BLUES: Silly child recommends Stars and Bars!

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2024

Then too, there's our own tribe's culture: Last evening, American journalism's silliest boy made one of his silliest statements.

In fairness, everyone can make a mistake. Last night, at 8:46 p.m., the silliest child offered this:

WATTERS (2/28/24): No "DEI Thursday" is complete without a Primetime victory. The Tennessee House just passed a bill that would ban the display of Pride flags in public schools.

Liberals aren't happy. But we believe the only flags that should be flown in the classroom are your state's flag and the Stars and Bars. 

So, happy DEI Thursday, everybody!

Everyone can make a mistake. In this case, the silliest child said this:

Unlike liberals, he believes that the Stars and Bars should by flying in public school classrooms! He authored the endorsement on Jesse Watters Primetime, his eponymous nightly clown show.

For the record, this silliest child is 45 years old! Last June, the corporate suits at the Fox News Channel selected him to anchor that "cable news" channel's weeknight lineup, replacing Tucker Carlson.

Each week, the silly child authors a "DEI Thursday" in which he puts his childish understandings on full display. Last night, he delighted the world with that groaning recommendation concerning classroom flags.

Fill disclosure! The silliest child issued this latest groaner at 8:46 p.m. Eastern.  Seven minutes later, after a commercial break, he explained what he actually meant, then moved to his next silly topic:

WATTERS: Just a little clarification. Stars and stripes, not stars and bars.

Earlier this week, Joe Biden was licking ice cream cones and talking about the border and about the Mideast war. You can't take anyone seriously with their tongue hanging out and ice cream dripping from it.

The White House should agree with that...

You've heard of the movie Dumb and Dumber. This silliest youngster comes next.

The silliest child went on from there to continue his endless, and endlessly silly, ice cream monologues. As noted, this silliest boy is a weirdly old child. the corporate suits thought he would perfect as the face of their "cable news" efforts.

In fairness:

Yesterday, the stupidity was general during prime time over this "cable news" channel. 

This red tribe's prime time lineup starts at 5 p.m. with its highly rated program, The Five. 

In truth, the program should be called "The Four Against One"—and so it went again yesterday, as four red tribe panelists began interrupting the program's one liberal as she attempted to respond to the screeching comments of "Judge Jeanine" regarding violent crime.

Who the Sam Hill is Judge Jeanine? You're asking a challenging question. At Fox, we'd have to say that' she is cast in a recurrent role as The Known World's Loudest Loudmouth.

That doesn't mean that "Judge Jeanine" is always wrong on the general merits. Our own blue world has performed so poorly regarding certain high-profile issues that even someone like Judge Jeanine will often get to be right on the (general) merits.

Yesterday, we saw no sign that thar was the case. First though, we offer a thumbnail account of who this typecast performer is. We direct you to the world's leading authority on her life and times:

Jeanine Pirro

Jeanine Ferris Pirro (born June 2, 1951) is an American television host and author, and is also a former judge, prosecutor, and politician in the state of New York.

Pirro was elected as a judge of the Westchester County (N.Y.) Court in 1990. In 1993, she was elected to the position of Westchester County district attorney. She is the first woman to be elected to either of those positions. 

[...]

From 2008 to 2011, Pirro hosted a weekday television show [on the CW network] entitled Judge Jeanine Pirro. From 2011 to 2022, she hosted Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News Channel. 

Pirro has authored six books, including Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy (2018). 

Following the 2020 presidential election, Pirro made false claims of voting machine fraud. In 2022, Pirro became a co-host of The Five.

[...]

Pirro was among the hosts named in the Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network defamation lawsuit for broadcasting false statements about the plaintiff company's voting machines that Fox News settled for $787.5 million and required Fox News to acknowledge that the broadcast statements were false.

She made false claims of voting machine fraud, then became host of The Five! As a TV performer, she'd started out on the CW, engaged in this stupid shit:

Judge Jeanine Pirro

Judge Jeanine Pirro (known simply as Judge Pirro since the premiere of its second season) [was] an American arbitration-based reality court show, presided over by retired Westchester County, New York, District Attorney Jeanine Pirro. The series debuted on The CW on September 22, 2008 and ended in May 2011.

As with other court shows, such as Judge Mathis and Judge Judy, a former judge serves as neutral arbitrator, and awards the litigants monetary judgments, of up to $5000, which is paid in full by the program's producers. However, this program dealt more with the emotional aspect of each case, which was one of the show's benchmarks.

[...]

Some reality television stars, along with a wrestler, appeared on the show during its run.

That's where the TV stardom began. Yesterday, Judge Jeanine led the onslaught on Jessica Tarlov, the lone liberal on The Five, as Tarlov tried to report the fact that violent crime statistics are actually down nationwide.

(For our money, Tarlov didn't do her usual outstanding job with this somewhat technical topic. It's generally accepted that homicide is the violent crime for which the data are most reliable. That said, homicide figures seem to be substantially down, on a nationwide basis, despite what the TV judge and her three accomplices said. For two links, see below. Many other reports can be found.)

On yesterday's broadcast of The Five, Jesse Watters, the silliest child, was one of the judge's accomplices. Three hours later, the silliest child endorsed the Stars and Bars, then moved on to the vanilla ice cream dispute. 

This is the type of idiocy which gets peddled each day on this red tribe "cable news" channel. Is it possible that the journalistic culture of our own blue tribe could somehow be thought of as worse?

We'd start with the way our major blue orgs let this red tribe idiocy go without any serious attempt at reporting or criticism or comment. Our general impression would be this:

Big news orgs don't want to tangle with the bombastics at Fox. Our blue news orgs are willing to avert their gaze—to let this inanity go.

That said, our own assessment of the situation goes a bit beyond that. We were struck by the dumbness of our own blue stars as we watched blue cable last night—as blue stars continued to declare the new observation, that we'll probably have to resort to voting against Donald J. Trump to keep him out of the Oval.

Our stars have prayed for Trump to be stopped by an outside event over the course of the past few years. Starting on Monday, we'll tell you why we almost think that our blue tribe's journalistic culture has been almost as bad as theirs.

This rumination will take us back through the different cultures described in The Iliad. For a quick observation, try this:

As the famous poem of war begins, the Achaeans (the Greeks) have conducted a ten-year siege of the towering walls of Troy. Start-ng right in Book One of the poem, their all-male cast is driven by rage and by a prevailing culture in which the taking of sexual slaves is regarded as fully normal.

Inside the towering walls of Troy, a different culture obtains. In Book Six, Hector, the hero of Troy, is about to return to a battle from which he doesn't expect to return. On his way to an expected death, a scene like this obtains:

At that, Hector spun and rushed from his house,
back by the same way down the wide, well-paved streets
throughout the city until he reached the Scaean Gates,
the last point he would pass to gain the field of battle.
There his warm, generous wife came running up to meet him,
Andromache the daughter of gallant-hearted Eetion 
[...] 
She joined him now, and following in her steps
a servant holding the boy against her breast,
in the first flush of life, only a baby,
Hector's son, the darling of his eyes
and radiant as a star.

Inside the walls of Troy, Hector's son is the darling of his eyes and radiant as a star. 

The husband comforts his warm and generous wife. Then, this famous, deeply human moment occurs:
In the same breath, shining Hector reached down
for his son—but the boy recoiled,
cringing against his nurse's full breast,
screaming out at the sight of his own father,
terrified by the flashing bronze, the horsehair crest, 
the great ridge of the helmet nodding, bristling terror—
so it struck his eyes. And his loving father laughed,
his mother laughed as well, and glorious Hector,
quickly lifting the helmet from his head,
set it down on the ground, fiery in the sunlight,
and raising his son he kissed him, tossed him in his arms,
lifting a prayer to Zeus and the other deathless gods.

Briefly, the husband and wife—the mother and father—share  delight in their darling son as Hector approaches the House of Death.

As it turns out, Hector's prayer to Zeus and the deathless gods reflects the values of Late Bronze Age warrior culture. But inside the walls of Troy, this highly domestic family culture is repeatedly seen to obtain.

At present, the culture of our own blue tribe and its leadership cadres differs from the ridiculous culture routinely found Over There. 

That said, our own blue culture is deeply flawed, and has been for a very long time. 

Next week, we'll briefly start with one major star's peculiar shout-out to her "beloved colleagues." From there, we'll move ahead to her shout-out to her "beloved viewers."

In our view, something seems to be weirdly wrong inside that cultural realm. It's very hard for us blues to see the faults of our own culture, but that will be the very large set of flaws we'll flawlessly explain.

The silliest child endorsed the Stars and Bars, then moved ahead to the ice cream.  As we look ahead to November, has the stumblebum culture of our own blue tribe actually served us well?

Reports concerning homicide rate: For reports concerning the apparent drop in the homicide rate, you can click one of these links:

From Axios

Homicides in U.S. set to drop by record numbers this year

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Did US homicide rate rise or fall in 2023? The answer might surprise you.

Many similar reports exist, except inside the very loud world of Fox News star Judge Jeanine.




144 comments:

  1. "Last evening, American journalism's silliest boy made one of his silliest statements."

    Why is Somerby calling these people boys instead of men? First it was Tucker Carlson, then Gutfeld, now Watters. None of them is a child. Why do I object? First, it absolves them of responsibility, since we tend to treat children leniently because of their youth and inexperience. Second, it ruins yet another Warren Zevon song for me (Excitable Boy). These guys know what they're doing. They don't need Somerby to excuse them with this ridiculous language trick. They aren't being silly, they are being complicit in propagandizing on behalf of miscreants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Likening grown men to children is an obvious means of letting them off?
      Letting them off from what? Beating their wives? Cheating on their taxes? Lying under oath?

      I don’t think those charges were made, so maybe it’s that being childish and juvenile isn’t a good look for grown men who are tv news channel hosts, or even a comedy show host, so Bob is taking a shot at their talent, ability and what he considers to be their bad judgment and scurrilous behavior.

      Ya, think, Einstein?

      Delete
    2. On the other hand, I wouldn’t call a stone cold propagandist a “silly boy.” Just a preference, I guess.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 4:25pm, no,per usual, youd go way over into the opposite direction and sound like a combination of Lonesome Rhodes and Mao.

      Delete
    4. Jesse Watters is a Lonesome Rhoads type figure. (Thanks for bringing him up.) I wouldn’t call Lonesome Rhoads a “silly boy” either. He was a dangerous propagandist. Your ascribing that characteristic to me is absurd. I’m anonymous, remember?

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 5:40pm, you’re a anonymouse. You’re a collective. You’re like the Borg.

      If anonymices think that Jesse is a dangerous propagandist then you should agree with Bob in that the mainstream media should be calling this out.

      Delete
    6. 10:38 your comments are great, but your taste in music…eh. Warren Zevon? Werewolves of London is…a tough listen, and annoying af. That’s just, like, my opinion, man.

      Mainstream media is no longer a relevant term; there’s corporate media and independent media.

      Fox News and their Republican Robots have been called out for decades in all media (and the courtroom).

      Somerby refers to Trump’s coffee boys on Fox as silly children, instead of referring to their behavior as juvenile, therefore, 10:38’s criticism is appropriate. To be fair, these con artists on Fox are not fully responsible for their behavior, as it is emergent behavior and not innate; society is to blame for situating our lives so precariously, thus making it difficult to properly parent, leading to generational cycles of abuse and trauma.

      Delete
  2. I’m sure one of bob’s snowflake fans will begin a comment thread, discussing the post and its ramifications, (but it’s so much more fun to attack the Bob-critics and whine about how the meanies like making Bob look bad!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymices 10:40am, anonymices make themselves look bad by being disingenuous, ill-intentioned, and inane.

      Delete
    2. You come along and prove my point, Cecelia. How generous of you.

      Delete
    3. No problem. It makes me happy.

      Delete
    4. Cecelia makes claims but never substantiates them. So it goes.

      Delete
  3. "That doesn't mean that "Judge Jeanine" is always wrong on the general merits. Our own blue world has performed so poorly regarding certain high-profile issues that even someone like Judge Jeanine will often get to be right on the (general) merits."

    This makes no sense at all. The rightness or wrongness of Jeanine's statement does not hinge on whether or not someone else (some liberal) has made a correct statement or not. It depends solely on the truth or correctness of the statement Jeanine has made.

    When liberals say something wrong, it doesn't automatically make conservatives right about what they are saying.

    And note the use of the word screeching by Somerby. It is an ugly gendered term used to describe women, who are obviously to blame for having higher voices than men. It is not OK for Somerby to characterize a woman that way simply because he dislikes her or he is picking on a token conservative. Note the implication that someone must have some former celebrity status in order to belong on the Five. Why? Such a show can choose whoever they want, and their performance on the show can then make them a celebrity, if they do their job well. Many of us had no idea who Watters was, if we didn't watch Fox. So, who cares whether Jeanine was previously famous or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Judge Jeanie is an outrageous crank. Finding something She got right would be a huge challenge. She has spoken about how She proudly She goes up to people who have said “Happy Holidays” and says “Merry Christmas” to them with an angry sneer. That’s the sort of thing that appeals to Bob’s good friends and neighbors. On the plus side, this may be the first time Bob has mentioned the massive libel pay out by Fox.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 10:47am, the argument is that although the Judge cringingly loud, brash, overbearing, and insulting of the leftwing, she is not entirely wrong in her critiques.

      Sure enough.

      Delete
    3. Which critiques would those be?

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 4:21pm, Bob said that the Judge was loud, overbearing, and definitely wrong yesterday in a dispute over homicide stats, but that this sort of behavior of hers does not mean she’s entirely off base in all her critiques of liberals.

      Because Bob suggests he has found merit in some view of the Judge’s is not tantamount to arguing that both sides can’t be wrong on a matter, simultaneously.

      It takes an anonymouse to claim that.

      Delete
    5. I’m asking you which views of Pirro’s are not entirely wrong, Cecelia. I don’t see any examples.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 5:47pm, I occasionally hear The Five (from the kitchen). I can’t think of anything the Judge has said that has caught my attention lately, though I assume that she and I agree on more than several things.

      I’m also sure she’s not entirely wrong on everything. That’s certainly the case with Jessica and Harold too.

      Anonymouse 10:47am, launched into sophistry over a reasonable statement from Bob.

      That’s what anonymices do.

      Delete
    7. The kitchen. That's where you belong, Mercedes.

      Delete
    8. The unsubstantiated claims from Cecelia continue. It’s any “interesting” way to argue, but ineffective.

      Delete
    9. It isn't much of a claim to say that no one is wrong all the time and someone may be right about something (unspecified) on some occasion (also unspecified). Why was that worth an essay here? The strawman is that any liberal anywhere has claimed that Jeanine Pirro is ALWAYS wrong. None of us liberals would be silly enough to say that.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 6:28pm, better than the laundry room.

      Delete
    11. Anonymices, I made no unsubstantiated claims.

      I was asked to recite an opinion from Pierro that is NOT “entirely wrong”.

      I readily said that I can’t reliably do that because I halfway listen as the old man watches the show.

      I never made the specious argument that everyone is right about something, or that liberals think conservatives are always wrong. .

      I said that although I can’t remember a stated Pierro position that I think is “right”, I assume Pierro and I would share a view on something (we are both conservatives)

      That’s not sophistry on my part, it’s a matter of sharing a definitive political ideology.

      The attempt at silly sophistry lies in asking me (or anyone) to name something that Pierro “is not entirely wrong about”.


      Delete
    12. It is Somerby’s strawman.

      Delete
    13. No, the straw man was the question “what doesn’t Pierro get wrong?”

      Delete
  4. "We'd start with the way our major blue orgs let this red tribe idiocy go without any serious attempt at reporting or criticism or comment."

    Somerby doesn't read his comments, so we have to repeatedly make the same point. Mainstream news sources are not "blue orgs". Whether they achieve it or not, they attempt to be balanced or unbiased in their reporting. They are largely money-making orgs, not political. Fox is different because it is the propaganda arm of the red tribe. You can see the difference in their programming.

    Somerby's fantasy is that the blue news sources should go after Fox and combat its disinformation by critiqueing their shows on a regular basis If they did that, it would push more important stories off of their own pages and waste airtime. It would also spread the right's message beyond its own limited viewership, much as Somerby does here. It would not stop anything happening over at Fox, but it would limit the opportunity for so-called blue media viewers to read or watch stories on a variety of other subjects. So, it would diminish the experience for blue viewers without doing anything to inhibit Fox propaganda.

    But complaining that the so-called blue orgs don't chastise Fox gives Somerby a way to portray the blue tribe in a negative light. It lets him call us liberals failures, when we are not. It shifts the responsibility from the right to the left, when the right is broadcasting crap on a nightly basis, not us liberals.

    It is not the business of the right to tell lies while the left is consumed with debunking them. We do try to do that, but it isn't our job. Our job is to present our own side with as much force as we can muster. But Somerby doesn't get it. In part, that is because he preaches listening to promote understanding, but he will not listen to his own commenters. And that is on him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, it is funny that Watters referred to the Stars and Bars, but is anyone sure he didn't do it on purpose? His script may have been reviewed by several others before he read it on-air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He interpolated Bars on purpose, you see.

      Delete
  6. "Briefly, the husband and wife—the mother and father—share delight in their darling son as Hector approaches the House of Death."

    This is sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a Zen koan that says a guy is hanging onto a grapevine on the side of a high cliff while the roots are slowly being pulled out. He plucks a grape, eats it, and smiles: "Delicious!"

      That's what this scene from the Iliad is about.

      Delete
    2. Homer’s so called epics are as goofy and unsophisticated as a Three’s Company episode; we all read them in school, but for most it’s just forgettable garbage.

      Delete
    3. You should read them in the original Greek.

      Delete
    4. They were oral stories told and passed on for generations, before they were written. No one knows when they were written, the earliest copy was discovered around 150 BC.

      The original Greek provides no enhancement to their quality, but your joke is enjoyable nonetheless.

      Delete
    5. Homer is fiction. No one was there to transcribe the words and events in the Iliad. The Odyssey is pure fiction unless you believe in giants.

      Delete
    6. A copy must have been found before 150 BC. It was being quoted in the fifth century BC.

      Delete
  7. Fox news is struggling to redefine itself.

    "Is it possible that the journalistic culture of our own blue tribe could somehow be thought of as worse?"

    That's a stretch. Perhaps in the sense that they're capable of doing far better.

    "We'd start with the way our major blue orgs let this red tribe idiocy go without any serious attempt at reporting or criticism or comment."

    Yes, I think it should be mocked and picked apart and exposed. It would be entertaining and informative.

    "Starting on Monday, we'll tell you why we almost think that our blue tribe's journalistic culture has been almost as bad as theirs."

    Should be interesting.

    "stumblebum"

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rationalist, I think they struggled briefly (or performatively) and have now lapsed back into their old format, supporting Trump and programming for MAGAs. Fox is capable of doing better too, but Somerby reserves his scorn for the left.

      Somerby doesn't deliver on his promises. Don't expect anything interesting on Monday. It will be more of the same.

      Delete
    2. "Somerby reserves his scorn for the left"

      This, of course, is ridiculous. It's like you didn't even read his post today.

      Delete
    3. Not worth it, PP. But I had to work it out of my system too. They want the attention, any kind.

      Delete
    4. And … you just gave them your attention.

      Delete
    5. The criticism of Somerby here is almost always accurate and pertinent, a sharp contrast from Somerby’s posts.

      Delete
  8. "In our view, something seems to be weirdly wrong inside that cultural realm. It's very hard for us blues to see the faults of our own culture, but that will be the very large set of flaws we'll flawlessly explain."

    Given who Somerby chooses to pick on among blue "stars", we can easily figure out what is wrong. It is obvious that being female, gay, black, well-educated, gay, female, black or having been a professor is what is weirdly wrong on the left. It is true you won't find any of these people, except the Barbi-style females, on the right. I'm sure that with his 24/7 viewing habits, the lineup on Fox looks much more "natural" to Somerby than the left, with its array of weird people.

    Lots of bigots feel uncomfortable with black people. But that doesn't mean the black people are the weird ones. And if Somerby has never found a way to consider Rachel Maddow a human being, that is his personal problem, not liberals' problem to deal with. This is Somerby's person way to call the people he dislikes "oddballs and freaks." The people on the left are just so icky, says Somerby.

    Another right wing meme is being transmitted with this crap. They will resonate with nice white people who look just like us on TV, instead of the array of diversity that exists in our country, including women (who are 50% of the population, but still an anomaly on TV, unless they have "big hair" and nice legs).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is some really ugly shit.

      Delete
    2. When looking in the mirror, you said the quiet part out loud.

      Delete
    3. What do you think it means, Pied, when Somerby attacks a liberal host like Maddow (whom he has been attacking in gross ways for years, saying she stuffs money down her pants, for example) and now says something is "weirdly wrong" about her (and liberal culture that supports such diversity)?

      Yes, it is ugly but Somerby is the one targeting gay journalists and saying there is something "weirdly wrong" about them. He is winding himself up to attack Rachel Maddow again. (Other gay hosts Somerby has targeted include Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon. In print he has targeted Charles Blow frequently, and Roxanne Gay.) One or two would be a coincidence, but these regular attacks on gays form a pattern. Just as it is no coincidence that book banning efforts target LGBTQ+ and black authors. Somerby supports those too. He wrote an essay condoning the banning of Toni Morrison's book "Beloved." Perhaps Somerby never quotes that book because no one had a lapdog and the goddess-like Scandinavian girls in My Antonia are more to his taste?

      Delete
    4. Maddow does stuff money down her pants. Her fat, stupid wife is a holocaust denier for starters. I know people that live in their neighborhood and everyone hates them. They get drunk on hipster highball cocktails and drive around on a motorcycle with a side car on it screaming their fool heads off. People see Maddow at the grocery store with her pajamas on bickering with the deli staff. I have it from a good source that they are both addicted to helium. Bob is right. Maddow can take a hike as far as I am concerned.

      Delete
    5. I’m addicted to oxygen.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 7:31pm, whoa.. Sounds like Rachel isn’t bad at all.

      Delete
    7. Except it’s all made up.

      Delete
    8. I dated Maddow's podiatrist's assistant and she said her feet were disgusting.

      Delete
    9. All feet are disgusting.

      Delete
    10. I dated her gynecologist's janitor, so don't get me started.

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

    ReplyDelete

  10. So, some fella on tv misspoke and said "stars and bars" instead of "stars and stripes". And then corrected himself.

    Wow! Stop the presses! Crime of the century! Homer to the rescue! Are you dumb, Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. But the host in question is.

      Delete
    2. When Biden does the same, Somerby rushes to put out a post exclaiming “cognitive decline!”.

      Somerby is a little sly, a little slick, and certainly ignorant.

      Delete
    3. Fox doesn't mind such mistakes because they remind viewers of Trump's frequent, similar gaffes. My theory is that Fox hosts are being encouraged to make such errors in order to make Trump's seem more "normal." You can expect to seem them more frequently as Trump's dementia worsens.

      Delete
  11. Richard Abath has died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Ashower lives on, though!

      Delete
    2. Here’s the story:

      https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/gardner-art-heist-richard-abath-security-guard/

      Delete
    3. In a bath, you soak in dirty water, in a shower, the dirt rinses off of you; therefore, it’s unsurprising that a shower would outlive a bath.

      Delete
  12. Quaker in a BasementMarch 1, 2024 at 2:44 PM

    "All lives matter," or so I'm told by members of tribe red. But do they really? The death of a young college student at the hand of a migrant seems to matter quite a lot of Fox and elsewhere. Do shooting deaths by mass killers deserve the same concern? Not in MAGA world!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for not oversimplifying complex issues to score political points. ;)

      Delete
    2. @2:44 PM
      Shooting deaths are unfortunate.

      And what about the deaths by overdose. Do they concern you and your DNC ilk? Approx. 110,000/year, apparently.

      Delete
    3. Please define who you mean when you refer to DNC ilk. If anyone is doing anything about drug and alcohol overdoses, it is Democrats. Republicans routinely defund treatment efforts, medical spending, research, mental health facilities, nonprofits aimed at dealing with homeless drug abusers, social services and preventive programs aimed to reducing drug abuse, school interventions, and so on. These get stripped from budget bills by Republicans.

      There is nothing that says someone can only care about one kind of death at a time. Democrats care about all of these, not just migrants (who are the target of bigotry due to their brown skins and negative stereotyping).

      Quaker is correct that conservatives don't tend to care about these other categories of deaths except to score political points. For example, they oppose reasonable, popular gun control measures that would reduce deaths due to mass shootings. I believe that is what Quaker is referring to.

      What is complex about a situation where the right is focusing on a "crime of opportunity" (according to police) committed by a man who happened to also be a migrant (among other characteristics) who is being used as a poster child to villainize immigrations and demagogue immigration in an election year. Quaker is not doing the oversimplification on this issue. (Not sure what your wink means.)

      Delete
    4. Immigrant crime rate is lower than that of native born citizens, and the undocumented immigrant crime rate is even lower.

      Many overdose deaths are suicides, others are from drug addictions. Why are so many Americans addicted to drugs? Because we facilitate a dog eat dog society that tends to squelch humanity wherever it pops up. If anything is done to address this, you can be sure those actions are limited to the Dems; Repubs are happy to let them eat cake.

      Delete
    5. “Complex” and “nuance” are terms favored by those pushing a personal agenda, such folks are looking to muddy the waters with murky definitions.

      In reality, most political issues and their solutions are relatively straightforward, so it’s in the interest of those opposing progress to make them seem “complex” and “nuanced”.

      The more one understands and has knowledge of an issue, the less “complex” and “nuanced” it is.

      Delete
  13. I'm trying to work out a theory about why Somerby's blog comments are infested with haters. Certainly the facts that he permits posting without nyms, and that he fails to curate, play their parts, but I think there's something more. My preliminary hypothesis is that it's because Somerby asks his readers to question the reliability of their favored sources of information and ideology, and that scares people and provokes a furious backlash.

    Any other ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That he is wrong?

      Delete
    2. A lot of people are "wrong," but they don't get called a bigot paid by Putin to defend child molesting. I don't think being "wrong" is a satisfactory explanation, myself.

      Delete
    3. 4:36 - Whoa! That brings a tear to my eye.

      Delete
    4. 4:36 - It makes me feel bad for being mean to these people.

      Delete
    5. This blog puts out writing every day and if you can figure out a way to scapegoat a retired schoolteacher for the world's problems it costs a lot less than therapy to whine about him.

      Delete
    6. Yes, and these are all explanations that boost your own ego, Pied Piper. Somerby writes a lot of silly things on purpose. Today, he said that silliness needed to be called out, if we had the right vocabulary for doing it. There is some irony that he himself was majorly silly and now the commenters who called him on it are being chastised for doing exactly what Somerby said needed to be done.

      Apparently Pied Piper doesn't recognize media criticism when it is aimed at his much-admired Somerby, nor does he recognize Somerby's silliness. A long time ago, Somerby used to call such people rubes and claim they were being conned. Since then, he has been busily demonstrating how that happens, every day.

      I vote for Pied Piper as the rubiest rube at this blog.

      Delete
    7. I'm told that Somerby critics are high-minded people who won't call others names, yet you call me a "rube." I'm so confused!

      Delete
    8. I second your vote.

      As has been repeatedly explained to you and the handful of other fanboys, Somerby became well known by attacking media for being stenographers for the Republican Party, and back then his posts were evidenced based; that’s how he grew his audience. Now he has turned his back on that audience, apparently out of spite, and bitterly attacks them, but from an emotional base instead of from evidence.

      Delete
    9. I'm even more confused. I thought Somerby was motivated by the money he got from Putin. But now you're telling me he does all this work, for free, just to spitefully attack his own readers?

      And this seems plausible to you?

      Delete
    10. Piper,

      I think you were born yesterday, and are reborn every minute, sucker-like. That’s more plausible.

      Getting paid and being spiteful aren’t mutually exclusive.

      Some here speculate that Somerby’s getting paid for his nonsense, but it’s not a core criticism.

      Somerby transitioned from bring evidenced-based to emotional-based, that may explain why you are such a fanboy.

      Delete
    11. “Some here speculate that Somerby’s getting paid for his nonsense, but it’s not a core criticism.”

      Oh, that’s choice.

      Bob being paid to mislead and misinform his readers is not the “core criticism” that anonymices harbor.

      Oh, sure.They reserve that atrocity as being Bob’s misrepresentation of Dylan lyrics.

      Delete
    12. Cecelia, you are cherry picking criticism based on your own bias, therefore your comment is irrelevant.

      Delete
    13. Dylan is a Nobel laureate. His lyrics should be approached with due reverence.

      Delete
    14. Somerby transitioned from being evidence-based to being emotional-based? I submit that this is a perfectly meaningless criticism. You can’t support it; I can’t falsify it. It’s drivel in its purest form.

      Delete
    15. Compare Somerby’s writing in 2005 to today. There is the evidence.

      Delete
    16. Anonymouse 8:36pm, an anonymouse said that the claim that Bob is a paid double agent isn’t even the “core criticism” anonymices make against his blog

      That’s not a “cherry”, it’s the entire loony tree.

      Delete
  14. Let me expand a little. I have read a lot of blogs where I thought the host was "wrong," and I simply stopped reading. Here, people think Somerby is "wrong," but nevertheless continue reading just so they can call him names in comments. That strikes me as abnormal behavior, and I'm trying to understand it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the people criticizing Somerby are not calling him names. They are pointing out problems with what he has written, disagreeing with him, presenting alternative viewpoints. That is called discussion and it is what comments sections are for.

      You, Pied Piper, and Dogface George, and Cecelia, never express any viewpoints other than attacking commenters in various ways. You are almost never on topic, never discuss the essay itself. That makes you trolls.

      The only people who have blog comments where there is no disagreement with the blog author are those who moderate their blogs. Somerby doesn't do that. Kevin Drum does moderate his blog, but he allows dissent with his ideas as long as it is civil.

      I find certain other commenters here much more interesting and correct than Somerby. I read the comments because I frequently learn things from other people. That excludes you because you never say anything meaningful except to whine about others. It would be nicer here if you were to leave, just as it is better when Cecelia is gone.

      Delete
    2. 6:41 - Hilarious. You lecture me about how the Somerby-haters, such as yourself, are such high-minded people who don't call people names - and then you call me a "troll."

      Delete
    3. 6:41 - You say I attack commenters "in various ways." Actually, it's generally in one way. A commenter makes some ridiculous assertion and I call them on it. If the original assertion was "on topic," then so was my challenge.

      Delete
    4. Well said, 6:41.

      Piper, he demonstrated how you are a troll.

      Somerby’s posts are just the instigation, all the interesting action happens in the comments, minus the interlopers like you, whose goals are aligned with Somerby’s in attempting to manufacture ignorance.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 6:41pm, I take it that Kevin would boot you if you called him an agent for Russia, a misogynist, a dirty old man, and a stealth conservative,

      I’m fairly certain that such comments (discussion as to the blogger’s motives, character, and intentions) would also inspire some dissent from other commenters who did not appreciate the way you use counters/discusdion as the lard for personal attacks toward Kevin.

      If you want TDH to be a blog like Kevin’s then act how you must act at Kevin’s blog.



      Delete
    6. 7:16 - I see. It's not name-calling if you think it's justified.

      Delete
    7. It's funny, though. People only call names if they think it's justified.

      Delete
    8. PP, you are conflating reasonably identifying demonstrable behavior by using a term, with name calling.

      6:41 did not express that they want TDH to be a blog like Kevin’s.

      I rarely look at Kevin’s blog since he’s a self admitted neoliberal centrist, but I have seen similar attacks on Kevin as one reads here, so your take, Cecelia, is misguided.

      Delete
    9. 7:51 - I see. It's not name-calling when you do it. When you do it, it's "reasonably identifying demonstrable behavior." Got it.

      Delete
    10. always the victim, eh

      Delete
    11. Now you’re calling me a “victim”? You just can’t help contradicting yourself, can you?

      Delete
    12. There’s no contradiction there, and it’s you who is crying foul when people merely use words to convey a notion.

      There’s no shame in your excessive sensitivity, but it’s led you to some irrational and incoherent thinking.

      Delete
    13. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Emerson, Thoreau’s bff said so.

      Delete
    14. Ah, it’s your inconsistency that proves your immense intelligence!

      Delete
    15. Ask Emerson. I doubt that’s what he meant. I think he was saying that focusing on inconsistency as if it were important causes someone to miss larger, more important meaning, and that little minds do this, while bigger minds have more important hobgoblins. You are being trivial and that is not smart.

      Delete
    16. I see, I think. You can call me “trivial” while lecturing me about calling people names because your immense brain worries about hobgoblins much more important than mere consistency. Can you name one of these hobgoblins for me?

      Delete
    17. Rumpelstiltskin.

      Delete
  15. The Fani Willis hearing just concluded. It has been riveting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Riveting, Mercedes? You had nothing better to do?

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 5:39pm, I can multitask.

      Delete
    3. If you multitasked it wasn't riveting.

      Delete
    4. I watched and ate Cheetoes.

      Delete
    5. How did she do? Did her clothes fit?

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 7:01pm, that’s an interesting comment because my daughter and I were remarking that she looked the best that we’ve seen her look so far.

      She’s an attractive woman and she’s had some obvious help of late in appearance and in demeanor.

      Delete
    7. History will view her as one of the few adults that stood up to Trump’s corruption, not on how delicious her sweet booty is.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 8:42pm, she has put her booty in a sling that may get garner her a perjury charge and cost Atlanta millions when the people she has put in jail want their cases re-evaluated due to her dishonesty.

      Delete
    9. She prosecuted, under the RICO law, teachers who cheated on their students' test scores.

      Delete
  16. It simply isn't allowed in corporate newspeak to say that homicide rates go down with a functioning economy and social insurance system. No issue can be really analyzed on a macro level except what minimum wage does to the effect of prices down the line. Everything else is "why did this singular bad person do this singular bad thing." There is no contextual analysis allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "It simply isn't allowed in corporate newspeak to say that homicide rates go down with a functioning economy and social insurance system."

    An astute observation. Just like corporate newspeak is not allowed to say that a booming economy causes an upsurge in illegal immigration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or that Republican farmers and businessmen like to hire undocumented immigrants.

      Delete
    2. the fact that everything makes you think of immigration isn't a flex, it's a mental disorder caused by the media

      Delete
    3. Immigration is largely driven by events in the countries that migrants are leaving, not the US economy.

      Delete
    4. The US creates dumpster fires all over the world and then complains when people from those countries come here, fleeing for their lives.

      Also, the US loves cheap labor.

      Delete
    5. 6:34 - According to Drum, immigration is largely driven by the US economy. https://jabberwocking.com/illegal-immigration-is-mostly-driven-by-availability-of-jobs/

      Do you have any different info supporting the idea that immigration is driven by outside-the-USA events? I'd sincerely like to know.

      Delete
    6. Just what I’ve read on the Homeland Security website where it gives immigration & Border Control encounter stats. I am busy now but will look it up tomorrow.

      Kamala Harris participated in meetings and talks with foreign leaders over the past 2-3 years aimed at reducing migration at the source in those Central and South American countries in turmoil.

      Delete
    7. A brief Google search will show that refugees and asylum seekers have reached record highs and are increasing.

      Drum’s take isn’t especially insightful or helpful since people come here looking for better opportunities precisely because things are rough in their native land, and furthermore, regardless the reason, most immigrants want a job. Duh.

      Delete
    8. But what we’re talking about is an empirical question. I have little doubt that factors both internal and external to our country contribute to illegal immigration. It would be interesting to see their relative importance, however.

      Delete
    9. Immigrants are a fundamental source of our economic power and cultural wealth, but that hardly excuses the unfortunate conditions that motivate essentially all immigrants.

      Drum just made an ignorant observation with little meaningful relevancy to the issue.

      Generally, people don’t like to uproot themselves from their homeland, family, and friends; the primary motivation is due to untenable living conditions.

      We have few immigrants coming from wealthy, developed countries, the vast majority are coming from what Trump calls “shithole countries”.

      The most proximal cause for these countries being “shitholes” is due to actions taken by Western powers like the US and the UK, and Russian imperialism.

      Delete
    10. It's true that the US has already done terrible hard right wing actions, things to people in secret torture of Arabs and Africans, such as Morocco and Cuba disappearing centers for the military state. And we put people in cages.

      The cultural appeal of the immigration issue to the right wing is it is a cult of identity politics people can freak out about and lose their interest in holding power accountable.

      But mundane liberal internationalists can't just say they're better automatically. They used immigration to build up the economy, but still keep them working in fields in the background. They only should be given partial credit if anything on the issue so far.

      It's really an issue where Americans have to unlearn an addiction to their panic response, while also understanding the humanity and labor needs of people walking under the same Sun as them.

      Delete
    11. Why is it the height of class for the upper class to send students to study abroad in Western Europe but if an undocumented person runs away from a hell hole too quickly they can't go to school in America? Seems like a double standard.

      Delete
  18. Speaking as a statistical pro, I’m glad to know that crime went down in 2023. Now I’d like to know how crime rates moved year by year for the last 10 years, city by city. Then we could perhaps draw some valid conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DiC. I'm coming to the view that both crime and immigration are downstream of the economy.

      Delete
    2. That is, during good times, crime goes down and immigration goes up.

      Delete
    3. David, the blue cities where migrants were dumped have seen a decrease not increase in crime. They were examined specifically.

      Delete
    4. “Speaking as a statistical pro”, aside from being an embarrassingly cringey thing to say, this has yet to be plausibly demonstrated.

      Delete
    5. David is a fellow of the society of actuaries.

      Delete
    6. David has made that claim, yet more often than not, he repeats misleading stats or misinterprets them, so his claim is dubious at best. It certainly has not been demonstrated.

      Delete
    7. David has claimed to be a resident of California as well, misspelling its governor's last name twice in a recent comment section before being corrected.

      Delete
  19. All the Anony - mouses are like the same two people!

    And they talk about cringe. You gotta love it!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Blobby's blog ain't nuthin' but shit and neither are most of the comments.

    ReplyDelete