SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 2024
...meets our "Gödel made easy" books: Long ago and far away, we were appalled and bored.
We decided to swing into action. We considered the possibility of writing a novel—more likely, something like a novella—which would have this title:
My Life, on Earth, Among the People
The story would be narrated by an alien being who had been sent to this planet to report back to The Sources. In effect, the novella would have taken the form of a 19th century anthropology text, with the narrator reporting the peculiar practices of us, the comically benighted humans, for the amusement of the gods.
At some point, it occurred to us that we had no idea how to write a parody of a19th century anthropology text. We moved on to a different project, a project bearing this title:
Socrates Reads
In this effort, Socrates—the greatest of Greeks—would return to Earth to review the progress which has resulted from the thousands of years during which we humans had studied Plato's accounts of Socrates' fabulous insights.
Upon his return to Earth, Socrates decides to read the work of the high-end American press corps. Disillusionment results. That said, the greatest Greek emerges as a sadder but wiser person, based upon what he has read.
We actually started that project—but fairly soon, we moved on. We started The Daily Howler in early 1998, and our struggling nation's public discourse has gone straight downhill from there.
We don't think that's our fault! At any rate, how bad have things become?
Moving rapidly into the present, here are the five candidates who have floated in and out of this year's White House campaign:
Candidates in 2024 presidential campaign:
Donald J. Trump: former president
Joe Biden: current president
Kamala Harris: current vice president
JD Vance: junior senator from Ohio
Tim Walz: governor of Minnesota
There you see them—the five!
Just last month, President Biden decided to exit the race. This followed a lengthy period in which various tribunes of Blue America insisted that there was nothing diminished, troubling or possibly wrong with his apparent state of cognition.
President Biden has left the race. The others remain.
At this site, we'll be voting for Candidates Harris and Walz. That said, Walz actually does strike us as being perhaps a trifle strange, and Harris seemed to be substantially flawed, in various ways, during her original presidential campaign, which ended in December 2019.
In our view, Candidate Harris conveys brilliantly on the stump. Other than that, we see room for concern, though we'd love to be convinced otherwise.
That said the Daily Howler has always been about the press corps, not the pols. Concerning the press corps, we'll tell you this:
Between now and November, almost nothing you read in the mainstream press will actually make good sense.
We humans! Evidence shows that we simply aren't built for the task of creating a competent discourse. For one tiny example, consider the highly confident news report which appears in print editions of today's New York Times.
The news report involves the ten millionth peculiar remark emitted by Candidate Trump. The confident report in today's Times starts off exactly like this:
That Time Trump Nearly Died in a Helicopter Crash? Didn’t Happen.
Former President Donald J. Trump told a jaw-dropping story on Thursday about nearly dying in a helicopter ride with Willie Brown, the former California politician and ex-boyfriend of his rival, Vice President Kamala Harris.
There was only one problem with the story. Or maybe two. Or maybe three.
It wasn’t the famous former San Francisco mayor on the helicopter flight at all. It was Gov. Jerry Brown of California, who bears little resemblance to Willie Brown.
There was also no emergency landing, and the helicopter’s passengers were never in any danger at all, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was also on the flight.
Sad! Knight and Hubler report with total confidence about the problems with Trump's latest tale. They even indulge in a bit of cheek concerning the degree of resemblance between two men named Brown.
(To their eye, there is little resemblance.)
As it turns out, Knight and Hubler may be totally wrong about the backdrop to Trump's story. As noted by Kevin Drum, Politico came forward yesterday with a completely different background report.
In various ways, Politico's report has the advantage of seeming to likely be accurate. If it is, the confident report in today's New York Times is pretty much basically wrong.
Basically, this is a trivial matter. That said, the American discourse has run on the rocket fuel of trivia ever since we launched this site.
In our current state of development, we humans simply aren't up to the task of doing much better than that! Or at least, that's true to the extent that we can form an assessment based on the work of the well-educated people who comprise our modern-day press corps.
(Concerning the garage can which gets opened on the Fox News Channel every night of the week, but also during the morning hours: Well, that's just a whole other story!)
By rule, someone is going to win November's election. It's still entirely possible that their names will be Trump and Vance.
In our view, one of the two seems to be (severely) disordered, in the clinical sense. With respect to the younger acolyte, it isn't clear to us that he has overcome the extensive "childhood traumas" his wife said he has conquered in her very unusual convention address.
(Pity the child, we've advised—but vote against the man. For the record, tens of millions of neighbors and friends disagree with our assessment.)
As noted, we'll be voting for Candidates Harris and Walz. That said, Walz actually does strike us as being perhaps a trifle weird. We hope we'll be surprised, in a major way, by Candidate (and President) Harris—though at this point, her selection of Governor Walz doesn't fill us with confidence.
We hope he surprises us too. For now, back to the press corps and away from the pols:
Nothing you read in the next three months is likely to make any sense. Our national imitation of discourse produces little such work.
What you see on the Fox News Channel is orders of magnitude dumber and worse. But many more people watch that channel than watch CNN and MSNBC. Many more people watch Fox than watch the other two channels combined!
In recent weeks, we've taken succor and solace from a slight reversion. We've returned to the study of our three "Gödel made easy" books. In order of their appearance on campus, the books we refer to are these:
"Gödel made easy" texts:
Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel. Rebecca Goldstein, 2005.
Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel. Stephen Budiansky, 2023.
Gödel's Proof: Revised Edition. Nagel and Newman, 2001.
We've returned to those texts of late, marveling at the inability of the authors to make the work of "the greatest logician since Aristotle" accessible to the general reader.
We'd lump those texts with our "Einstein made easy" books. We offer only two titles:
"Einstein made easy" texts:
Einstein: His Life and Universe. Walter Isaacson, 2007.
Relativity: The Special and The General Theory. Albert Einstein, 1915.
How easy do those books make Einstein? At one point, the publisher of Einstein's own book placed this promise on the front of the dust jacket:
A CLEAR EXPLANATION THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND
By "anyone," the publisher seemed to mean this:
Anyone other than human beings currently found on this planet.
Simply put, Einstein was unable to explain his work in a way general readers could understand. That doesn't mean that his work was "wrong." It simply means that he wasn't skilled as a popularizer.
His short but seminal chapter on "The Relativity of Simultaneity" made and makes no sense on its face. That said, 92 years had passed when Isaacson, a highly skilled and highly accomplished journalist and author, published his highly regarded biography.
When he did, he presented the same bungled explanation.
As of 2015, a full century had passed—but, as far as we know, no one had noticed the fact that Einstein's seminal chapter plainly didn't make sense. At PBS, Nova produced a centennial special, with Isaacson serving as a major consultant.
The bungled explanation was presented again, one full century later. A hundred years had passed—and as far as we know, no one had noticed the problem with Einstein's original attempt to simplify his own work.
Einstein wrote it; they knew how to copy it. People writing for general readers and PBS viewers just kept banging it out!
Al in all, this is who and what we actually are! To appearances, the later Wittgenstein tried to explain this awkward fact, but he was almost completely unable to explain what he was talking about. Go ahead! Try to find a coherent account of his acclaimed later work!
(To read what Professor Horwich wrote in 2013, you can just click here. In Horwich's telling, the later Wittgenstein said that the crown jewels of western philosophy are merely "the misbegotten products of linguistic illusion and muddled thinking"—the misbegotten products of the muddled thinking of the alleged deepest thinkers on earth!)
In our view, Candidate Trump seems to be clinically disordered—but Blue America's major "thought leaders" have shown few signs of knowing how to address this fairly obvious state of affairs.
For ourselves, we've been drifting back to our Gödel-made-easy books. Once in a while, a person gets to think about something more challenging than the efforts of us the humans to conduct a "democracy" in a large, sprawling nation with a 24-hour-a-day news culture peopled, in many cases, by the dumbest and most propagandistic human beings found on Earth.
Gödel was plainly mentally ill. (At the age of 71, he starved himself to death.) Did he really demonstrate anything at all? We have no idea. We remain unconvinced that he did.
At any rate, so it currently goes on this planet as our election campaign unfolds. Homer said the gods were amused by our various human behaviors.
Who can say that Homer—and the gods in question—were wrong in such beliefs?
"At this site, we'll be voting for Candidates Harris and Walz. That said, Walz actually does strike us as being perhaps a trifle strange, and Harris seemed to be substantially flawed, in various ways, during her original presidential campaign, which ended in December 2019.
ReplyDeleteIn our view, Candidate Harris conveys brilliantly on the stump. Other than that, we see room for concern, though we'd love to be convinced otherwise."
This is how a supposed liberal supports the candidate he says he plans to vote for. With friends like this, who need enemies?
We won't know who Somerby actually casts his vote for, if he votes at all. We do see what he says about Harris and Walz, and it is negative, not designed to help their campaign or to encourage anyone else to support them.
Most Democrats who want their party to win would keep their mouths shut if they couldn't say something nice about their own party's candidates. Not Somerby, apparently. He tells us again how mediocre he considers Harris to be. And now he is saying Walz is "strange" when he is perhaps the most normal guy in the country.
Somerby's apparent belief that he is the only normal person on the planet is a delusion. He is odder than odd and his infliction of his doom and gloominess on others is unhelpful, especially after a covid pandemic that affected a lot of people negatively. Spreading disaffection and especially depersonalization to others does no one any good. Somerby needs to see a shrink. It is not unusual for elderly men to become depressed, Somerby has no one at home to talk to, he needs to spend regular time with a carefully selected trained professional, to help him with his depression. And I'm not joking.
Harris's biggest flaw is that she is female. Somerby cannot conceive of a female person being qualified for men's work. He knows he isn't supposed to say so, so he damns Harris with vague complaints about her mediocrity. This recalls the many times he insisted that Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn't possibly be qualified for the Supreme Court because she wasn't the most qualified person ever, never mind her exemplary achievements, which he seemed to discount as awarded because of her race or gender. She couldn't possibly have actually merited her nomination he kept insisting. And now he is doing the same with Harris. Walz is no doubt "a bit strange" because he agreed to run with Harris or maybe Somerby believes Republican hints that he uses Tampons?
DeleteThis is an ugly essay today, because there is no evidence to support Somerby's negative remarks, no reasoning, nothing except vague feelings that arise from his own bigotry. Actual liberals do some self-monitoring to keep bigotry from creeping into their thoughts and interactions with others. Somerby, not so much. And his self-admitted 24/7 Fox News watching and daily life in Baltimore (a Southern city) provide ample opportunity for him to drift right without strong moorings.
Somerby has every right to be as conservative as he wants and to vote for whoever he wants, but he doesn't have the right to represent himself as a liberal when that ship sailed a long time ago.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:55am, or perhaps Somerby should treat this depression by ceasing to opine to his readers in an analytical, open, and objective manner.
Instead, he should spend his days and nights haranguing and slandering some other blogger for not telling him everything he wants and demands to hear.
You know- the anonymouse definition of well-balanced mental health.
None of these words apply to Somerby: open, analytical, objective. Look them up, you are perhaps using them incorrectly.
DeleteWould an "open" person avoid reading their comments to the point where they repeat incorrect info day after day, oblivious to his own mistakes?
Would an "analytical" person commit the same crimes he accuses others of doing, on a regular basis? And where is any analysis of anything in Somerby's writing? He only asserts and never supports his assertions with evidence or argument.
Is Somerby objective when he himself admits to watching Fox News 24/7? Wouldn't an objective person read the media on both sides, rather than repeatedly attacking favorite targets even when they have done nothing wrong (as he does today with the NY Times reporting)?
Where in today's essay does Somerby ever explain what is supposedly strange or weird about Walz? Nowhere.
Says the man pretending to be a woman.
DeleteHey, at least you did not rape the 13yo that Trump did.
11:05 — You don’t really think that Somerby believes that Walz uses tampons, do you? This is just some shit you’re making up, right?
DeleteAnonymouse 11:44am, is this statement indicative of someone who wants open expression and objective analysis?
Delete“We won't know who Somerby actually casts his vote for, if he votes at all. We do see what he says about Harris and Walz, and it is negative, not designed to help their campaign or to encourage anyone else to support them.”
Nope. On the contrary, these are the sentiments of aligned partisan toadies who demand to have their side snuggled, kissed, and breastfed every day.
As to Bob reading his blog, due to fairly regular complaints about disappearing posts, I think we all know that Bob does read the comments at intervals.
Your comments about Bob watching and blogging on Fox News are utterly ironic. Anonymices spent years chiding Bob for his focus on Not-Fox-News media. Now that he has been calling out Fox’s behavior in an election year, anonymices accuse him of hyping the channel and spreading propaganda. We’ve very recently discussed the anonymouse years-long technique of simultaneously chiding Bob for not calling out Fox News and then accusing him of broadcasting their views when he does talk about them.
You just couldn’t get more partisan, dishonest, malign, slandering, and… *** organized, paid, premeditated, racketeering… than anonymices.
Because Somerby does not explain or provide any evidence of Walz's weirdness, and yet he featured the nickname Tampon Tim in the past few days, what else are we supposed to think?
DeleteWe all pointed out that it was the legislature and not Walz legislating tampons and that the tampons were not being required in boys' bathrooms, but that didn't seem to stop Republicans from using that nickname to tarnish Walz.
I don't know what Somerby believes when he repeats and amplifies Republican talking points calling Walz tampon tim, nor when Somerby gets hysterical about it, as if the name were the worst thing ever. Somerby gave up supporting his claims a long long time ago, but then Trump and the Republicans are unsupportable, so why bother trying to justify anything they do?
But I didn't make up the nickname. I didn't repeat it here -- Somerby did that. He calls it very bad but never argued against applying it to Walz -- we in comments had to defend Walz, while Somerby crowed that the name was so very very awful. What are we supposed to think about Somerby's beliefs?
If anyone made shit up, it was the Republicans. My argument with Somerby is that he keeps promoting such name-calling not fact-checking or rebutting it. And today, Somerby furthers it by repeatedly calling Walz strange and weird (because of tampons?) without explaining why he feels that way or what Walz has done to contribute to that evaluation.
People in CO where I live are very different from those in WI. Boys wrestling is a big deal in WI (among normal men) but rodeo is big here, and hockey (shared with WI). Surfing is big in CA but football is big in TX (and rodeo). Who am I to call Walz weird because he was a wrestling coach. I respect military service. It is Trump who thinks serving one's country as a career is weird (something losers and suckers do). Was Walz weird for serving for 24 years? Somerby evaded service, like Trump did, so maybe that IS what he finds weird about Walz but he doesn't say so.
Walz is a family man, married with kids and grandkids. Somerby never married. Trump is a serial adulterer and divorced philanderer. Maybe Walz's family life is what Somerby finds weird about Walz but not Trump. He has called Trump crazy but he only disparages Stormy for consensual sex activities that Trump instigated. I cannot imagine Walz doing any of that, so maybe that is his weirdness in Somerby's mind. Do real men rape women? I don't think so, but maybe Somerby does.
If you wonder what Somerby meant when he called Walz weird and strange, ask him (if only here in comments). In the absence of explanation, speculation is all we can do. I try to make sense of the various things Somerby says from time to time, but you don't seem to like the conclusions I can draw from Somerby's own writing. I think that is Somerby's fault, not mine.
Cecelia, a campaign is about snuggling and breastfeeding positive info about one's candidate. Someone who doesn't do that isn't campaigning. Someone who takes every opportunity to say bad things about a candidate is not campaigning for them but against them. It is pretty obvious what Somerby is doing. The main question is why, and why does he lie about his politics while promoting Trump?
DeleteCalling other commenters names doesn't make Somerby a hero. He is still a zero.
DeleteWhoa, what is up with all that rage?
DeleteUm...does Cecelia need a tampon?
Bwahahahaha!
Nah, he's a dude, duh.
On the one hand, it seems Bob might really think Walz is strange, and that Harris might be substantially flawed, because Bob doesn't give any reason for thinking these thoughts.
DeleteYet, on the other hand, Pied Piper and Cecelia can't even make the case for Bob's thinking either, so in this case, maybe Bob is full of shit.
If Somerby was a real Conservative, he'd be haranguing Trump to wear a swastika lapel pin to shore-up the Republican voter base.
DeleteAnonymices, I’m sure there are bloggers who blog solely in order to get your party elected. Why don’t you read them? In fact, why don’t you save time and simply watch Maddow or Wallace?
DeleteThey are reliable cheerleaders for your politicians. Never is heard a discouraging/critical remark as to your candidates and the skies are not nuanced all day. At all.
Bob is definitely not a Wallace or a Maddow. Drum is slightly more to that side, but he too will offer up an opinion that doesn’t sound as though it was scripted by the DNC.
You could make up the paycheck by cutting off Grammerly.
How many times must I say this. I am focused on Somerby because he claims to be liberal but is not. That is lying and I believe truth must be defended, especially by the media. The minute Somerby comes out as a conservative, I will go elsewhere.
DeleteDo you think it might be a tad pretentious for you to claim to be a brave defender of truth and a true judge of who can legitimately claim to be a liberal?
DeletePP, if you focused on the content of their criticism of Somerby instead of their supposed motives, you might actually learn something.
DeleteI appreciate that particular commenter and learn from their comments even if I do not always agree.
I learn nothing from your comments, or the other fanboy/troll commenters, other than that you and your small cohort are angry and miserable.
Understanding this about this sad lot of Somerby defenders is not unimportant, primarily because it goes to the root causes of why society is suffering.
2:29,
DeleteI think the root cause of society's suffering consists of word salads like your final paragraph.
@3:05 All you are doing is declaring your allegiance to the fanboys instead of those trying to discuss Somerby's provocations.
DeleteActually I was pointing to a prior comment's incoherence. Your response was to name call because you're not so bright.
Delete"Politico came forward yesterday with a completely different background report."
ReplyDeleteSomerby has perhaps not seen the update that Drum added to his helicopter story. There seems to have been a flight that nearly crashed with Nate Holden who was being transported by Trump's own helicopter to New Jersey and had hydraulic problems causing Trump to become very scared. That doesn't change what the NY Times said about Trump's story being wrong. It supplements it and suggests that Trump may have been misremembering a different actual event. The bottom line is that Trump was not in a helicopter with Willie Brown and no one said negative things about Kamala Harris.
None of that supports Somerby's insistence that the NY Times said something wrong or was majorly inaccurate when it disputed what Trump said at his press conference. But Somerby is obviously working very hard to make the NY Times a bad guy, when it is still Trump who fabricated a non-event in order to tarnish Harris.
"Basically, this is a trivial matter. That said, the American discourse has run on the rocket fuel of trivia ever since we launched this site. "
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT a trivial matter when a major presidential nominee (Trump) fabricates a negative story about his opponent that turns out to be entirely untrue. It doesn't matter whether Trump did this deliberately or was deluded or has such impaired memory that he cannot tell what is real. Lying about one's opponent like this is NOT OK. It was right for the NY Times to report it, and in fact, Somerby has been calling for exactly this kind of press coverage. But now he doesn't like it when it happens.
Trump said something crazy again. Somerby wants to leave some wiggle room to believe it actually happened. There isn't any. End of story, except why is Somerby so down on Harris that he tries to resurrect Trump's false story by "proving" that the NY Times is still wrong?
Motives matter.
It's worse than you think. Somerby is so down on Harris he says he's going to vote for her.
DeleteBut he apparently doesn't want anyone else to do so because he misses no opportunities to slag her.
DeleteHere’s one opportunity he missed: “In our view, Candidate Harris conveys brilliantly on the stump.”
DeleteRight, because of her smile. Faint praise.
Delete"As noted, we'll be voting for Candidates Harris and Walz. That said, Walz actually does strike us as being perhaps a trifle weird. We hope we'll be surprised, in a major way, by Candidate (and President) Harris—though at this point, her selection of Governor Walz doesn't fill us with confidence."
ReplyDeleteThis was so important to Somerby that he said it twice. The second time, he called Walz weird instead of strange. He never gives a reason for these condemnations, which run counter to the reaction of most Democrats. Harris is being applauded for selecting Walz because he is so non-weird and so similar to middle Americans in both his career and his personality. He was military and then he was a teacher and then he ran for local office, being so well-liked he ultimately became Governor. That is far less weird than writing a fake book about Appalachia that becomes a bestseller and then being appointed to sinecures by billionaires until winning MAGA office as Vance did. Walz is genuine and Vance is fake -- as fake as Santos and Trump himself.
It is notable that Somerby is using the campaign term "weird" that is now being applied to Vance and Trump and other Republicans, but turning it against a Democrat. That is a way of diluting the power of the word by applying it to someone so normal that it will seem either empty of meaning or just name-calling. Why would a liberal want to defend Vance and Trump by calling normal "strange" and "weird"? Perhaps because it is the Republican strategy and talking point of the day. To swift-boat Walz using the same accusation made against the Republicans, attacking Walz in his strength. Projecting Republican weirdness onto our own candidate, who is decidedly not weird or strange or anything except square.
Politics have become very ugly with the advent of Trump and Russian meddling. It seems like anything goes and no one is shocked or horrified by the degree of lying going on. Somerby is part of that corruption himself, with his own lies and promotion of right wing agendas. His attacks on the press (which is essential to maintaining our democratic system) and the very candidates he says he will vote for, is part of the fake, false, dissembling, lying, unscrupulous rat-fucking right wing.
Somerby is no liberal. He may not even vote for Harris or Walz. He may be taking money to help out the right's task of pushing Trump, or he may be doing it out of conviction, but either way, he is pretending to be something he is not. Don't be fooled by Somerby, and especially, don't be taken in by the right's desperate campaign to keep the Democrats from winning again.
Gee, thanks for the warning, yet again for the millionth time, that Somerby is being paid to pretend to be a liberal in order to seduce gullible liberals like me into voting for Trump!
ReplyDeleteNot everyone who reads this blog comes here every day like you do. Drop in readers may be taken in by Somerby's repetitive bleating, so we commenters must respond to Somerby's repetition of the same right wing talking points with our own repetitive rebuttals.
DeleteYou do seem gullible, but who knows who you plan to vote for. I just wouldn't want you to be taken in by Somerby's dissembling. From the way you respond to others here, it seems like your main motive is to complain about the comments of others. Like Cecelia, you almost never make any substantive comments, so it is hard to tell where you are coming from, except you are clearly defending the wrong guy.
It would be hard to check whether you ever make substantive comments because you are a hit-and-hide Anon.
DeleteDoes it matter? I get it that it makes it hard for you to criticize others when they won't stand still and let you bash them, but it has no effect at all on expressing political opinions and responding to Somerby's musings. Try focusing on ideas instead of on attacking people.
DeletePP got pooh poohed.
DeleteAnonymouse commentators do not provide constructive feedback. Instead, they criticize and slander Bob, which seems to be their primary focus. In a typical blog setting, it is expected to have days when readers strongly disagree or agree with the blogger. However, I have never witnessed this normal dynamic with anonymouse commenters. Any admission that Bob has made an acceptable remark is followed with the claim that this was done in order to mitigate the wildly unacceptable comment that followed the acceptable one. It’s all contrived.
DeleteGood to know your views, thank you!
Delete12:31 - You’re bragging that you like to hide after you hit?
DeleteIf you are like me, and you want to know why Bob thinks Walz is strange and why Harris may be flawed, don't ask the cognitively declining, old muser about the media, and instead ask his brain, Pied Piper and Cecelia.
DeletePied Piper and Cecelia,
What the hell is the old coot going on about regarding the Democratic Candidates for President and VP?
Thanks in advance.
12:53 you are ragin'! Chill out.
DeleteI don't view commenting as an anonymous to be hiding out. But it does raise a problem. If Trump wins and Project 2025 is implemented, will those of us who commented anonymously be tracked down and punished? Trump is a vengeful guy and they are in favor of authoritarian methods, so what would prevent political enemies from being outed and persecuted, like PP and Cecelia are currently doing only effectively using investigative techniques? If there is any possibility of Trump winning, isn't it wiser for those of us who support Harris and Walz to keep a low profile? And why then are PP and Cecelia working so hard to make it easier to later identify those of us who dislike Trump (and the right wing more generally)?
DeleteThat is my speculation about the motives of these commenters who seem to have no other purpose here than to force others to use a nym.
Anonymouse 12:57pm, thanks for illustrating that you’re solely here to slander a blogger that you obviously despise. Anonymices are not ordinary commencers. You’re here to wage war on a blog.
DeleteDuh
DeleteAnonymouse 1:12pm,so you’re simultaneously arguing that this is a dud blog, but still important enough that you’ll be tracked down and sent off to camps for waging a years long jihad ( thru at least two Democratic administrations) on Bob.
DeleteMy guess is that most liberals are afraid of you too.
Anonymouse 1:32pm, yep.
DeleteDoes 1:12 really think I’m part of a Gestapo, tracking down nyms hiding in their attacks to avoid persecution for their criticisms of Somerby? You folks are now getting into some QAnon-like conspiracy mongering. Wow.
DeletePP, no one thinks you have the skills to track down anyone. But, you are attacking commenters and not their comments, which makes you unusually and suspiciously worried about WHO is saying mean things. You are like the telltale snitch in the German neighborhood who would turn in neighbors to the gestapo for doing something trivially wrong but against der Furher's rules, such as hoarding meat or naming one's pig "Hitler" (as a joke). There is always someone like you around but don't flatter yourself that anyone thinks you would have power in the coming dictatorship.
DeleteNo one believes conspiracies are not real sometimes (see Rachel Maddow's book about fascism in America, for example). The ridicule comes from believing in conspiracies that are too counter-factual and out of touch with reality to be believable, which is what aliens with space lasers is about. Facts matter. Is it a fact that Trump wants to be dictator on day one? He said it himself. Does he want to have infinite power to do whatever he wants? He thinks that is what presidential immunity is about. Would he appoint people to carry out control over his enemies and the people generally? Look at his revenge fantasies and Project 2025. So, is it really paranoid to think that Trump might use the internet to find his enemies and punish them? I don't see much distance between that speculation and the reality of Trump's dreams and his supporters' willingness to carry them out to please him and avoid retribution -- and fear is how dictators roll.
It is possible to track someone today, but unlikely because of the number of layers that would have to be under someone's control. What could happen under a dictatorship? Depends on how much trouble they would want to exert to control speech on the internet. Am I really fearful of this? Probably not, but why make it easier for anyone to "out" your real life identity? And I do wonder why you and Cecelia are so fixated on this instead of participating in a normal way in discussions here. I chalk it up to you being Republican, but maybe there is more to it.
PP and Cecelia are angry and miserable, but they did rape that 13yo like Trump did.
DeleteMaybe they are just weird and strange.
DeleteI come to TDH to read Bob, and have PP and Cecelia explain to me what Bob is trying to say.
DeleteThey seem to be stymied by what it s about Walz that makes him seem strange to Bob, or what it is that Bob sees as Harris' flaws.
If their Somerby gibberish translator is broke, as it seems, there might not be anything to come to TDH to see.
Really, Notarodent? Just in the last few comments it’s suggested that maybe I raped a 13 yo and that I would snitch to the Nazis, and I’m the one who is being weird and strange?
DeletePP, to be fair, as far as we know, you did not rape that 13yo.
DeleteIf you find this assessment of you weird or strange, then that is disturbing and perhaps you should consult with a therapist or other authorities.
We did not think you had raped that 13yo, but is there something you want to confess?
None of this is any different than the backhanded games Somerby messes around with.
Defending yourself from accusations that you raped a 13-year old is woke.
DeleteDespite her shortcomings, Harris still has a decent chance of winning. There’s no need to panic yet.
DeleteAnonmouse 2:17pm, go with that sentiment.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:04pm, are you sure?
Delete2:35 — “We did not think that you had raped that 13yo, but is there something you want to confess?”
DeleteYes. I want to confess that I feel like taking a shower after dealing with the likes of you.
So go do it already.
DeleteTDH should cut out the middle man (Somerby) and just have PP and Cecelia write what Bob is thinking.
Delete"We've returned to the study of our three "Gödel made easy" books."
ReplyDeleteSomerby's idea of "study" is to read the preface. There is no evidence Somerby ever reads beyond the first 10-15 pages of any of these books he slags.
You need good thinking skills to understand the logic of Godel or Einstein, even when explained in simple terms. Somerby no longer has such ability, if he ever did. There is some questions because he describes flunking several of his philosophy courses and having to repeat them. That doesn't sound like someone qualified to assess whether books about Godel or Einstein are well-written. Not everyone is equipped to understand complex material (without serious effort) and Somerby seems to have also flunked "serious effort" while at Harvard.
Somerby returns to his college textbooks repeatedly, as fodder to fill the empty space of his blog. One might call that an obsession with the work he was unable to successfully complete in college. Perhaps he thinks that at some point he will magically gain understanding that eluded him in college. Or perhaps he just wants to reassure himself that it is the fault of the books, not himself, when he cannot understand them. This entire enterprise may be a way to salve his own ego and maintain a grandiose fiction about his own intelligence. But if given the premise: "Godel and Einsten are the real dummies, not Somerby who is so wise he points out their inability to communicate." who is going to agree that the real dummies are these men who have contributed a great deal to their fields and not an elderly standup comedian who gave up teaching in frustration because those beautiful black kids in Baltimore just can't learn (look at their NAEP scores)?
So why do you read his blog?
DeleteWhy do you ask a question that has been asked and answered so many times before?
DeleteSince you like to speculate about Somerby’s reasons for blogging, I’ll speculate about your reasons for reading a blogger you so despise and then flaming him in comments so persistently.
DeleteI think you’re lonely. I think it gives you a sense of community with other Somerby-haters to contribute to the Two Minutes Hate. I think it gives you a comforting sense of superiority to find fault Somerby. And, yes, you have my pity.
PP=professional projector.
DeletePied Piper,
DeleteLeave the speculating to professional speculators, like Bob Somerby.
Speculating in the hands of an amateur, like you, is just sad.
Anonymices are all for the democratization of the media, but Bob doesn’t have the expertise it takes to pronounce upon his subjective personal opinions.
DeleteHe can say whatever he wants. What is right or not depends on reality, not a vote. Somerby doesn't bother informing himself on the subjects he holds opinions on. That makes his opinions a pile of shit, but he has the right to express them and we have the right to criticize them.
DeleteAn author is not responsible for what the publisher says on the cover or dust jacket of his book. Inside the book, Einstein carefully explains that the reader must know some mathematics, basically what students learn in four years of American highschool math courses. He also says the reader will have to do some work. He never says it's easy!
ReplyDeleteThe book is clear and correct. The chapter on the relativity of simultaneity is a classic.
Einstein didn't write his book for "the Others".
DeleteYou can tell, because it has math in it.
Walz is “perhaps a trifle strange”? In what way, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteIt is strange for a politician to be that down to earth.
DeleteSomerby can speak for himself, he just won't.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:40pm, hogwash. Whether it’s Einstein, Gödel or Walz, when Bob speaks for himself anonymices launch into scathingly personal attacks.
Delete1:59 you seem hell bent on reducing discourse to rage baiting.
DeleteMore power to you, although there is a better path.
Anonymouse 2:08pm, evidently, my comments are the only comments you read on this blog.
DeleteGood thinking.
We kind of have to read past your comments to get to the real discussion. It would be nice if you weren't here.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:15pm, and after concuring with each other, you could pop popcorn and style each others hair.
DeleteAnd you can go f*ck yourself.
Delete“ we see room for concern”
ReplyDeleteThis could have been said about Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and even Obama. It’s never a certainty. What is Somerby’s concern?
Harris is pulling in massive crowds in multiple campaign events in swing states, while Trump made an incoherent appearance in a single event last week, in Montana, of all places.
ReplyDeleteThis site loved citing poll numbers when Biden was trailing. The latest Siena college poll has Harris up 4 points over Trump in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Is Somerby solely concerned about Harris, or is he worried that Republicans will try to overturn or refuse to certify her win, which is something they are actively pursuing? I haven’t seen Somerby mention that here.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to be concerned that she might require tampons in all bathrooms nationwide, being a woman with icky bodily functions (even though she is past menopause).
DeleteI read it as he is concerned about Harris‘s mediocrity because a lot is at stake with her being a sociopath.
DeleteHer opponent being a sociopath.
DeleteIt is very weird when Trump calls Hannibal Lecter a great man.
DeleteSomerby's ideas for novels sound atrocious, but JP Mandel wrote a bad novel and it sold, anything is possible. Of course, "Vance" has the advantage of being a billionaire's (Peter Thiel) boy toy - and hey, if you'd then rather fuck a couch than your attractive "wife", more power to you.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is confused about Relativity primarily because he refuses to consider the context of time dilation and length contraction; it is the same avoidance of context that affects all of his thinking, leading to poor, inconsistent, and often incoherent conclusions.
Somerby lists the 5 candidates, implying it is a sorry lot, but this is mere cynicism. Biden is probably the best president since FDR, and Harris/Walz seem even better. (Trump is probably the best candidate Movement Conservatives have ever had, certainly near the top.)
Somerby paints a false narrative about Biden's cognitive status; in reality, those who interact with Biden, including Heather Cox Richardson, say he has no significant cognitive issue. Biden's campaign was suffering from a severe lack of enthusiasm in large part because a) he is not a dynamic and charismatic candidate, and b) his terrible stance on Netanyahu.
Somerby floats the Republican talking point that Walz is strange. This is a really sad attempt to own the narrative, but unsurprising since Somerby endorses a right wing worldview, where instead of democracy we should be ruled by elites.
There is no longer "mainstream press", today we have corporate media and independent media. The NY Times is a corporation that has always been dedicated to Wall Street and neoliberalism, so they are not well respected by contemporary Dems. Having said that, their reporting was not bungled, Trump made up a story. Liars like Trump will often incorporate true aspects into their lies; Somerby does something similar by focusing on a trivial part of the lie, when the main part of the lie was Trump trying to convey that he knew Willie Brown and Harris, and knew them well. Trump does not "know" Brown nor Harris, much less well. Somerby tries to muddy the waters to distract from the real issues, per usual.
Philosophy relies heavily on notions like logic, reasoning, intuition, common sense, whereas science relies on evidence via empiricism, data, research. Science can seem more difficult to understand, it takes more work, work Somerby seems unwilling to put any effort in to, but Science has proven to have vastly more utility than Philosophy, and produces better, more accurate results. Somerby's maturity and thinking skills seem to have peaked during his time at Harvard when he had exciting and interesting roommates who went on to big things; as a result Somerby seems mired in misery and bitterness.
Why would anyone think Somerby is a Conservative in disguise? After all, Somerby is too lazy to put any effort in...
DeleteI'll come in again.
Since you feel so qualified to lecture us about logic and reasoning, perhaps you can provide a Somerby quotation to support your accusation that Somerby does not believe in democracy (“instead of democracy we should be ruled by elites”).
ReplyDeleteSomerby has said the “democratization of the media” is a bad thing, and has written about wanting a return to the days of media “gatekeepers.”
DeleteEven worse than that, Somerby has directly entertained thoughts that, on a societal level, democracy might not be such a worthy endeavor. He did this even recently, so you will not have to search far in the archives.
DeleteSomerby is obviously getting more and more dejected by the Harris/Walz campaign.
Blindly defending your "hero" is typically pure folly.
He often derided the supposed idea that man is the rational animal, a notion he has attributed to Aristotle.
DeleteNotanon — It is true, at least by my reading, that Somerby thinks things were better in the Walter Cronkite, gatekeeper days.
DeleteBut I don’t think that was what 12:31 was referring to. 12:31 said Somerby was endorsing the “right-wing” view that elites (rather than the people) should rule, meaning (I believe) that elites should rule the government. And it would be nice for 12:31 to supply a quote substantiating that accusation, as someone steeped in logic and reason would do as a matter of course.
At that time I pointed out the studies showing that human reasoning is different than formal logic, more probabilistic. I was ignored and Somerby kept repeating his incorrect nonsense about flawed human thinking. I then pointed out that it is impossible to discuss Aristotle's views without knowing what modern cognitive psychologists know about human thought. I is a good thing that Somerby's book never went very far because it would be wrong for any publisher to put out such wrong-headed nonsense. Perhaps he gave his manuscript to someone around him and got similar feedback. I hope so.
DeleteMisdirection. Hiding the lack of a quote substantiating your accusation.
DeleteNotanon, why would you and anonymices react so strongly when Somerby acts independently rather than acting like a he’s a political campaign officer, AND then fluff off concern for the democratization of the media?
DeleteSomerby Sampler:
Delete"Once in a while, a person gets to think about something more challenging than the efforts of us the humans to conduct a "democracy" in a large, sprawling nation with a 24-hour-a-day news culture peopled, in many cases, by the dumbest and most propagandistic human beings found on Earth.
This is all part of our flailing society's ongoing process of "democratization." It's part of the functioning of "our democracy," such as it ever has been.
Were we humans built for democratization—for "the democratization of media," to cite one modern manifestation? We're willing to say that we weren't.
It's a remarkable fact about our democracy that this very strange person has been garnering substantial support as a third-party presidential contender.
We could start with those incidents and episodes. Any one of them helps us see that democratization (and rational behavior; and adherence to Enlightenment values) aren't exactly Us.
All in all, democratization isn't exactly Us! All in all, we humans weren't built for some such assignment."
-these are all from just this month.
Anonymouse 1:24pm, exactly. There is no real way to do an Einstein or Gödel for dummies. Some things can’t be simplified for a mass audience.
DeleteOh, yeah, anonymices are all for the “democratization of the media”, but when a liberal blogger suggests that the Democratic VP nominee might not be the perfect pick, he’s a traitor to the party.
Delete2:18 - That’s a good faith start, but that’s not sufficient. Noting the difficulties of running a democracy is one thing, but the accusation is something more: that we should ditch democracy in favor of rule by an elite. THAT is the accusation that you cannot support. I believe. But who knows, maybe you can. I’ll wait.
DeleteIt is good that writers offer some understanding of complex things like the work of Einstein or Godel.
DeleteTo deny this seems weird and strange.
Sorry PP, but that is sufficient to demonstrate that Somerby has questioned the worthiness of democracy. He says it ain't us, that we aren't built for it; he has droned on and on about how we need elites to become our leaders, both in thought and in function.
DeleteMy sense is that your reading comprehension is excessively literal when it comes to Somerby, but suddenly contextual when it comes to certain comments. You flop around because you have no coherent view, other than to defend Somerby at all costs.
One of those costs is your credibility, which you have lost.
Anonymouse 2:41pm, that’s a dispute that tends to change according to the players.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:24pm, said this of Aristotle - “ it is impossible to discuss Aristotle's views without knowing what modern cognitive psychologists know about human thought.”
Einstein’s views? Not so much?…
Newton's views are helpful to discussing the things Aristotle got wrong about physics. You don't need Einstein to talk about optics, for example.
DeleteAristotle wrote about a lot of things, including ideas about the natural world that are entirely false. If you lived in Aristotle's time period it would be harder to refute than living now, when we have science. There is a science that has studied human thinking. It is called Cognitive Psychology. The findings are based on empirical experiments and data and they contradict both Somerby and Aristotle. But you wouldn't need Einstein, who studied physics, to talk about how people think, which is an entirely different scientific discipline.
Your question doesn't make much sense, so I'm not sure whether I have addressed your concern.
Newton is famous for debunking Greek natural science using scientific method and empirical experiments (combined with thought expt) to find out how the physical world actually works. It is astonishing to me that you don't know that.
Anonymouse 2:47pm, Bob isn’t questioning the worthiness of democracy. He questions and frets on whether fallible humans can handle such an arrangement and if democratization is helpful in some contexts.
DeleteIt’s the sort of wistfulness that Ben Franklin expressed about our having a republic “if we can keep it”.
Anonymouse 3:07pm, I’m not suggesting that physics, philosophy, and cognitive science are all the same thing. I’m agreeing with your point that an intelligent discussion of Artistole requires some background knowledge.
DeleteThe same holds true for Einstein. Actually it holds truer for Einstein work.
You should look at newspapers in colonial America. Talk about democratization! It was the advent of telecommunications that consolidated and created “mass media”, which prompted Chomsky et al to worry about the manufacturing of consent. But those were the days Somerby mourns the loss of!
DeleteNotanon, oh, I’m with you. We live in a world where people are booted off social media and demonetized from their Youtube channels for voicing opinions.
DeleteThomas Paine wouldn’t stand a chance today.
Even still, I would have booted Alex Jones from my radio station. It’s a balancing act.
Somerby keeps forgetting that it was humans who invented democracy and who created so-called Enlightenment values. He keeps calling humanity unfit but these are our creations.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:54pm, we don’t have difficulty conceptualizing. Living up to the concepts is the rub. While living in a democracy, we humans still found it necessary to have an EEOC.
DeleteDon't pretend you support such innovations.
Delete2:47 — Let’s stick with the literal, that is, let’s say what we mean and mean what we say.
DeleteHere’s your literal quote: “Somerby endorses a right wing world view, where instead of democracy we should be ruled by elites.”
I’m waiting either for a Somerby quote saying we should be ruled by elites, rather than through a democracy, or your retraction. Which is what you would do if you were a mensch.
It isn’t our job to find quotes for you when a regular reader points out something we have all heard Somerby say.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:07pm, I do support it. We must have that office due to people like you.
DeleteYou can’t educate the terminally stupid if they don’t want to learn. PP can do his own research.
Delete5:56 — I think what you’re saying is false, literally false, and most likely knowingly false. I think nobody can give a quote where Somerby says elites should rule because the quote doesn’t exist.
DeleteEvery time someone looks something up for you, you say it doesn’t say what it obviously says. No one wants to play that game with you.
DeleteLook, Somerby bemoans the fact that humans may not be up to the task of running a democracy. This is not equivalent to a statement that we “should” be ruled by elites. If you can’t get that distinction, then God bless.
DeleteWhat is in it for you to engage in this full-throated continual defense of Somerby? Somerby thinks we the people are ill-equipped to participate in a democracy. That’s why sacred Troy will inevitably fall to the goons on the beach. Don’t you ever read what he writes?
DeleteIt’s pretty apparent that Somerby wants to return to gatekeepers in the media, that is, an elite Walter Cronkite-led media that disseminates the news and values. I’m not judging that opinion, just relating it. Wiser heads than Somerby have pointed out the potential disastrous flaws in democracy, so he’s in good company. But his hero, Lincoln, committed to a massive war to preserve democracy, because he felt it was worth saving.
DeleteAnd Somerby writes this blog to do his bit to save democracy, even though he thinks the effort may be doomed.
DeleteBernie Sanders:
ReplyDelete"We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are going to get involved in this campaign, and look, here’s the message to Russia: stay out of American elections.
And what they are doing, by the way, the ugly thing that they are doing, and I’ve seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That’s what they did in 2016 and that is the ugliest thing they are doing – is they are trying to cause chaos, they are trying to cause hatred in America.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-21/2020-bernie-sanders-russia-meddling
In 2016, Hillary tried to point out Russian interference and was dismissed as self-serving. Russia contributed to all of the 3rd party candidates, including Bernie. When asked about it in 2016, Bernie was unconcerned. The statement above was made in 2020 after the claims of Russian meddling had been investigated and verified.
ReplyDeleteRogan praised Kennedy but did not actually endorse him.
ReplyDeleteThere may be nothing wrong with it, but Walz’s unusually close relationship with China is unusual enough to be called “weird”. He even honeymooned there.
ReplyDeleteTrump tax returns show China bank account as six years of records released
DeleteGo fuck yourself, Dickhead in Cal. You have forfeited for all eternity the right to question anybody else. Donald Fucking Trump.
He taught there.
DeleteWalz went to China to expand human rights.
DeleteTrump went to China to expand his personal finances.
Your personality traits will guide who you choose.
If only DiC and Cecelia would hold their candidates to the same standards they claim to hold the democratic candidates.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:29pm, your past candidate is supposedly running the country after being forced out of a second run for the office because he not up to the job.
DeleteTalk about standards….
Cecelia, poor dear, presidents don't "run the country".
DeletePresident Biden just completed the largest prisoner exchange since the end of the cold war. You're fucking welcome.
That monstrosity orange abomination you support took time out to congratulate his favorite dictator, Putin.
Anonymouse 5:05pm, but he couldn’t hold it together during a debate and months away from an election he was forced to bow out.
DeleteSure Biden did…
That wasn't a debate, Cecelia. That was Trump lying his fucking ass off for 90 minutes and Jake Tapper responding, "Thank you, Mr. President".
DeleteYou seem to have a very ignorant understanding of what a president does. I am happy to share the praise for the prisoner exchange the president negotiated with the other people he put in position to do the job. Republicans seem to believe that the sun didn't rise in the east when trump was president without his permission. You're very silly, Cecelia. Yes, Biden aged during these past four years.
Anonymouse 5:40pm, you seem to be holding your fingers in your ears and humming.
Deletehttps://peaksrecovery.com/blog/mental-health-blogs/the-five-stages-of-grief/?psafe_param=1&utm_network=&utm_adgroup=&utm_adpos=&utm_loc=&utm_ex=%7Bex%7D&utm_source=nvdgads&utm_medium=dyn_search_cpc_m&utm_campaign=a_h_dyn&utm_content=ment_dynu_1&utm_term=_&adid=508612001706&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADpCOFKn9A1FtIPq-AEMrj8nmlUDl&gclid=Cj0KCQjwn9y1BhC2ARIsAG5IY-6ZVkQtReItQIbsMG2naaYDJSHRLIeXp4yScyss-cFd0K1qBI7ikeQaAgqBEALw_wcB
This isn’t cute. It is more callous “humor” mocking other people’s loss.
DeleteDon't hold out on us David. Tell us what's weird about it.
DeleteWhen DIC isn't posting a comment that is easily debunked with a 2 minute Google search, he resorts to ad hominem unsupported comments as illustrated above. I,, for one, think personally pocketing money from China (as well as the UAE and Saudi Arabia) while President of the United States is weird, but apparently DIC finds nothing weird about that as compared with going over there and teaching children English.
DeleteMeanwhile Cecelia gets to watch Trump perform as the only old and demented candidate on the ballot for the next three months. Unequivocally entertaining for the rest of us.
DeleteThe media is saving up their calls for Trump to step away from the Presidential campaign due to his age and obvious cognitive decline, for when Trump declares himself a member of the Democratic Party.
Delete"Kennedy Jr. embraced Rogan's praise in a post on X, writing: "From one 'legitimate' guy to another, thank you @JoeRogan for always putting substance first."
ReplyDeleteBut by Friday, Rogan walked it back after facing a meltdown from MAGA stans and direct attacks from Donald Trump himself.
"For the record, this isn't an endorsement," Rogan said in a post on X over a clip of him praising Kennedy Jr. "This is me saying that I like RFKjr as a person, and I really appreciate the way he discusses things with civility and intelligence. I think we could use more of that in this world."
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-joe-rogan-rfk-jr-endorsement-2024-8
Trump is not cognitive. Cecelia and David will not vote for him.
ReplyDeleteRecent polling shows that nearly 60% of Americans want Trump to drop out of the race.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:36pm, I will never vote for Kamala.
DeleteUnfortunately, the media doesn't want to meddle in political campaigns by discussing the age or cognitive abilities of the candidates.
DeleteThat's one of the media's long-term traditions (rules).
Anonymouse 2:27pm, the media backed themselves into a corner by covering for Biden’s decline till the house of cards toppled.
DeleteThey have to let that line of attack cool off, but they will go for it.
I think they may be correct to a point. It’s my opinion that Trump has PTSD from the assassination attempt. He’s rather lifeless.
Corporate media's fever dream is that Harris wins but that it is close enough that Trump engages in some type of coup.
DeleteThis is what they think will benefit their bottom line the most, and they are perfectly willing to rig the circumstances as much as they can.
Cecelia,
DeleteThere's not a chance in hell that the media will bring up that line of attack , until at least November 6th.
Anonymouse 3:08pm, mid September at the latest. It will start with comments about the “energy” difference between the campaigns.
DeleteSuch poppycock, Cecelia. Biden has shown and continues to show competence in his executive functions as president. Your “house of cards” is pure conspiratorial speculation. The media has been unfailingly hostile to Biden, not complicit in some coverup.
DeleteTrump’s energy is clearly flagging. That isn’t a media narrative.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:23pm, isn’t it enough that you buy the line that Biden isn’t competent to run for reelection, but he is competent to run the country and that he is actually doing that?
DeleteYou’re a good little party apparatchik. Go in peace.
Anonymouse 3:25pm, agreed. PTSD.
DeletePTSB after his ear is scratched. He’s too weak to be president.
DeleteSeptember?
DeleteThe media is using September to continue their diligent work in not asking Clarence Thomas who it was that told him he didn't need to report the tips/ bribes he's getting for being on the Supreme Court.
Anonymouse 3:53pm, you’re too dumb to pull off playing dumb.
DeletePTSD from an attempt to shoot him in the head.
Well, don’t vote for the poor guy. He needs to retire.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:29pm, my husband and I are watching and will make a determination based upon what we see.
DeleteI notice you don't say you will be reading anything. You get more actual info by reading than by watching. If hubby can't read, perhaps you can read to him?
DeleteAnonymouse 5:13pm, I’m not sure how much reading material he can access while in the penitentiary.
DeleteThey have libraries.
DeleteRe-education centers will have libraries.
DeleteThey will also have exercise yards where students can practice marching.
Delete10:47's links about Bernie are from 2020. If there is a citation of Bernie handwaving Russian interference from 2016 than it is most likely from Bernie not yet knowing the extent of the interference; however, as yet there is no such citation and Bernie made it clear that he thought Russian interference was an "ugly thing" including "what they did in 2016".
ReplyDeleteRogan says Harris will win. Rogan previously endorsed Trump, then endorsed RFK jr, then Trump complained, and then Rogan walked back his RFK jr endorsement, not too dissimilar from what Kyle Rittenhouse did recently. Like most right wingers, Rogan is unmoored from any sense of integrity, which is unsurprising since that trait has been a well-worn pathway to attaining and hoarding wealth.
There have been plenty of big name Republicans endorsing Harris in recent days, but it is notable that Republicans are notorious for their flip flops as they have no coherent worldview beyond an undying urge to dominate others.
Considering Russian interference to be an ugly thing doesn't speak to whether he was williing or unwilling to examine his small donor donations in the light of Russians funneling money illegally to various campaigns. There is also reporting that the Russians laundered donations through the NRA, and Bernie also got some of that money, among other candidates.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.pbssocal.org/shows/democracy-now/clip/why-jill-stein-attended-moscow-dinner-with-putin-and-flynn
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/bernie-sanders-isis-russia-iran/index.html
"The indictment charges 13 Russian nationals and three businesses — including an Internet firm tied to the Kremlin — with conspiracy, identity theft, failing to register as foreign agents and violating laws that limit the use of foreign money in U.S. elections."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/
Here is more oddity from the RNC's candidate for president, from Thom Hartmann:
ReplyDelete"In his semi-coherent rant at his shabby golf motel this Thursday, Trump showed up several shades lighter than usual. But that small attempt to project normalcy gave way to a full-out return to weird when he started making stuff up..."
First, it is weird when men wear makeup off stage or screen. Second, the color of "spray tan" suggests he has no idea what color normal men are. Third, the coloring Trump affects has nothing to do with being tan. Tan people look like George Hamilton, with a brownish tone. Perhaps Trump is trying not to look like a biracial person so he trends orange instead of red or brown (the normal color of white people with Florida tans). Fourth, the tan isn't the only problem -- his hair always looks abnormal and weird because it tells others he is sensitive about being bald, which is majorly weird. Trump does have odd beliefs about manhood and virility -- he raped Ivana when she laughed at his hairplugs (according to her book). Does he really think he looks anything but weird when his artificially blond/white hair flaps in the wind while boarding a plane? Fifth, Trump has worn a corset. There is speculation he has been taking a weight loss drug, but he still laughed at Jon Tester for having a beer belly when his own physique is overweight, flappy, grossly non-muscular and hardly any better. A man who cannot exit a golf cart without groaning and can't walk the golfcourse, much less carry his own bag, is in no position to laugh at others. Same goes for his mockery of Biden over his speech, while he himself glitches with nearly every sentence and can't seem to pronounce anything any more, much less read a teleprompter. So he is the last one to be laughing at others.
All of this is very weird on a personal level. If he were a member of my family, we would have an intervention. Will no one tell Trump what he actually looks like these days? I get it, they wouldn't want to lose a limb. And having a president that no one can tell the truth to is weirder than Trump's own lies, and more dangerous.
Today Trump is in trouble for ripping off Celine Dion's theme song from the movie Titanic. Dion is Canadian and says she definitely does not endorse Trump:
ReplyDelete"Canadian singer Celine Dion "does not endorse" Donald Trump's purportedly unauthorized use of her "My Heart Will Go On" song and accompanying video at the former president's rally, according to a note from her management.
Trump was mocked on social media after using the song, widely known as the theme song for the movie Titanic, at his campaign rally in Montana.
On Saturday, Dion's management weighed in, posting a statement from the singer's own account on social media.
"Today, Celine Dion’s management team and her record label, Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., became aware of the unauthorized usage of the video, recording, musical performance, and likeness of Celine Dion singing 'My Heart Will Go On' at a Donald Trump / JD Vance campaign rally in Montana," according to the statement posted to Dion's X account, which has a million followers. "In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use."
The statement continued, "…And really, THAT song?"
The statement prompted laughter from those in the comments, who drew attention to the last line of the statement and the notion of Trump's campaign being compared to the Titanic."
Like Trump, Somerby routinely rips off song lyrics, book and film titles and poems, usually without attribution. I wonder what it is about narcissists that they think other people's creative efforts are theirs for the taking?
You might want to learn about Fair Use before diagnosing someone as a narcissist for quoting song lyrics, poems, etc.
DeleteI don’t think 5:25 is referring to the laws here.
DeleteFair Use is not a “rip off.”
DeleteAgain, the commenter is not referring to laws, but to the idea that a writer uses other’s words without attribution. It’s an intellectual flaw, not a legal one.
DeleteDid you see any non-attributions in today’s post? Me neither.
DeleteHow many times is fair? Trump has done this before too. He just takes what he wants.
DeleteThose who critique Harris for being something of a politically ambitious cipher aren't wrong. But this image is incomplete. There are some things Harris has stood for consistently, and none of them are good.
DeleteI hear that Trump is polling at less than 50% in Ohio.
ReplyDeleteIndependent economists have now scored Trump's tax cut and tariff plan as adding 4 trillion dollars to the national debt, while a continuation of Biden's economic plan is calculated to subtract 3 trillion. To be fair, the "tax cuts stimulates revenue" idea is not one that will have Arthur Laffer asking Trump for attribution, insofar as the idea appears to be permanently embedded into Republican dogma, however much as it has been discredited by mainstream economists.
ReplyDeleteIt will be nice to see what Kamala Harris' tax plans are. But she hasn't given any precise economic policy proposals at all. Nor has she even given one interview or held one press conference. But she may not have time since she is so busy exuding joy.🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
DeleteHistorically Democrats have a far better track record than Republicans in terms of GDP growth, unemployment, job and wage growth and other parameters relating to the economy. Donnie has laid out his plan for further tanking our national debt and his sycophantic cronies have shown no hesitation in the past with assisting him. Harris has been the nominee for a couple of weeks. She’s not demented. And even if she was, like your ilk claims Biden is, the economic forecasters would have her 7 trillion dollars ahead of Trump in projected deficit reduction. The Republican Party historically has been abysmal for the economy and will continue to be so as long as the main tenet of their platform is that shoveling money to the rich is good policy. You can argue successfully that Harris hasn’t laid out a platform in the few weeks that she’s been the nominee, and I will grant you that. But you cannot argue with the data that shows Republican presidencies are bad for the economy by comparison the Democratic ones. By a long shot. And when all is said and done, Donnie is a Republican and has set forth a plan that is projected by experts to further tank the National debt, a subject near and dear to Republicans in theory but not at all in practice.
DeleteBob is just made he doesn’t really have Hunter to kick around anymore. Room for concern with Harris? Only a Republican black woman could cut it with Bob.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI’m earning over $13,000 a month through part-time work. After hearing about the lucrative online opportunities, I decided to give it a shot. It truly transformed my life. To find out more, visit the website below.
Click here ═════►► Www.Dailypay7.Com