"Everybody can be great," he said!

MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 2024

Our blue tribe sometimes isn't: For our money, the inexplicable moral giant of this nation's history is its sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln.

We track that judgment to his second inaugural address. We regard it as the least explicable moral statement in the history of the nation.

We recall reading that address for the very first time, on the wall of the Lincoln Memorial, back in the 1970s. We were there, on a day-long field trip, with a bunch of Baltimore fifth graders. 

They were a bunch of extremely good kids. We recall how astounded we were when we first read, on the wall of that memorial building, among other things, this part of that astounding address, delivered even as the war continued:

"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. 

Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

For the full text, click here.

As a bunch of fifth graders clattered around us, we recall being astounded that day. 

We also committed this woeful offense, Lincoln had told his victorious side. 

We also committed this woeful offense. If we are forced to shed our blood to the same extent the bondsmen did, no one can say that the judgments of the Lord aren't righteous and true altogether.

We were stunned to think that a human being had ever said such a thing in public. We were something like 27 years old, and we'd never read that address.

Lincoln must have come from Mars, we recall thinking that day. We don't think that Dr. King's astounding ministry is as difficult to explain as are the words that president spoke that day.

Abraham Lincoln came from Mars; Dr. King came from the United States, such as it was at the time. As a child, then as a teen, he had seen the ugly workings of Jim Crow right up close and personal. 

According to his later writings, he was already looking for a way to address what he'd seen when he was still a teenager in college. (He entered college at age 15.) 

At a certain point, he was directed to the philosophy of nonviolent resistance. History proceeds from there.

Shortly before he too lost his life, Dr. King offered the words shown below. We first read the homily on post cards which were being offered for sale at the King Center in Atlanta:

Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve.

You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. 

You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. 

You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve...

Before that homily was done, Dr. King drew a further conclusion about the nature of moral greatness. We're going to leave that out today because of the difficult state of our own blue tribe.

You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve, Dr. King had correctly said. 

He knew that he was leading a movement of people who were, in fact, morally great. Beyond that, he knew that they were morally great even though, in most cases, they hadn't been allowed to become "highly educated."

That hadn't been allowed, but the people to whom Dr. King referred were indeed morally great. They were the actual "greatest generation," or they were one of such groups.

Today, the elites of our own blue tribe are often "highly educated." They're also often deeply flawed, and our tribe may be in the process of paying a very high political price for that obvious fact.

The flaws of our tribe are obvious—to everyone but us. There are several reports in today's New York Times which makes those flaws embarrassingly obvious, though they'll be invisible to us.

Our own blue tribe is deeply flawed. Imaginably, the red tribe could be even worse, though we don't recommend such comparisons. 

Had God willed that our own blue tribe must be punished all over again? We don't see the world that way, but if Lincoln were here today, he might be asking that question.

Everybody can be great, Dr. King said. Due to his family's status, he could have lived a long, relatively easy life. He decided to do something more fundamentally astounding, involving what he often described as "the love ethic of Jesus."

He chose to take a more difficult path. On the whole, is it possible that we are perhaps a bit less insightful today?

Inexplicable fact: By most accounts, President Lincoln had roughly one year of formal schooling. 


227 comments:

  1. "Shortly before he too lost his life, Dr. King offered the words shown below."

    Dr. King did not lose his life. It was taken from him. He was killed by an assassin, a Southern bigot and hater who opposed his work.

    Saying that Dr. King "lost his life" implies that he was careless and misplaced it, or that he lived to a ripe old age but succumbed to disease, or that he was killed in a horrible accident. None of that is true. Dr. King's life was deliberately taken from him by someone who hated Dr. King and his work.

    Language matters. This passive construction that implies Dr King did something to die, is offensive, as is Somerby's odd choice of what to discuss today, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day when we recommit ourselves to continuing his vision for attaining true civil rights for all in our nation, and commemorate the struggle in which others also were killed for their cause.

    That Somerby cannot discuss MLK without being offensive says a lot about his own attitudes toward race and civil rights in general.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 12:10. Any doubt in my mind whether you were a troll. clever but severely demented, who enjoys mocking TDH "fan boys" has once and for all been dispelled by this post. Maybe you're slipping. But faulting the blogger in this bizarre manner over his use of the common phrase "lost his life" - it's obvious that you are joking, weirdly perhaps, and have been right along. Realizing this is comforting, because it was disconcerting that anyone could actually be seriously that ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. 1:31 The notion that weakly attempting to shame the critics of your hero is in any way effective dispels the idea that you might have a coherent or credible counterpoint.

      12:10 makes a good point that so triggered you, all you could muster was nonsensical bluster.

      Delete
    3. anon 1:51the credible counterpoint is that saying that MLK "lost his life" is an utterly innocuous way to refer to the demise of MLK, and anon 12:10 taking offense to it is so absurd, and along with her other constant posts, gives way to the conclusion that she is merely a troll; the alternative, that she is missing some marbles. Out of curiosity, what is the good point that she makes - that saying MLK passed away is insulting? Also TDH is not my "hero,"

      Delete
    4. AC/MA, the exact phrase Somerby used was "lost his life" not "passed away".

      It is a passive sentence construction that removes the responsibility from the white bigot who actively targeted and shot MLK, murdered him. MLK was shot in a hate crime. He did not "pass away" as you put it. And yes, how he died definitely matters, to history and to those of us still fighting injustice.

      MLK was a martyr to his cause, and that is an important part of his legacy that Somerby deliberately, through his choice of words, erases. Or as Somerby might put it, "disappears". Ask yourself why Somerby would disappear the deliberate stalking and killing of the man this day is named for, just because he was pursuing justice for black people in a country where such rights were supposedly already theirs?

      Who benefits from concealing our brutal racial history? Why are Republicans investing so much energy in telling school children that bad things didn't happen to black people back in our early days, if it doesn't really matter whether MLK choked on a peanut or fell off the roof again?

      Nikki Haley couldn't even tell her followers that there was a civil war over slavery. Somerby joins that crew with his malicious choice of words, throughout the essay, to deny, minimize, deflect and ignore what MLK stood for. And that is plenty offensive to me, if not to goofs like you.

      Delete
    5. MLK was unpopular with white moderate liberals of his day, and they killed him too with their intentions if not the deed itself.

      Delete
    6. Better trolling please.

      Delete
    7. In May 1963, only about four-in-ten Americans (41%) had a favorable opinion of King, according to a Gallup survey. Around four-in-ten White adults (41%) had an unfavorable view of King in May 1963.

      " The reaction from the American political establishment — much of it traditionally associated with American liberalism — was swift and harsh. The New York Times editorial board blasted King for linking the war in Vietnam to the struggles of civil rights and poverty alleviation in the United States, saying it was “too facile a connection” and that he was doing a “disservice” to both causes. It concluded that there “are no simple answers to the war in Vietnam or to racial injustice in this country.”

      https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s/

      http://web.archive.org/web/20170118124914/https://theintercept.com/2017/01/16/what-the-santa-clausification-of-martin-luther-king-jr-leaves-out/

      Delete
    8. The modern American liberal is so used to seeing static graphs and words on a page they forgot that history is part of the living organism, that it moved and still moves people, it has movements.

      The Santa Claus version of MLK gave hugs and happy cheer and didn't talk about Vietnam much or make anyone feel upset. There was simply the right side of history and the wrong side of history.

      The reality is MLK was called a radical by the center of the country, that's what a true radical should be to a degree. He walked with the people who were on the right side of history sure, but the privileged classes did not really like him when he was alive. They thought he was more tolerable than Malcolm mostly.

      “We gave him the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we gave him the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we gave him the War on Poverty. What more does he want?” -- President Johnson

      Delete
    9. Stop reciting history or else what, Liberal American patriot? You're gonna excuse another genocide in another country to let off steam?

      The Liberal in America is just a conservative who is happy to have two liberal-conservative business parties to choose from.

      Delete
    10. stop wasting time with trolling

      Delete
    11. I know you not.

      Have I become an enemy by telling you the truth? Galatians 4:16

      Delete
    12. "Here's some history about 1963 political opinion"

      "Get off my comment section the internet belongs to liberals whimper whimper"

      Delete
  2. "They were a bunch of extremely good kids."

    Somerby took a class of Baltimore inner city fifth graders, black kids, to see the Lincoln Memorial. That's an appropriate field trip, a teaching opportunity.

    Why does Somerby have to make those kids larger than life by saying: "They were a bunch of extremely good kids." I suspect they were about the same as any other group of 5th graders, so why does Somerby feel he needs to over-praise them? Is it because this is MLK day, and ALL black people get to be "special" on such a day? If so, Somerby has no clue what today is about. Today's mawkish language applied to children is no better than when he called them beautiful and deserving, before reporting their low NAEP scores and complaining that they were dragging down the national average. It is like when he calls someone good and decent before savaging them over some triviality, such as attending an Ivy league college or being youngish (or female, or black, or holding a Ph.D. or failing to ask exactly the questions Somerby wanted asked, while "wasting time" trying to pin-down an interviewee with "pointless" questions, as Somerby did Welker a few days ago).

    Somerby says of King: "As a child, then as a teen, he had seen the ugly workings of Jim Crow right up close and personal. " Has there ever been such an understatement? Somerby appears to have no fucking idea what it was like to be black and live in the Jim Crow South.

    Romanticizing and idealizing MLK's struggle, during which he was killed by his enemies, is majorly inappropriate when coupled with Somerby's odd belief that civil rights have been won and there is no longer any need to fight racism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Somerby’s odd belief that civil rights have been won and there is no longer any need to fight racism.”

      This assertion is false.

      Delete
    2. You are correct, Somerby’s post-racism stance is untenable.

      Delete
    3. The standardized test system by coincidence keeps calling only a few races the most clever in 5th and 7th grade, and this decides the fate of their later schooling, and you can argue, the racial makeup of the country's neighborhoods/school system interacting.

      A few kind words to the black people really stings the white liberal who is doing his best to forget his parents said the N word a generation ago, and can't pull of genuine well-wishing without projecting his corniness onto his listener.

      Delete
    4. Trump says his first act as President will be to pass a Reparations for Slavery Act.
      Spread the word. Maybe a handful of white liberals will cross the aisle to support Trump, and hell get 5 votes in the general election.

      Delete
  3. "We also committed this woeful offense. If we are forced to shed our blood to the same extent the bondsmen did, no one can say that the judgments of the Lord aren't righteous and true altogether."

    Somerby goes on to say that Lincoln came from Mars (whatever he means by that). I think this sentence plainly means that the North was as guilty as the South for tolerating and compromising with forces supporting slavery. This was the penance for our nation, which permitted slavery right up to the point of the Civil War (which began before Lincoln took office, with the secession of the Confederate states).

    Somerby never explains what he thinks Lincoln meant. I shudder to think what he told those 5th graders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Our own blue tribe is deeply flawed. Imaginably, the red tribe could be even worse, though we don't recommend such comparisons.

    Had God willed that our own blue tribe must be punished all over again? We don't see the world that way, but if Lincoln were here today, he might be asking that question.

    Everybody can be great, Dr. King said. Due to his family's status, he could have lived a long, relatively easy life. He decided to do something more fundamentally astounding, involving what he often described as "the love ethic of Jesus."

    He chose to take a more difficult path. On the whole, is it possible that we are perhaps a bit less insightful today?"

    What kind of long and easy life does Somerby think a black man could have lived in the South under Jim Crow?

    I think Somerby is from Mars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Our own blue tribe is deeply flawed. Imaginably, the red tribe could be even worse, though we don't recommend such comparisons."

      If a person is going to vote in an election between candidates from the red and blue tribes, they will have to make a comparison between them in order to know who best represents their interests. Why is Somerby not recommending that?

      Delete
    2. It's precisely because Bob sees Trump winning again that he's warning the blue tribe to put in work communicating whatever power has been returning to economic /democracy life stories.

      You get one chance at convincing America to vote blue, and yes, Bob is reasonably upset with blue tribe losing to morons. They're outsmarting you over and over again.

      Delete
    3. Over and over again, 11:45? You mean, the way Trump outsmarted Biden in 2020? Or Loeffler and Perdue cruised to victory in Georgia, handing the senate to republicans in a red tsunami? How the republicans managed to hold the house in 2018? Are you delusional?

      And I take it you think he thinks the red tribe are morons, despite his constant protestations to the contrary?

      Delete
    4. The US economy is possibly heading for a downturn and the inflation story in the media is bigger than the news that wages are rising. So people will possibly punish Biden and if not with Trump then someone like him. It's a serious possibility that grandstanding about Biden won't erase. He is losing the youth vote on college debt as well.

      Delete
    5. "thinks" the red tribe are morons?
      When a tribe of people call those who can perform basic mathematics "elites", they're telling on themselves.

      Delete
    6. If Biden opens the border, he'll pick-up the Libertarian vote, and cruise to victory.

      Delete
    7. Those who believe that the elites can perform basic mathematics (aka "white supremacy") are morons.

      Delete

    8. "people call those who can perform basic mathematics "elites""

      Speaking like someone who never heard Joe Biden or Kamala Harris speaking. "Over a billion, million, trillion..."

      Delete
  5. "Inexplicable fact: By most accounts, President Lincoln had roughly one year of formal schooling. "

    The rich children of upper class New Englanders often had 0 years of formal schooling. They were taught by their fathers or by tutors. Then they went to Harvard. Does anyone imagine that they were uneducated because they didn't attend formal schooling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lincoln was an attorney. He prepared for the bar by "reading" the law. He read library books (by legend). Pretending he was uneducated is ludicrous.

      Delete
    2. Let’s not hold the fact that Lincoln was an attorney against him; most lawyers are amoral shysters, but not all.

      Delete
    3. Yes. The vast majority who are give a bad name to those few who aren't.

      Delete
    4. Lincoln was clearly an educated man. Somerby's pretense that he was not is part of his attempt to portray Lincoln as someone he was not, just as he takes this occasion to mislead his readers about MLK Jr.

      Delete
    5. “most lawyers are immoral shysters”

      Go F yourself.

      Delete
    6. A bit touchy! Hit a nerve?

      Delete
    7. Lawyer jokes are unfair and kind of easy. Think about what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did using her law degree. Gandhi was a lawyer. Don’t believe everything you saw on Suits.

      Delete
  6. Yes, I can make 4 large word-salads in 15 minutes.

    Somerby is an ass.

    I am Corby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew Corby. Corby was a friend of mine. You are no Corby.

      Delete
    2. You are Boris, funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar.
      I do not want to be your friend.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    3. Qatar is innocent. My funding comes from Iran, through Russia.

      Delete
  7. Lincoln was a Republican, but he knew that the cause of the Civil War was slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob is a Martian. I am cognitive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “Dr. King did not lose his life. It was taken from him. He was killed by an assassin, a Southern bigot and hater who opposed his work.

    Saying that Dr. King "lost his life" implies that he was careless and misplaced it, or that he lived to a ripe old age but succumbed to disease, or that he was killed in a horrible accident. None of that is true. Dr. King's life was deliberately taken from him by someone who hated Dr. King and his work.”

    Classic! 😂

    ReplyDelete
  10. Somerby’s usual misunderstanding of Lincoln aside, Somerby never quotes one of the most plain spoken and unambiguous rhetoric of Lincoln where he exclaimed that slavery was bad (gee golly, you don’t say!) but that Blacks are inferior to Whites. Oof.

    Maybe he was just trying to win a debate. Whatever.

    The Bible endorses slavery, and those passages were used to defend slavery by those engaged in that horrific activity.

    Lincoln fought a brutal war to end slavery, he appropriately showed no mercy to the racist slavers in the South, and intended no mercy be given to them after the war.

    With chattel slavery in the dustbin of history, Lincoln turned his focus to wage slavery and was promptly shot in the head.

    Reconstruction was nullified by right wingers, leading to racial oppression barely less horrific than slavery.

    MLK jr fought against this racial oppression, and in particular was turning his focus to wage slavery when he was shot and killed.

    Somerby’s “can’t we all just get along” nonsense is pernicious; it permits those tortured and wounded lost souls among us a seat at the table of political decision making, allowing them to enforce unnatural and arbitrary hierarchies that suffocate our society out of its humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Many thanks to Bob - and to all commenters! - for the timely reminders to reread the Second Inaugural today. And of this by Maimonides: "I seek no victory, for the honor of my soul and character consists in deviating from the paths of fools, but not in conquering them."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like this one:
      Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

      Delete
    2. Interesting. However, Lincoln very clearly sought victory against the southern traitors (a word Lincoln used). He was a lofty thinker and moral being, but was also practical. He viewed his task as the preservation of the United States. Can we please not forget that amidst all the lofty but vague sentiments that Bob is spreading around? The mythologizing of Lincoln erases the real person.

      Delete
    3. @2:50 - Good one!

      mh - You are correct, of course, that once at war, Lincoln was determined to win, and could be ruthless. But would you disagree that he sought first to avoid it and then end it well, and that his humility and compassion were, in addition to lofty, supremely focused on a practical result, i.e. life together afterwards?

      Delete
    4. David, Everyone knows Lincoln’s attempts to avoid war, and how the south forced his hand. But when the crisis came, he didn’t dither or wallow in self-recrimination about how the North might really be to blame, etc. When the time came for decisive action, he took sides and took the appropriate action. Somerby implies that there is some sort of offense we as a nation have committed, that possibly ranks with slavery. What is it? And more importantly, to your question, Lincoln had to crush the rebels first, before he would contemplate any reconciliation with them. If that’s the stage we’re in now, then what does Somerby propose?

      Delete
    5. Allowing fools to maintain their path is exactly what ails society.

      Live and let live, in that context, is a path to destruction for all but those that hoard wealth and power.

      Delete
    6. mh - Thank you for your reply, and sorry for the delay in responding. I think you cut to the central issue, although I would not phrase it the same way. This would be my best attempt: a nation is a population united by a common project, but what had served as ours - a white Christian nation taking ownership of the continent while allowing for some upward mobility among the ruling caste - is now dead. We are too ethnically diverse, and lacking in a shared religious identity, to sustain the old order, or endorse a new one. So, no offense, perhaps, but maybe the hangover from the original one, slavery. Republicans seem to be united by a longing for the past certainties, as they now imagine them. I certainly think many of us strive for a better unity. But our political institutions are pretty much zombies. What's new is how media-saturated we are now. This makes propaganda much more effective. It also - and this, I think, occupies Somerby - makes how we talk to and about each other so much more important. I think Somerby's main point is that we are very bad "persuaders" (re: Ananda Giridharades). This is a tactical failure. Our battlefield, just now, is still (partly) discourse. But it is also partly political. I think Lincoln's ruthlessness, in today's circumstances, should inspire us to be much more aggressive in doing things like restructuring SCOTUS, attacking gerrymandering, prosecuting insurrectionism, etc. Here, the old Blue guard (Biden, Pelosi, et al), much as I admire many things about them, is poorly adapted to the current struggle. The fight over power should be uncompromising; but our "talk" should be framed in terms of inclusive values that might persuade those who remain persuadable. This is still a bit lofty and vague, but I've gone on too long already.

      Delete
    7. Have you ever tried to talk a Trump supporter out of anything they believe?

      Delete
    8. “Somerby implies there is some sort of offense we as a nation have committed, that possibly ranks with slavery.”

      No. Instead, he says, again and again, that the fatal flaw is a failure to listen and persuade - e.g., silos.

      Delete
    9. Just because he’s said that before (among other things) doesn’t mean that’s what he is saying today. He really should be clearer.

      Delete
    10. @6:40 - I don't recall seeing anyone talked out of anything they believe. I think I've seen some people persuaded to give some credence to something someone else believes. Not so much changing their beliefs, as shifting their attention.

      Delete
    11. So, @pied piper, Somerby just brings in Lincoln and MLK just for the hell of it? How does Lincoln’s response to southern secession show his ability to listen to the other side? Instead, it showed his determination NOT to listen to them anymore. How did MLK “listen” to the bigots of his day? Surprise! He didn’t. He worked to change their minds.

      Delete
    12. More David Stein please.

      Delete
  12. Anonymouse 1:44pm, scripture doesn’t endorse slavery, it gives on the ground instruction on how to follow in the steps of Jesus while in that horrible condition. The Bible is not a political tract.

    Absolutists were pious and actively opposed slavery. They were not liberals in the sense of the meaning today.

    If Anonymices can’t abstain from haranguing Bob over a poignant essay on MLK Day, at least you could refrain from making everything a cartoon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poignant? Lol.

      Delete
    2. Here’s a little nugget, showing the Lord’s moral character:

      “However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. “

      —Deuteronomy 20:16

      Delete
    3. You are simply ignorant of what the Bible says of slavery; it’s uncontroversial that the Bible plainly endorses slavery, this is not debated even among theological scholars.

      Most Jews and Christians do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible. As religiosity has been declining over the past centuries, society has been able to progress.

      Putting blinders on to obfuscate Somerby’s obvious agenda in order to suggest he was merely offering a poignant essay is the height of naïveté, being charitable.

      Delete
    4. You mean Abolitionists, not Absolutists. They came in different flavors but no one was calling them blue tribers. There were two versions of Republicans and two versions of Democrats depending on attitude toward slavery. Somerby should know that if he was teaching kids in 5th grade.

      Delete
    5. 2:32 - Actually, literal interpretation is modern. And what do you understand as "Somerby's obvious agenda"?

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 2:23pm, try to actually ponder this.

      “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"’


      “Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

      Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."’

      Delete
    7. Yes, Cecelia. Lincoln was quite clever. He used the Lord to justify the war. He knew his audience.

      Clearly, the genocide the lord commanded so that the israelites could take their land in that quoted passage is an excellent precedent for justifying such atrocities by attributing them to god’s command. It’s sick.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 3:42pm, the Civil War freed the slaves. Lincoln launched a war that ended slavery. Was that bad?

      We have had wars since the Israelites took their land. Since Stalin sent WWII vets to gulags, and since concentration camps were ended in Germany.

      We don’t need God’s assistance to be up to our scalps in blood.

      If you can’t credit God as a creator of marvels, you can’t blame the fact of war on the mere idea someone holds of his existence.

      You can look in the mirror and point your finger at that reflection.

      Delete
    9. I haven't started any wars lately and I doubt mh has either. Who specifically are you talking to?

      Delete
    10. But I CAN point the finger at people who use “god” to justify atrocities.

      The Union cause was the right one, the confederacy were wrong and they were traitors, and I don’t need the Bible to tell me that.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 4:06pm, everyone.

      Delete
    12. I believe Lincoln was a great man, but I believe he was great because he did the right thing by opposing the south. Had he appeased them, his words about reconciliation would have been a mockery, not to mention his claim to oppose slavery.

      Delete
    13. Hmm. Why are you libs so happy about the South taken back into the US? It seems weird. Crazy.

      Wouldn't you prefer to have a more liberal country? Free abortions for all, no guns, mandatory masks and COVID boosters every week, and all that.

      What a beautiful dream.

      Delete
    14. Cecelia and David Stein, unlike other commenters, you write oblique comments that do not parse well other than to convey some reactionary position in response to other commenters. Essentially all you Somerby fanboys do is muddy the water with largely incoherent ramblings. We’d all like to help you reach some level of edification, but your work is not good enough, please aspire to do better.

      Delete
    15. No electoral college! No senators from small states! All-minority Supreme Court! Trillions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine! Unlimited immigration! Total diversity everywhere! Totally defunded police!

      Just think of all the great things you can't have now, because of that railroad lawyer.

      Delete
    16. There are red and blue voters in all states. The idea of secession is not realistic because people with differing views are already intermixed, as they were in Civil War times too. If the South simply wanted to live its lifestyle unhampered, why did it fire on Ft Sumter? The North was concerned about the US becoming ALL slave if it were left half-slave with an undeclared Western territory that could become slave in the future. Today, if the blue states were left to do things the conservatives abhor (such as have abortions), might not the red states feel they had to wipe out the blue ones or else they might be infected with blue practices? That is how the North felt on the eve of the Civil War. The choice they viewed was become an all-slave nation or wipe out slavery in the South (Confederacy).

      Given the behavior of Trump and his supporters, I would not trust a divorced red nation to not attack a blue nation after seccession. Further, most economists do not believe a red nation would be economically viable, which would lead to the red nation attacking the blue for its resources and to gain territory to sustain itself (as motivated past wars in Europe and elsewhere).

      So these proposals and the enthusiasm for forming new red states strikes me as ignorant and unrealistic. It is also threatening to the rest of us, much the way Trump's talk about being a dictator is threatening. But dream on.

      Delete
    17. Lincoln never got a chance to enact his goals for reunifying the country. You can thank John Wilkes Booth for starting the Southern resistance, I guess.

      Delete
    18. Woe to Booth boiling in that lake of fire; perhaps when Trump belly flops in, Booth will be ejected. Not likely, but hope can’t hurt.

      Delete
    19. @5:06 - With all due respect, I think your comment puts you squarely on our team. And, I would suggest "reactive," rather than "reactionary," if only to edify.

      Delete
    20. No respect required as I am not a snowflake right winger.

      It is obvious from your response that you well understand my points, therefore I am not on your team.

      Reactionary is the correct word, historically dating back to the French Revolution.

      I would note that my expressions are genuine and in good faith, unlike your obnoxious smugness. Considering that circumstance, your stance on persuasion is rather odd.

      Delete
    21. @6:59 - I apologize for being obnoxious.

      Delete
  13. What is the present-day offense that we as a nation, liberals included, have committed, to be added to the list of offenses Lincoln mentioned? Is it Trump and Trumpism? Somerby isn’t clear.

    What is the punishment that the blue tribe must suffer? Losing the presidency? Losing the senate? That’s happened a number of times since 1994, when the Democrats lost the house and senate big time under during the Clinton presidency. It seems rather crass to compare present day electoral politics with great moral issues such as slavery and civil rights…

    It may be true to say that Lincoln felt that slavery was an offense that drew god’s wrath against the US, and the United States as a whole was guilty of this offense.

    What was Lincoln’s response? Brooding about it? Hand wringing while meekly taking responsibility?

    Well, let’s examine his response: he condemned the South and vowed to crush it militarily.

    So, if liberals should act as Lincoln did, they must condemn the republicans and crush them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, in the name of Lincoln, condemn and crush the republicans?

      And I thought I've seen everything here.

      Delete
    2. That was Lincoln’s response to the south. So, we should follow in his footsteps. He didn’t meekly sit by and have a talk with them.

      He was the moral giant of this nation. What do you think Somerby’s word salad means, 2:24?

      Delete
    3. Bob is sweet, talks about "moral greatness".

      Politics is dirty, always. It's shit. If something good can be built from it, it has to be built from dirt and shit.

      Delete
    4. Politics used to be about achieving compromise to govern our nation for the common good. Now Republicans think it is only about power. Trump taught them that (with help from Russia).

      Delete
    5. Yes, because the parties have reversed. Today’s Republicans are the successors of the rebels.

      Delete
    6. @3:04 PM
      Liberal lunacy is convoluted.

      In fact, arguably, the parties remained the same. One advocates a market economy, the other a paternalistic one.

      Delete
    7. Today's Republicans are the comfortable upper class who don't have to worry about standing while the white folks ride, the protectors of the rich and powerful and the status quo (and lowering taxes), just like the Democrats protected property rights in the mid-1860s by expanding slavery.

      "In 1854, the Republican Party emerged to combat the expansion of slavery into American territories after the passing of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The early Republican Party consisted of northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and after the Civil War, former black slaves."

      Delete
    8. @3:27 PM "Today's Republicans are the comfortable upper class"

      It's exactly the opposite.
      Today's Republicans are mostly the working people.
      And today's Democrats are educated, comfortable professional-managerial tribe in coalition with the underclass that they bribe.

      Delete
    9. 3:39 would you like to back that up with data?

      Delete
    10. Income distribution
      Republican/lean Rep. versus Democrat/lean Dem.

      Less than $30,000 R: 27% D: 50%
      $30,000-$49,999 R: 39% D: 46%
      $50,000-$99,999 R: 45% D: 43%
      $100,000 or more R: 47% D: 44%

      Democrats have higher %s in the two lowest income categories whereas Republicans have higher %s in the two highest income categories.

      This suggests that @3:39 is wrong when he says that Republicans are mostly working people while Democrats are professional-managerial "tribe" in coalition with an underclass. There are higher numbers of Republicans at the salary levels held by professional-managerial class people. If he is saying that Republicans don't "bribe" the underclass, that may be true, but providing help for working class people isn't "bribing" them but part of helping people find jobs, having a stable economy, and so on. And we could say that the right bribes higher income people by giving them tax breaks.

      Delete
    11. Why? I know it and you know it. It's common knowledge.

      Delete
    12. "Democrats have higher %s in the two lowest income categories"

      Yes. Like I said, they bribe the underclass. Working people are not in the lowest income categories.

      Delete
    13. Yes. Like I said, the right bribes the upper classes with tax breaks and deregulation (the first two things Trump did in office). Working people ARE in the two lowest categories. They are certainly not in the 100,000+ category where the Republicans have the largest representation (47%). In the working class category, Democrats outnumber Republicans too, 39% (R) to 46% (D).

      Math is hard and Republicans don't seem to be very good at it, except the rich ones who know which side of their bread the Republicans have buttered for them.

      Delete
    14. mh - Somerby doesn't suggest there are present-day offenses that we as a nation, liberals included, have committed that should be added to the list of offenses Lincoln mentioned.

      Delete
    15. It's common knowledge, 4:01 PM.

      Type democrats lost the working class, and you'll get millions of recent hits, including the Atlantic, WaPo, msn, newsweek, etc.

      Some, I'm sure, with stats, charts, and all you need.

      These days, Democrats are farther to the right than the Republicans.

      Delete
    16. "What is the punishment that the blue tribe must suffer?"

      Losing again to Trump.

      Delete
    17. " It seems rather crass to compare present day electoral politics with great moral issues such as slavery and civil rights…"

      The critique appears to be more about a perceived moral complacency or blindness in contemporary society, rather than an accusation of a specific offense on the scale of those discussed by Lincoln.

      Delete
    18. Then Waylon, why bring up Lincoln’s talk about offenses, and imagine, as Somerby does, that Lincoln would wonder if god would punish present day liberals?

      Delete
    19. "Nine of the top 10 wealthiest congressional districts are represented by Democrats, while Republicans now represent most of the poorer half of the country, according to median income data provided by Rep. Marcy Kaptur's (D-Ohio) office.

      Why it matters: The last several decades have ushered in a dramatic political realignment, as the GOP has broadened its appeal to a more diverse working class and Democrats have become the party of wealthier, more-educated voters."

      https://www.axios.com/2023/04/17/poll-americans-independent-republican-democrat

      Delete
    20. "Then Waylon, why bring up Lincoln’s talk about offenses, and imagine, as Somerby does, that Lincoln would wonder if god would punish present day liberals?"

      To suggest contemporary society needs to engage in similar deep moral reflection and self-examination that Lincoln did at that time. And to invoke the shared accountability for societal and political issues in modern times as Lincoln did in his second inaugural address.

      Delete
    21. Republicans tend to represent rural areas, which tend to be poorer than urban areas. Looking at congressional districts instead of the income of registered voters, by party, distorts the picture of who votes Republican in our country.

      Delete
    22. Just because the right wing commenter is dumb as shit doesn’t mean the rest of us are. Duh.

      Republicans only support policies that empower the wealthy; Dems support policies that empower a much broader base. Cutting taxes for the rich and deregulating corporations so they can pollute and exploit workers is vastly different than providing health care as a universal human right and supporting labor unions.

      If you got suckered into thinking otherwise, that’s on you, you got conned.

      Delete
    23. Why don't Republicans reflect on the moral behavior of Trump and feel distaste for what he has done? Lincoln would have no trouble recognizing the moral high ground. But we have not tolerated or abetted Trump in the way our nation tolerated and appeased slaveholders. So why must we be punished more than already occurred when God inflicted covid on us?

      Delete
    24. I was unclear -- "we" refers to blue tribe members.

      Delete
    25. 3:14 -- actually the antebellum Democrats wanted free trade so they could sell their cotton on the world market. They hated tariffs.

      Delete
    26. Somerby suggests there's a collective failure of liberals to recognize their own flaws. And that this lack of introspection of shared faults could be leading to negative political consequences like Trump's reelection.

      He does this by comparing some of our country's greatest moral leaders introspection of shared faults: "we also committed this woeful offense" and their moral success with the lack of such introspection on the part of the elite left which has led to a situation where Trump may be reelected.

      Delete
    27. Problems with this idea:
      (1) Liberals do introspect and they are constantly accusing each other of flaws.
      (2) There is no evidence failure to introspect has led to Trump's election (Comey's October attack on Hillary did that).
      (3) Liberals did no more introspection in 2019-2020 and Trump did even worse at the polls (not better).
      (4) Aside from polls with low scores for Biden, there is no evidence Trump will win this year either. Only MAGAs support him any more.
      (5) Liberals did nothing to make Biden old, which seems to be his main problem in polling. How could introspection make Biden younger?
      (6) Given the diversity of views among liberals, it is difficult to see how "shared flaws" or "collective failure" could be causing liberals problems -- lack of cohesion seems a more likely problem.
      (7) There does not appear to be any "moral leader" telling liberals to repent, who is not being heeded. If Somerby is referring RFK Jr. or Joe Lieberman and the No Labels crowd, he is clearly on the wrong track.

      Delete
    28. Somerby’s claim that the blue tribe is responsible for the red tribe is not supported by evidence; it’s nothing more than petulance on Somerby’s part.

      Furthermore, Somerby is misinterpreting Lincoln’s speech, which, as others have noted, is not an “introspection of shared faults”.

      We know from behavioral science that the circumstances that led to Trump have to do with broader issues like surplus, commodification, and hierarchy - the very things the blue tribe works to diminish.

      Delete
    29. I wasn't making a comment as to whether there were problems with the idea or not, I was just trying to help mh understand what the idea was.

      Delete
    30. mh understands the idea, he is approaching a debunk of the idea via his question, mh’s idea being that in answering his question one might then see the obvious flaw of Somerby’s idea.

      Delete
    31. I see. I didn't understand that. Thanks,

      Delete
    32. There is no way Trump could get away with providing HUGE tax breaks to the rich.
      After all, the mainstream media, who would never lie to the public in exchange for corporate tax breaks (LOL), told me Republican voters are "economically anxious"---and not at all just a shit pile of bigots they seem to be.

      Delete
  14. King goes on, in that speech, to give examples of what he meant by “greatness.” When you choose not to look at that, it can mean just about whatever you want it to mean.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Somerby is such an asshole. Here is an anecdote from Wikipedia about King's easy life under Jim Crow:

    "King became friends with a white boy whose father owned a business across the street from his home.[31] In September 1935, when the boys were about six years old, they started school.[31][32] King had to attend a school for black children, Yonge Street Elementary School,[31][33] while his playmate went to a separate school for white children only.[31][33] Soon afterwards, the parents of the white boy stopped allowing King to play with their son, stating to him, "we are white, and you are colored".[31][34] When King relayed this to his parents, they discussed with him the history of slavery and racism in America,[31][35] which King would later state made him "determined to hate every white person".[31] His parents instructed him that it was his Christian duty to love everyone.[35]"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 3:02, TDH is "such an a**hole" real classy aren't you.

      Delete
    2. Is Somerby exempt from the consequences of his words? Today, he has maligned someone I admire by using the man's life (taken from him too young) for his own purposes -- to attack the so-called blue tribe for vague unspecified crimes that he equates with the Civil War and slavery. That's the kind of thing a bonafide asshole writes.

      Delete
    3. I suspect Somerby knows very little about his so-called heroes outside of the one or two quotes he keeps coming back to.

      Delete
    4. Why would anyone aspire to be "classy" when Somerby keeps disparaging elites of all kinds?

      Delete
    5. In this case with this commenter, “classy” means showing appropriate servility (as opposed to civility) to your masters.

      In reality, it is indeed classy to show Somerby the folly of his notions so he can progress towards something better.

      Delete
  16. MLK's goal was race-neutrality. He wanted the content of one's character to matter, not one's race.

    DEI opposes MLK by making race central to one's identity. Opposing MLK means that DEI is racist IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re not always wrong.

      Delete
    2. Nor is he often right. It’s always feel-good oversimplification with David.

      Delete
    3. MLK thought that character was not based on skin color, but that doesn't mean he wanted "race neutrality". He was part of a thriving black culture that no one in the civil rights movement wanted to see dismantled in order to end Jim Crow and gain equal rights with white people. We all grow up in a culture and family that is dear to us and represents home, inclusion, our people. The cost of freedom is not to abandon one's family, as David suggests. Inclusion means accepting those who are different. It refers to tolerance. If the right is truly calling for everyone to be identical, to eliminate all sources of difference (as Somerby has hinted previously), then I think they should start with their own traditions, to set an example. I don't see that happening anywhere on the right.

      Delete
    4. MLK did not lose his life.
      What an asshole Somerby is.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    5. Shouldn’t Somerby express sympathy for John Wilkes Booth (who lost his life, after finding Lincoln’s) and James Earl Ray (who lost his life, but not by it being taken)? They were “others”, and maybe their mothers were distant or their fathers were cold.

      Delete
    6. If the cause of MLK's death were unknown to a segment of Bob's readers, then the complaint about the words "lost his life" might be valid. But, since we all know MLK was assassinated, I see no problem with Bob's phrase.

      Delete
    7. Why is it OK for Somerby to be mealy mouthed about the FACT that MLK was assassinated by a white bigot, when Somerby has been minimizing racism and excusing such bigotry here on a regular basis?

      Isn't it fair to say that when Nikki Haley doesn't know slavery caused the civil war, that some readers here (especially on the right) might not know that MLK was killed by white bigotry? Cecelia appears to think that those opposing slavery were called "Absolutists" inatead of "Abolitionists". I think we still need to remind people today about what actually happened during our brutal racial history, not just pretend it is over and all is better now, so no more need for civil rights activism or affirmative action.

      Delete
    8. They absolutely wanted to abolish slavery, and they were absolutely right.

      Delete
    9. To be fair to Nikki Haley, she did have some Black friends, or at least claims to.

      Delete
    10. Her friends have nothing to do with her ignorance about the cause of the Civil War.

      Delete
    11. Agree, I was humorously noting that Haley made the classic racist move of claiming to have Black friends.

      The cause of the Civil War was slavery, of course.

      Delete
    12. Before the civil war there was uprisings on George Washington's slave colony and there were uprisings in John Brown. It was a group effort to resist slavery and not just Lincoln.

      Delete
    13. 6:18 It is unlikely that she is ignorant about the cause of the Civil War. It is highly likely that she does not have the moral fiber to state it publicly.

      Delete
    14. @Unamused
      But isn't it also possible that there may be different opinions on the cause of the Civil War? After all, Lincoln himself said that all he wanted was to own the Southern states; with or without slavery.

      Or is "slavery is the cause of the Civil War" a holy mantra to be repeated without any reflection of any kind?

      Delete
    15. 6:47,
      That would make sense in the same way that there must be a Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy.

      Hang tight. One of our TDH regulators stopped posting on TDH just 19 months ago, to search for that Republican voter, and will report back to us as soon as he finds them.

      Delete
    16. You may want to hire a lawyer and evict all those Republican voters living inside you ailing head, buddy.

      Delete
  17. Somerby seems to think that if you have a certain social standing or prosperity in the Black South, you are exempt from Jim Crow. Here is another anecdote about MLK Jr.'s comfortable and easy life as a black person:

    "King witnessed his father stand up against segregation and discrimination.[36] Once, when stopped by a police officer who referred to King Sr. as "boy", King's father responded sharply that King was a boy but he was a man.[36] When King's father took him into a shoe store in downtown Atlanta, the clerk told them they needed to sit in the back.[37] King's father refused, stating "we'll either buy shoes sitting here or we won't buy any shoes at all", before leaving the store with King.[14] He told King afterward, "I don't care how long I have to live with this system, I will never accept it."[14] In 1936, King's father led hundreds of African Americans in a civil rights march to the city hall in Atlanta, to protest voting rights discrimination.[26] King later remarked that King Sr. was "a real father" to him.[38]"

    Perhaps Somerby does not care about indignities to the soul experienced by black people routinely, at the hands of white neighbors, and perhaps Somerby would just turn the other cheek and go on about his life, but how might it feel to be a respected minister with a large black congregation (of thousands) and yet be treated like scum by a shoe clerk?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Make cash on-line from home further money quite $18000 to $21000. begin obtaining paid each month op Thousands greenbacks online. I actually have received $26000 in this month by just operating online from range in my half time. one and all simply try this job by.

    just Open This Website…..> Www.Smartcareer1.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hello friend again. i click site and i think i can do work it. i have question of it. i can make it 20000 in green back for 2 month? thx

      Delete
  19. Somerby says that King could have led a comfortable life under Jim Crow but instead chose to oppose it. How comfortable would this experience have been:

    "On April 13, 1944, in his junior year, King gave his first public speech during an oratorical contest.[61][57][62][63] In his speech he stated, "black America still wears chains. The finest negro is at the mercy of the meanest white man."[64][61] King was selected as the winner of the contest.[61][57] On the ride home to Atlanta by bus, he and his teacher were ordered by the driver to stand so that white passengers could sit.[57][65] The driver of the bus called King a "black son-of-a-bitch".[57] King initially refused but complied after his teacher told him that he would be breaking the law if he did not.[65] As all the seats were occupied, he and his teacher were forced to stand the rest of the way to Atlanta.[57] Later King wrote of the incident: "That night will never leave my memory. It was the angriest I have ever been in my life."[65]" Wikipedia

    Clearly, King's experiences living with Jim Crow led to his becoming an activist (following his father's lead and that of others in his community who were also protesting and marching against injustice). MLK did not invent the civil rights movement, but his early experiences, not his religious beliefs and NOT his exposure to Gandhi, led to his own attempts to change Jim Crow. Gandhi taught him methods for rebelling but he did not have to teach MLK Jr. to oppose Jim Crow, as Somerby always claims.

    Black people are touchy about the idea that white men had to rescue black people from injustice. Somerby presents Gandhi as another white saviour who led American blacks, not just his own people, out of subjugation through passive resistance. Never mind that Gandhi himself learned those techniques while in South Africa. MLK should be praised for his effectiveness as a leader, not for his passive love of the white man despite the indignities of being second class citizens in a land where they were freed 100 years before that.

    Like I said, Somerby has NO CLUE what civil rights are about. That is unsurprising given his indoctrination into all things Southern while hanging out with good ole boys at Harvard (Tommy Lee and Al Jr.). For white upper class kids in the 60s in Boston, rebellion against parents seems to have taken an odd path in Somerby's case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gandhi was white? Not in South Africa.

      Delete
    2. Anecdote: my freshman year of high school in the 80s in South Carolina I had to ride the one bus to school that was majority Black (due to segregated neighborhoods), there were about 5 of us White kids, and the Black kids made us all stand in the back. I didn’t mind because I was familiar with racial oppression and the Civil Rights Movement, plus the music from the kids with boomboxes was better and the general atmosphere was one of joviality. The parents of the other White kids complained and by 10th grade we were moved to a different bus, a White bus where the atmosphere was adversarial and there was regular violence.

      Delete
    3. Gandhi was not black. He was not African but an Indian immigrant, educated as a barrister in London. In South Africa, he had a higher social status in the apartheid system than black Africans did. He was born upper class in India (although not British) and his father was a local minister (administrator).

      My point is that Somerby routinely credits MLK with being inspired by Gandhi instead of developing his own leadership abilities, as if he were not sufficiently great to figure out how to lead a US civil rights movement for his own people and times. That becomes tiresome after a while. I doubt Somerby has ever written about MLK without also mentioning Gandhi and nonviolence. If anything, the constant admonitions to MLK to eschew violence were frustrating to him and a point of division between black activists and white supporters (calling them middle class liberals is ridiculous given the actual background of those white people who actively participated in the civil rights movement.

      Delete
    4. Your views are well stated and appreciated.

      Both Ghandi and MLK jr used violence, they purposefully instigated violence to generate public outrage. It worked - within the context of the times, but I don’t recommend it going forward.

      Delete
    5. Imagine needing 3 paragraphs to take "we can learn from each other" and try to turn it into a game of racialized flag football.

      I think people who claim to be more radical than everyone else are hiding something, it's hard to say what. Hiding pain, hiding jealousy with the powerful.

      Delete
    6. What is the point of fighting white supremacy noise machine just to argue about who is the peace supremacist?

      Delete
  20. Speaking of “greatness:”

    Many of Trump’s followers believe he is a great man. Bob, on the other hand, thinks he is a nutcase.

    What constitutes greatness?

    The south felt god was on their side. They lost.

    Lincoln said we should do the right as god gives us to see the right.

    It’s complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ac, I really wish you’d attempt to answer my question from earlier:

    “ What is the present-day offense that we as a nation, liberals included, have committed, to be added to the list of offenses Lincoln mentioned, which included slavery? Is it Trump and Trumpism? Somerby isn’t clear. ”

    He seems to say that this offense may draw down god’s wrath, against liberals. Isn’t that what he is saying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question doesn't make any sense and doesn't have a basis. Should we try to refine it to understand what you're getting at?

      Delete
    2. Maybe we could start by determining why you think he seems to say that an offense by liberal elites may draw down god’s wrath, against liberals.

      Delete
    3. Also why do you think there's a suggestion that there is an offense that should be "added to the list" (there isn't a list), but be added to the two offenses mentioned by Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War?

      Delete
    4. Forgive me for taking Somerby seriously, or asking for clarity from him.

      Somerby connects the present day United states with Lincoln’s time by asking this “Had God willed that our own blue tribe must be punished all over again? We don't see the world that way, but if Lincoln were here today, he might be asking that question.”

      Let me rephrase my question. In the context of Lincoln’s discussion of “offenses” that god would punish, quoted here by Somerby, what would lincoln say the liberals’ offense is, since Somerby imagines Lincoln asking that question were he alive today?

      Why does he think Lincoln would react that way? And why does Somerby use this ridiculous idea, saying he himself doesn’t view the world that way, but a reanimated Lincoln would?

      Delete
    5. Somerby says he doesn't see the world that way because he doesn't believe in God as Lincoln does.

      You want to know what he is suggesting liberals do that would compel Lincoln, if he were here today, to ask
      if God willed that our own blue tribe must be punished all over again?

      Delete
    6. 4:46: um, that is what i asked. What offence did liberals commit? (Except he seems to imply that liberals and conservatives are both to blame, but it’s the liberals, like the South, who will be punished.) You can’t answer the question? just say so.

      Delete
    7. mh, Somerby complains that the blue tribe calls out racism and sexism and supports scary ideas on gender and history, and that if we exhibited more sensitivity to the red tribe and their loony stances that surely they would be persuaded to our tribe.

      It’s all laughable nonsense, devoid of context or understanding of human behavior, but he does yammer on about it frequently.

      Your argument is well stated and your question is well posed, notably there’s not much response from Somerby’s adoring fans.

      Delete
    8. Mh: I may or may not be able to answer the question I'm just trying to understand what it is first. Is that okay?

      Delete
    9. He may be suggesting liberal elites avoid a moral introspection and self-examination ("we also committed this woeful offense") and this would compel Lincoln, if he were here today, to ask
      if God willed that our own blue tribe must be punished all over again. ("Again" meaning enduring another loss to Trump.)

      Delete
    10. He is suggesting today's educated elites, despite their knowledge and status, lack the moral insight and greatness of figures like Lincoln and King. He critiques these elites for being blind to their own flaws, which are apparently clear to others.

      He theorizes that "God" as Lincoln put it, will punish them "again" for that by losing to Trump in November.

      Delete
    11. Does that make sense mh?

      Delete
    12. Show me, 5:56, where Somerby mentions Trump.

      Delete
    13. "Show me, 5:56, where Somerby mentions Trump."

      Why?

      Delete
    14. Because, 6:22, 5:56 claimed to be telling us what Somerby meant and mentioned Trump, but Somerby did not. You are speculating, not basing your comment on what was actually said.

      Delete
    15. Yes -Somerby did not use the word and I am speculating. That is true.

      Delete
    16. One can make a lot of money speculating, but it’s risky.

      Delete
    17. You don't believe reading between the lines and considering the implications of the author's words within their broader context matters?

      Delete
    18. Somerby certainly does not.

      Excessive literalism is his mantra.

      Delete
    19. Oh. Thank you for letting me know it's important to know where Trump was mentioned because it shows I was speculating and that even though one can make a lot of money speculating, Somerby believes reading between the lines and considering implications of what people write within a broader context does not matter because excessive literalism is his mantra.

      Delete
    20. Can it, 9:20. You’re no mind reader.

      Delete
  22. Two important comments from Josh Marshall.

    Republicans don't want to resolve the border issue:

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nota-bene-7

    Texas is defying federal authority. Is it starting a civil war?

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/texas-in-armed-rebellion-again

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are lots of Texas militia members itching to secede from the USA.

      Delete
    2. They want to take Texas with them, but I think they should just be given the chance to walk across the Southern border toward Mexico.

      Delete
    3. Historically, strictly enforcing borders is an effective path towards a nation’s decline.

      Delete
    4. 6:11, study the history of the Roman Empire.

      Delete
    5. Wow. Republicans don't want to resolve the border issue. That's a staggering refusal to govern.

      Delete
    6. assholes dont fight fair, further news updates at 9

      Delete
  23. Lincoln would be a MAGA Republican, who would view Trump as an expression of god’s desire to punish liberals by making them lose the presidential election. I am not a crank.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A re-election of Trump would more likely end up punishing the republicans more than Democrats, and of course the entire country would suffer. But way to consider only the liberal side, Bob!

    ReplyDelete
  25. When the population of North Dakota gets reduced to one farmer and two cows, which if the three will serve as US senators?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Likely cheaper to buy off the two cows, but don’t expect free milk.

      Delete
  26. Vivek Ramaswamy has suspended his campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Operation 36:

    Reassign agent Fanny Passmore-Gass

    ReplyDelete
  28. Clearly, Abraham Lincoln, who didn’t carry a single southern state, if he were alive today, would believe God was going to punish the liberals for their grave sins by causing them to lose to nutcase psycho Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election, after giving them a chance in 2020. Liberal sins that are punishable by god include, ah, losing the white working class vote and talking too much about racism. Oh and siloing themselves. God hates that. And, one guesses here, allowing college educated “elites”, who seem to be labeled elite because they went to college, to have a voice in the Democratic Party.

    This is a very illuminating concept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true. Blacks and hispanics are leaving abandoning Biden as well. And the younger vote. People are asking why.

      Delete
    2. White Supremacy was invented by the Democratic Party.

      Delete
    3. Conservative Democrats were racists.
      Conservative Republicans are racists.
      This isn't Republicans vs. Democrats.
      This is Conservatives vs. Humanity.

      Delete
  29. Is everyone preparing themselves? Trump is going to beat Biden. Democrats are out of touch with people. Their rhetoric doesn't work and actually helps Trump. Democrats had a chance to change it at one point but it's much too late now. They are locked in and it is going to be very ugly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry; Democrats have plenty of tricks in their sleeves. They control the whole establishment machine.

      It's still at 50-50:

      https://electionbettingodds.com/PresidentialParty2024.html

      Delete
    2. Paul Campos From Lawyers Guns and Money:

      Biden's approval rating has fallen to 33%, the lowest for any US president in 15 years, lower than Trump's lowest point. Only 31% of women and 34% of men approve of Biden's performance. His approval among Black and Hispanic voters is 21 and 15 points below average, respectively.

      https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/01/propaganda-works-joe-bidens-unpopularity-with-the-american-public

      He feels right-wing propaganda about Biden's age, the cost of eggs and the situation in Gaza has influenced left-wing and progressive opinions about Biden.

      Delete
    3. It's important to remember and keep repeating that all Trump supporters are racists. What else could account for these poll numbers?

      Delete
    4. It makes Somberry's post all the more prescient and salient.

      Delete
    5. Yea black people and Hispanics like myself are realizing the Democratic Party is not only not doing anything to help minorities. Democrats are actually keeping minorities down.

      Delete

  30. Joe Biden is the most successful President of the United States. The youngest and the most cognitive of them all. He is a highly ethical person with American interests at heart.

    Anyone who disagrees with this is funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar, and named Boris.

    My finger smells funny now.

    I am Corby.

    ReplyDelete