back in 2021.
Due to his role as a public official, his earlier comments had produced a bit of a local uproar. Dual headlines included, here's the way a news report began in a local newspaper:
[Auburn resident] apologizes for racist comments
City leaders say they'll form new diversity committee to tackle racial issues in Auburn.
City Councilor [NAME WITHHELD] apologized Friday for racist comments he expressed this week as he discussed a proposal to name a footbridge for former Mayor John Jenkins.
[THE AUBURN RESIDENT] said in a prepared statement that Jenkins was “a good friend of mine for 40 years” and he “meant no disrespect to him or his family.”
[THE AUBURN RESIDENT], who represents the New Auburn-centered Ward 5 and is running unopposed for a sixth term, said he understands his comments at Tuesday’s council meeting “were insensitive and inappropriate.”
“I humbly and sincerely apologize,” [THE AUBURN RESIDENT] said.
If you read the full report, you'll see that the Auburn resident's comments had in fact been rather odd. A reporter for the local Sun Journal had felt secure is describing the comments as "racist."
Indeed, in the aftermath of the resident's comments, Mayor Jason Levesque had "announced his support for creating a permanent Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee in Auburn," the Sun Journal reported. The new committee "would include government, education and community leaders 'who will help guide us through the difficult conversations and changes ahead.' "
We were interested in this part of the Auburn resident's background. On the one hand, he seemed to be expressing a set enlightened views in the wake of his son shotting death—views that led Harlow and co-anchor Phil Mattingly to marvel at his moral elevation.
On the other hand, in the middle of his CNN interview, he had inserted an odd remark about "diversity" in the Lewiston area—an odd remark which had nothing to do with the mass shooting event. Also, there was this incident from two years ago, in which he had made a set of odd remarks which were expressly reported as "racist."
For at least the past fifty years, our struggling blue tribe has looked for ways to understand and describe people who may be like this heartbroken Auburn resident. American political groupings have materially changed as we've struggled with this ongoing challenge.
As a general matter, two of our best-known political figures have adopted different approaches to this longstanding analytical challenge. One of those people is former president Bill Clinton. The other person is his wife, former senator Hillary Clinton.
That said, what was the resident talking about as he spoke to Harlow last week? What kind of "diversity" did he have in mind as he made his peculiar comment?
We're fairly sure we know the answer to that—but what lies in the resident's heart?
Granted, no one's heart will ever be as pure as the hearts which belong to those of us here in our own blue tribe. But should the resident be regarded as a good human being? Or should he be seen as an Other?
Two roads diverged, a long time ago, in an American wood. Generally speaking, the Clintons have tended to split apart and head down divergent paths with respect to the matter at hand.
Which of those paths is wiser? Which is more helpful as a political matter? Those questions strike us as quite important as our badly floundering nation continues to slide toward the sea.
Tomorrow: Diversity in Maine
"We thought of a less than famous song by Hank Williams. We thought of a less than famous statement by Dr. King."
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby think either of these are not known to the public? Hank Williams was the most successful country music star in the early 1950s. His songs are standards. MLK's speeches are well known to liberals and to those of us who grew up when he was active in civil rights. They are both important parts of American culture and history -- or does Somerby assume that history is already being successfully suppressed? There is nothing obscure about either man.
Kevin Drum looks at the prevalence of woke studies.
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-ethnic-gender-and-cultural-studies-at-the-university-level/
He also calls them "loud and kinda nuts," without evidence of any kind, which I think is kinda stupid and unfair to people who are working to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about minority and marginalized people in our society.
DeleteDrum is a right winger, he is fairly open about his political stance and in this way differs from Somerby, but they are both driven by similar bitterness borne from a once promising but now dying attempt at being pertinent.
DeleteSomerby is doubling down on calling liberals nutty for being interested in gender and identity studies, judging by his other essay today.
DeletePffff slippery slope, what’s next, non binary cats?
DeleteDrum isn’t bitter.
Delete"As a general matter, two of our best-known political figures have adopted different approaches to this longstanding analytical challenge. One of those people is former president Bill Clinton. The other person is his wife, former senator Hillary Clinton."
ReplyDeleteHillary made comments about Trump's supporters being deplorable and requiring deprogramming in order to change their views, but that doesn't characterize her entire attitude toward the South or toward Republicans (more than half are people she does not characterize as deplorable). Nor does Bill Clinton's attitude as a teenager toward Pentecostals in rural Arkansas fully characterize his attitude toward Southerners and toward Republicans either. Picking these isolated incidents and generalizing them to broader attitudes toward large groups of people strikes me as inappropriate and also sloppy thinking on Somerby's part.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are religious people and that faith has sustained their world view more than political considerations. It is how Hillary can remain a positive, happy person despite her treatment by both Republican opponents and Bernie-style progressives when she ran for President. It is how Bill can remain positive and invested in improving conditions for disadvantaged people worldwide through his Global Initiative, instead of being bitter about his treatment during the Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater and other previous efforts to target and smear him by Republicans.
Somerby misses what is most important about the Clintons because he grabs one or two incidents out a lifetime and uses them for his own purposes, to support his own talking points. That is unfair to the Clintons and it is no way to present arguments -- it is misleading and results in the same kind of disinformation that Republicans use for their political purposes.
The Clintons are the least divergent couple under the public eye. They are on the same page with their efforts both during their political careers and afterwards. Somerby's attempt to portray them as otherwise is all on Somerby, in his imagination, not the reality of their partnership and marriage.
Somerby's attempt to portray them as different is his own fantasy and not the reality they have lived.
The difference is that the deplorables earned their name from their behavior as MAGAs. Blacks are being characterized based on a stereotype linked to their skin color. It is not any form of discrimination or bias to accurately characterize people based on what they say and do.
Delete@1:01 Where is your data showing that half of Trump supporters are deplorable bigots? You have none. A general criticism of a group without evidentiary support is stereotyping and prejudice.
DeleteYou have no idea what the words stereotyping and prejudice mean, David.
DeleteI think they are all deplorable bigots. I think Hillary was being kind when she underestimated the number of deplorables among Trump supporters.
DeleteThere are any number of incidents supporting Hillary's remark. I am not going to start posting them because we all know they happen and it would be a waste of my time and everyone else's here. For example, start with those who deny that Trump lost the election, add in the ones who support those who stormed the Capitol building, add in all the ones who cheered when Trump put immigrant children in cages, add in the ones who beat up journalists and libs at Trump rallies, and the ones who forced the Biden campaign bus off the road in Texas, and all the ones who support banning books and anti-gay bills and who supported the Nazis in Charlottesville and the ones who think Trump is a big man for grabbing pussies. There is a lot of deplorableness to go around among the MAGAs.
Hillary was just saying what is obvious to everyone, including a bunch of Republicans who refused to get on board with Trump. Pretending HIllary was just making that up is beneath you David.
You might have a point if anyone were saying that half of Southerners were deplorable, but Hillary specified Trump supporters and that isn't stereotyping because anyone supporting Trump is by definition deplorable because they are condoning the awful things Trump says and does, now including a hell of a lot of criminal behavior.
"that isn't stereotyping because anyone supporting Trump is by definition deplorable"
DeleteClassic.
What would you call supporting a convicted sexual abuser and defamer for president? Trump has 91 felony indictments pending and he has already been convicted of business fraud in NYC. Someone who thinks a guy like Trump is presidential is truly a deplorable voter.
DeleteI do not understand how anyone can think otherwise about this. I have never heard a reasonable or even plausible answer from a Trump supporter about why they support him. That is deplorable too.
Deplorable definition: deserving strong condemnation
I strongly condemn anyone who thinks Trump should be elected president again. I would expect any reasonable person to do the same.
Snide Dogface, but at this point I’d love to see you offer a counter argument.
DeleteI, personally, do not wish to make a case for electing Trump, but I can readily see how someone could do so without being a "deplorable." (E.g., single-issue anti-abortion voters.)
DeleteOr how about those non-deplorables who want "Peace and Prosperity!" Trump's term featured no wars AND wonderful prosperity. Although that prosperity was interrupted by the pandemic, the fiscal stimulus that Trump signed was an extremely good response.
DeleteSo it seems to me that a non-deplorable person could believe that Trump was a good president who should be elected again.
(Please do not confuse this with my personal view.)
Single-issue anti-abortion voters are deplorable.
DeleteBill Clinton had more adultery than King David
DeleteKing David was not even impeached, but he should have been removed. What he did was much worse than Clinton’s follies.
DeleteSomeone who wants peace and prosperity cannot overlook Trump's sexual abuse, his crimes, his theft of classified documents, etc. just to focus on prosperity (and if they were truly interested in that issue, Biden would be their guy).
DeleteEverything is on a spectrum.
DeleteFrom the Pound:
I, personally, do not wish to make a case for electing Hitler, but I can readily see how someone could do so without being a "deplorable."
4:59 - Is a devout Catholic who follows Church teachings on abortion a "deplorable"? And if that's your view, are you an anti-Catholic bigot?
Delete5:30 - Do you really think that Trump is the first president to engage in sexual abuse? Or the first to commit crimes? Who's being naive, Kay? A non-deplorable might overlook such things for the greater good, thinking that if we can have peace and prosperity with a flawed leader, that is much better than war and depression with a sainted one.
DeleteAnd as for Biden being their guy on the economy: Not according to the polls.
But keep your heads in the sand if you want. Reasonable people -- people who might be persuadable -- could believe, right now, that Trump would be the better choice. If you call these people "deplorables," you will never persuade them. And if we don't persuade at least some of them, Biden will lose.
DeleteBut if you want Biden to win, you might think about how to craft an argument that might resonate with some of these persuadable voters.
He is the first president to be convicted of sexual abuse and defamation in a court of law. If you consider what he said and did to be minor, then you are as deplorable as those you defend here.
DeleteIt is ironic that you would use a Godfather reference when Trump is being called a mafia boss by those who worked for him. Overlooking crime for personal gain is pretty deplorable in my book.
The polls do not determine Biden's economic success -- economists and economic indicators do that. Currently, the internet is discussing how Biden's economic numbers can be so good without the public recognizing it.
As has been stated here over and over, liberals do not expect to win in 2024 by converting conservatives, attracting Trump voters. We expect to win by getting out the vote on our side (which outnumbers Trump's supporters), by attracting independents and undecided voters, and motivating our own base. We will not be able to do that by drifting to the right or being nice to Trumpies, as Somerby urges. That's why we do not consider Somerby to be one of us. His suggestions only benefit the right, not our tribe (as he puts it).
DeleteThere are no persuadable voters among Trump supporters.
There are many devout Catholics among Democrats. The difference between them and those on the right is that they do not feel compelled to inflict their own religious views on other people. They recognize the right of others to disagree with them and to practice according to their own faith and beliefs. The religious right is extreme in its desire to govern the personal and private and faith-based behavior of others besides themselves. The left believes in conscience and tolerance, not an authoritarian invasion of privacy.
Delete5:59 - I do not consider what Trump said and did to be minor. I am not defending "deplorables." I feel you must have some difficulties in comprehension.
Delete6:02 - "As has been stated here over and over, liberals do not expect to win in 2024 by converting conservatives, attracting Trump voters."
DeleteIs this some sacred tenet of liberalism? You can't be a liberal if you think that the way to win in 2024 is to persuade at least some of the Others to switch? For some reason, I didn't see that in my "Liberal's Handbook."
If you are not defending deplorables, then perhaps you are defending your own support for Trump. I stand by my statement that anyone who supports Trump is deplorable because there are no good reasons for supporting such a man, and that makes them deplorable voters. I don't really care where you stand on the matter. You don't appear very persuadable yourself.
Delete6:05 - And you've been ordained to speak on behalf of all Catholic Democrats how, exactly?
DeleteDogface, political strategy is not the same as a tenet of any political viewpoint. It refers to the mechanics of winning elections, how best to accomplish that regardless of candidate or party.
DeleteTry listening to the podcast Pod Save America, for example. The guys on that show were Obama's political team and they discuss strategy issues a lot. You don't have to agree with them or like their candidate to learn things about how elections work and how candidates win.
I don't have to speak for ALL Catholic Democrats to be right about most of them. The ones who are not as I've described drift toward the right wing, because of the recent authoritarianism exemplified by the right. It hasn't always been the case, but it sure is now.
Delete6:13 - "Perhaps you are defending your own support for Trump." Of course. Anybody who suggests that maybe we should try to persuade the Others to vote for Biden must be a secret Trump lover. Your reasoning abilities are unparalleled!
DeleteYes, because doing what Somerby suggests hurts Biden and helps Trump.
DeleteLook, we're all liberals. You folks seem to think that turnout will work, and nobody is against motivating the base and persuading independents. But perhaps a few Obama-Trump-type voters might be turned to Biden voters through persuasion. You folks seem to think that's not possible and call these voters "deplorables." I think that's unwise.
DeleteObama was nearly done in by sticking too close to a Mr Nice Guy approach, his numbers always went up when he showed some spine. Guess which approach Bob always preferred. Three guesses……
DeleteLeftists generally do not hate right wingers, nor purposefully or inappropriately stereotype.
DeleteThey accomplish this, in part, by defining terms better than non leftists, including so called “liberals”, by focusing their efforts on systems and institutions, rather than individuals, and by better understanding human nature through behavior science.
Persuasion is not a viable electoral strategy, Somerby and his fanboys supposedly fail to grasp this simple circumstance because by doing so suits their agenda of manufacturing ignorance in order to maintain their preferred hierarchies.
Abortion is not in the Bible. The Bible suggests that life starts at first breath and that a developing fetus in the womb is not a human with rights but merely the personal property of the pregnant person. Up to about 24 weeks, a developing fetus is a non viable, non sentient entity. Most (90+%) abortions occur at the embryo stage, a clump of non viable non sentient cells, essentially the same as the cells you wipe off washing your hands, from which a human could also be created, with modern technology. The Catholic Church’s stance against abortion is nonsensical and no better than all their other oppressive nonsense they have supported, many of which they are now starting to reverse course on. Abortion in recent history was supported by Republicans and even Evangelicals, Roe was decided on by a Republican Supreme Court. Republicans only opposed abortion when they discovered they could weaponize the issue to fight desegregation.
Abortion is a helpful issue to understand that right wingers, of which Republicans are a subset, have no ideology. This is largely why persuasion is a false electoral strategy.
“Persuasion is not a viable electoral strategy.” Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
DeleteNo, it is common wisdom on the left.
DeleteAnd thanks for explaining that I fail to grasp that persuasion is not a viable electoral strategy because this failure suits my agenda of manufacturing ignorance, all in the service of maintaining my preferred hierarchies. I did not realize that.
Delete“No, it is common wisdom on the left.” Shall we take your word for this, or do you have some support for this assertion?
DeleteActually, the more I think about it, the more I think this is a great example of what Somerby is talking about:
Delete“Somerby and his fanboys supposedly fail to grasp this simple circumstance because by doing so suits their agenda of manufacturing ignorance in order to maintain their preferred hierarchies.”
What normal human being talks like this? This is a prime example of a language I call left-gibberish. It is off-putting and pretentious and makes people dislike leftists. We should knock off talking like this we want to win elections.
What liberal prefers right gibberish to left “gibberish”? Nothing you’ve said here since you arrived suggests you are any kind of liberal, and you don’t know things most liberals know. And you almost never discuss topics raised but mainly attack other commenters. That doesn’t add up to you being anything but another fanboy.
Deleteanon 5:38 & 5:59, Trump wasn't "convicted" of "sexual abuse" or 'defamation" or anything else. It was a civil trial, not a criminal one. If a defendant loses a civil case, the defendant is not "convicted" of anything. What happened is that the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff damages.
DeleteBecause he was guilty.
Delete9:20 - If it makes you feel better to pretend I’m a conservative, you’d be wrong, but what do I care? And I’ll pretend you’re sentient and rational.
DeleteEvery last one of them, Dogface George. Every last one of them.
Delete"If it makes you feel better to pretend I’m a conservative, you’d be wrong, but what do I care? And I’ll pretend you’re sentient and rational."
DeleteSeems fair. After all, people call the anti-abortion crowd "pro-life". If you can do that, you can call anyone anything.
"Granted, no one's heart will ever be as pure as the hearts which belong to those of us here in our own blue tribe. But should the resident be regarded as a good human being? Or should he be seen as an Other?"
ReplyDeleteIt might be better if, instead of labeling people as good or bad, Somerby were to focus on the actions and behaviors of people and decide whether those are helpful, productive, kind or whether they are destructive, harmful, unkind. Most people are not wholly good or bad but do good things sometimes and bad things sometimes.
Why is such labeling a bad idea? Because behavior can be changed whereas the essence of a person cannot, by definition. If we call someone bad, then they are in essence bad and they are stuck with that state of being, no matter what they do. Similarly with those we call good.
Somerby wants to call this so-called Resident (who is actually a politician too) a good person who said some bad things in 2021 and said something odd about diversity this year too. He wants us to agree that his statements about forgiveness make him a good guy. But why can't we approve of his current statements while deploring his racist past statements and call him a complex human being, instead of agreeing to call him good?
Racist statements hurt minorities. They are not good behavior, no matter who says them. This Resident's forgiveness largely helps himself go forward after the death of his son, but it is hard for me to see how it helps anyone or anything else. I don't find such forgiveness admirable. I consider it a coping mechanism for those grieving a loss. It wouldn't make me think this man is a good guy because it doesn't offset cruelty to minorities in his past, and it doesn't show a larger enlightened soul, in my opinion. Someone more enlightened wouldn't just forgive mass shooters but would be kind to minorities too, and Somerby never explains why he was not such a person in 2021.
Somerby has a tendency to idealize certain people (Malala, Anne Frank, some of MLK's writings, Thoreau). Making larger-than-life figures out of people living in difficult circumstances strikes me as a foolish endeavor when such people were human beings, like each of us, and if they found a way to be noble or self-sacrificing, or courageous, it is often because they did what they had to do under the circumstances and were glorified in death for other people's purposes, just as Somerby does today with this poor Resident [Name Withheld] who Somerby is using for his own political purposes, to shame the left into going along with the right's crappy agenda (including saying racist things about minorities).
I think you're missing the point. Should the resident (or any Other) be thought of as a Friend, or as an Enemy? I believe Somerby's view is that thinking of Others as Friends will tend to redound to the electoral advantage of liberals.
DeleteI’m not sure political parties need to treat the voters as “friends.” You try to get their votes by persuading them to your cause, positively, by pointing out the virtues of your cause, and negatively, by pointing out the bad ideas on the other side. You treat the voters with respect, but you treat them like adults. If the Republican line is “global warming is a lie from the pit of hell” (Google it if you think I’m making it up), you don’t patronize that kind of thing. You challenge it. Same with “the solution to mass shootings is more guns.” That’s hogwash. I’d love to see a Republican voter vote for a Democrat simply because we say they’re our friend. They are told 24/7 that we are evil, uncivil, how did Somerby put it? “We have bad morals…” etc. I would also note that most Democratic candidates campaign on the idea that they represent all the people, a bipartisan spirit, whereas many Republicans campaign and govern with the explicit view that they do not represent Democrats or liberals.
DeleteBut surely, mh, you can see from the tone of comments here that many, many liberals hate conservatives and think of them all as "deplorables." I think it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to persuade anyone whom we so mightily detest.
DeleteNot all conservatives are deplorables. Hillary made that clear and so have people here. Biden said the same thing in his speech about MAGA. Only the ones who support and enable Trump and MAGA, behaving badly in the process, are deplorables. This is about their behavior.
DeleteAround a year ago people in the guest book came to admit Bob’s purpose was not to examine journalistic malpractice (left or right) but to critique liberals. This was actually kind of a critical admission. The idea that Bob was taking an even handed view of human folly was too silly to prop up any longer.
DeleteIn any event, to once again remind readers on the painfully obvious, the piety of pastor Bob’s sermon today does not examine his own lack of fellowship for the people he despises. He wrote with brutal contempt for Rachel Maddow for using the word “forgery” in connection with the electors scandal. People have now pleaded guilty for that very crime, called that very thing. Yet we know Bob well enough to know a simple apology is about as likely as a lack of sunset this evening.
Whatever. When you ignore your own folly, when you are hell bent on judging both sides the same no matter how far one side has fallen, you end up dragging good people into the slime. That is what Bob is now determined to do to the Clintons.
Again today we ask, are the loved ones of the murdered who DON’T insist on forgiving the murders somehow morally deficient? Bob would seem to rate them lower on the scale of decency than the average idiot who chanted “lock her up. “
And perhaps it should be thrown in: those people who copped to what Bob was doing had no clue about the worthwhile work he once did.
DeleteAnd Dogface, liberals never hated Republicans so much that they tried to take away their rights to win elections fair and square, all in the service of an obvious degenerate.
DeleteMH - you have a point that a large percentage of the "red" tribe is never going to vote for a democrat (and vice versa I would think) - but it might be that calling them or 50% of them 'deplorables" might inspire more of them to vote.
DeleteOr it might make Hillary look like someone who tells it like it is, inspiring Dems to come out and vote.
DeleteBut Biden didn't call them deplorables and he lost the 2020 Presidential general election. (Don't take my word for it. Instead, listen to "the Others").
DeleteHere is the real story about the Moms For Liberty and where they came from, by Peter Greene at Curmuducation:
ReplyDeletehttps://curmudgucation.substack.com/p/the-real-moms-for-liberty-origin?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1116865&post_id=138422808&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=brgvh&utm_medium=email
Interesting, if accurate, but not terribly important. Regardless of where MFL came from, it is what it is. You can support or oppose them based on what they do today.
DeleteHere's a curiosity. AARP is a huge non-profit organization to benefit retired people. It was originally created as a marketing arm of Colonial Penn Insurance Company. Today, AARP is more significant than Colonial Penn. AARP is properly evaluated on what they do now, rather than on their history. Nobody cares about the history.
They prefer M4L as an abbreviation.
DeleteAnd AARP is still selling insurance. I care about their history and that is one reason I don't belong, despite being qualified by age.
I care about the history, David. You have this habit of making these wild declarative statements just pulled right out of your ass as though you think you're proving something.
Delete@1:26 PM - he's also a faithful regurgitator of the DARE-Daily Caller bullet points. Often they intersect with what you politely call wild declarative statements.
DeleteThere was this slaver that came to realize that his enslavement of fellow humans made him look bad to many others, so he arranged to have his slaves freed upon his death.
DeleteThis also “freed” his cult of fans that hero-worshipped him to be unabashed in their gushing exuberance and exultation of his high moral character.
The slaves that had toiled under his ownership of them, and anyone considering the context of his actions, continued to find him horrifying, accurately so.
M4L is an outlet for hate, historically and presently.
Calling a racist remark "odd" is a bit inappropriate on Somerby's part. Renaming racism doesn't make it any less racist.
ReplyDeleteWhen you know you're being racist but you're liberal you're supposed to say "prevent racial tensions"
DeleteYou’re right. Racism isn’t odd at all.
DeleteSomerby is apparently done talking about the need for gun control and has moved on to reviling Hillary while praising an excerpt from Bill Clinton's autobiography in which he says he admires the Pentecostals in Arkansas. I think we should not so quickly dismiss this latest mass shooting and the obvious need for gun control. Steve M at No More Mister Nice Blog agrees:
ReplyDelete"But to the members of the gun community, the danger to democracy is a feature, not a bug. Gun absolutists don't want to live in a society where people who disagree with them -- on guns or on most other issues -- wield enough power to enact laws they don't like. Outside of blue states and big cities, gun absolutists have democracy right where they want it: Large majorities of Americans support tighter restrictions on gun ownership, but the vast majority of white people always vote Republican, so it's next to impossible to tighten gun laws.
Gun absolutists want some citizens to be intimidated. They say they just want criminals to be fearful (as well as the government), but they know that many of the people they detest are unlikely to own guns, and the power inequality is precisely what they're after. They want liberals and LGBTQ people and feminists to feel like second-class citizens. They want the option of intimidating protesters they disagree with, in a potentially deadly version of the hecklers' veto. And, obviously, they want to scare off anyone who might support laws making it harder to obtain and brandish weapons. Hey, what do you think "Try That in a Small Town" was all about? It sure as hell wasn't about democracy or upholding the First Amendment right to protest.
It's possible to imagine a society in which everyone lives the way gunners say they want everyone to live -- every law-abiding citizen across the political spectrum might accept our gun culture as unchangeable and might decide that it's necessary to own weapons, and to wear them in public at all times wherever that's legal. Liberals might reluctantly do this. Feminists and queers might do this. In theory, even gun control advocates might do this, telling themselves that while an extremely armed society is bad, it's clear that we already live in one, and until that changes, it's suicidal to go unarmed.
But the gunners wouldn't like that. They like the advantage they have over the rest of us. They enjoy our fear."
https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-gun-culture-isnt-supposed-to-be.html
You are asking us to keep trying to grease the wheels of power, to give even more money to the gun industry who have a grip on policy. Like an old man with his beard stuck in pencil sharpener, you keep trying to break free only to bring yourself closer to horrible mutilating pain.
DeleteGuns aren't freedom just a commodity fetish.
The comment @1:31 is not proposing that more people have guns. It is about why that is a horrible idea. Slow down and actually read before commenting, @2:32.
DeleteIt's a veiled threat that he wants to carry guns, with the alternative being the "suicidal" notion of "absolutism" either way.
DeleteA hot and bothered liberal trying to appropriate the gun culture. I'm sure he will get a selfie soon on Facebook with Fukuyama and an Uzi.
This is totally ridiculous. Follow the link and go read the entire essay.
DeleteI'll quote the conclusion of the article "it's suicidal to go unarmed."
DeleteYou clearly have not read the article.
DeleteI dropped the microphone and you're upset you didn't get to do it first
DeleteFuck off. That's my microphone drop.
DeleteThat’s not the conclusion of the article, even just from the quoted section this is obvious. The quote “it's suicidal to go unarmed” is the writer imagining what a gun control advocate might say in a hypothetical circumstance.
DeleteThe writer is speaking to the psychology of dominance behind gun ownership.
In the full piece, he likely, or should have, brought up how gun safety laws were first passed in CA by then governor Reagan due to the Black Panthers legally arming themselves in order to fight racial police brutality. Back then, the NRA supported gun safety laws too, and largely for the same racist reason.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Today gun violence is the leading cause of death for American children aged 1-18. Guns also propel the astounding amount of White, mostly male, suicides every year.
Why are Whites so sad?
Most likely because chattel slavery was replaced with wage slavery, which is not comparable but still devastating to the soul, something Whites in the US are not accustomed to processing well. Our knife’s edge existence in America is a tragedy, considering how we are the wealthiest nation in history; when you are privileged with a lot to lose, your skills in handling a loss are likely less developed.
Today the current Arkansas governor is facing potential investigations into accusations of fraud, concealing a (funny enough) just under $20k payment to a friend with whom they had just enjoyed a vacation in Paris with, by the apparent false claim that the money was for a podium. It’d be comical if it were not so corrupt.
Arkansas has come a long way since the Clintons.
The Clintons do not seem to be particularly corrupt, but they are neoliberals, which is bad for society.
They are also retired from politics. Someone forgot to tell Somerby.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:31pm, it’s not surprising that you find that screed deeply “helpful and productive”.
ReplyDeleteMr. Not A Nice Guy blogger might benefit from reading Anonymouse 11:23am, even though the readers here know that she doesn’t mean a word of what she typed.
"...she doesn’t mean a word of what she typed."
DeleteQ. How many Right-wing accusations are really confessions?
A. All of them, Katie.
Imperialist empathy is the feeling of every abusive lover who says his battered wife doesn't understand him when he says it's time for another bruising, some more cuts to government funding for us and increases in militarization abroad.
ReplyDeleteClinton called Jews he met with in New York "strategic businessmen", the New York Times elaborated several years later along with the Tribune that the international order depends on breaking kneecaps on their behalf in the Middle East for hire.
He is, and every politician with his rank is a servant for the big donor meetings, and the love to say they feel is the love of seeing their "big ideas" hypnotize us into singing kumbaya for us while they cash their checks.
You have to fundraise now with what's called a "community " because racism succeeded, segregation forever is the rule. There's no real democracy outside of pockets of privilege like Connecticut and New York in the USA. Nobody poorer than middle class affects policy in a day to day measurable way.
Bill swallowed obediently the lie that Israel never blocked the peace process (Israel stopped returning the phone calls in the middle actually) because he was "told" he had to. What a team player.
The New York times recently repeated its colonial logic, to say that we have to keep killing the stupid brutes because they have this funny idea the land belongs to them and it will mean they will fight to the death. And they know a thing or two about the Backwards Oriental who believe such funny things.
Meanwhile the current LIBERAL American president who warned that public schools could be a "racial jungle" fell entirely for a right wing tabloid story about the blood of Jewish babies on the hand of THE MOOSLIMS.
We can't have that be the story that gets out. Palestinians are missing some dozen hospitals they used to have standing while the fog of war clears. What dumb children they are thinking one of them was not friendly fire! Someone call the good white fathers at the BBC.
The ruling class is not well! They are just popular enough to seem that way. They are exactly as antisemitic as an angry 5 percent Islam rapper with no education but with a spin of positivity. And even that pain can be saved with a Jonah Hill movie.
Once again, you are saying things that make no sense. It is as if you were a bot stringing together pseudo-progressive buzz words and phrases without any regard to meaning.
DeleteOh you think I'm making this up just to sound clever? I can assure you this is not baseless.
Delete"When the rich and middle class disagree, each wins about half the time." The poor don't get a seat.
www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy
The Backward Oriental mind "believes there is a patch of land called “Palestine” (The Atlantic, 2023)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/hamas-isis-war-in-gaza/675786/
Biden and the racial jungle
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-desegregation-would-create-a-racial-jungle-2019-7
Bill Clinton milks the AIPAC cow with fear mongering. Says there is much peace in the future and also much military equipment if we just hold hands.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-speech-to-the-aipac-policy-conference
White House clarifies Biden's claim he saw photos of terrorists beheading children in Israel-Hamas war
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-deliver-remarks-roundtable-jewish-community-leaders-rcna119865
From The Truth About Camp David by Clayton Swisher:
"Saeb Erekat told me what Clinton had told him when the former president was visiting the region in the spring of 2001 and had dinner with Erekat, who asked Clinton why he falsely told the world that Arafat had rejected his parameters. "I was with [Arafat] when he told you 'I accept your parameters with the following reservations and qualifications'!" Erekat exclaimed to Clinton, who sheepishly replied, "I was told if I didn't say this there would not be a peace camp[...] Barak would be over."
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/2006_12.html
Maybe once you stop burning mark Twain books you'll recognize good writing again when you see it
DeleteWe have a new kind of troll, most likely using a chatbot to clutter comments with nonsense, like the one that kept "analyzing" comments for logical fallacies. Hopefully, it will go away soon.
Delete@5:24
DeleteWho died and made you king ?
Now you know how it feels to be the dumb conservative.
If I were using a chatbot then my links wouldn't work. I just write in a style you don't approve of and your totalitarian impulse is to shun the irreverent.
DeleteThey killed Socrates for less. Learn history. Take responsibility for your literacy.
You don't make sense. And you are not Socrates. Stop trolling here. You are wasting people's time.
DeleteWhy would anyone say that a chatbot produces links that don't work? Chat GPT can produce valid links.
DeleteIf you can't see context you will hide from it like it's the devil.
DeleteYou'll hide in your own head, solipsistically. That's a word that means staying with the self.
You're nobody's Pope, brother. They see you lost the argument.
So you have valid sources in from of you that you refuse to read. Interesting approach to history.
DeleteBill Clinton isn't gonna kiss you buddy.
DeleteI'm actually glad that liberals finally are admitting they refuse to read valid sources
DeleteI used to be like you. I got so mad at people for saying America and my leaders were acting bad and corrupted. This wasn't what I was taught. Sure we might bend the rules sometimes when we're fighting the bad guys but you can't just say they like to exploit and lie to us. Our leaders are gods.
DeleteLike you didn't bother reading No More Mister Nice Blog and then wound up attributing views to him that were the opposite of what he was saying?
DeleteYou are a joke.
People who are so critical of the so-called American system that they refuse to work within it, are left out in the cold and cannot participate in making anyone's lives better. They just sit on their hands waiting for a revolution that is not coming, while pretending to self-righteousness that is actually stupidity. That's assuming you are not a troll or bot whose only purpose here is to disrupt conversation among actual people.
DeleteI know a violent fantasy when I see one.
DeleteThe system that leaves people in the cold is bad
DeleteSomeone taught you that obedience and conformity are the only way to do politics and it's bothering you on a deep level that people don't do what you do and vote how you do
Delete"Here's my argument in simple English with sources"
Delete"Hurr durrr vote blue!"
Sorry I didn't know I was interrupting one of your meetings with your online cult
DeleteThe original comment may hold valuable sentiments; however, it is very badly written to the point of being incoherent.
DeleteApologies, no offense intended.
Your compulsive fixation on calling people out as robots is just your own vulnerability turned into an appeal to the hyperreal present moment in political conversation. In other words you a liberal Trump.
DeleteYou have no citations, no evidence, no arguments. Just vulnerable loneliness.
Analysis in politics uses analytical questions or metaphors. I don't have a problem being understood by regular people, only liberal cultists who taught themselves to intentionally drop their IQ 20 points to feel more in tune with the heartland flyover states talking about guns and government cheese and fake interest in grassroots power.
I miss Corby.
ReplyDeleteI am Corby.
Delete