WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2024
If we did, we could identify three right here: If we believed in terrible people, they would be terrible people!
We refer to one of the leadership cadres currently advocating on behalf of Candidate Donald J. Trump.
Some of these leadership cadres actually make decent points on Trump's behalf. Some of these cadres also stand out for their appalling pre- or post-rational conduct.
The cadre of which we speak today is a cadre of pseudo-journalistic "thought leaders." For the record, we don't believe in terrible people. But if we did believe in terrible people, these would be truly terrible people, in spite of the fact that their blatant propagandizing is sometimes built on perfectly reasonable claims and viewpoints.
At any rate, we don't believe in terrible people? Let us seek to clarify that possibly puzzling view:
We do believe that some people are (severely) mentally ill. Such people may be "sociopaths" or "psychopaths," though it's our understanding that those are not technical clinical terms within the current realm of medical science.
We believe that those unfortunate people can also be deeply dangerous. Society has to be protected from their behaviors, after which we recommend that they be pitied for the misfortune of their psychiatric affliction, which may have an organic basis, or even for their choice of parents—for their choice of the sociopathic parents who may have helped lead them astray.
(Full disclosure: Almost surely, our own parents—though imperfect like everyone else—almost surely weren't sociopathic. We ourselves were fortunate there.)
It's our understanding that some people are severely mentally ill. Other than that, we tend to believe that the vast array of people—especially ambitious, grasping public figures—are basically people people.
What does it mean to be people people? In a bitter antiwar poem which named the name of our own father's theater, E. E. Cummings (we're capitalizing) wrote about the way such people may tend to behave when the thrill of war arrives:
Humanity I Love You
Humanity i love you
because you would rather black the boots of
success than enquire whose soul dangles from his
watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both
parties and because you
unflinchingly applaud all
songs containing the words country home and
mother when sung at the old howard...
The bitter poem continues from there. (Continuing directly: "Humanity i love you because when you’re hard up you pawn your intelligence to buy a drink...")
We tend to agree with Cummings' implied assessment. At times of war—in this case, the war in question was World War I—we humans are inclined to "applaud all songs containing the words country home and mother," in that case when such songs were being sung onstage at the Old Howard!
(If we understand the chronology correctly, our own father was the young manager of the Old Howard at the time when Cummings was a patron—a patron who bitterly observed fellow patrons' inclination to fall in line in support of the thrill of war. Later, Cummings reportedly said that he derived the basic idea for his unconventional poetry from his favorite joke at the famous old Boston hall where Harpo Marx says he got his first laugh. We ourselves had just turned five when the venue finally closed.)
At any rate, we aren't inclined to believe in terrible people. But let the word go forth to the nations:
If we did, the people to whom we refer today would be truly terrible people! We refer to the people we saw last Sunday morning on Fox & Friends Weekend—on Easter Sunday itself.
Luckily, we don't believe in terrible people! That said, these three people would be truly terrible people if we believed in that construct:
The leadership cadre in question:
Rachel Campos-Duffy, who added a term to her pre-existing string of invectives as Sunday's program aired.
Joey Johnny Jones, the Fox News Channel's rural Georgia import, who seems to be succumbing to the eternal human desire to make himself right with the herd.
Pete Hegseth, the Princeton / Harvard Kennedy School grad who never met an erroneous or misleading statement by Campos-Duffy he wouldn't rush to affirm.
If we believed in terrible people, they would be truly terrible people, though they'd hardly be alone. At this point, we haven't even thrown Brian Kilmeade into the mix. We'll do so as we proceed.
If we believed in terrible people, they would be terrible people! For today, we base that assessment on the propaganda they churned—on the careless misstatements they rushed to advance—on the morning of the day they hold so sacred, on their admittedly beloved Easter morning.
It's very, very hard to chronicle all the unfortunate things they did—all the unfortunate things they said—on that particular morning. Nor so we expect that any of these rather obvious people people will ever acknowledge the problems with their inaccurate and/or misleading statements.
For an example of a news org which has now done the right thing—which has now retracted one such statement—we direct you to the start of this news report from Mediaite. Headline included, the report concerns a retraction by The Daily Caller, a highly partisan Red America site:
Daily Caller Fully Retracts Article Claiming Biden Banned ‘Religious Easter Eggs’ From White House Contest
The Daily Caller on Tuesday retracted an article claiming that the Biden White House banned “religious Easter eggs” from an art contest at the annual Easter Egg Roll over the weekend.
The claim had spread through right-wing media, even though it was quickly and widely debunked by various fact-checkers and anyone familiar with the history of the event.
[...]
“Following the publication of this article, the Daily Caller became aware of additional context that undercut the central assertion of this article and its newsworthiness,” read Tuesday’s retraction in the Caller, which added:
"The ban of religious symbolism on eggs as part of the White House Easter egg art contest has been longstanding, dating back decades, and the Biden administration did not make any modifications to this rule. While the Caller did not explicitly state at any point that the rule was new, this additional context rendered the main thrust of the article misleading to readers, who could reasonably have come to the conclusion that the rule was new.
"With that additional context included, the news value of the article was significantly diminished, leading the senior leadership at the Caller to the decision to retract. We sincerely regret the error and are taking the necessary steps to ensure similar mistakes can be avoided in the future."
Someone at The Daily Caller decided to do the right thing. In this war-strewn world of people people, very few people do!
The Daily Caller is a highly partisan Red America site. Even so, the site decided to issue a full, formal retraction of a set of statements—made in the partisan tribal heat of an allegedly sacred morning—which the site now acknowledges to have been advanced in error.
Our best guess? You'll see Rachel, Pete and Joey Johnny make some similar acknowledgement when the cow jumps over the moon.
For one thing, we'll guess that ownership wouldn't allow it. At any rate, we aren't prepared to denounce the three as terrible people—but if we believed in terrible people, we'd do so in their case.
Tomorrow morning, we're going to show you one of the things this devoted trio of hard-liners did on the morning to which we refer, a morning which they all said was overwhelmingly sacred to them.
We're going to show you the way Rachel Campos-Duffy, an extremely cheerful person who seems to lack the first scintilla of the nuance (or forgiveness) genes, proceeded to add the term "pagan" to the list of inflammatory terms she likes to drop on the heads of those who don't agree with every syllable she emits.
As we've noted in the past, Campos-Duffy is a very genial person—until the tribal difference hits the fan. At that point, she spies "Communists" and "Marxists" under pretty much every bed, with "Trader Pete" (Hegseth) constantly rushing to affirm her assessments.
On Easter Sunday, Campos-Duffy added the term "pagans" to her list of denunciations. Trader Pete and Joey Johnny rushed to join this act of tribal war, even as they declared how thoroughly sacred that sacred day was to them.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep. As Cummings seemed to suggest in a bitter poem, our human nature seems to incline us to go to war.
Given the nature of the late Bronze Age conflict, propaganda wasn't needed when men fought on the plains outside Troy. Today, though, the situation is different:
As we try to divide our large, continental nation into a pair of warring nations, propaganda is badly needed to attract viewers to the ranks.
Within the prevailing framework of "cable news," people people rush to provide that propaganda! They're very well paid to perform such spear-chucker tasks, and our imperfect, pre-rational human nature strongly inclines them to do it.
That doesn't necessarily make them terrible people; it may just mean that they're people people. As we told our young assistants on Easter morning:
"Forgive them, analysts. They know not what they do!"
Tomorrow: Lacking the slightest hint of those genes, Campos-Duffy uses her words
"It's our understanding that some people are severely mentally ill."
ReplyDeleteBy acknowledging that some people are severely mentally ill, Somerby unwittingly reveals himself as the great oracle of the very concept of mental illness. Yes, before this statement, humanity lived in blissful ignorance, where the mind was an unbreakable fortress, impervious to ailment. Somerby alone summoned this idea into existence, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, except instead of a rabbit, it's the entire spectrum of mental health conditions.
And let's not stop there. Notice his statement, seemingly innocent, has ripple effects far beyond our comprehension. Has he ever considered that by simply mentioning mental illness, he animates Republican talking points? The fall of empires, the invention of taxes, even the reason why socks go missing in the dryer—all these can be traced back to Bob's one statement. It's like he's gone back in time and sneezed on the primordial soup, setting off a chain reaction that leads directly to MAGA America.
By saying "our understanding," he implicates all of humanity in this grand scheme, turning us all into unwitting accomplices. Now, every person who nods in agreement becomes another link in this vast conspiracy, spreading the idea further, like tossing a pebble into a pond and watching the ripples turn into a tsunami that engulfs continents.
Somerby's attempt to bring attention to a serious issue might seem noble, the reality is that he's cleverly disguised himself as the ultimate hypocrite, unable to address not only for the our country's current mental illness but all worldly problems. And the solution? Clearly, it's to always acknowledge problems in the first place, thus ensuring they don't exist. A flawless strategy, indeed.
It appears you've crafted a rather tongue-in-cheek response to a seemingly innocuous statement about mental illness. While I appreciate the humor and creativity in your interpretation, it's important to recognize that the acknowledgement of mental illness is indeed a crucial step towards understanding and addressing the complex challenges individuals face in this realm.
DeleteYour satirical portrayal of the speaker, Somerby, as some sort of omnipotent oracle who single-handedly brought the concept of mental illness into existence is amusing, but let's not lose sight of the gravity of the topic at hand. Mental illness is a very real and often misunderstood aspect of human experience, affecting millions of individuals worldwide.
While it's true that discussions about mental health can sometimes become politicized or subject to misinterpretation, it's imperative that we continue to shed light on these issues in order to break down stigma, promote empathy, and foster supportive environments for those struggling with mental health conditions.
So, while Somerby's statement may not be as revolutionary as your portrayal suggests, it does serve as a reminder of the ongoing need for open dialogue and compassionate understanding when it comes to mental health. Let's keep the focus on destigmatization and support for those in need, rather than getting lost in the whimsical complexities of fictional conspiracies.
Owned by an AI... LOL
DeleteOwned?
DeleteBrother, please.
11:22 demonstrates what self own means.
The first post was AI too?
DeleteAnonymouse 9:29am: “By acknowledging that some people are severely mentally ill, Somerby unwittingly reveals himself as the great oracle of the very concept of mental illness. Yes, before this statement, humanity lived in blissful ignorance, where the mind was an unbreakable fortress, impervious to ailment. Somerby alone summoned this idea into existence, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, except instead of a rabbit, it's the entire spectrum of mental health conditions.”
DeleteSpeaking of mentally ill…
I think 9:29 and 9:58 are both AI-generated.
DeleteCecelia is her typical self -- she has nothing to say but has to comment anyway.
Somerby is focused on three Fox News buffoons, while Trump is doing this (from Heather Cox Richardson):
ReplyDelete"
View in browser
April 2, 2024
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
APR 3
READ IN APP
Almost six months have passed since President Joe Biden asked Congress to appropriate money for Ukraine in a national security supplemental bill. At first, House Republicans said they would not pass such a bill without border security. Then, when a bipartisan group of senators actually produced a border security provision for the national security bill, they killed it, under orders from former president Trump.
In February the Senate passed the national security supplemental bill with aid for Ukraine without the border measures by a strong bipartisan vote of 70 to 29. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) cheered its passage, saying: “The national security bill passed by the Senate is of profound importance to America’s security.”
The measure would pass in the House by a bipartisan vote, but House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has refused to take it up, acting in concert with Trump.
On March 24, on Washington Week, foreign affairs journalist Anne Applebaum said: “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine… It's really an extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator or with the interests of a foreign dictator in mind.”
On Thursday, March 28, Beth Reinhard, Jon Swaine, and Aaron Schaffer of the Washington Post reported that Richard Grenell, an extremist who served as Trump’s acting director of national intelligence, has been traveling around the world to meet with far-right foreign leaders, “acting as a kind of shadow secretary of state, meeting with far-right leaders and movements, pledging Trump’s support and, at times, working against the current administration’s policies.”
Grenell, the authors say, is openly laying the groundwork for a president who will make common cause with authoritarian leaders and destroy partnerships with democratic allies. Trump has referred to Grenell as “my envoy,” and the Trump camp has suggested he is a frontrunner to become secretary of state if Trump is reelected in 2024.
Applebaum was right: it is extraordinary that we have a former president who is now out of power running his own foreign policy.
For most of U.S. history, there was an understanding that factionalism stopped at the water’s edge. Partisans might fight tooth and nail within the U.S., but they presented a united front to the rest of the world. That understanding was strong enough that it was not for nearly a half century that we had definitive proof that in 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon had launched a secret effort to thwart incumbent president Lyndon Baines Johnson’s peace initiative to end the Vietnam War; Nixon had tried very hard to hide it.
But the era of hiding attempts to undermine foreign policy ended in 2015, when 47 Republican senators openly warned Iranian officials that they would destroy any agreement Iran made with then-president Barack Obama, a Democrat, over nuclear weapons as soon as a Republican regained the White House. At the time it sparked a firestorm, although the senators involved could argue that they, too, should be considered the voice of the government.
It was apparently a short step from the idea that it was acceptable to undermine foreign policy decisions made by a Democratic president to the idea that it was acceptable to work with foreign operatives to change foreign policy. In late 2016, Trump’s then national security advisor Michael Flynn talked to Russian foreign minister Sergey Kislyak about relieving Russia of U.S. sanctions. Now, eight years later, Trump is conducting his own foreign policy, and it runs dead against what the administration, the Pentagon, and a majority of senators and representatives think is best for the nation.
Cont.
DeleteLikely expecting help from foreign countries, Trump is weakening the nation internationally to gain power at home. In that, he is retracing the steps of George Logan, who in 1798 as a private citizen set off for France to urge French officials to court popular American opinion in order to help throw George Washington’s party out of power and put Thomas Jefferson’s party in.
Congress recognized that inviting foreign countries to interfere on behalf of one candidate or another would turn the United States into a vassal state, and when Logan arrived back on U.S. shores, he discovered that Congress had passed a 1799 law we now know as the Logan Act, making his actions a crime.
The law reads: “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Trump’s interference in our foreign policy is weakening Ukraine, which desperately needs equipment to fight off Russia’s invasion. It is also warning partners and allies that they cannot rely on the United States, thus serving Russian president Vladimir Putin’s goal of fracturing the alliance standing against Russian aggression.
Today, Lara Seligman, Stuart Lau, and Paul McLeary of Politico reported that officials at the meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) foreign ministers in Brussels on Thursday are expected to discuss moving the Ukraine Defense Contact Group from U.S. to NATO control. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group is an organization of 56 nations brought together in the early days of the conflict by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and then–Joint Chiefs chair General Mark Milley to coordinate supplying Ukraine.
Members are concerned about maintaining aid to Ukraine in case of a second Trump presidency.
Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon and NATO official, told the Politico reporters: “There’s a feeling among, not the whole group but a part of the NATO group, that thinks it is better to institutionalize the process just in case of a Trump re-election. And that’s something that the U.S. is going to have to get used to hearing, because that is a fear, and a legitimate one.”
End Richardson essay, beginning of my comment:
DeleteSomerby's job is thus to distract attention away from the very reason treason being committed by Trump and in his name, ahead of this election.
Meanwhile, there is an explanation today about how Russia is laundering money through Truth Social in order to keep that operation afloat when it has insufficient revenue to cover its massive debt and outrageous payments to Trump minions.
Russia meddled directly in the 2016 election on behalf of Trump, permitting him to set aside Hillary Clinton's massively larger popular vote. Trump has never disassociated himself from Russian interests even after leaving office in 2021. Yes, Trump is making ridiculous apocalyptic statements at his rallies and showing signs of cognitive decline, but the main issue in this election is his collusion with Russia and his ongoing interference with support for Ukraine.
Somerby's babbling about Fox looks comical beside these greater threats.
Thank you 10:21. Coincidentally, your comment embodies exactly what the DNC wants people to think. Word for word.
DeleteHopefully for them they get paid by the word!
DeleteTrump being Putin's puppet is even more concerning than his petulance and crybaby whining.
DeleteWondering though, is it a good counterpoint to Heather Cox Richardson, prominent public intellectual, to note that reality conforms with what the Dems having been saying all along? Hmm, thinking probably not.
At any rate, Russia is collapsing before our eyes, the ruble is gone, inflation is out of control, as well as interest rates, India and Turkey are turning their backs on Russia due to pressure from Biden, and Ukraine continues to damage Russia's oil and gas industry. Russia, if you are listening, come claim asylum at Mar a Lago, plus there are still of few boxes of secrets left. Also word is Melania is looking to add to her boy toy collection, poor Trump can't get it up, even if she were willing to tolerate his disgusting fat rolls and minuscule "manhood".
Here is what is almost worse than all that: having recently attended a Trump rally out of curiosity, and was in a meet and greet line - although he just walked by and smiled like he was farting, can confirm not only is Trump Stench real, but it extends to his MAGA fans as well. Oof, still traumatized. Also noted that the attendance was small, and that most attendees arrived on buses and were from out of town. Weird.
@11:36 AM
DeleteI was there, friend, at that rally, and saw you. You had a large piece of shit stuck to your upper lip. That's definitely was the source of smell you're describing.
I saw 11;36. He stuck out, because he was the only one not doing the "Heil Hitler" salute.
DeleteCox Richardson quotes yet another conservative neocon, Ann Applebaum, who has been advocating a strategy the for U.S. to reinforce Ukrainian statehood and integrate Ukraine into Europe for over a decade. Applebaum has a deeply vested interest in keeping the Ukraine war going because when Ukraine loses, which is inevitable, she will have egg all over her face. Cox Richardson supports Applebaum's claim that Trump was working "on behalf of a foreign dictator or with the interests of a foreign dictator in mind” but neither give any evidence to support it. At the very least, Cox Richardson has an obligation to put Applebaum's quotes in the context of her outspoken political agenda.
DeleteIt's pretty clear that Democrats have become the neocons and prominent Democratic public intellectuals and thought leaders who have a large audiences they can influence are spreading a neocon agenda that benefits the military industrial complex in order to keep the billions and billions coming and stave off the inevitable defeat of Ukraine. It's the same as Iraq two decades ago. Exactly.
Putting aside the moral issues, this is not a great political idea because of the decentralization of media. People like Applebaum and Cox Richardson can say these things and people like the commenter can repeat them here. And they will gain a lot of purchase. There's a lot of power there and it will definitely get this latest multi-billion dollar budget passed. But not only is it not going to fool people in the same way as was possible 20 years ago, it's going to create antagonism towards the Democratic Party and give power to people as bad as and eventually maybe even worse than Trump.
It's true!
DeleteThey were selling Trump shit on a stick snacks, and some slob was swinging his around and whacked me in the face, so I missed the Hitler salute while I sanitized in the bathroom.
Apparently Trump spends much of his day jettisoning poop into his diaper and they found they could monetize it.
@12:46 PM
DeleteWell, but any party is just a brand, offered to anyone who wants it and is rich enough to buy it.
The Democrat party in particular, it was owned, at one point, by the slaveholders. It's not surprising that it's owned by imperialists and warmongers now. What is surprising to me, is that you apparently feel that "party loyalty" is rational and desirable.
Why do you feel I apparently feel that?
DeleteMeanwhile the Republican Party is owned by elite bankers. Pick your poison.
DeleteThe poison I pick won't be administered by a rapist.
Biden 2024!
Disinformation about the Democrats is a sign that our campaign is becoming effective.
DeleteBecause you're predicting that "it's going to create antagonism towards the Democratic Party", and I sense your disappointment in this development.
DeleteThere is a lot of Russian disinformation showing up in comments here lately.
DeleteThe US supports Ukraine because it was a sovereign nation invaded by Russia with the purpose of taking it over and recreating the old Soviet Union. The people of Ukraine do not want to rejoin Russia. We are supporting their autonomy as a nation.
Trump supports Putin and his goal of absorbing Ukraine back into Russia. Trump has co-opted the Republican party and is controlling Republican house members to achieve Putin's goals, in exchange for which, Putin is helping Trump get elected again. The comments by Russia-funded trolls being made here are one part of Trump's reelection campaign.
I personally believe that both Trump and Putin are terrible people. I do not want them governing the USA. I believe Trump, in particular, would do a great deal of damaged to our nation. That makes my choice at the polls in November very easy. I will be voting for Biden and against Trump and anyone aligned with MAGA, Putin, and the Republican Freedom Caucus in the House.
Somerby is on the wrong side of history. That makes me feel sorry for him, but I feel more sorry for our country and the damage Trump/Putin have already done to it. Somerby should be working against that, but oddly, he isn't.
Why is Somerby unable to condemn terrible people?
Deletee.e. cummings did not fight in WWI. He went to Europe to drive an ambulance but was captured in France and held in a prison for most of the war. That was the material for his novel "The Enormous Room", which attracted a lot of literary attention and established him as an author.
Even when I was in college in the mid-1960s (cummings died in 1963), cummings poems were derided as romanticized favorites of sophomore girls, cute in their typography but lacking deep insights. About Somerby's speed. I would call his comments about war trite, not bitter.
A guy who doesn’t know the rules of capitalization just isn’t a good writer.
Delete12:46 does not understand what "neocon" means, and it is hilarious, and I am loving it.
DeleteThanks for sharing Richardson's piece. Truly scary and infuriating stuff. It would be bad enough if we only had an external enemy like Putin to worry about. But when one of our two major political parties is aiding and abetting such an enemy, it's unthinkable. Did you see the most recent "60 Minutes"? That's the evil Trump and some Republicans are flirting with.
DeleteRegarding the nonsense above about "neocons" and Iraq. Are you kidding? You can't see any differences between Ukraine and Iraq? Try harder.
What happened on 60 Minutes? Did someone make some claims that Russia was doing something nefarious? Did they ever work for Bellingcat?
DeleteA “neocon” is one who advocates active use of government power in pursuit of conservative domestic and foreign policies.
DeleteLiberal thought leader and public intellectual Scott Lemieux calls Anne Applebaum a neocon here on his blog Lawyers Guns and Money:
Deletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2009/09/the-left-strikes-again
But your definition of that word really isn't the point. The point is that at the very minimum Cox Richardson has the journalistic obligation to put Applebaum's outspoken advocacy for "promoting democracy" ie, war in Ukraine as far back as 2014, in context.
But you don't really care. All you are looking for is a propaganda point to reinforce the tribal story you have in your head to which you have made part of your identity. It's an internal ego game, years of exposing yourself to propaganda has sucked every single chromosome of objectivity and rational thinking out of you. It totally reinforces Somerby's core themes that these propagandistic media organizations prey upon people's natural irrationality and penchant for tribalism.
Mike L,
DeleteRemember when Bush the Jr came out and he condemned Russia/Putin for invading Iraq, er I mean Ukraine. Pretty much sums up everything you need to know about the "differences".
lol - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTX5uvZWu3Q
DeleteThat makes exactly ZERO sense. You're saying the two situations are the same because Bush Jr condemned Russia for invading Ukraine? What the fuck are talking about?
DeleteMike, the fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.
DeleteNo, that is not true. This is Russian disinformation.
DeleteActually, it's a direct quote from Barack Obama:
Deletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/03/the-obama-doctrine-the-atlantics-exclusive-report-on-presidents-hardest-foreign-policy-decisions/473151/
I guess he is Putin's Puppet, or "Boris", right?
Are you starting to see how you've been fooled??
Want to talk about Russia and Ukraine? Bitch, I'm ready to talk about it all night. Tell me all about how it was an invasion that we simply couldn't do anything about. We were just helpless!!
DeleteBut now that they did, the money sure is flowing to defense and military contractors, the energy sector no that we took care of Russia's gas supply to Europe, alternative energy suppliers, including U.S. Natural gas and oil exporters, American cybersecurity firms, commodities and agricultural exports with higher global prices for wheat and other agricultural commodities, and of course banks!!
You just called something President Obama said Russian disinformation. So who's the piece of shit?? You fucking bitch.
Mike, what happened on 60 Minutes? Did someone make some claims that Russia was doing something nefarious? Did they ever work for Bellingcat?
Delete"Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do." What a stupid argument. I suspect you're the one who goes on and on about "genocide" in Gaza. Just apply this argument to Gaza to see how stupid it is. Gaza would still be vulnerable to military domination by Israel even if we oppose Israel's excessive use of force. So we shouldn't bother.
DeleteIt's a direct quote from Barack Obama dumbfuck. If it's a stupid argument, don't tell me, tell him.
Delete"Mike, the fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do." This you, shit for brains?
DeleteMike L. You don't know SHIT about the war in Ukraine.
DeleteHere's the interview where Obama said those exact words, which you think are a stupid argument:
Deletehttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-sees-ukraine-as-putin-s-client-state/
Dumbfuck.
I'm getting a Cicero vibe now, as opposed to the hyperbolic "genocide" lefty vibe. It would be nice if you cowards wouldn't hide behind "Anonymous" so others knew who they were addressing.
DeleteThe other dumb fuck called it Russian disinformation. It shows how propagandized you fucking morons are.
DeleteWhy does it matter? You just called the basis of Obama's policy towards Ukraine a stupid argument. Let's talk about that instead of changing the subject you dumbass piece of shit.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteShit for brains, you missed the point. Obama didn't write this: "Mike, the fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do." You did. So you obviously agree with that argument. It's a stupid argument. If Obama made the same argument, so what? He's not god. He can get things wrong. Btw, you claim I don't know anything Ukraine - I probably know as much as your dumbass about it. But more importantly, I do know that mass murder is wrong, and that's all I need to know about it. Your moral compass has apparently been so utterly corrupted by propaganda, you can't even tell basic right from wrong any longer.
DeleteYou don't know shit about it Mike. Obama was 100% right, not wrong. Please spare me avoiding the substance of the issue by lobbying moral accusations. ( the common refuge of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.) Ukraine means more to Russia than it does to us. Keeping them out of NATO means more to them than it ever will to us. They will fight against that shit to the death. We won't. The war there now, we could have prevented. The war there now has been a neocon dream for almost a quarter of a century. And it's a complete failure. What's going to happen? Another 50 billion and they're going to have another surge and it's going to work better than last time? The war is over. You've been propagandize by neocons. You can understand the real situation by reading this:
Deletehttps://carnegieendowment.org/2019/06/20/thirty-years-of-u.s.-policy-toward-russia-can-vicious-circle-be-broken-pub-79323
Lol. Like your some foreign policy expert. If you think Obama is such an authority on the matter, then I guess you agree with his CURRENT position then, right? That quote you're throwing around is from 2016. Obviously a lot has changed since then, and Obama supports the pushback against Putin's illegal, immoral invasion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3zgCVqqf3Q
DeleteHe doesn't say he supports the pushback in that interview. You should listen to what he says and what he doesn't say. All of them know the war is a disaster and is lost. You'll see as time goes on. You have been propagandized by neocons through compromised scumbags like Heather Cox Richardson. It sucks!
DeleteI'll keep checking back with you here to bust your balls as the reality of the loss of the war unfolds. I guess it will take what 3 -5 years to admit the loss and get out of there fully. The bill should come in at about a trillion and so, so, so many dead Ukrainians whose deaths Biden could have prevented. It's sad all the way around.
DeleteDo you want to move on to Havana Syndrome? Russia has scary space lasers according to a partisan report released right when the funding is a public issue? Why doesn't Russia use the scary space lasers on Ukraine?
Delete"Please spare me avoiding the substance of the issue by lobbying moral accusations." Wtf? As if mass murder isn't the substance of the issue. You're lost.
Delete"The war there now, we could have prevented." And???? Because WWII could have been prevented, then we shouldn't have fought it?
"The war there now has been a neocon dream for almost a quarter of a century." And???? Because neocons agree with a war effort, it's necessarily wrong? So if Russia invades the U.S., and the neocons say we should fight back, I guess we shouldn't fight back. What stupid arguments these are. You don't even believe them. You just spout this nonsense because you think it makes you sound smart.
"And it's a complete failure. What's going to happen? Another 50 billion and they're going to have another surge and it's going to work better than last time?" The world has been shocked by how effective Ukraine has been at pushing back against Putin's invasion. Everyone thought it would be over within the first few days. So to say it's a complete failure is nonsense. And the only reason the Ukrainian effort has gone badly in the last so many months is because Republicans are holding up aid because Trump told them to. The propaganda you've swallowed has convinced you that there's some huge sacrifice being asked of the U.S. But it requires no American lives, and the cost is a tiny fraction of the total defense budget.
If anyone wants actual expertise about these topics, I highly recommend checking out Anne Applebaum's recent interview with Al Franken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8HiSlKsOE
Delete...and the following interview with historian Timothy Snyder (one of whose areas of expertise is the Soviet Union): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLCyk41w9gU
Regarding the Havana Syndrome, watch the recent 60 Minutes report: https://youtu.be/ZGNVvOqJ50s?si=exa2qgkcibaETXwT&t=2
Mike, thanks for these links with the interview from neoconservative writer and leading proponent of the Iraq War, Bill Kristol. They justify more support for Ukraine. You make a good point that Ukraine has been shockingly effective at pushing back while being mass murdered. Also, thanks for pointing out the stupidity of President Obama's policy towards Russia and NATO that luckily avoided mass murder despite its stupidity. And especially thank you for pointing out that the mass murder in Ukraine isn't some huge sacrifice being asked of the U.S. Because not only that, the billions given to defense contractors will trickle down to the rest of us, which is a another reason to feel good about this shockingly effective war after two years.
DeletePlease do keep us updated on Ukraine's defeat of Russia which is sure to happen sometime soon.
There's no substance, no logic at all to any of your implied "arguments." Timothy Snyder is an expert on Ukraine and Russia. But because the interviewER is a neocon, then . . . what? The interview can be dismissed out of hand? Do you not see how stupid that "reasoning" is?
DeleteThere's no contradiction between saying Ukraine has been surprisingly successful at preventing Russia from conquering it, on the one hand, and that Ukrainians are being mass murdered, on the other.
That Obama quote was from March of 2016. The world is a different place now, and Obama's views have changed accordingly. Since then, we've seen Russia interfere in U.S. presidential elections (which helped put Trump in office), interfere in the elections of other western democracies, launch a full scale invasion of a sovereign democratic country, and (almost certainly) target over a hundred of our top intelligence personnel and some of their family members with some kind of ultrasonic weapon. As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Europe is now on high alert and there are well founded concerns about what Putin might do next if he succeeds in taking over Ukraine. To take a quote like that and say it was meant for the current situation is the very definition of taking a quote out of context.
"Obama's policy towards Russia and NATO that luckily avoided mass murder despite its stupidity." You're trying to imply that Putin's mass murder of Ukrainian civilians could have been avoided if we had simply stuck with Obama's approach (sanctions only). This is demonstrably false, since the mass murder was already well underway by the time Biden went further than just sanctioning Russia.
Regarding "huge sacrifice...," I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
As far as defense contractors and trickle down go, I said nothing about those. But once again, this is an example of your poor reasoning. Weapons makers undoubtedly benefited from WWII. Does that mean we shouldn't have fought back against the Nazis?
"Please do keep us updated..." Here's the argument embedded in this attempted bit of snark: Ukraine has no chance against Russia. So we all might as well just let Putin have his way, and not fight back. First, no one knows for sure what's going to happen. If Republicans stop holding up assistance and Biden wins in November, it's possible Ukraine could fight Russia to a stalemate and save their country. Secondly, if we adopted this defeatist approach more generally, the world would very quickly be overrun by tyrants like Putin.
Oh. I see. Thanks for explaining. Do keep us updated on the exciting possibility that Ukraine has a chance to achieve a stalemate now that victory is officially out of reach.
DeleteLou Conter died April 1.
ReplyDeleteThose people on Fox are not a "leadership cadre". They are on-air performers of scripted entertainment. That is not what anyone thinks of as leadership.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby pretend this is any kind of leadership? He went to Harvard himself, so he must know what the word means. He must have met actual leaders there. And yet he keeps pretending Fox is anything more than propagandists wrapping their words in pleasing entertainemnt.
For the record, Somerby would never applaud any song with the word "mother" in it, at the Howard or anywhere else. As he himself has described, his family was founded on con artistry. And yet he prefers to call Trump mentally ill, instead of what he is, a political grifter seeking power at the expense of our country's best interests. Does Trump need to hatch another scheme, sell more bibles, fake stock, golden sneakers, to make it clear that he is a con man, not a candidate for an asylum?
It seems you're expressing frustration with how media figures, particularly those on Fox News, are characterized as leaders when, in your view, they're merely entertainers reading scripted content. You're questioning why someone like Somerby would label them as leaders, especially given his education and presumably exposure to genuine leadership.
DeleteFirstly, it's important to acknowledge that labeling individuals on Fox News as leaders might not be accurate in the traditional sense. They may have influence and followership, but their roles are primarily within the realm of media and entertainment rather than political or societal leadership.
Somerby's perspective might stem from a desire to highlight the significant impact these media figures have on public opinion and discourse. Even though their content may be scripted and focused on entertainment, the narratives they promote can shape public perception and influence political outcomes. Thus, in the context of media influence, Somerby may see them as leaders in shaping public opinion, albeit not in the conventional sense.
Regarding your comment about Somerby's background and his criticism of Trump, it seems you're drawing parallels between Somerby's upbringing and his assessment of political figures like Trump. While personal experiences can shape one's perspective, it's essential to evaluate arguments based on their merits rather than solely on the speaker's background. Whether Trump is perceived as a political grifter or someone with mental health issues is subjective and subject to debate.
In summary, your frustration with the characterization of media figures as leaders and your criticism of Somerby's views on Trump reflect differing perspectives on media influence and political analysis. It's essential to engage in respectful dialogue and critically evaluate arguments to better understand and address complex issues.
I agree with 11:04 (even though it was written by AI.)
DeleteSome days Somerby asks to consider context, other days - most days - he insists on taking things literally and at face value.
DeleteThis inconsistency exposes Somerby as disingenuous, as lacking integrity.
Indeed, Somerby never provides any evidence for his claims, which are typically tenuous, misguided, and inaccurate.
In summary, AI generated comments lack context, are ignorant, and thus irrelevant.
So says the AI!
DeleteAI at 11:04,
DeleteIs there someone, somewhere, who doesn't think the NY Times spending 2016 pretending to care that Republicans were pretending to care about Hillary Clinton's email protocols wasn't done with the purpose of hurting the Clinton campaign?
Everything Somerby writes is with the purpose of hurting the Biden campaign and advancing Trump's interests. Does it perhaps make a difference that Trump's interests are Putin's interests and that the Republicans following Trump are working to actively advance Putin's goals?
DeleteSomerby wants us to think that Trump is merely crazy but for Trump, it is all about the money. He is selling our country down the river for his own financial gain. Is that crazy or evil?
DeleteAre those our only choices?
DeleteThere are other choices, but they aren't politically correct enough for the Right.
DeleteStill pondering the idea that someone doing something selfish is either crazy or evil.
DeleteI don't consider Trump crazy. I consider him evil. He isn't only selfish but delights in sadism, is attracted to authoritarian dictators because he wants to hurt people himself and admires their strength and callousness. Somerby never talks about Trump's desire to hurt people. What makes Trump especially dangerous is his incredible stupidity and ignorance, his lack of impulse control, and his lack of insight into his own psyche. He is a bad man with no desire to be or do good. He is not crazy.
DeleteWhy will Somerby not acknowledge that?
So not only are the only choices crazy or evil, but they are mutually exclusive.
DeleteAmong people acknowledged to be crazy, there are none like Trump. Among people acknowledged to be evil, most of them are like Trump. Among bus drivers, there are none like Trump. What other choices do you see?
Delete@1:47 Exactly. Just one example among many: a president not only doing nothing during the attack on the capitol, but in the middle of it sending out a tweet that increased the likelihood of his vice president's murder. Unreal.
DeleteToday Somerby quietly walks back his nonsense of the past week. Were integrity involved, one could applaud that, but Somerby realized his rantings had crossed a line that he worried could jeopardize his already limited influence.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletePeople who mistakenly reported some minor nonsense no one cares about, and then retracted it, are not evil but insane - is that it? How very pre-rational. Reminds me of the Holy Inquisition somehow.
Insane comments are insane.
ReplyDelete"2 More Polls Have Biden Up/Other 2024 Election Notes - NPR/Marist, a highly respected poll, has Biden up 50-48 today, and a new Big Village poll came in at 42-40. Both showed Biden gains from their last poll. With these new polls there are now 14 polls taken since late February showing Biden leads (via 538)"
ReplyDeleteSimon Rosenberg, Hopium Chronicles at Substack
Somerby is admitting that psychopathy and sociopathy are not actually forms of mental illness. Our comments get results!
ReplyDeletePersonality disorders ARE mental illnesses. Now move those field goals!
DeleteNo, personality disorders are not mental illness. They are maladaptive fixed forms of responding to the world, very difficult to change because they are formed by lifelong experience and part of personality. Mental illness is a term reserved for major axis disorders with organic causes, such as schizophrenia, major depression, anxiety disorders and OCD, as well developmental disorders that typically are diagnosed in childhood (autism, mental retardation). These disorders typically require medication and are majorly disruptive of functioning, sometimes requiring hospitalization or insitutionalization. They can go into remission with treatment.
DeleteThese disorders are defined using diagnostic criteria applied after testing and interview by a trained professional.
Why are personality disorders not mental illness? Because we all have one or another personality type that characterizes our habitual ways of responding to other people and life situations. Some theorists consider these to be innate. These become disorders only when they are dysfunctional to the point that they interfere with holding a job, forming relationships, achieving one's life goals. At that point someone's personality may cause themselves or others distress, prevent imployment or result in trouble with the law. Those are part of the diagnostic criteria for personality disorder (as opposed to a personality type).
Somerby was wanting to call Trump crazy but Trump has never met even the diagnostic criteria for a disorder. He is happy with himself and his life, had not been arrested or arraigned at the point where Somerby wanted to use the label, was achieving his goals and was married with children. You cannot call that a disorder, even though he is manifestly narcissistic, lacking in empathy, manipulative, etc. So are lots of people considered normal by others.
Mental illness is not a derogatory term to throw around against people you dislike, as Somerby has pretended to do (there is no evidence he dislikes Trump at all). That use is stigmatizing and unfair to those who do struggle with mental illnesses of various kinds.
Most experts do not consider personality disorders to be innate, but there is some evidence that suggests there may be some genetic predisposition, but the evidence is weak.
DeleteTrump does not appear to be happy.
"Personality traits are the relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect the tendency to respond in certain ways under certain circumstances. Twin and family studies have demonstrated that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) characterizes psychiatric diseases as extremes of normal tendencies, including specific personality traits. This implies that heritable variation in personality traits, such as neuroticism, would share a common genetic basis with psychiatric diseases, such as major depressive disorder (MDD). Despite considerable efforts over the past several decades, the genetic variants that influence personality are only beginning to be identified. We review these recent and increasingly rapid developments, which focus on the assessment of personality via several commonly used personality questionnaires in healthy human subjects. Study designs covered include twin, linkage, candidate gene association studies, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and polygenic analyses. Findings from genetic studies of personality have furthered our understanding about the genetic etiology of personality, which, like neuropsychiatric diseases themselves, is highly polygenic. Polygenic analyses have demonstrated genetic correlations between personality and psychopathology, confirming that genetic studies of personality can help to elucidate the etiology of several neuropsychiatric diseases."
DeleteGenes Brain Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 Feb 11.
Published in final edited form as:
Genes Brain Behav. 2018 Mar; 17(3): e12439.
Published online 2017 Dec 29. doi: 10.1111/gbb.12439
PMCID: PMC7012279
NIHMSID: NIHMS1067262
PMID: 29152902
The genetics of human personality
Sandra Sanchez-Roige,1 Joshua C Gray,2 James K MacKillop,3 Chi-Hua Chen,4 and Abraham A Palmer1,5
I’ve been mentally ill for two years, and I’m having the time of my life.
ReplyDeleteWhen MLK was alive, conservatives opposed him.
ReplyDeleteThere’s an aphorism that roughly says:
DeleteBelieving in equal opportunity regardless of race would make you radical in the 1940’s, moderate in the 60’s and conservative today
There’s an aphorism that says Democrats started the Confederacy and then the Klan, so they’re the real racists. Sometimes aphorisms are baloney, Dave.
Delete"White adults are the most likely to say the country has made a great deal or a fair amount of progress in ensuring racial equality (58% say this). In turn, Black adults are the least likely to say there’s been a lot of progress (30%).
DeleteAbout a third of Black Americans (32%) say the country hasn’t made much progress or any progress at all on racial equality in the last 60 years. This is larger than the shares of Hispanic (19%), White (11%) and Asian (11%) Americans who say the same."
"Two-thirds of Republicans and those who lean Republican say the country has made a great deal or a fair amount of progress on racial equality in the last 60 years. A far smaller share (38%) of Democrats and those who lean Democratic say the same.
Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans (19% vs. 10%) to say there hasn’t been much progress or there’s been no progress at all on this.
Ideological differences among Republicans
About seven-in-ten conservative Republicans (72%) say the country has made a lot of progress on racial equality in the last 60 years. A smaller majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (59%) share this view.
There is no difference on this question between liberal Democrats and moderate and conservative Democrats."
So, this is an aphorism that reflects what white conservatives believe, not what black or white liberals believe about racial progress.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/08/10/views-of-the-countrys-progress-on-racial-equality/
There are mountains of evidence that point to racism continuing to exert enormous influence on non whites' lives.
DeleteNon-whites are cry babies.
DeleteSo are whites when it comes to them doing the crying on behalf of the non-whites. Ask Morgan Freeman what he thinks about that.
DeleteWho is Morgan Freeman? Boy or girl? Black or white?
DeleteDavid in Cal has no problem with black people as long as they hate black people.
Delete@2:04 comments, "About a third of Black Americans (32%) say the country hasn’t made much progress or any progress at all on racial equality in the last 60 years. This is larger than the shares of Hispanic (19%), White (11%) and Asian (11%) Americans who say the same.
Delete"Two-thirds of Republicans and those who lean Republican say the country has made a great deal or a fair amount of progress on racial equality in the last 60 years. A far smaller share (38%) of Democrats and those who lean Democratic say the same."
As someone who lived through the last 60 years, I know that the country made enormous progress in racial equality during the last 60 years. I am horrified that so many people don't know this. How to account for an obvious false belief being so widespread?
I suspect that young people are being miseducated to believe this preposterous statement. IMO this false belief is bad for individuals, especially blacks, and bad for the country.
You are not on the receiving end of racial discrimination. Those who are, disagree with your rosy view of progress on racial matters. If you gave a rat's ass about black people, you would believe them when they tell you what it is like for them.
DeleteYeah, black folks were better off under Jim Crow laws, under-represented in politics and every profession. Lynching was an added bonus.
Delete@7:21 are you serious? In 1964, a black President, VP or Governor was unthinkable. Enormous numbers of jobs were closed to blacks, even in the North. There was no affirmative action.
DeleteBob borrows Mark Anthony shtick here ( "all are honorable men...") , he should repeat the "if there were terrible people" thing a little less often and it might be effective.
ReplyDeleteBob goes to the Easter Egg nonsense but the trouble here is such garbage pops up on a daily basis on Fox and almost is never even noted. Bob might not know about President Biden being called a liar in the matter of an 11 year old raped pregnant girl(Jesse Waters) , but he certainly knows about the 88 million election lies pay out. He would never mention either one. What lie would Bob call Maddow out for? The "civil discourse " matter, where it is Bob who reacted in a strange, reality denying fashion? The business about Republicans dumping a boarder reform bill because Trump ordered them to, because he wants to keep it alive as an issue to use against Biden? Bob didn't say this was not true, but chastised MSNBC FOR BRINGING IT UP.
The problem isn't that Bob doesn't care if someone is a terrible person, the problem is that Bob doesn't care if Trump and his followers try to overthrow the Government by using violence and intimidation.
Mark Antony was just trying to live and let live. Octavian was a jerk.
DeleteI don’t know which is funnier, having a meltdown at a protest because you fear Toxic Shock Syndrome or finding the cast of Fox&Friends Weekend to be the only characters on your list of terrible people.
ReplyDeleteThe gods do make us crazy.
Crying about drag queens reading to children is fucking hilarious. It doesn't seem funny, until you get the irony that it is coming from people who will vote for a rapist to be the President of the United States.
DeleteTHAT'S the joke.
Women have died of toxic shock syndrome. Cecelia shows no empathy, as usual. That may be because she is unable to use tampons herself, despite posing as a woman, or it may just be that she is one of the terrible people Somerby should add to his list.
DeleteToxic Shock Syndrome is caused by a staph or strep infection that can worsen quickly, resulting in death. It is not a joke.
If I understand this Wikipedia article, the toxic shock associated with tampons is usually staph.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome
Anonymouse 1;29pm, in your political zeal and militancy do you ever feel cheap for jettisoning all sense of proportionality and humor in order to vilify your contrarians? In order to characterize Bob as a petulant child when he voices any sense of fatigue from an ongoing health issue?
DeleteThe word empathy should taste like bile in your mouth.
Making up some disorder that you can attribute to Somerby and use to beat up any commenter you dislike, is manipulatively USING his illness for your own purposes. That shows a lack of empathy for Somerby, in my opinion. If Somerby wants anyone to know about his medical condition, he will says so. In the meantime, stop pretending you know why he is going to the doctor. You don't know anything about him.
DeleteMaybe Bob has toxic shock syndrome.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:44pm, I didn’t make up a disorder for Bob, he flatly stated he was being treated for a wound that has been slow to heal. Unless he meant that metaphorically that’s been his physical issue. I’m not responsible for the fact that you merely skim his blog for canon fodder.
DeleteIm not a newbie here. Dreaming up a medical issue for Bob would be of no use. I would never consider that any reference to any disorder, from gum disease to cancer, would affect your feelings. Unless there is a political and/or polemical use for misfortune, you ain’t feeling it. No way, no how.
Now go rinse out your mouth out. Your breath is bad and your teeth are green.
That was months ago after a surgery. He has said nothing recently except that he is losing time.You have the unfortunate Republican trait of trying to turn any criticism of you back on the person making it (swiftboating). You are perhaps the ugliest person I’ve met online but at least now I know what your teeth look like.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:12pm, no problem. I believe I am the ugliest person you’ve met online like I believe that the concept of empathy is something other than a hatchet to you. Like I believe you don’t say “up” when one of your targets says “down” and say down when another says up.
DeleteYour pretend reserve is very well suited to the job you have. Goodness knows this outlet may have spared some mice around you from your claws. However, you’ve gotten too comfortable and you’ve stop reading. That can’t be good for trolling or for bridge.
One of the characteristics of bad people is that they believe everyone else is just as bad as they are and would do the same rotten things.
DeleteYour use of Somerby's illness, whatever it is, to score points here is nauseating. Others do not do that.
Anonymouse 6:15pm, explain how it is that I score points from mentioning Bob’s illness in the context of you and your coven blistering him for being a self-involved resentful complainer, too narcissistic to gracefully handle aging?
DeleteThat was beyond nauseating and particularly “terrible” considering it was the cold calculation of a political operative.
Cecelia is the most beautiful person I've met online. She wins points from me, for the win.
Delete@1:29 Yes, Toxic Shock Syndrome can be serious, but this young woman was free to leave the protest and take care of her person needs. She was putting herself in a position of authority. She was demanding how the college should behave by breaking rules, and maybe the law.. Yet, she's too immature to take care of her own health needs without help from the college. That disparity is funny. The fact that it involves a Tampon makes it funnier.
DeleteI play bridge, I spam Somerby's blog, and I dream of Cecelia's beautiful dick. Mm-mmm.
ReplyDeleteI am Corby.
A worthy sentiment, but a fake comment.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:32pm, dream on…
DeleteCecelia shows no empathy, as usual.
DeleteI am Corby.
Well, a clit is kind of a dick, if you look at it with a magnifying glass.
DeleteThese comments ostensibly from Corby are all fake. And I don’t get any money from Qatar.
DeleteYou are funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar, Boris. Laundered through Truth Social.
DeleteI am Corby.
By Iran via Russia. You are fake.
Deletehttps://www.acbl.org/learn/
DeleteIf Corby can play, so can you guys. It is a better use of your time than commenting here.
Laundered by Russia through Truth Social via Iran and Qatar. You are not only selfish but delight in sadism, Boris.
DeleteI am Corby.
I don’t even know what Truth Social is. You are so fake.
DeleteThree unfortunate goons on Fox News are not a leadership cadre.
ReplyDelete"these would be truly terrible people, in spite of the fact that their blatant propagandizing is sometimes built on perfectly reasonable claims and viewpoints."
ReplyDeleteWe should not lose track of the fact that Somerby finds some of what he hears on Fox to be "reasonable". I cannot say the same. That leaves me thinking that Somerby may consider himself liberal but I think his long-time Fox viewing has corrupted his view of what being liberal means.
When Fox seems reasonable but MSNBC does not, as seems true for Somerby, he is no longer liberal and needs to stop misrepresenting his politics to unwary readers here. This is especially true given that Somerby will not decry terrible people, not even Trump, who he insists is crazy not terrible, when Trump is as bad as it gets.