FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2024
Real Time gets it right: Bill Maher's Real Time program now airs on CNN as well as on HBO.
CNN re-airs the program on Saturday night, one night after HBO does the initial broadcast. Because its provenance has expanded, we were able to watch last weekend's entire show!
For that reason, we were able to see one of Bill's guests offer the explanation shown below. Bill's guest was explaining a procedure which now helps control life at the southern border:
FIRST BILL MAHER GUEST (3/22/24): So there was this video which you might have seen this week where a bunch of migrants flood the National Guard which was there and overtake them, pushing past them. You know, people were knocked down, etcetera...
Part of the problem here is the asylum system. We have this giant magnet—
You know, after World War II, we were—very understandably and correctly—embarrassed by what we did about Jews seeking asylum from Germany and Europe. And so we have this asylum law where, if you get to the United States, we are going to hear your asylum claim.
Well unfortunately, that means there's just a huge incentive, any way you can, to get across that Rio Grande river. Because then we have to hear your asylum claim. That's the other thing that only Congress can fix!
The president cannot fix that. And as long as that's the rule—that, get here and you can stay as long as you say the magic words: "I have a credible fear of returning to my country"—we're not going to fix the border.
SECOND BILL MAHER GUEST: I agree with you...
You may, or you may not, agree with that first guest's implied or apparent views concerning immigration policy in general. For ourselves, we were struck by the explanation she offered—and also, by the instant agreement voiced by that second guest.
Who were those two Real Time guests? The first guest was Sarah Isgur, who has been all over the landscape in Republican Party politics and officialdom over the past dozen years.
The second guest was Beto O'Rourke, the liberal former congressman who was the Democratic Party's candidate for governor of Texas in 2022.
To watch videotape of Isgur's fuller statement, you can just click here. That said, the two Maher guests are both Texans, though they hail from opposite sides of the political tracks.
We offer Isgur's statement for a basic reason. In that brief statement, she offers an explanation of one of the procedures which has made current policy at the border an apparently inexplicable mess—a confusing mess with a powerful downside for President Biden's attempt to get re-elected this year.
We offer the text of Isgur's statement for a somewhat peculiar reason. We offer this text, not because Isgur's explanation of asylum law is necessarily perfectly accurate, but because of the fact that she offered an explanation at all.
For those of us who watch "cable news" programs, such explanations pretty much don't exist. Blue America's cable news channel and Red America's cable news channel operate on a similar set of assumptions. Those procedures work like this:
Carefully selected guests spend hours on end repeating mandated talking points. Little attempt at explanation will interrupt the pleasing flow of mandated tribal agreement.
Everyone understands the rules of this (profit-seeking) game. To appear as a guest on Red or Blue "cable news" programs, the pundit must memorize one mandated statement:
That's exactly right!
Having voiced complete agreement with whatever the previous pundit just said, the second pundit is now free to say the same thing, possibly spinning things up a bit.
As we watched the Maher show last weekend, we saw something different occur:
Isgur gave a cogent explanation of one of the factors lying behind the current chaos at the southern border. Instantly, O'Rourke—he hails from the other side of the aisle—quickly said that he agreed with what she had just said.
That said, he was agreeing with a description of an American law, not with a mandated partisan talking point. Also, though, we note this:
As you can see, Isgur was saying that President Biden can't "fix" that asylum law. She said that only Congress can do that.
Indeed, a person watching Maher's program this night would have had little way of knowing that Isgur's career history lies in the realm of conservative Republican politics, including her stint as spokesperson for Attorney General Sessions under President Donald J. Trump.
President Biden can't "fix" that asylum law all by himself, Isgur said. If we had been there, we might have added this:
Yes, but he could get off his ascot and tell the country about the way these procedures currently work. He could actually state his views, in some detail, about the way he thinks the current chaos should be addressed.
President Biden failed to do any such thing over the past several years. In the aftermath of these years of inexplicable silence, every guest on Blue America's "cable news" programs knows the mandated talking-point which is now "exactly right:"
A bipartisan group of senators just fashioned the most comprehensive and the toughest immigration law ever seen in the past many years.
Those who propagandize Blue America all know they should start with that statement. The next Blue pundit will then emit this:
That's exactly right!
On Red America's cable news channel, the participants know they must say something different. They know they must say that Biden dismantled all of Donald Trump's policies, the policies which (they say) had the border sealed tight as a drum.
What was our reaction to watching Isgur and O'Rourke? Our basic reaction went like this:
Along with the help of the moderator, they produced a smarter conversation than any conservation we've ever seen on Red or Blue "cable news" programs. It even included an explanation of one of the laws which lies behind current border procedures!
Isgur's explanation of that asylum law jumped out at us as the crown jewel of their discussion. No one offers such explanations on Blue America's "cable news" programs, and no one ever will.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, and our nation is in trouble. Part of the problem is this:
Our species just isn't real sharp.
As was true on the plains before the towering walls of Troy, our brains are wired for tribal formation and warfare.
The notion that "rational discourse" should be part of the deal came to human affairs quite late in the game. That notion has never quite taken hold, as our "cable news" programs now show us.
Our view? First, a tip of the hat to Bill himself, who we first met in 1982. Does anyone fully understand how hard it is to do what he does—to offer intelligent discussions of major issues with extremely good jokes scattered throughout?
No one else can do what Bill does or can even come close. Greg Gutfeld proves that every night on Fox. Last night was especially gruesome.
There was no major point of disputation between Isgur and O'Rourke last Friday night. Amazingly, the emphasis landed on explanation, not on promulgation of the mandated talking points which increase viewership and corporate profits.
The conversation we saw was much, much smarter than any conversation we recall seeing on Red or Blue cable news. There was even an explanation of one of the laws which now control the puzzling state of affairs at the border—a state of affairs which could conceivably send an unelectable candidate like Donald J. Trump back to the White House next year.
In yesterday morning's report, we discussed a cable news program on which Alex Wagner broke all the rules. She allowed an outsider guest, a Georgias State law professor, to stage a minor disputation—to disagree, on two points, with the views of a regular guest.
This minor piece of disputation added a bit of nuance to our own understanding of what was happening in Georgia with respect to the Fani Willis racketeering indictments. A minor disputation had been allowed:
On cable, that's never done.
Last Friday night, Bill Maher and these two guests staged an intelligent conversation. The conversation didn't involve a bunch of reliable employees reciting mandated points for the purpose of providing pleasure and reassurance to a tribal audience.
Bill went on to offer a monologue which we ourselves thought was right on target. ("New Rule: Identity Crisis." To watch the whole thing click here.)
As Bill noted, no one has to agree with the points which were advanced, and some people won't. That said, we thought his monologue was smarter, and more salient, than anything you'll ever see on Blue America's cable.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep! That, of course, was already the case when warrior fought on the plains outside Troy. Can we possibly see ourselves a bit more clearly by venturing within the pages of that ancient poem of war?
The Gutfeld! program was clown car last night. Was Blue America's "cable news" really that much better?
No disputation need apply when Blue America's cable news programs get started. As with Red America's cable news programs, so too with ours:
The corporate model is built around the recitation of mandated points. No explanations need apply.
Very few ever do.
Linda Bean and Louis Gossett Jr have died.
ReplyDeleteAloha, Linda and Louis.
Delete"The notion that "rational discourse" should be part of the deal came to human affairs quite late in the game. That notion has never quite taken hold, as our "cable news" programs now show us."
ReplyDeleteA classic. One of Bob's best.
I'm glad he checked out Real Time finally. Could he not afford a MAX subscription?
DeleteAnyway, the show's guests don't always generate the rational discourse we deserve, but it certainly has a much, much better track record than most other MSM shows. And the 'New Rules' segment is usually both funny and insightful.
I feel like CNN is testing this out to see if its viewers are receptive to good discussion that isn't simply the talking heads all nodding in agreement. We'll see if the viewers are into it.
I agree, a good post by TDH. (I also appreciate the absence of references to the Iliad). I would add that those claiming asylum are entitled to a hearing before an administrative judge. Immigration law is a specialty, and I don't practice in that area but I do read summaries of decisions in the Mass. Lawyers Weekly. The criterion for establishing eligibility in these hearings is not that liberal - just being poor or a victim of crime is not enough, the claimant must prove that their government either inflicts or sanctions persecution on them by virtue of their political or racial status (I'm speaking somewhat loosely) . Lots, probably most get denied. The administrative courts are hugely overwhelmed; apparently the compromise law that wasn't approved would have led to the appointment of more judges. It takes years. The unsuccessful applicant can then appeal to a U.S. Court of Appeals, where they often lose, and can be sent back to where they came from (taking more time. Obviously, the system is dysfunctional. I'm not sure all the above is the result of a statute, but I have no basis to dispute the Maher panelist - can anyone cite the statute in the US Code? (I could look it up myself, I suppose, but not motivated to spend the time. Maybe could just ask Siri to get the answer).
DeleteIt’s a good post, AC? Why, because he praised shit-for-brains Maher for having random people on who all agreed with one another?
DeleteWhy don’t you ask Bill fucking Maher to cite the US code? Oh, too bad, he’s too busy stuffing money down his pants to do any research himself, and his assistants are too busy attending to his personal needs.
DeleteThere was agreement between Hitler and Mussolini. Did that make either of them right? Should they be given exposure on a show like Bill Maher’s? Maher is a whore.
DeleteWhen asked for my race, I answer “Human”
ReplyDeleteDIC is well known for being a racist.
DeleteRace is a social construct with no meaningful biological basis. It exists as a function of racism. When racism goes away, so will the concept of race, which emerged relatively recently from imperialism, colonialism, and racial slavery.
When asked for my race, I answer "a hundred meters."
DeleteOr will the concept of race need to fade away first in order to end racism?
DeleteGood question, easily answered.
DeleteNo.
Race is a function of racism.
This can be extended to most of identity politics, everyone has their own unique identity; identity serves those seeking to oppress and those seeking to end oppression. When oppressions end, their is little need to continue categories of identity, racial or otherwise.
When gender oppression ends, there will be no genders.
Delete"Race is a function of racism."
DeleteThat's too simple. They are much more intertwined than that.
I tell them I’m part Cherokee.
Delete
DeleteI don't know what "race" is, but "racist" appears to be some sort of a childish insult.
"Racist" is not an insult, but an identification of racial oppression, and it is no joking matter.
Delete12:37 nuance is often used as a weapon to confuse people. They are in fact not "much more intertwined", race essentially did not exist until the racial slavery movement started.
Cecelia, you may be part Cherokee, or you may be making a crude joke, demeaning those who suffer from oppression; either way, the weirdest part is that you pretend to be a woman.
I suffer from oppression and I need more money.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:57pm, we both know that I’m not the first white woman to do that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"race essentially did not exist until the racial slavery movement started."
DeleteBut even if the above statement is 100% true, it does not logically lead to race and racism are not intertwined at all other than a one causes the other relationship. Of course they are.
https://aeon.co/essays/fact-check-the-idea-of-race-is-not-modern-but-late-medieval
I’m part Neanderthal.
Deleteanon 12:57, you appear to be a didactically dogmatic and over-simplistic ideologue. No such thing as race but everything is about racism.
DeleteThere may in fact be no such things as race, AC, but people have suffered and continue to suffer the consequences of being assigned a race. Now, when those same people fight back, they’re told “there’s no such thing as race, why are you trying to divide us?”
DeleteAC/MA is struggling with the complexities of life. His attempts to oversimplify arise from his confusion and we can be sympathetic, but that doesn't make him right about anything much.
Delete"Isgur's explanation of that asylum law jumped out at us as the crown jewel of their discussion. No one offers such explanations on Blue America's "cable news" programs, and no one ever will."
ReplyDeleteIsgur's explanation is wrong, of course (the laws are a consequence of the 1951 refugee convention, and can be interpreted in different ways).
But to your main point: the DNC (and their bots) operate by inciting outrage. They know that a typical moonbat isn't capable of critical thinking. Inciting idiotic outrage is their standard M.O.
The 1951 refugee convention is outrageous.
DeleteHilarious, the "explanation is wrong" being explained by the infamous "can be interpreted in different ways".
DeleteIsgur is no hero of "critical thinking", neither is the lunatic 11:48 commenter.
I am a lunatic, and I vote.
DeleteI am a rationalist, I am voting for Biden.
DeleteSame
Delete"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), which protects refugees from being returned to countries where they risk being persecuted."
DeleteMore info here: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/refugees
"At the end of June 2023, 110 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced from their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.
Among those were 36.4 million refugees, (30.5 million refugees under UNHCR's mandate, and 5.94 million Palestine refugees under UNRWA's mandate). There were also 62.1 million internally displaced people, 6.08 million asylum seekers, and 5.6 million Venezuelans refugees or in need of international protection . There are also millions of stateless people, who have been denied a nationality and access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, employment and freedom of movement.
During the first half of the year, approximately 90% of newly displaced individuals globally resulted from seven significant displacement situations. These situations consist of both ongoing and new conflicts and humanitarian crises in various countries such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Latin America and the Caribbean nations, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Ukraine.
There are diminishing prospects for refugees when it comes to hopes of any quick end to their plight. In the 1990s, on average 1.5 million refugees were able to return home each year. Over the past decade that number has fallen to around 385,000, meaning that growth in displacement is today far outstripping solutions."
The USA supports these UN attempts to help refugees seeking asylum by encoding them into our own laws. Republicans (and now pro-Palestinians?) would like to bar the door, but that is not how humane people operate after the historical atrocities of the past. Republicans are urging us to be not only inhumane but un-American.
Rational discourse lost its way when right wingers emerged on the scene about 10k years ago.
ReplyDeleteFor centuries, there was a dark time, when religion ruled, but since the Enlightenment movement, problematic as it was, we have slowly been recovering our innate nature, often through relatively rational discourse.
Somerby suggests that cable news is a dominant entity in our discourse, and maybe there was a brief time when that held, but at best it is an outdated notion, generally it is wrongheaded.
Somerby knows nothing about the relevant behavioral science or history, yet he still mouths off with pseudo authority.
Today Somerby makes some strange claims. He says no one ever brings up the issue of asylum, this is false. He says Biden has ignored issues with the border, this is false. He suggests the opportunity to seek asylum is problematic, this is false. He repeats a claim that Biden dismantled Trump's border policy, this is false.
Somerby offers no evidence to substantiate his nonsense claims.
In reality, the border "crisis" is largely a manufactured one, moreso since Biden undid Trump's inhumane border policies but kept everything else as it was. The real issue with the border is the burden placed on those trying to immigrate to the US.
Immigrants are a main driver of our society, both our economy and our culture; without immigrants we would be up a creek without a paddle.
Immigrants work hard for lower pay, add billions in revenues for businesses, billions in taxes every year, while prohibited from many of the benefits of our society.
Immigrants have a much lower crime rate than native born Americans.
People like to live where they are from, where their family and friends are, where they are familiar with and to their surroundings.
Those seeking asylum are not trying to "game" the system, as Somerby hints. They are leaving behind all that they love because their area of origin has become unlivable. Why did this area become unlivable? In large part, due to actions of the US. You do not like immigrants? Stop creating dumpster fires all over the world. Duh.
The discourse on Maher's show (Maher is well known for his right wing neoliberal views) was not rational, it presented a biased description of a circumstance, and then mindlessly said it needs to be fixed. This is braindead discourse, not rational.
Somerby wants to frame it as rational, putting his famous and well calloused thumb on the scale, because it attempts to push right wing notions that he personally endorses - likely because it "owns the libs", although he probably also suffers from xenophobia.
This border "crisis" is the same one Republicans always trot out during election campaigns, they have been doing this for decades, with the same "explanations" as always.
Somerby keeps warning the blue tribe they are engaging with the wrong strategy, yet the blue tribe keeps winning with that strategy. It is Somery's supposed preferred strategy, Third Way neoliberal politics of acquiescence, that was the losing cause.
Somerby wants us to give away the keys to the store. No, Somerby, you are fooling no one, other than your handful of fanboys.
Quite often it is rational discussion. And readers should know this poster who loves to critique everything Somerby writes but can't even step up and identify themselves probably hasn't even watched any Real Time in a while. They default attack anyone that's vaguely centrist, old school liberal, or anything that isn't new establishment liberal.
DeleteNote they didn't say anything specific at all to back up their framing of the show as "not rational."
Unfortunately for this anon, Real Time is very popular. Somerby must have a lot of fanboys if it's all due to him and his influence! And he was able to coerce CNN into hosting!
Good stuff.
Fox News is more popular than Real Time.
DeleteCheck out how many albums Nickelback sold.
Your argument is silly.
CNN is owned by the same company, broadcasting Real Time is just a way of having cheap programming, as the parent company is less interested in funding the coverage of factual news.
The poster did explain why that discourse was not rational.
As a leftist, I do not watch Real Time as it rarely presents a coherent leftist or even progressive viewpoint. I recall Krystal Ball shredding Maher and his right wings guests a few times, but she is not a leftist, barely a progressive.
I didn't make whatever argument you think I made. That's your misperception.
DeleteNo, they did not explain why the discourse was not rational. They simply stated "it presented a biased description of a circumstance, and then mindlessly said it needs to be fixed" with no explanation of how it was biased. And everyone knows immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Rationalist: Has Somerby been paying attention to this issue and how it is reported before now, or has he suddenly become interested as Fox News ramps it up in an election year? Is it really true that Biden has not addressed the issue up until now?
DeleteDo you know whether Isgur was correct?
That's a lot of questions!
DeleteI am on-again off-again here. I go through phases when I don't read Somerby for weeks at a time. I don't recall a lot about immigration until recently.
"Biden has not addressed the issue" - Well he certainly did during the state of the union, and I like his response to the heckling from the republicans, basically, hey we put that bill in front of you, written by a Republican? Why didn't you vote for it?
Whether Isgure was correct about what exactly? Her entire framing of immigration? To big a chunk to label as correct/incorrect.
Rationalist: Yes, and my point is that Somerby probably ought to examine claims like Isgur’s, rather than say “ We offer this text, not because Isgur's explanation of asylum law is necessarily perfectly accurate, but because of the fact that she offered an explanation at all.”
DeleteHey, it may be completely wrong, but at least she said something. That’s foolish.
Also, Notice that he only gives the “I agree” from O’Rourke, without providing anything additional he might have said.
Well, for what it's worth I watched the whole episode and I thought the discussion was good. My opinion of O'Rourke went up.
DeleteBut my point is that a discussion isn’t really “good” if you aren’t sure if the speakers are making accurate statements. I personally would fact check people like Isgur, and not rush to print “well, at least she said something.”
DeleteThat's fine. Myself, I watch the show fairly regularly and I don't need an endorsement from Somerby.
DeleteIsgur and O'Rourke were largely in agreement on immigration and they weren't spouting the typical talking points.
It's still not clear what Isgur said that you believe needed to be fact checked. That would help me understand what point your are trying to make. Generically saying it is confusing since she was not rattling off a lot of statistics. She was mainly offering the opinion that Congress is who needs to solve the issue, not the President. And O'Rourke agreed every time. Is this what you want fact checked or...?
It might help if in matters of immigration law or policy, you could hear from experts in immigration law or policy, rather than a couple of random individuals presided over by a smug multimillionaire know-nothing who knows nothing in depth about the issue at hand but does the usual shtick of “I’m smarter than the experts because.” Also, did Isgur mention that there was a bill, IN CONGRESS, to address this stuff, but it was shot down by her leader, DJT?
DeleteIsgur misrepresented when and why the US passed an asylum law for refugees.
DeleteIn the old days, pols used ethnicity by doing something for an ethnic group. E.g., they would seek the Hispanic vote by doing something special for Hispanics.
ReplyDeleteToday, Dems use ethnicity as a way to tar Republicans as bigots. Democrats do little or nothing for blacks. In fact, they promote some policies that harm blacks, like opposing school choice. Dems seek the black vote by calling Republicans racists.
As a Black voter, I am aware that the only party that attempts to help my community is the Democratic Party.
DeleteI am aware that Republicans try to harm my community, which is racist.
School choice harms my community by cutting funding for my schools and instead offering Whites a way to "escape" integrated public schools and force Blacks into religious indoctrinations known to produce votes for Republicans.
12:03 is expressing a racist viewpoint, while externalizing their racism to those that challenge them. This is very ugly, and the commenter should feel ashamed.
Republicans tar Democrats as fetus-killers.
DeleteHistorically Blacks have supported Dems by about 90%, that continues today and likely forever.
DeleteNews to DIC, Blacks have agency, they aren't mindless infants to serve as pawns to your political masters.
Thus, the vast majority of Blacks choosing Dems is a clear indication they are choosing what is best for them.
DIC's view is highly racist, and he even throws in "tar" as a dog whistle. Disgusting.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609776/democrats-lose-ground-black-hispanic-adults.aspx
Deletehttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/19/black-latino-asian-voters-2024-presidential-election-republican/
Delete"Dems seek the black vote by calling Republicans racists."
DeleteThis is the soft, blue version of racism along with the expectation that minorities are in your back pocket because of it.
As a Klingon voter, I vote for whoever says they love Klingons.
DeletePolls, yes the backbone of all "rational discourse".
DeleteWhen it comes to actually voting, Blacks are supporting Dems in roughly the same amount as always; Biden received 90% of the Black vote, Dems have been getting the same in all the other elections as well.
Dems support policies that help minorities, in stark contrast to Repubs.
Yawn.
Are you saying they bribe "minorities", buying their votes?
DeleteAnonymouse 12:11pm and 12:23pm, you may disagree with David’s post (dissent is still permitted in the USofA), but he did not say anything that is racist.
DeleteIt’s not “racist “ to criticize the politics of race.
Saying that since most blacks vote for Democrats, it’s therefore racist to question the party’s rhetoric on race, is absurd.
Throwing around that epithet proves David’s point.
Black turnout dropped sharply in 2022 midterms, Census survey finds
Delete"lower-than-expected turnout in Milwaukee “likely cost the Democrats the Wisconsin Senate seat and could have made some other races much closer than what they appeared to be, for example Florida."'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/02/black-voter-turnout-election-2022/
Rationalist: look at the trend line graph. The “sharp” drop was compared to 2018, which was an unusually high turnout for all groups. Black turnout was a bit higher in 2022, but still in line with 2002 and subsequent years.
DeleteFair. Well, time will tell. I am certainly not rooting for a red wave at all myself.
DeleteIn the old days, racists like DiC were able to just use Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting. Today they work 24/7 inventing ever more devious methods to suppress the black vote. go fuck yourself, David.
DeleteBTW I would venture to guess that the thousands of dollars I have donated to black causes exceeds the amount donated by those calling me a racist. And, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who traveled to Washington D.C. to hear MLK speak.
DeleteFor the record, I didn't think you used "tar" as some kind of super secret symbolically sinister dog whistle.
DeleteI think we would all be better served take it lightly when white people throw out the term racist so much it's like candy at a parade. They do minorities no service with their cynical hijacking of the term for political ends.
I watched MLK on TV, so I’m not a racist, either.
DeleteRationalist 2:34pm, it wouldn’t matter if David meant it in the sense of tarring and feathering. That was done to both whites and blacks. If it had only been done to blacks, it would still be an apt term for what is done to politically inconvenient people.
DeleteAnonymices have no problem with pulling out terms like “token” and “Uncle Tom” when David references Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas.
This snit over “tar” is just more of the usual calculated cynicism and theater.
Tar is rat spelled backwards.
DeleteWhite turnout dropped in the midterms too. That’s what happens in midterms.
DeleteWe'll know blacks are moving towards voting for Republicans, when Republicans stop suppressing the black vote.
DeleteCOLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A federal court on Thursday ruled that this year’s congressional elections in South Carolina will be held under a map that it had already deemed unconstitutional and discriminatory against Black voters, with time running out ahead of voting deadlines and a lack of a decision on the case by the Supreme Court.
Delete*****
To be fair, the Roberts court is already very busy sitting on orange chickenshit's frivolous appeal to the court that he has complete and total immunity.
You can always watch the whole Bill Maher show, shortly after it's broadcast, if you have that revolutionary, just now emerging element in our lives called Youtube.
ReplyDeleteToday Bob is up to his old tricks: when something from the Blue side is completely accurate and correct, you must bitch that it was totally predictable that they would say that! It's scripted!
Sorry Bob, the bill that was fashioned and then rejected by Republicans was done so at the command of your disordered friend. Scripted or not, too predictable for your sensitive tastes or no, it's true, also rather shocking and pathetic. Bob Somerby, you are a big baby man who can't handle the truth.
Once again, while one can imagine the horror show of Fox's coverage of immigration, the way it is handled on MSNBC is nothing like Bob insists it is. What must rile Bob is that they sometimes let actual non whites, some of them with direct knowledge of the issue, weigh in. On those occasions Bob must put on the mute button and head for the kitchen for yet another beer.
One wonders, when Isgur was carrying water for Trump, who tried to ban certain ethic groups from entering the Country at all, how did She stand on Obama's Dreamers Program? That seemed to me one interesting and creative solution to a problem related to asylum. In any event, her statement (were we ever really that ashamed of turning away the Jews? And how did the American Right stand on that in real time?) is dubious on a lot of levels, and that Beto's response is not given any length here should make you think twice.
Bottom line: Bob has set to fixing on the three Republican issues he thinks he can use to damage Biden. The first, Hunter, has more or less imploded. The second, Biden's age, has sort of played itself out, at least for now. That leaves him with the Boarder. Could the right beat this even harder than they did in 2020 as a scare tactic? Hard to imagine, and it didn't quite work then.
Couldn't this problem be turned into an opportunity? America needs workers. But if you don't like having non whites around I guess you can't see that angle. And to go slightly off topic: Bill Maher has become truly revolting on the subject of race. The kind of white person who resolves to look away at any example of white racism. In that, Bill and Bob are truly white soul brothers.
I’ve never liked Bill Maher. You used to see articles about his friendship with Hugh Hefner and pictures in People of him looking goofily snockered over some Playboy bunny. He seems to be rather creepy in that way.
DeleteHowever, it’s ridiculous to suggest that the Maher isn’t funny. He goes from walloping gut laughing funny to incisively ironic and perspicacious. I credit him with that all day, every day.
The planets are in a super unusual position because we at least come close to agreeing. I didn't say Maher was not funny nor would I ever make that contention. I don't think I've missed a show since he was on Comedy Central a rare is the monologue where I never laughed a time or two.
DeleteI would say you overrate him, but that would be in part based on the diminishing returns in the world of entertainment we endure in general. Then I could go on concerning his weakness as a social critic but that horse is better beaten elsewhere. I will say good catch on his Playboy Mansion Aesthetic, but that just underlines how the tripe he has been talking on Bill Clinton for decades now seem a bizarre form of projection.
Anonymouse 3:54pm, Maher would be the first to say that America doesn’t want or need Bill Maher to run for office.
DeleteBill Clinton hasn’t been even allowed to run for President since 1996. After his embarrassing (but arguably harmless) scandals, his party would never run him.This has not stopped Maher’s petty barbs. It does it underscore the difference between us and your slimy friends.,
DeleteAnonymouse 4:27pm, he had an affair with a young underling (no pun intended) during the discovery process of a sexual harassment suit where they’re looking for a history of love in all the wrong places…) and he then tried to cover that up.
DeleteYou and your friends were so magnanimous toward a Democratic presidency. What breathtaking tolerance.
So your political overlords weren’t so open-minded about running him again. Evidently they understood something you don’t.
Overlords or no overlords, Clinton served two terms and is constitutionally ineligible for any further terms.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:12pm, not as president, but John Quincy Adams served in congress after his presidency.
DeleteSpeaking of former presidents, it’s looking like Barack and Bill are going to do Biden’s campaigning, while he’s on stage, sitting on a stool (no pun intended) and looking pretty.
DeleteBiden has campaigning all over the place lately, but thanks for sharing the most recent right wing idiot talking point.
Delete…has *been* campaigning…
DeleteHarris and Biden were both in NC in the past few days. The point of the focus on the Dem past presidents was that no living Republican past president is willing to stump for Trump, and not Pence either.
DeleteEastern European trolls make some funny mistakes. Clinton left office massively popular.
DeleteAnonymices, no one would misdefine you as being bots.
DeleteYou’re all too obvious angry and screechy ideologues doing the bidding of someone with a vast animus toward Bob and an intellectual and emotional hold on you,
Clinton left office as a popular president, that doesn’t mean that DNC honchos wanted a prompt repeat of carrying his baggage so soon. They settled for bumping off a senate candidate for Hillary to replace.
Yes Cecelia, I can note how shocked, shocked! You have been at Bill Clinton’s misbehavior! As you slink to the polls and vote Trump along with you tacky army of hypocrites.
DeleteI am an East European bot. I love Cecelia.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:03am, I wasn’t shocked for one minute by Clinton, there’s nothing new under the sun and I am not part of the people who would have had to run him again after all the brouhaha. That they wanted him to have some distance from that for a year or so, makes sense.
DeleteIn time, I don’t think he was interested in a second career in govt. He let his wife have her time. God knows he owed her.
Cecelia's voting for the rapist, no matter how much she admires Bill Clinton.
DeleteDon’t tell Juanita Broadderick.
DeleteWhat does Bill Maher really know about anything? Anything except self-promotion as the smartest guy on TV, that is.
ReplyDelete"President Biden can't 'fix' that asylum law all by himself, Isgur said."
ReplyDeleteOur Host notes briefly that Isgur is admitting to something rarely mentioned by Republicans in Congress. In place of this humble truth, GOP leaders insist that Biden could end the border crisis with the stroke of a pen.
I didn't see the show, so I don't know if Isgur's "cogent explanation" went further to say that once a person enters the US and makes a claim for asylum, he or she must appear before an immigration court judge to explain that claim. At present, the number of claims awaiting adjudication is so great that new claimants will wait several years before they see a judge.
President Biden actually DID offer a (partial) fix for this problem. It was included in the recently proposed bill negotiated by members of both parties. The bill would have funded dozens of new immigration judge posts to shorten the time it takes to evaluate asylum claims.
This is the same bill that appeared to be on a clear path to Congressional approval until candidate Trump signalled his displeasure with anything that might deprive him of one of his most effective campaign talking points. Speaker Johnson and GOP House leadership quickly fell into line.
Can Our Host tell us if THAT is ever mentioned on Red American cable news?
Glad to see you agree the premise of Bob's post, which criticizes the polarized and oversimplified nature of cable news discourse.
DeleteAnd I am equally glad that you're glad. So *tag*, you're it!
DeleteMaher’s show is a shouty one where he often provokes noisy discord if agreement breaks out. Somerby is mischaracterizing the usual tone among guests, where lonely liberals are as mistreated as on Fox while Maher fawns over conservative guests and kooks.
DeleteMaher’s health faddism and conspiracy theories are as bad (dangerous if believed) as RFK Jr’s. Most liberals quit watching him many years ago.
Maher is funnier than cancer, but just barely.
DeletePeople are not as upset about immigration as the media want them to be. A common fallacy is to overestimate the amount it occurs overall, and to be biased by sensationalist TV.
ReplyDeletehttps://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-abstract/32/1/153/5420461?redirectedFrom=PDF
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/875F5B45BF66FF92990410F40B2D1CA5/S0007123422000084a.pdf/misperceptions-about-immigration-reviewing-their-nature-motivations-and-determinants.pdf
"That said, we thought his monologue was smarter, and more salient, than anything you'll ever see on Blue America's cable."
ReplyDeleteIs Somerby referring to the parts of his monologue where he demeans Asian drivers, or the part where he calls Islam a barbaric religion?
Somerby doesn't seem to know what the word salient means either:
"most noticeable or important"
It typically refers to something that sticks out among other exemplars. For example, a male student in a class full of women is salient because he sticks out, is noticeable among a group of students who are otherwise similar. An argument that is salient by virtue of being important is typically standing out because the other points as trivial, unimportant. The element of contrast is part of the definition.
So, it makes no sense to call a single instance of a monologue salient when it is not part of a group. And I find myself wondering who all the other comedians are on blue media (not that HBO is blue media) that Maher is being compared to. He is clearly not a journalist or news reporter but a standup comic using news for topical humor and making jokes at the expense of guests, who tolerate that treatment in exchange for the exposure and the large sums he pays them to appear. For example Colbert is a comparable comedian (funnier) but he is not on blue news media. What is the comparison group Somerby refers to?
I am willing to admit that Gutfeld might be funnier and less offensive than Bill Maher.
There is an article in the NY Times describing how people can identify Chat GPT content by its use of favorite, often inappropriate words. Salient seems to be one of them. Does that suggest that Somerby may be using AI to write his rants? I wouldn't be surprised. Somerby has used it several times incorrectly and so has Cecelia, perhaps imitating Somerby or perhaps imitating his AI bot use. This is recent, within the last several days.
Cecelia is an obvious bot.
DeleteThat does not compute.
Delete