SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2024
Brian Kilmeade's squalor: With each passing week, it's becoming even more obvious.
It's obvious why the Deep State felt they had to destroy the Pac-10. Yesterday, refugees from that mightiest conference went out and did it again.
Last week, it was Southern Cal taking LSU down. Yesterday, it was the Golden Bears, on the road at Auburn—and it was also the Wildcats (and/or Sun Devils) of Arizona State:
Additional Pacific-10 greatness:
Cal: 21
Auburn: 14
Mississippi State: 23
Arizona State: 30
Utah also took Baylor down. But as a member of the Big 12, Baylor is only SEC-adjacent.
It's as we told you last week—the allegedly "dominant" conference just keeps losing games! Luckily, if you ignore all the games a conference has lost, that conference has won every game!
At any rate, the Deep State knew it had to act—and act the Deep State did! This gives us the chance to ponder the meaning of the word "dominant" in this particular context.
(Full disclosure: A conference can be "very good"—it could even be "the best"—without perhaps being "dominant.")
Is the SEC a "dominant" conference? We've been asking the question for years.
That circuit has lost some games this year, but the Pac-10 goes on forever!
"This is the world in which we now live. "
ReplyDeleteNo one is forced to watch Fox News. Somerby does not have to live in that world, nor do Republicans. They are choosing to do so, and that says something unpleasant about them.
The New York Times does not cover what goes on in the sewers of the nation. There is nothing forcing Somerby to focus on them either. I sometimes wonder why he chooses to do so.
I will be voting enthusiastically for Kamala Harris, because she wants to improve life for everyone in our nation. I suggest that one way to deal with what occurs on Fox News is to vote for Harris too. Increasingly, prominent Republicans are doing exactly that. Perhaps they think of it as a protest vote against Trump, or perhaps they simply recognize her decency and competence -- all the things that Trump is not. This isn't rocket science. Either you align yourself with people like JD Vance and Donald Trump, or you do not. You get to choose.
You wonder why Somerby writes about Fox News, and I can help you out there. He blogs about the “American discourse,” of which Fox is an integral part.
DeleteDid you even read the statement by 11:22? They are disputing Somerby's take on the world in which we now live.
DeleteIf Somerby is going to focus so much on repeating what Fox News says, he might change his subhead to include the words "right wing" before American discourse.
But my question was more about Somerby's mental health. No one is forcing him to focus relentlessly on the dregs of American life.
Did YOU read what 11:22 wrote? 11:22 wondered why Somerby chose to write about Fox News. I explained that Fox News fits squarely within the defined scope of Somerby’s blog.
Delete11:22 was referring to what Somerby said, to this:
Delete"We'll force ourselves to transcribe this garbage-can conduct tomorrow. For today, we'll offer two points:
This is the world in which we now live. Also, the New York Times is never going to report or discuss that fact."
Someone on the right called Harris an ugly name. That isn't press coverage or media analysis of any kind. It is repeating and wallowing in the ugly name-calling used by the right wing to conduct an election.
You, PP, don't seem to understand what media musing, analysis, criticism involves. It does not consist of repeating what is said by the press and then tsk tsking over it. Occasionally Somerby will engage in some nostalgia about the old days (before anyone here was old enough to vote) and say it is not like that today. No shit Sherlock! That isn't analysis either. It isn't even musing because Somerby does not thinking whatsoever about his comparisons, just as he applies no thought to his transcription of right wing muck.
If any of us wanted to know what Fox News is saying, we could watch them ourselves. WE do not choose to live in that world, and it is fair to ask why Somerby apparently does (despite his faux whining about how awful they are).
There is actual analysis of media floating around. Read some of it and you'll see what I mean about the emptiness of Somerby's musings. You, PP, keep claiming that Somerby is musing. He isn't. He is repeating propaganda in order to harm Democrats, in accord with Fox's mission, no matter how many negative adjectives he uses as window-dressing.
When Somerby takes the time to tell us why he is voting for Kamala, I will believe he might actually do so. But don't hold your breath. We don't know where you live, so we can't come by and rescue you if you pass out.
Oh, I see: You’re just trying to advance the crackpot theory that Somerby’s true purpose is to persuade gullible liberals to vote for Trump. Bye!
DeleteSomerby took the time this morning to report that someone called Kamala Harris a piece of shit. It is the only thing he said besides musing about football. Why would anyone believe Somerby is trying to advance her candidacy?
DeleteSomerby didn't even try to refute the namecalling.
DeleteThis is perhaps what Somerby is avoiding talking about:
ReplyDelete"Donald Trump made a claim at his rally on Saturday that had people worrying about what he meant.
Trump, who spoke in Mosinee, Wisconsin, was called out by CNN for a "lie" about transgender kids. But he also made another statement that caught the attention of political observers on social media, including actress Bette Midler.
"I better win or you're gonna have problems like we've never had. We may have no country left," Trump said at his weekend swing-state rally. "This may be our last election. You want to know the truth? People have said that. This could be our last election."
This comment caught the attention of Midler, who is no stranger to being attacked by Trump himself.
The statement was flagged by Republican Voters against Trump, and Midler responded, saying, "Trump is threatening us, and he means it."
"If he doesn’t win, he will call for Civil War. Kamala has to win in a landslide so this pig is faced with the truth: Most Americans despise him and everything he stands for," the actress added.
And she wasn't the only one with something to say.
Journalist Jim Stewartson said, "Wow." He also called Trump "clinically delusional."
"This is a narcissistic crisis. A total breakdown of the ego," Stewartson added. "He’s drowning in terror."
Theologian Jared Stacy, PhD also chimed in, saying, "Same rhetoric, stoking fear."
Luke Zaleski, legal affairs editor for Condé Nast, said, "Threats as usual."
Former GOP writer Zorek Richards said, "That's called threatening the voters."
"Outside of 1930s Germany I am not aware of that working anywhere else," Richards added.
Retired lawyer Don Frickel added, "Oh my, what drivel. I don’t know a single soul who is worried about the future of our country under Joe or Kamala. On the other hand, we all know why real Rs are joining the Democracy Coalition. They don’t necessarily agree with all D policies, but they know the country and our democracy will be in big trouble if TFG gets another term."
Rawstory
On the other hand, he could be talking about football. Only Somerby knows why he is focusing on the names the right wing is calling Harris, instead of the crisis in our politics and the very public breakdown of Trump.
Somerby should be writing about X.
DeleteWhen Somerby claims he is here to write about X, he should actually write about X.
Delete"musings on the mainstream "press corps" and the american discourse" -- Somerby wrote that
It’s bizarre how so many Anons feel that they should be Somerby’s assignment editor.
DeletePP, you seem to feel that Somerby shouldn't be accountable to his readers for his lack of musing. Wouldn't that undercut Somerby's pretense to be holding the mainstream media accountable?
DeleteHere is an example of real media criticism:
Deletehttps://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2024/09/note-to-corporate-media-you-dont-have.html
"Note to Corporate Media: You Don't Have to Act Like Trump and Vance Are Serious People"
"...Some things are beyond the pale, and they should be. There should be some things that politicians say that are disqualifying.
Like, I dunno, maybe being on record constantly that women only have value and worth in American society if they breed. See, it's not just that JD Vance has said and keeps saying shit like that a woman who emphasizes her career is a "miserable person who can’t have kids because [she] already passed the biological period when it was possible." It's that the Most Important Newspapers and other media treat Vance and Donald Trump like they are Very Serious People with Very Serious Ideas that need Very Serious Consideration when, actually, no, they absolutely do not. Anyone espousing a philosophy that says that women who don't give birth to children are innately unhappy or that people without kids don't have a serious stake in the future of the world is an obvious fool and kind of a dick.
We don't need reporting about how saying such nonsense affects voters. We need journalists saying that none of that is true and no one should believe it. It's that recent canard that if you have one person saying it's raining and the other person saying it's not, it's the journalist's job to open the goddamn window and tell everyone what's real. If someone is saying completely untrue shit, it's actually objective reporting to say that what they're saying is completely untrue shit. And it's completely valid to question other Republicans about what Vance has said and not let them get away with avoiding whether or not they think "the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female" is to help take care of grandchildren."
Rude Pundit agrees with Somerby:
"The fact that the GOP ticket consists of an elderly man plainly declining mentally and a guy who lies about women in order to enslave them to childbirth and child care is the story that needs to be covered and simply isn't."
Also in Mosinee, Trump referred to his buddy Elon Musk as Leon. What do you suppose that means?
ReplyDeleteI, for one, resent it.
DeleteThis is real media criticism:
ReplyDeletehttps://driftglass.blogspot.com/2024/09/i-do-appreciate-fourth-generation-nepo.html
This is media criticism too:
Deletehttps://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/no-you-fucking-ghouls-school-shootings
I appreciate the expletives because a lot is at stake and I too deplore the right telling us that we just have to get used to school shootings because their guns are too precious to control.
"Sanewashing" is a new term. Perhaps Somerby will examine the phenomenon and tell us why it is happening, but most likely he will go on about sports, because that's what's really important on this sunny weekend.
Isn't it possible to talk about wannabe despots and football at the same time?
@12:02 wa hoaxed. S/he wrote, "I too deplore the right telling us that we just have to get used to school shootings." Here's the full story
DeleteVance made a statement saying that school shootings should NOT be tolerated and suggesting policies to protect against school shootings. One news source reported Vance's statement, but left out part of it. Their abridged version made it sound like Vance was saying we need to tolerate school shootings, when he actually said the opposite. When the error was pointed out, the deceptive report was promptly taken down.
CNN printed an article with a more complete version of what Vance said. It begins "Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance on Thursday lamented that school shootings in the US have become “a fact of life” and called for greater security at schools..." https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/jd-vance-school-shootings-security/index.html
Right, Vance wants schools to be "hardened" so that students are attempting to learn in prison-like conditions. You didn't follow the link or you would have seen Vance giving his campaign speech behind presumably bullet-proof plexiglass surrounded by secret service.
DeleteAs the article points out, how do you expect there to be sufficient security at schools (to prevent AR-15 shootings) when teachers are having to buy their own chalk? After this shooting, we will return to the condition where there is no security (think Uvalde) and increased proliferation of weapons. Nothing changes when people like Vance think the solution is to arm teachers. I was a teacher and I wouldn't have brought a gun into any of my classrooms. That isn't why people go into the profession -- to guard kids and face shooters. We aren't going to be any magical solution to the problem of too many guns wielded by disturbed individuals (because the non-disturbed ones don't buy guns) in public places.
The guy I cited has it right and did include Vance's entire statement.
@12:48 - You have every right to question whether Vance's solution to school shootings would work. I am focused on the lies. Both Harris and Walz are repeating the false story. It's fair to criticize Trump for lying, but Harris and Walz deserve the same criticism.
DeleteIn a way, what Harris and Walz are doing is worse. Most of Trump's lies are exaggerations. E.g., he may say, inaccurately, that his turnout was the biggest ever, when it just big. At least the truth is in the direction of Trump's false statement. But, the lie about what Vance said is the exact opposite of what he actually said.
The source I cited did not lie about Vance's position. You need to follow the link. He included the info you say CNN left out, but I am not talking about CNN or Harris/Walz's comments. Vance DID say that we are going to have to live with school shootings and Harris and Walz are not lying about that.
DeleteWhat kind of tone deaf idiot says something like that immediately after a school shooting? It is callous and disregards the sincere pain and fear of parents with school age children, each time one of these shootings happens. At least MTG knows enough to offer her prayers. Telling upset people that they will have to live with the possibility of their children being shot at school is not what anyone should be saying to the public.
You seem to want to defend this goon, but even you wouldn't do something like that (based on your comments here over the years).
This is a matter of weirdness and sanity. Vance is too weird to talk to people in a crisis. If he wants to harden school instead of controlling access to guns, that's his political opinion, but his timing is awful. NO fearful parent is going to feel better after being told that their child's kindergarten teacher is packing heat.
“The main concern I have is about Congressional interference in scientific and epidemiological studies that relate to gun violence (i.e., cutting the funding for this type of research). This is a clear example of political interests preventing the advance of public health knowledge and practice.”
Delete--Union of Concerned Scientists
Same article as linked above:
Delete"As part of his remarks, Vance also said that strict gun laws are not the determining factor in preventing school shootings."
Why is it that the United States is the only country where this happens many times a year?
Cheney isn't supporting Harris because he has changed his views of hegemony and endless war. He's supporting Harris because she also supports his views of hegemony and endless war. There's no debate about that as hard as it may be accept.🥵
Delete@5:27 That's total nonsense. Cheney is supporting Harris because Trump is a danger to our nation and it is imperative that he not win again. Simply not voting will not stop Trump.
Delete“ Cheney and I agree on nothing. No issues. But what we do believe in is that The United States should retain its democratic foundations. I applaud the Cheneys for their courage in defending democracy. ”
Delete— Bernie Sanders
5:27 Cheney explicitly stated his reason for endorsing Harris. But thanks for your fictionalized account.
DeleteDid he say it was because she supports endless war?
DeleteHow is Trump worse than Cheney?
Delete7:23 Why don't you look up what he said?
DeleteUniversity of Arizona Wildcats
ReplyDeleteArizona State University Sun Devils
Please!
Seriously, Somerby should immediately issue a correction and an apology!
DeleteAround where I live, Somerby would have been tarred and run out of town on a rail if he had called Cal the “California Cardinal.”
DeleteGo Bears!
DeleteDiC - Something we agree on!
DeleteMy comment was decidedly unserious.
Delete"Lighten up Francis."
We can talk about football and guns:
ReplyDelete"Former Clemson Tigers wide receiver Diondre Overton has died at 26, according to officials.
Overton was shot and killed at a party in Greensboro, North Carolina, as reported by the Guilford County Sheriff’s Office."
Too many guns. Let's do something constructive about the guns.
@1:44 - for better or for worse, we cannot do anything about guns. The Supreme Court decision plus the popularity of guns means they cannot be banned. 42% of households owned guns in 2023. That number keeps going up.
DeleteWe can absolutely do something about guns. No one is suggesting banning them. Simply reinstating the assault weapon ban would cut these mass shootings in half.
DeleteCan we at least admit that some people shouldn't have guns? I mean, does anyone out there really believe that Thomas Crooks should have had access to his AR-15?
DeleteSecond Amendment absolutists insist that Crooks was exercising his Constitutional rights until the moment he aimed his weapon at candidate Trump. Is this really what we believe the Founders intended for us?
What are you saying, Dickhead in Cal? School shootings are just a fact of life? Can't do anything about it?
DeleteTo what degree will the current Suprme Court allow the banning of guns. My guess FWIW is that the SC would have no Constitutional problem with preventing felons and children from owning guns.
DeleteOf course we all would like to ban gun ownership by crazy people. This is unfortunately difficult, because we don't have a good way to designate people as nuts.
I am pessimistic about an assault weapon ban. What is an assault weapon? It's essentially an ugly semi-automatic weapon. If certain semi-automatic weapons are banned, people will buy legal semi-automatic weapons that are just as deadly.
Anything you do will help. It might be your grandkid who is saved by an imperfect rule.
DeleteIt's very difficult to tell a regular gun-owner from a criminal nowadays.
Delete"The Supreme Court decision plus the popularity of guns means they cannot be banned."
DeleteThere is no "plus". The popularity of abortions didn't mean the Supreme Court would protect that Constitutional right. Why would you think the popularity of guns would make a difference to the Supreme Court's protection of the right to own a gun?
@10:52 -- because the right to bear arms in in the Constitution, but abortion and when life begins are not in the Constitution.
DeleteSo it has nothing at all to do with popularity.
DeleteWhy did you bring up the popularity of guns, when it has nothing at all to do with Supreme Court decisions?
David in Cal is one of our resident Konzitooshunal scholars. He is opposed on principle to Americans right to privacy. Ask him to find presidential immunity in his Constitution or "the major questions doctrine" anywhere in the founding document.
DeleteI'm glad that our current Supreme Court didn't get to decide Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka.
DeleteThe right of the people to keep and bear arms, as recognized by the Second Amendment, is rooted in English common law. From the 17th (I think) century onward, the English people had the right--and at at times, an obligation--to keep serviceable weapons at the ready for the defense of the kingdom against invaders.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this right came with duties as well. Able-bodied men were required to turn out regularly for drills and practice and for inspection of weapons and ammunition.
Under current Supreme Court interpretation, this part of English common law goes entirely unconsidered in our Second Amendment. The court recently ruled that the Second codifies the right of "the people" as an individual right to own weapons which cannot be limited. They cited as precedent the "tradition and history" of gun ownership in our country.
So why isn't the requirement to demonstrate one's ability to use a weapon judiciously and effectively part of our "tradition"? The body of the Constitution empowers Congress to set standards for training and arming "the militia." How is it that clause does not give the federal government the authority to require competence as a prerequisite for owning a deadly weapon?
Because Alito and Thomas' sugar daddies are okay with criminals getting guns.
DeleteQ. Why doesn't the New York Times report on the crappy journalism on FoxNews?
ReplyDeleteA. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
LMAO , you use Fox as a news source! Explains a lot.
Delete