TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2024
Provider rights the ship: People are suffering from the storm, but also around the world.
They're suffering; we were inconvenienced. We know there's a very large difference
With respect to the storm, it didn't seem that we actually had a storm around here. But our Internet and cable service disappeared (very) early on Sunday morning—and our (landline) phone went too!
Yes, it was an area outage, youthful agents of the (unnamed) Internet Service Provider assured us. But after visits to their facility Sunday at noon and Monday morning at 10, we were beginning to wonder if they were ever going to be able to right the ship.
At some time today, they did! We were elsewhere, helping medical practitioners advance the world's medical knowledge.
Before our services went away, we'd planned to spend the week examining some of the contents of a pair of silos. One is maintained by the Fox News Channel, one by the New York Times.
After recovering from our trauma, we'll start that work tomorrow. That said, the silence of the past several days led us to contemplate the future, in which we'll attempt to describe the state of play afflicting our nation in these latter days, deep inside the political era which started in 1960.
We don't know who the be president-elect will be by then. At present, we picture a new enterprise, at a different site, working under this title:
American Discourse, American Babel
Fox News Channel, New York Times
The Fox News Channel and the New York Times! They're a pair of very famous orgs, though they may not be well-known.
We're not saying that they're "the same;" we aren't saying they're "equivalent." We'd say they're each in control of a silo, and the wages of discourse by silo is the post-journalistic Babel which now belongs to us all.
Before the storm somehow washed us away, we'd reviewed some peculiar reporting at the New York Times. Tomorrow, we'll start this new block of work with a look at a Political Memo by Rebecca Davis O'Brien.
O'Brien's a good, decent person. On Saturday morning, her piece appeared on the front page of the New York Times' print editions.
We agree with many of her points—but on balance, the piece struck us as odd. Online, its dual headline says this:
POLITICAL MEMO
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
Vice President Kamala Harris is a sharp debater and a tireless campaigner, but televised interviews are a weakness. Her professional experience may explain why.
We agree with some of O'Brien's basic points. On balance, though, her piece seemed puzzling, odd.
We'll start tomorrow with that Political Memo. We may cite the slightly peculiar remark Gail Collins recently made as she spoke with Bret Stephens:
Another Trump Acolyte Finds Himself in Big Trouble
[...]
Bret: I’m still where I was last week: waiting for Harris to persuade me to vote for her. What’s wrong with asking her to sit down for a one-on-one interview with a serious journalist who will ask some tough but reasonable questions about urgent public policy matters? The same, of course, should be done with Trump.
Gail: You know I’m not gonna tell you that Harris is doing enough serious interviews with national reporters. She’s not. Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.
Bret: I just want reassurance that she is up for the job.
Given the fuller way he's explained it, we aren't offended by Stephens' stance with respect to Harris. Quite a few people are.
That said, did Collins mean what she seemed to say? Did she really mean that it's OK for a major newspaper to hold one presidential candidate "to a higher standard?"
Did she mean that the way its sounds? Probably not, but then again, there was that Political Memo just a few days later!
The so-called "democratization of media" has created a nation of silos. Do the mandated contents of one silo sometimes find their way into another?
We wondered when we read that Political Memo! Right there on the Times front page, very few nits were left unpicked, sometimes in ways which didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
We were left with a curious question. Has the other candidate ever been nit-picked, on the front page of the New York Times, in a way which could be compared to that? Has the Times ever beat the bushes, in a comparable way, about his "interview style?"
Full disclosure! We're sick of what we've been trying to do at this incomparable site. It's time to start with our flailing nation's recent history, but for now, we'll still go with this.
We'll start with O'Brien's Political Memo. Or the debate may wash things away! How's a Babel dweller to know?
"I'm still ... waiting for Harris to persuade me to vote for her."
ReplyDeleteThat's a good one, Bret. Now pull the other one.
Oddly Bret doesn't seem to know that it is the voters who are supposed to bribe the candidate, not vice versa. Has Bret bought his watch yet? If he does, I'm sure Trump will convince him to vote for him. The problem is that Harris has no mechanism allowing the public to bribe her, the way Trump has, so Brett is understandably confused about how she can buy his support.
DeleteBrett is a tool.
DeleteNotice how Brett and David have the same attitudes?
DeleteBob went over to his internet provider’s place of business to find out “what the heck is going on around here, folks?”
ReplyDeleteWell, he couldn't exactly call them if his landline was down.
DeleteI love it!
DeleteHey, Somerby-critics: Somerby is saying there are two silos, and that the one led by the NYT employs a double standard that is more critical of Harris than of Trump.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering: Why would someone who is a secret conservative tell us this message? And why would it be in Putin's or some right-wing billionaire's interest to finance this message?
PP,
DeletePatience, young man. The razor in Somerby's apple is coming, in good time.
Ah, the "Criticize Somerby for what we imagine he'll say in the future!" line of attack. Similar to the "Criticize Somerby for what he doesn't say!" line of attack.
Delete"the one led by the NYT employs a double standard that is more critical of Harris than of Trump."
DeleteSo does the one led by Fox. That means two silos are supporting Trump more than Harris. PP asks why Putin might like that situation. Isn't it obvious that Putin would prefer Trump as president because Trump supports Putin's agenda? And isn't it also obvious that billionaires who contribute to Trump get what they want from his administration? These seem to be questions a toddler could answer, so why is PP so baffled?
There are more than two silos, so I find myself wondering why Somerby is picking just these two to write about, especially when they are both working toward closely similar goals.
DeleteIt might be more useful for Somerby to investigate and find out, then report on how climate change affected his neighborhood. Why didn't Musk get Starlink to restore service faster -- Trump promised he would be doing that. And what would it mean if our country could not communicate nationwide due to intermittent weather problems? We take this internet for granted, but what if the part of the nation whose service is still down cannot watch Walz prevail over Vance? What if they don't hear other important news between now and the election? In fact, there is already early voting. Should there be some effort to help red-state victims of the hurricane cast their votes?
Trump has been lying about Biden's emergency response. So has Vance. Without disaster reporting, how will the message about a competent FEMA response, helping distressed people throughout the affected states, ever reach those in Somerby's favorite silos (both anti-Harris at the moment)?
Maybe Somerby himself doesn't even know what has been said in the past few days since the hurricane struck land. That seems likely. I think it is likely that this disaster may affect the election outcome in the red states hit by the flooding. A person receiving water, food, emergency shelter and other help may be grateful to the govt agency providing such help, so grateful that it changes their impression of Biden/Harris. There is already talk that even red voters are upset by Trump's on-the-spot grandstanding and the way it has diverted resources need for restoring order and finding survivors, especially first-responders. Some have said publicly that they consider this wrong. Others may be thinking it, which may change their votes. Biden/Harris are Democrats, so of course they are prepared to cope with this disaster (as Biden/Harris did with covid). Trump is showing that he doesn't even know how to offer sympathy in a convincing way, a helpful way. People will rightly consider this an audition for the presidency, one that Vance and Trump are failing, just as Trump failed to cope with other hurricanes during his administration, most notably Hurricane Maria, which killed thousands in Puerto Rico (which is an actual part of the US populated by US citizens who vote).
There will no doubt be a question about this at tonight's debate.
People living in the disaster areas are questioning why Trump showed up in Valdosta GA, built a purposeless half-wall in front of his podium, out the bricks of a destroyed business, in order to grandstand and tell lies about Biden while requiring first-responders to protect him. That diverted police and security people and local administrators from their real jobs of trying to locate survivors, rescuing people from flooded cars, coordinating dispersal of relief, accounting for missing people, and trying to return devastated areas to order, comforting the large number of upset people wondering how to go forward in the aftermath of widespread destruction. And Trump is standing there demanding attention that needs to go to the people affected by the disaster. It was an ill-conceived photo-op that showed extreme callousness toward those hurt by the storm.
DeleteAt that moment, Trump had the gall to lie about Biden's relief efforts, claiming he was sleeping or couldn't be reached by phone because he wouldn't talk to anyone. Kemp himself said Biden had been responsive and that they had talked several times.
Meanwhile, Trump claimed to have arrived with truckloads of disaster relief supplies, coming to coordinate and facilitate their distribution. Trump did not provide the supplies -- those came from Franklin Graham's relief organization "Samitan's Purse." Trump has not paid for or provided or done anything to distribute any relief supplies -- that was done by Graham's organization, while Trump took credit and did nothing but take up space and lie about Biden's government efforts.
https://meidasnews.com/news/trump-admits-truckloads-of-hurricane-relief-didnt-come-from-campaign
Samaritan's Purse -- sorry for typo
Delete@7:04 - because he's so set on owning potential Somerby critics, his attention span is accordingly limited.
DeleteOff topic -- A couple of days ago, some were posting comments faulting Israel for not doing enough to avoid killing civilians in their successful effort to kill a Hezbollah murderous leader. But, why are there no comments faulting Iran for intentionally setting out to kill civilians in Tel Aviv?
ReplyDeleteI fault Isreal for murdering Palestinians in the West Bank and doing it for years.
DeleteHey David,
DeleteWhy is it so hard for you to stay on topic? Oh yeah, I forgot. Trolling requires controlling the thread.
There are "fine people" on both sides of the Israel-Hezbollah disagreement.
DeleteOnly someone suffering from TDS could think that
ReplyDeleteTimes coverage is more generous to Trump than to Harris. Pointing out that Harris is weak at unscripted interviews is obvious. It's confirmed by Harris's bizarre campaign. Candidates always seek to have as many interviews as possible. They get out their message and show their leadership. (The only exception was Biden, for obvious reasons.) But, Harris shuns interviews.
No one on the left thinks Harris is weak at interviews. When I hear someone suggest that, I think of them as announcing their political perspective, not saying anything true about Harris. I know the right has been complaining about Ruhle giving her "softball" questions, but that really only means that they are upset because Harris handled Ruhle's interview competently. Because in right-wing world, if Harris does well in an interview, then it means there was something wrong with the interview, not something competent about Harris.
DeleteSomehow David and Bret and others have forgotten that the purpose of an interview is to gain information. It is not a version of American Idol where candidates perform in front of skeptical judges to become pop stars. If there is still something about Harris that David wants to know, he should be expressing questions, not complaining about some unspecified lack of detail (especially when Trump provides none at all in his "interviews").
What is bizarre about Harris’ campaign? Appearing in person at rally after rally in swing state after swing state to large crowds? Seems like good old fashioned retail politics. She has had a fraction of the time Trump has had to mount a campaign. Trump has been running for the last 4 years. Harris has to prioritize her schedule.
DeleteTrump on women: “You will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger. ... You will no longer have anxiety from all of the problems our country has today," Trump said. "You will be protected, and I will be your protector."
DeleteTrump said migrants will “walk into your kitchen and cut your throat.”
He called Kamala Harris “mentally impaired.”
But remember, it’s Kamala’s campaign that is bizarre. Trump’s teems with sensible, well-chosen rhetoric.
@7:31 what is bizarre is Harris staying away from unscripted interviews and press conferences, when every other candidate within my memory for Pres and VP sought out such interviews. (except Biden.)
Delete"They're eating the dogs! They're eating the cats!"
DeleteSound campaigning. Leadership exemplified. Doesn't speak until he can back up what he says.
Churchillian.
I agree with you, Hector. Trump's statements are often nasty, dishonest or wildly exaggerated. I would be happier if he didn't make such statements.
DeleteWhat do his statements tell you about his mind?
DeleteDavid, Harris has been giving unscripted interviews, while also functioning as VP (a full time job). If she doesn't have all day to do such interviews, it isn't as if Trump is doing them either. I think there is no amount of interviews that will please you or call off the talking point that she is avoiding them (as opposed to being busy).
DeleteMeanwhile, what burning question about Harris has not been answered?
Trump's statements tell me that he is sane and mentally sharp, although disgusting. His nastiness and exaggeration are wisely chosen to help him get elected.
DeleteIt's sad to live in an age where that sort of thing works...
Trump is the one avoiding the traditional 60 Minutes candidate interview this time.
Delete@8:05 thanks for asking. I see a number of burning questions
Delete1. Does she have adequate leadership skills? Her resume doesn't show much in way of major accomplishments or leadership. On the contrary, when she was unofficial border Czar, she showed no leadership. She hasn't shown much leadership in dealing with Helene. Giving strong, detailed, knowledgeable answers in interviews would help convince people.
2. Does she have the cojones to stand up to Putin, Xi, the Ayatollah and other world leaders?
3. She claims to have changed many of her key positions from far left to more centrist. E.g. fracking. Should we believe that she really changed her views? and all these issues?
4. Biden has conducted a weak Presidency when it comes to military strength and using our strength to discourage aggression. Will Harris do better?
5. Biden's support for Israel has been mixed. Often failing to support Israel in the UN. Calling for Israel to weaken its counterattacks. Will Harris give stronger support?
6. What will Harris do about our growing $2 billion annual deficit?
(BTW I want to acknowledge that Trump hasn't provided answers to some of these questions.)
Correction $2 Trillion deficit.
DeleteDavid, I feel sure we have answered these questions for you before. I myself recall listing her leadership accomplishments in her previous positions (elected offices). I know we have told you that she was not "border czar" but worked with donor countries to reduce the flood of immigrants at the source in those other places (not at our border). The only position she changed that gets mentioned is fracking and she explained that she discovered we can achieve our environmental goals without banning fracking. That sounds like a good reason for her to change her mind. She has functioned as an adjunct to Biden, who is more moderate (not centrist) than Harris, so you should see that she can do what she is promising -- to continue as she did as VP, to implement an agenda that supports the people working to build better lives. That is what Biden's term has already done and we can certainly use more of that, as she has promised. I am convinced that Harris will NOT to things to destabilize our economy, as Trump will (say any number of eminent economists) with his tariffs and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. She will continue sound economic policies like those that contributed to Biden's soft landing after covid.
DeleteI have not been following Harris's remarks about Israel. Unlike Trump, she does not pal around with Netanyahu and is not responsible for his actions. I am seeing sanctions imposed on Israel to encourage them to seriously consider cease-fire negotiations, and I believe she will consider that tougher approach with Israel (while supporting their right to defend themselves, as repeatedly stated by Harris). I believe Harris is seeking peace in the Middle East, not trying to strengthen Israel or Netanyahu, as Trump has done. Harris has repeatedly worked with leaders in the area to prevent a broadening of the conflict and I believe she has the strength and leadership to keep the Middle East from boiling over into general war, because that is what she has done as Biden's VP.
I do know that Putin will be unhappy with Harris as president, because he will be unable to bully her or flatter her into appeasing his goals. It was not good for our country when Trump met with Zelensky this past few days. I do not understand why it is OK for him to interfere in foreign policy while a private citizen. He should know better than to do that. It undercuts Biden and Harris both, and it smacks of treason to me.
Several of things Trump has said and done during this campaign are dealbreakers for me, meaning that I would never vote for him, even if Harris were to change direction from Biden. I don't see how she could possibly be worse than Trump was and is promising for his 2nd term. In view of that, trying to steer people away from Harris by claiming she is an unknown quantity (after lengty public exposure and 3 years as VP) seems irresponsible to me.
Why are so many Republicans publicly endorsing Harris? Have you ever seen anything like it? Many of them mention character as a defining factor, also, sane, responsible public service. Why can’t the Trump deadenders like DiC not be swayed from their hermetically sealed tribalism?
Delete@8:40 Who are the Republicans publicly endorsing Harris? Can you provide a list and-or links? Thanks
DeleteReporter: Do you believe you should've been tougher on Iran after they launched ballistic missiles in 2020 on US forces leaving more than 100 soldiers injured?
DeleteTrump: What does injured mean? You mean because they had a headache....no one was tougher on Iraq.
David, Liz and dick Cheney. Jeff Flake just yesterday. Do you know how to Google, DiC?
DeleteHere, DiC, since you’re so fucking lazy:
Deletehttps://www.newsweek.com/full-list-republicans-endorsing-kamala-harris-trump-1960937
thanks, @8:52. I agree that's a big list of Republicans endorsing Harris.
DeleteLink to rant:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/1/2273990/-Get-this-Grandstanding-Doodah-Out-of-the-Zone-Please?pm_campaign=trending&pm_source=sidebar&pm_medium=web
From The Representation Project:
ReplyDelete"A new analysis by the National Partnership for Women & Families (NPWF) found that the gender wage gap has increased for the first time in 20 years. On average, women workers are paid 75 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, declining 3 cents from the previous year. To break it down further, the NPWF shares:
Latina women workers are paid 51 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
Black women workers are paid 64 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
Asian American women workers are paid 83 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
White women workers are paid 73 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
Take Action! Be an advocate for equal pay. Support organizations working toward pay equality and raise awareness by sharing resources in your community."
Vance just bulldozed the moderators, talking when it wasn’t his turn until they cut the mics. Ugly and disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteVance keeps pretending that Harris has been president, not Biden.
ReplyDeleteThat's because Biden was unsuccessful. Vance is trying to blame Harris for Biden's failed Presidency.
DeleteIf Biden had been successful, the Dems would be ones pretending that Harris was deeply involved in Biden's actions.
"failed presidency"
DeleteYour ignorance is second only to your self assurance. Trump places dead last among presidents in polling of historians and experts in presidential history, and if you only sample those who are self-described as conservative, in the bottom three, way below Biden. But go ahead and keep feeding at the troughs of far right wing media outlets. There is a reason for the long list of Republicans who have turned away from Trump. They are grounded in reality.
Vance put white powder on his eyebrows to make them less visible. Otherwise they would make him look angry as lowered brows do. Rounded, raised eyebrows look friendly and happy but heavy lowered brows look menacing. So he is going for likeability.
ReplyDeleteOf course he’s going for likability, he’s running for office. They’ve done a great job of removing the storm cloud aura he had before. He actually looks affable, but sharp, AND a bit boyish now. The whiz kid guy.
Delete"They’ve done a great job of removing the storm cloud aura he had before."
DeleteYou mean the Haitians?
Vance's continual side-eye to the camera gave me the creeps.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:30am, no, the Haitians are something we all have to live with. Just like the Americans.
DeleteHopefully, the moral superiority and hard work of the Haitians rubs off on Americans.
DeleteI, like Bob, have pity on poor Vance, raised by meth-addled hillbillies in … Ohio. This leads him to say all kinds of quaint things like “Trump championed Obamacare” and “Trump won in 2020”.
DeleteVance got acclaim from the New York Times for writing a fictional account of his childhood, which is why he's pushing a fictional account of what is happening in Springfield, Ohio.
DeleteThey removed the "storm cloud aura" by putting white powder on his eyebrows so he wouldn't look like he was always glaring.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:24am, I wouldn’t count on it.
Delete10:15,
DeleteJust don't call them "deplorables".
Not a rodent, in my opinion what you’re seeing is a touch of grey or blond that they’ve subtly added to Vance’s eyebrows and sideburns. That’s helped lighten his countenance along with the fact that he’s smiling now, instead of scowling.
Delete1. Trump championed the ACA.
ReplyDelete2. Vance didn't promote a national abortion ban.
3. There was a peaceful transition of power.
New things I learned from the debate tonight.
Thanks, JD, for setting the record straight but you gave it all away in the final moments when you argued that the beauty of the second amendment that needed protecting was the right to promote misinformation, and you said it twice.
I didn't watch. Did he really say the Second Amendment, or did you misstate? Free speech is in the first.
DeleteHe says you’re welcome.
DeleteI misstated.
DeleteI did not misstate that he specifically criticized Harris in the context of the constitutional right to disseminate misinformation, but his debate statements were ample evidence of that.
DeleteVance did 3 things:
ReplyDelete*he lied
*he didn't answer the questions put to him; and
*he lied
The perfect Trump lackey.