WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2024
At the Times, this disappears: It was 5:20 p.m. Finally, the little guy was ready to spout.
We refer to his physical stature in part because he himself constantly does. Tragically, we're forced to guess that his physical stature, and the way it may have affected his upbringing, including his years at Serra High, is part of the story being played out as Blue America may perhaps be on its way down for the count.
Will Blue America be shown the door after we the people have voted? We can't answer that question. But almost surely, Candidate Harris doesn't have the election in the bag.
So the little guy now said, on The Five, as you can see at this link:
GUTFELD (10/22/24): The only thing Kamala has in the bag is a bottler of pinot grigio.
[PAUSE]
That's all I'm gonna say.
That's what the angry little guy said. As you can see on the tape, he paused for a laugh, but no laugh emerged.
This was the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld, attempting to transfer his grimy sensibility from his eponymous 10 p.m. "cable news" program to the more august inanity found each afternoon on the clowncar TV program clownishly known as The Five.
(For the record, The Five has the highest viewership in all of "cable news.")
On this occasion, the other four panelists plainly weren't willing to play! But then again, there was Candidate Donald J. Trump, playing the same primeval card down in North Carolina.
To its credit, NBC News reported some of what this other candidate said:
For the second time in a day, Trump resorts to false personal attacks on Harris
Former President Donald Trump slammed Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday night as a “lunatic" and “stupid” and questioned whether she had a problem with alcohol or drugs—the second time over the course of the day that he made false personal attacks on his Democratic opponent.
At a nearly two-hour rally Tuesday night in Greensboro, North Carolina, Trump launched into a diatribe about Harris’ Oct. 7 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes” that ended with his falsely suggesting she had substance abuse issue.
“She was so bad, she gave an answer. This never happened to me,” Trump said. “She gave an answer that was so bad that they changed it. They took it out, threw it out. They didn’t, like, edit a little bit, take a word out.”
“She didn’t know where the hell she was going,” Trump continued. “Did she drink? Is she on drugs? I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know, I have no idea.”
[...]
The false notion of Harris' being a drunk has grown in popularity in conservative circles online.
In fairness, Candidate Trump was just asking! He quickly said that he doesn't know if Candidate Harris drinks, or if she's maybe on drugs.
This disordered man has no idea! But so it went as a disordered man delivered his disordered thoughts to us the misused American people.
Meanwhile, is it true? Has the notion that Harris is a drunk "grown in popularity in conservative circles online?"
We don't know the answer to that. But as we've noted in the past, this claim or suggestion or insinuation has become a standard feature of the other disordered fellow's primetime "cable news" program.
Suzanne Scott is the Fox executive who sends this small and disordered man onto the air to spread that message on a nightly basis. That said, the claim that Candidate Harris is a drunk arrives on the Gutfeld! program with a fairly steady companion—and Suzanne Scott is the Fox executive who puts that on the air too.
The companion message is this:
On Monday evening's Gutfeld! show, the disordered man had already spread the insinuation that "she's a drunk." Finally, up jumped one of his panelists to voice the companion insult.
Near the end of the program's first segment, he voiced the second piece of the messaging, occasioning loud acclaim. Here's how the garbage went down:
As the opening segment moved along, the children had been taking turns saying how brilliant their candidate's stint at McDonald's had been.
The children all read from their messaging points. After the gruesome Kennedy kicked Candidate Harris around a bit, one other panelist, at long last, finally offered this:
LOFTUS (10/21/24): I loved this Trump at McDonald's thing. It really made my weekend. It was fantastic—so many jokes were flying around...
It was fantastic! And like, "Oh, Kamala—she's gonna be working at Five Guys."
GUTFELD [stage laugh]: Ha ha ha ha ha.
AUDIENCE: [GROANS, SHOUTING, APPLAUSE]
GUTFELD: We don't do that! We don't—
LOFTUS: Everyone knows she's gonna be working at In-and-Out! Come on, now!
AUDIENCE: [LOUDER CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]
GUTFELD: Wowwwwww!
"If was like Christmas yesterday," this D-List comedian now merrily said. And by the way—if you don't know what this pitiful throwback was saying, it seems that everyone in the Gutfeld! audience did!
(If you have the right cable connection, you can watch this mandated garbage simply by clicking here.)
Candidate Harris is a drunk, but she's also "a hooch!" We're quoting the gruesome Kennedy from the grisly Fox News Channel show we transcribed in this October 9 report.
People like this have always been with us; now, they're aggressively acting out as part of a classic revolt. That said, those twin messages have been widespread on the Gutfeld! program—on this utterly gruesome, though highly instructive, primetime "cable news" show.
The sexual insults have been general over several Fox News Channel programs. For the record, Suzanne Scott is the multimillionaire executive who pulls the lid off the Gutfeld! garbage can each night, thereby waving this garbage onto the air.
Sadly, this:
Among us the people—among us human—this sort of thing is deeply bred in the bone. Last night, on Alex Wagner Tonight, Wagner aired a discussion by a group of black men in a Philadelphia barbershop.
Kevin Harden is a defense attorney, and he's also a Harris supporter. At several points, he spoke with admirable clarity concerning what's bred in the bone:
HARDEN (10/22/24): Like, Charlamagne is in the commercial—he's in the commercial!—talkin' [BLEEPED] about Kamala! And it's cool, but he's literally like—
And it's popular! We have to recognize that—
VOICE OFF-CAMERA: Antonio Brown.
HARDEN: Antonio Brown! It's popular. People calling her a whore...
People calling her a whore—or, on Fox, "a hooch!" Earlier, Harden had said this:
HARDEN: It's unfortunate that we grew up in a culture where these sorts of things are talked about.
Truer words were never spoken, But this sort of thing is bred in the bone, going all the way back to the siege of Troy.
In the present day, Suzanne Scott is the multimillionaire who waves this garbage onto the air. The children arrive and the children recite, then deposit their corporate checks.
Candidate Trump is playing this card; so is the 60-year-old child who headlines the Gutfeld! program. Just for the record, the moral squalor of this primetime TV show is wedded to its intellectual squalor.
All in all, it adds up to a certain type of chaos. It represents the end of anything resembling an American "national discourse." At present, it may be lighting the way to Blue America's dusty defeat.
Or not! Meanwhile, here's the role which is being played by a second major news org:
As this garbage has been spewed by Fox, the timorous souls at the New York Times have tended to avert their gaze.
This morning, a news report appears in the Times about Trump's behavior in North Carolina. We've seen what NBC News reported. Headline incudes, here are the relevant parts of the Times report:
Trump Courts Christian Voters, Days After Vulgar Remarks at a Rally
Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday used the language of persecution to make a sweeping claim that only he could protect Christian voters, darkly warning religious communities that they would come under legal, cultural, political and global assault if he lost in November.
Mr. Trump, a former tabloid fixture who was once caught on tape boasting of grabbing women by their genitals, spoke of himself at the 11th Hour Faith Leaders Meeting in Concord, N.C., as not just a champion of Christian causes and values but as a member of the faithful.
Two days after he made a crude remark at a rally about a famous golfer’s penis size and used profanity to insult Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump spoke on Monday of the importance of religion in his life, recalling going to church as a child and framing his survival of an assassination attempt in Butler, Pa., as an act of divine intervention.
[...]
Later, he traveled to Greenville, N.C., for a rally where he continued to hammer the federal response to the hurricane, lobbed repeated personal insults at Ms. Harris and stoked fear around illegal immigration. He also revived his calls to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport criminal gang members without due process. “Think of that, 1798,” Mr. Trump told the crowd. “That’s when we had real politicians that said we’re not going to play games. We have to go back to 1798.”
Readers, what were the "personal insults" which he repeatedly "lobbed?" For better or worse, the Times report doesn't say. Beyond that, the New York Times never reports or discusses the gruesome behavior at Fox. They don't seem to want a fight.
One major news org is on the attack. The other major news org is averting its gaze.
In the process, is Blue America going down? In our view, we've been earning our way out for the past sixty years. At any rate, an ugly revolt from below is now operating each night in a state of absolute silence.
Silence once "invaded the suburbs." As the New York Times runs and hides, an obvious, ancient form of chaos is running all through what's left of the national discourse.
She's a drunk, but also a whore. As Red America hears all about it, Blue America slumbers and snores.
Tomorrow: The Man Who Screams offers his latest "report"
Coming: Ezra Klein—a good, decent person—authors an odd report
It drives the Right crazy that Democrats nominated someone who has consensual sexual relations.
ReplyDeleteThe mainstream media is trying to ignore that aspect of the election, because try as they might, it's impossible to make it look like both sides are the same in tis area.
Clever move, when the opposition nominates a serial rapist and a guy who has sex with furniture.
DeleteNow, now. The Vance thing was a joke. JD is divanly inspired.
DeleteI think it's clear that God saved Trump from an assassin's bullet so that he could talk about the size of Arnold Palmer's member.
ReplyDeleteAs part of the divine plan.
Pangloss would sometimes say to Candide: “All events are linked together in the best of all possible worlds...
DeleteDIC,
ReplyDeletePutin has so much fear for Trump's unpredictable power and strength that he wants him....to get elected again?
Help me understand.
"Russian Operatives Responsible for Bogus Walz Accusations, US Officials Say"
https://www.salon.com/2024/10/22/russian-operatives-responsible-for-bogus-walz-accusations-us-officials-say/?in_brief=true
Today Somerby repeats the right wing's smears of Harris, giving them extra exposure they wouldn't have among those who don't watch Fox. This is not how a supposed supporter of Harris advances their candidate.
ReplyDeleteIf Somerby were repeating this garbage for any other reason than to push Trump, he would have been careful to point out that (1) Harris is not a drunk, much less a wine drunk, (2) Harris is not a hooch, ho or any kind of sexual degenerate, (3) Harris did not sleep her way to the top. Somerby has a platform to rebut these lies but he never does that. And that is a major clue that his purpose is not to help elect Harris but to undermine her candidacy by repeating right wing lies.
And no, it doesn't matter that he occasionally calls Trump disordered or calls Gutfeld angry or whatever mild criticism of Fox he launches. The damage is done when the lies about Harris land among the liberals who wouldn't normally see them because lefty voters don't watch Fox at all.
I expect that when this election is over, Somerby will fold up his tent and stop this blogging. There will be no reason for it, no matter which candidate wins.
As Somerby says:
"She's a drunk, but also a whore. As Red America hears all about it, Blue America slumbers and snores."
So, Somerby's solution is to tell Blue America that Harris is a drunk but also a whore, because it would be bad if we didn't know what is being said about her on the right -- even though these are lies that shouldn't have been said in the first place because they are entirely untrue, and because it is somehow important for the blue tribe to think Harris is a bad person? Why exactly does Somerby think we need to know exactly what bad things the right is saying about Harris? That's what he doesn't explain, but the answer is obviously. Somerby does not want anyone to vote for Harris and he is helping the right spread its lies (in detail) in order to keep Harris from winning, which would help put Trump back in office.
Those of you who still think Somerby is not working for the Trump/Putin faction, paid or not, need to rethink your opinion in the light of this blatantly Trump-serving essay today. Somerby isn't here to complain about so-called chaos on Fox. He is here campaigning for Trump by calling Harris all the names that Fox does, except his audience here is not Fox viewers. That makes Somerby as big a liar as Fox.
Anon 10:58 - Do you honestly think that TDH's post, where he claims that Gutfield is despicable, that Fox is a propaganda machine, and that trump is nuts, is not only an endorsement of Trump, but "blatantly" does so? You are either delusional or simply a troll. It discouraging to read your obsessively delusional posts, that someone could be averse to common sense and insight. (By your logic, your post is a "blatant" endorsement of TDH's views).
DeleteAc/ma is mad and wants everyone to know it.
DeleteThanks for the update ac/ma!
It’s great you have a safe space for throwing your temper tantrums, sorry that your life has led you to have limited comprehension capabilities, but at least Somerby can get a kick out having conned a few fanboys.
"Somerby's solution is to tell Blue America that Harris is a drunk but also a whore"
DeleteThis is false. Somerby did not say Harris is a drunk and a whore. I thought you were going to stick to "facts" and "truth" - what happened?
PP wants everyone to know that PP has no ability to understand implication or context.
DeleteGood to know PP!
"CHAOS: On Fox, the lady's a drunk but also a wh*re!"
DeleteSomerby typed every word of that headline, which is in bold face for emphasis (to catch more attention from readers).
I also quoted the parts where Somerby today refused to exonerate Harris from these accusations, saying he doesn't know whether she does or doesn't do such things.
So, yes, Somerby is saying that she is a drunk and a whore because he took the trouble to write this about Fox's coverage and did nothing whatsoever to make it clear that these are smears and not truths about Harris.
Excessively literal legalisms by PP do not change the FACT that Somerby took the effort to type this himself about Harris. If he doesn't think this about her, he could have said something to rebut the accusations -- he chose not to. That too is Somerby's behavior. And no, Fox didn't force him to write any of this today.
"he took the trouble to write this about Fox's coverage and did nothing whatsoever to make it clear that these are smears"
DeleteHilarious! This is from one of the Anons saying that it is I who does not understand implication or context! The whole point of Somerby's essay, which must have escaped them, is that the NYT ignores all these smears that Fox continuously spews.
That was me.
DeleteBut again, my point: You say you want to stick to "facts" and "truth." Do so. Making up shit, like "Somerby says Harris is a drunk and a whore," is not sticking to facts and truth.
DeleteSaying that there is a Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy, because thinking otherwise is hard to fathom, is not sticking to facts and truth.
Deleteanon 3:17 & 3:55 - you' come across as annoyingly idiotic.
DeleteShe married a man who beats the shit out of women and knocks up the nanny.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Somerby tell enough lies about Harris today, that you need to add this one?
DeleteThere are so many factual inaccuracies here, beginning with calling a private-school teacher a nanny, representing the children as young enough to need a nanny, when they were much older, exaggerating an unsubstantiated slap into "beats the shit out of women" and failure to note that the marriage in question broke up after 16 years, and long before Harris married Emhoff. This is very old and very stale dirt dug up about Harris's husband, before they met.
Contrast that with Trump:
"Donald Trump has 5 kids from 3 wives ... all of whom he cheated on ... between visits to Epstein's island with underage girls, cavorting with a porn star and oh yeah - convicted for rape. Like with Hillary before, once again the author wants wives to take the blame for their husbands' [long past] indiscretions."
Kamala Harris prosecuted child sexual abuse and domestic violence cases in San Francisco, as a Deputy District Attorney. Is anyone trying to insinuate that she condones domestic violence with this smear? Can anyone imagine her letting Emhoff or anyone else slap her? I'll bet the secret service might object.
DeleteEmhoff is Harris's husband now, regardless of his past marital problems earlier in his life. Does anyone imagine he will have any role at all in the government beyond a photo op here and there? He will be like Melania, except she couldn't be bothered to participate in traditional first lady White House activities, like Easter Egg rolls. Melania doesn't seem to be living with Trump any more. Would she rejoin him if he were elected? Seems unlikely.
Trump raped a 13yo girl, she reminded him of his own daughter, so Trumpers have to invent dirt about the other side in order to not feel nauseous when they look in the mirror.
DeleteKamala married her violent husband a year after he beat a girlfriend, which wasn't his first time beating women.
DeleteShe told me that she broke up with him that night.'
DeleteA second friend, another female New York attorney, said Jane told her about the alleged attack at the time – and said it came out of nowhere.
'They had dinner. She said Doug was very charming, and it was lovely. Then I believe it was between 2-3am, it was still raging, but she was wearing four-inch heels and a floor-length gown, so it was time to depart,' the lawyer said.
'She said there'd been no fight before he hit her. You would have thought it was this fairytale trip.
'She put her hand on the valet's shoulder, and as she was talking to him, Doug comes up.
'She said he turned her around by her right shoulder, and she was completely caught off guard. He hauled up and slapped her so hard she spun around. She said she was in utter shock.
'She was so furious, she slapped him on one side, and then on the other cheek with the other hand.'
The three friends said that as Jane tried to leave following the alleged assault, Emhoff forced his way into the cab with her.
'All of a sudden the car was there and they were ushering her into the car,' the attorney friend said.
'She said she wanted to go back to the hotel without him. But while she was shutting the door, he forced himself into the car, which she did not want.
In a fawning interview on Sunday, MSNBC host and former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki told Emhoff that he 'reshaped the perception of masculinity' – despite his admitted affair with his daughter's nanny and teacher.
'I've always been like this,' Emhoff said to Psaki. 'To me, it's the right thing to do, support women.'
These allegations strike to the heart of his benevolent image, promoted by the Harris presidential campaign.
As a Republican small business owner, I wouldn’t let Trump near my children, nor hire him for any job, much less vote for him to be president.
DeleteTrump is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, he went bankrupt 6 times, and does little more than drone on with his lunatic rants when he isn’t trying out some grift.
Here is where you believe the woman and investigate. After investigation, was Emhoff put in jail over these accusations? No. Did he regret his actions, such as they were? Yes, according to your account. Is Emhoff's side of the interaction described here? No, other than exonerating things like his saying that he's always considered it right to support women. When Psaki said he had "reshaped the perception of masculinity" what was she referring to? Not the affair or the accusations by his ex-girlfriend. Wouldn't it have been fairer to include that part of the interview too, instead of just her angry accusations made in the context of a breakup?
DeleteAnd then you have to ask yourself, why would a prosecutor in charge of sexual abuse of children and domestic violence cases have picked a man who hit women to be her husband? Does that sound like the ex-girlfriend's charges were true or were they perhaps not true but made in the heat of strong emotion during a fight and angry break-up, or perhaps even fabricated, as sometimes happens.
Note that Emhoff had divorced 3 years before he met Harris. He had custody of his son, Cole, since age 14. The children are now 25 and 29, so this early history has nothing to do with Harris's relationship with her husband to whom she has been married for 10+ years.
Aside from the fact that it is up to Harris to decide who to marry and whether slapping is OK (some couples get off on it), the secret service will protect Harris, and otherwise this man will have nothing to do with the execution of her duties as president. He wouldn't have had anything to do with her job as Senator, which she executed well, or any of her prior jobs in law enforcement.
I wouldn't marry Emhoff because I have my own husband, but Harris has the right to marry whoever she chooses and live with him. I wouldn't have tolerated Trump for 10 minutes -- he isn't to my taste in men or in human beings. I would be gone the first time he told a lie. But that didn't seem to bother Melania much.
To be fair to Trump, when he raped his own wife, that was still legal in some states, although not the one he was in.
DeleteFurthermore, Trump has never raped or sexually assaulted a person of color, he draws a line there, so his racism in a way has protected some women.
Does anyone else here believe that Emhoff would have hit his girlfriend in the face for no reason whatsoever, no argument, not even any preliminary words? Is that how fights happen in anyone else's universe?
DeleteDon't habitual wifebeaters tend to hit in places that are less visible to the public, where bruises won't show?
Here is a press description:
"Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, 59, supposedly struck his then-girlfriend — described as a successful New York attorney — in the face so hard she spun around while in a valet line after an event at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2012, the three unnamed friends of the woman reportedly told the Daily Mail.
All three sources requested not to be named due to fear of retaliation from Emhoff – who frequently positions himself as an ally for women."
No substantiation from the French press or from anyone other than girlfriends of the woman making the accusation have been presented. I find this whole situation so unlikely as to be fabricated in order to smear Emhoff.
But I also wonder why the girlfriend didn't mention that she had her hand on the valet's shoulder, and why she would have placed her hand there at all. It is flirting (under the best of circumstances) and assault to touch a service worker like that without permission. It suggests perhaps Emhoff's girlfriend might have been drunk and not remember the incident clearly afterward or that she exaggerated what happened, or was told by her "girlfriends" something different than what occurred. In other words, it sounds very fishy to me.
It is also possible that he was set up for some reason. His work on behalf of women might have led a "girlfriend" to make such claims to discredit him in the context of a court case, perhaps to benefit a client. I think that kind of thing mostly happens on TV, but maybe that's where they get their plots. Whatever explanation Emhoff gave to Harris, it seems to have been accepted by her.
This could even be a cover story offered by the girlfriend to her friends to account for Emhoff dumping her after she got drunk and embarrassed him by flirting with a valet at Cannes. Ultimately, I don't care what happened because it is irrelevant, unless it was Kamala Harris who struck a woman in public and then married an innocent man a year later.
Unnamed, anonymous source in the Daily Mail?
DeleteDuh, obviously it’s a fake story.
"Unnamed, anonymous source" Same with Hector's story posted above.
Delete3:02 bringing the MAGA tears, lol.
DeleteSorry, but you are hilarious.
"Kamala married her violent husband a year after he beat a girlfriend, which wasn't his first time beating women."
DeleteThe stench of flop sweat is strong with this troll, Obi-Wan.
'"Unnamed, anonymous source" Same with Hector's story posted above.'
DeleteI just learned the source of the accusations against Walz is Black Insurrectionist, the same site that published the scam about Harris being fed interview questions.
So same bullshit, different day.
Hector - you posted a story from Salon entitled: "Russian operatives responsible for bogus Walz accusations, US officials say"
DeleteThe "U.S.Officials" are unnamed, anonymous Intelligence officials.
Russian operatives are responsible for bogus Walz accusations according to unnamed, anonymous Intelligence officials who leaked the story to the press.
Don't you know how this here game is played?
No. Why don't you explain it to me?
DeleteHector, you posted a story that you saw that made you confused about Russia and Trump. The story was based on an unnamed anonymous source from inside the intelligence Community about Russia promoting stories about Walz poking young boys which you justifiably presumed was with the intention to help Trump. Then when it was pointed out to you that it was based on a unnamed anonymous source, you seem to not even realize it. You seemed to not be aware that the story you posted had no basis except for something that was leaked to the press from the intelligence community. The game is that the intelligence community will use use anonymous, unsourced leaks to the press as a tool to influence public opinion and control narratives. Particularly when it comes to trying to damage a political rival. Inside the intelligence Community, there will be people that are for Trump and people that are against him and in the last 8 years particularly between 2016 and 2020 we received a huge amount of unsourced anonymous quotes from the intelligence community, particularly about Trump and Russia. And almost all of them turned out to be false. So you need to understand that when you read something that is shocking or perplexing to you as you did with this Salon article, and you see that it comes from an unnamed, anonymous source from within the intelligence community, you should understand that it is 95% of the time a propaganda tactic intended to sway public opinion and you should take it with a grain of salt or wait until the story has a more solid basis.
DeleteThat's the game.
If there is a story about Trump and Russia that comes from an unnamed anonymous source from inside the intelligence community, it probably false. If there is a story about Trump and Russia that comes from an unnamed anonymous source from inside the intelligence community two weeks before a huge election, you can be positive you are getting played. That's this here game.
DeleteIs the DOJ an unnamed anonymous source?
DeleteHector, not as a direct entity. Individuals within it can leak information anonymously.
Delete"So you need to understand that when you read something that is shocking or perplexing"
DeleteShocked or perplexed? That the story published about Walz by the Black Insurrectionist site was really a Russian plant? Why would I be shocked or perplexed by that? The Russians have a history of this kind of thing going back at least to 2016. Trump's their guy.
"and you see it comes from an unnamed, anonymous source from within the intelligence community, you should understand that it is 95% of the time a propaganda tactic"
Wow, 95%! Then it will be easy for you to give me a few examples so I'll know you're not just making stuff up.
Yes, it would easy to give tons of examples. I'm not making stuff up. You doubt that?
DeleteLet me correct you though: " That the story published about Walz by the Black Insurrectionist site was really a Russian plant according to an unnamed, anonymous source from within the intelligence community"
Tons of examples. Remember Russian bounties? Remember Russia was hacking our power grid and we were all going to freeze all winter?
Here's the whole game, Hector:
DeleteWashington Post Headline:
Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say
Then this :
"editor’s note
An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."
The source for the incorrect story that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid?
"according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html
I guess you don't know how this here game is run but that's how this here game is run and the game's the game. Always.
Tons and tons of examples so you'll know I'm not just making stuff up. Tons of them.
DeleteHector -
DeleteJune 26th, 2020 right before Trump was going to take Troops out of Afghanistan:
Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says
the source: "officials briefed on the matter"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html
Fast forward a year:
The Biden administration stopped short of imposing sanctions on any Russian officials over suspected bounties offered to militants to encourage the killings of American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, acknowledging that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence on the matter.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-house-stops-short-of-sanctioning-russia-over-inconclusive-russian-bounties-intel
Hector, the game is the game.
I can give to TONS of examples of stories about Trump and Russia based on leaks from unnamed, anonymous sources from within the intelligence community that turned out to be completely false.
DeleteThere are SO MANY examples I could give you. SO MANY.
Pure propaganda:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/LY7amL-81_w?t=107
Hector - talk to me now. It's all bullshit right? Spin me the real truth!!!
DeleteSo the 'propaganda tactic' in the example you provide is that a Russian hack of a Vermont utility is confirmed to have happened, but the utility was not connected to any outside electrical grid, as anonymous intelligence officials first said.
DeleteIt's kind of small potatoes, isn't it?
You want me to now to conclude that 95% of what anonymous intellgence officials say is false because of this rickety little example?
Of course not. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
DeleteBut a Russian hack of a Vermont utility was not confirmed to have happened, sweet Lord Hector.
Malware found on a laptop belonging to an organization responsible for maintaining a Vermont power grid was reportedly similar or identical to that used by Russian hackers.
You see how this here game works?
If it happens two weeks before an election you can be 100% positive what anonymous intelligence officials say about Trump and Russia is false.
Delete100% positive
Two weeks before the last election (10/19/2020)
Delete"Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say"
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
Two years after the election:
"Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
This is weird:
DeleteTrump Takes Narrow Lead Over Harris in Closing Weeks of Race
Voters remember Trump’s presidency more fondly as negative views of Harris grow
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-leads-harris-wsj-poll-779f8516?mod=hp_lead_pos1
This is weird:
Delete"Quarter of young Black men say they will vote for Trump: Survey"
Came out today.
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1831690838688039333
Delete9:13,
DeleteNow you’re doing a little better with your examples. But you still have to be careful who you blame for what.
I find a June 28, 2020 story in which the headline is:
"U.S. has intelligence that Russians offered Taliban bounty to kill Americans"
but the sub-header is:
"A senior defense official downplayed the intelligence reporting, telling NBC News there was no evidence any bounty was actually paid."
Now it's true Biden took the ball and ran with it and talked it up. But it seems to me that's on Biden, not the intelligence officials.
Then the infamous Hunter Biden laptop letter that gets you fellas so worked up.
This letter was signed by 50 former intelligence officials. So it was not anonymous; so doesn't really count as evidence for your jihad against anonymous leakers.
Nevertheless, the letter said the laptop's appearance had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
Was that statement false? I don’t know. The laptop’s appearance did seem a little fishy, coming as it did in October of an election year and having made a circuitous journey from a Florida repair shop through the hands of Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani. And it was certainly to Trump’s benefit, and it was known at that point that the Russians were trying to help Trump win.
The letter went on to say the signers didn't know if the emails involved "were genuine or not" and they "do not have evidence of Russian involvement".
So its conclusion was fairly heavily caveated. Not typically a thing you can say about propaganda.
And you have to ask yourself whether anytime people are wrong, does it mean they were wrong by intention? Is it your position that all those officials, many or most of whom were no longer working in intelligence, knew for a fact that the laptop was genuine? How do you know?
The final question to ask is: how often are anonymous intelligence officials right about what they say? I don't suppose you pay too much attention to those cases.
Hector, pathetic. Sad. So pathetic. Stupid, actually.
DeleteHow often are anonymous intelligence officials right about what they say? It will be easy for you to give me a few examples so I'll know you're not just making stuff up.
You're fucking dumb.
You don't even know the difference between Intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. You're fucking dumb.
Delete"So its conclusion was fairly heavily caveated. Not typically a thing you can say about propaganda."
DeleteWHY???????? Why do you say that?? Because you are and idiot and you are pulling it out of you ass!!!!!!!
The essence of propaganda is to blend truth and selective framing to create narratives to control the public.
You're a fucking idiot. You don't know how this here game is played.
Hector don't know shit about how he gets played. That's why it works. Suckers like him keep the game going.
DeleteIf Somerby were complaining because the NY Times doesn't rebut the lies on Fox, wouldn't Somerby be quoting the NY Times, focused on its coverage of the election, instead of repeating every bad thing said by Fox itself?
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed that Somerby didn't tell us which brand of boxed wine Harris prefers when she is binging. How can we evaluate the election without that knowledge?
Meanwhile, the NY Times is not "averting its eyes" but busily sane-washing Trump's deranged statements at his rallies, pretending Trump has policies that don't come from Project 2025. That isn't "averting eyes" but promoting Trump, and Somerby should say so (or he is averting his own eyes from their actual efforts). Not one word from Somerby about how the Los Angeles Times has been prevented from endorsing any candidate because its owner is a Trump enthusiast. Similarly, the NY Times editorial board may have written an editorial favoring Harris, but the rest of the paper is not part of Blue America, not the lefty press, but is actively helping Trump in numerous ways, every day. The actual left wing sources have been pointing this out. Is it possible Somerby doesn't read any of the many actual media critics who have been complaining about NY Times coverage? Are they sleeping with averted eyes, or is it Somerby doing that, so that he can malign the mainstream press for ignoring Trump, when it is actually helping to present Trump as a viable candidate -- which he clearly is not.
Somerby's view of what is happening in this election is bizarre. Bizarre like the right wing's worldview. He is not trustworthy when he pretends to be supporting Harris, and his comments about the NY Times and especially the left are false.
What can we do to oppose this? First, if your state allows early voting, vote for Harris today. Do not wait for election disruption efforts planned by the right wing at polling places. Vote for Harris as soon as possible. Second, encourage your friends and family to vote too. Third, if you have the time and energy, join the GOTV (get out the vote) campaign efforts locally in support of Harris. Fourth, if you aren't tapped out, contribute to a Harris or a downballot candidate by sending them money. When Harris is elected, she is going to need a majority in the House and Senate to accomplish our goals. Fifth, don't believe Somerby. He is as much a liar as Trump and we don't need more gaslighting and sane-washing and whatever other minimizing term is used for blatant lying. Somerby is as dirty and ugly as the rest of the Trumpies, when he repeats their trash and then blames his audience (us) for his choice to tell lies.
Thankfully, due to the democratization of media, we no longer are kept in the dark by corporate media who want to push a right wing neoliberal agenda above all else, we no longer blindly follow the Walter Cronkites, who after spending 30 min telling us what to think, went off cavorting with Republicans.
DeleteIn the last few weeks, the FNYT is waking up. The quoted part even covers the ways in which Trump's religiosity is obvious BS. Peter Baker, of all people, has written 3 times about how horrible Trump is. At the last minute, they're finally realizing what kind of nightmare a 2nd term would unleash on them. Maybe Patrick Healy has been locked in the pantry?
DeleteBut it still has to be couched in Timespeak.
The difference between the candidates is that Trump makes disgusting accusations, such as calling Harris a drunk. Meanwhile. Harris has surrogates to make the disgusting accusation for her, such as calling Trump insane.
ReplyDeleteTrump has been formally tested for dementia 2ce in the past 6 years, the results of which have not been disclosed to the public. Oh I see, Fox talking heads are not Trump surrogates. What rubbish. Meanwhile there is never any explanation for his gibberish and pauses at rallies, let alone the talk of a professional golfer’s penis size. He has dementia. You don’t have a problem with that.
DeleteI find it amusing that every time Trump talks about the 5 memory items on that cognitive functioning test, he lists a different set, which indicates that he has no idea what the original 5 were -- he cannot remember them at all. He grabs the names of 5 items in his field of vision instead and pretends they were the items on the test. And it is obvious that he has done that, because everyone else can SEE the objects he has listed too. But the audience doesn't laugh at him, perhaps because they don't understand how the test works either. A person whose frontal lobes were functioning would realize he cannot just list 5 items in front of him but would try to use more plausible items, not visible, because he would know what others could see and would try to make his story more believable.
DeletePeople who are confabulating (cannot recall and so make up fake answers to questions) try to make their answers realistic if they have more frontal lobe functioning. When their answers are bizarre, then it is obvious to a physician that they are unable to screen and adjust their false responses to sound more believable. Trump is in the category where he cannot judge any more what is a believable lies and what is a fantastic one. His stories and embellishments no longer have any tinge of realism any more because his front cortex is impaired.
It is a shame that the public will not pay attention to the physicians who are now speaking out about Trump's cognitive symptoms. It may require a trained expert to diagnose what is happening, but surely the general public can tell when his stories aren't making sense? Why is the right choosing to ignore that evidence? I get it that they want power, but it is dangerous to put a person with dementia into a responsible position. Trump can hurt himself, not just our nation. If you cared about your demented granny, you would see that she is protected and cared for. If the right loves Trump, they should do the same for him, and that means keeping him out of the White House.
I agree with those calling for the release of Trump's medical records. It is time to stop farting around and tell the public the truth.
DiC, “surrogates calling Trump insane?” You mean, like Somerby has been doing at his blog for years?
DeleteD in C, your powers of logical reasoning seem to be on the wane, no doubt due to your partisanship for Trump. You are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure which Harris "surrogate" called trump "insane" (unless you mean TDH?)- I have seen claims that he is "cognitively impaired." It's Trump's "disgusting accusations" that lead some to consider him to be cognitively impaired, or perhaps "insane." There are zillions of examples - like his recent one, reminiscing about how well-endowed Arnold Palmer was, male organ-wise. Did you ever expect that this stuff would be coming from a candidate. You have your head in the sand. I understand you think trump is the lesser of 2 evils, that in practice his actions won't be as demented as his words - we'll see, i have my doubts. As you seem to acknowledge, Trump has debased the electoral process by his debauched rhetoric. I'd be interested to see your response.
Delete3:22 “we’ll see” is telling wishful thinking on your part.
DeleteOops.
"D in C, your powers of logical reasoning seem to be on the wane, ...." LOL!
DeleteAssuming facts not in evidence, Counsellor. David's "powers of logical reasoning" have - at least since 2014 but likely long before then - been impaired.
"Harris has surrogates to make the disgusting accusation for her, such as calling Trump insane."
DeleteA truly disgusting accusation. And as a reminder, they're eating the geese.
Somerby says “bred in the bone”, essentially repeating Trump’s “bad genes”.
ReplyDeleteOof.
Blue America dislikes the NY Times/Fox News/corporate media in general, has been complaining about its coverage of Trump for years, now Somerby joins the bandwagon, but weirdly wants you to think that only he sees the problem - sort of like how Trump says only he can rescue America (from Biden’s steady economy, lowest crime in 50 yrs, etc).
Somerby is desperate to be important and influential, but he is too lazy of thinker, too poor of a thinker to earn that kind of credibility; he is aware of this and is bitterly angry about it, finding solace in tsk tsking Blue America.
Somerby has little agency to change, and his condition is not of his doing; it’s not bad genes, he was poorly raised, part of a cycle of abuse (which includes religious indoctrination). This is a common occurrence, as most people’s lives (socioeconomic circumstances) are precarious, existing on a knife’s edge, and thus lacking the tools and ability to properly raise children.
"On Fox, the lady's a drunk but she's also a wh*re!"
ReplyDeletePutting an asterisk in the word whore doesn't make the accusation any less disgraceful. Much of the ugliness arises because the woman being labeled is the Democratic nominee for president, who may even become our first female president. She not only is an accomplished politician and the sitting Vice President of our nation, but she has a history prosecuting crimes against women and children and was a highly respected senator sitting on the Judiciary Committee. She deserves respect, whether you plan to vote for her or not.
So, when Somerby cutely substitutes the * in "whore" he is coyly implying that she is one of those dirty internet women, the kind who show you their private parts while doing lewd things, a shady lady. I get it that Somerby is squeamish about tainted women, perhaps due to his Catholic upbringing, or perhaps just because of his own hangups, but he cannot dissociate himself from the deplorable aspects of this right wing accusation simply by softening his language, reducing it to an antiquated usage and inserting that asterisk, as if that might fool the children in the room into thinking that is an appropriate insult.
And when he repeats the slur, he makes it his own. It is no longer Fox saying such stuff, but this is coming from Somerby's own keyboard.
"Gossip is considered a deadly sin because of its destructive power within communities. Pope Francis has spoken out against gossip, saying that the "tongue kills like a knife" and that priests and nuns have a responsibility to prevent "the terrorism of gossip"."
Straight from the Pope to Somerby's ears. It is also in the Bible in several places. The tongue kills a woman like Kamala Harris, as readily as anyone else, and that is the intention when Fox spreads lies about her. She is neither a whore nor a drunk. But Somerby is a gossip-monger who does Harris no good whatsoever when he repeats what Fox says.
Somerby needs to wash his mouth out with soap -- the traditional Irish Catholic remedy for what he wrote today. Then he needs to see a shrink to talk about his attitudes towards women. Harris didn't deserve any of this, just because she chose to run for president and is being take seriously by others. Somerby doesn't have to vote for her, just because he said he was doing so. How he votes is between himself and his conscience. His misogyny shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of her election -- men have the right to hate women but not to do bad things to them in the name of politics. Telling lies is also a big fat Catholic sin, one of the 7 deadly ones in fact. For a good reason.
"Meanwhile, is it true? Has the notion that Harris is a drunk "grown in popularity in conservative circles online?"
ReplyDeleteWe don't know the answer to that. But as we've noted in the past, this claim or suggestion or insinuation has become a standard feature of the other disordered fellow's primetime "cable news" program. "
Why wouldn't the frequency of the appearance of these claims about Harris on Gutfeld serve as evidence that the accusation has grown in popularity in conservative circles? If I saw a certain brand of hightop shoes being worn with greater frequency by the students in a nearby high school, couldn't I conclude that such shoes were growing in popularity among teens? That is how such statements are usually substantiated -- by counting frequencies in designated populations (or samples).
Why is Somerby unwilling to connect the dots on stuff like this? His oddness about drawing conclusions used to be offered as evidence that he was some kind of super critical thinker, but lately, it seems to indicate cognitive problems. Total failure to draw any conclusions without the very strictest of evidence (and what would that be if this is not an indicator) paralyzes thinking. It is a handicap not a virtue.
Because Somerby obviously does draw conclusions sometimes, but not others, it raises the question about bias. Why is he willing to use the flimsiest of evidence sometimes but demands extra strictness in a case like this one, where the tendency of the right to call Harris a drunk, with increasing frequency, is obvious from any number of right wing sources, not just Gutfeld. So why does Somerby evade this conclusion? To perhaps suggest that the right isn't trying to smear Harris, when they are doing it more often as the election approaches? Who does Somerby think he is fooling with this kind of coyness? Not any thinking person.
"People calling her a whore—or, on Fox, "a hooch!" Earlier, Harden had said this:
ReplyDeleteHARDEN: It's unfortunate that we grew up in a culture where these sorts of things are talked about.
Truer words were never spoken, But this sort of thing is bred in the bone, going all the way back to the siege of Troy. "
Sex does go back to the earliest times when humans first crawled the earth. Saying it is "bred in the bone" is a truism, or perhaps a pun on the word "bone" if Somerby is childish enough.
But here is the kicker. Somerby claims to be a liberal, but few liberals would side with a conservative claiming that we need to censor talking about drinking and being a whore. First, drinking is allowed, even by Catholic priests, and Fox has no evidence Harris drinks to excess (except they prefer to characterize her speeches that way, which is ridiculous). Second whoring is permitted by the church too. Wasn't Jesus nice to the whores? Wasn't Mary impregnated by someone besides her husband Joseph? Sex is a fact of life, not something to disparage women over (when it takes two to copulate). But the right wing prefers that such things not be discussed, most likely to protect its own politicians and party members from accusations of wrongdoing when they get into trouble over sex (like the ones who resigned for touching children, or swapping 17 year olds for political favors who hasn't yet resigned, or the ones who want to keep sex in the bedroom except when they are trying to legislate what happens there). But my point is that Somerby is siding with the conservative voice on this one, not with liberals who may be staid in their personal behavior but will protect the right of others to pursue their own lives without interference, including not banning sex talk in books and in the public sphere, as this guy wants to do (and Somerby agrees).
Somerby also misses that it isn't what they called Harris that matters, but the fact that it is lying and that she deserves respect and not to be treated like a whore simply for running for office as a female person.
Somerby has once again blown his cover. Maybe he thinks it doesn't matter now that the election is almost here. But it does matter to me that he tells lies here that are so easily contradicted by his other statements.
Most of the contemporary social norms defining differences between sexes in modern humans are mere social constructs.
DeleteIn reality, humans have relatively low sexual dimorphism, which has played a significant role in propagating our innate egalitarian nature.
Somerby prefers storytelling over science, since that better fits his false narratives, better fits his goal of manufacturing ignorance.
anon 2:23, if there is so little "sexual dimorphism", why is it that some biological males claim they are females and vice versa - that is the opposite of "dimorphism."
Delete"Somerby cutely substitutes the * in 'whore' he is coyly implying that she is one of those dirty internet women, the kind who show you their private parts while doing lewd things, a shady lady"
DeleteThis is whack-a-doodle insane.
sexual dimorphism definition: "occurring in or representing two distinct forms."
DeleteWhen there is little dimorphism it means the sexes are less distinct and more the same.
That similarity makes it more possible for men to transition (and vice versa) if they have a hormonal balance that makes them feel more female (or more male if a woman. All men start out as female in the womb and differentiate largely because of male hormones in utero and again at puberty released due to having an XY chromosome. Because differences are slight (compared to other species), our culture emphasizes gender differences through clothing, rituals and behavior. If males and females were more distinct, there would be less egalitarianism in behavior.
PP, the reason people insert those symbols into sexual terms is to interfere with search engines that might censor their post or bombard them with unwanted ads coming from sex sites. Somerby is doing this to be cute because there is not likelihood of that happening on this blog. It makes his use of the word X-rated which is a veiled way of insulting Harris by emphasizing the sexual nature of the word. What do you think whore means?
DeleteSomerby may be the kind of man who thinks all women are whores. I see nothing that would contradict that, but ask yourself why he would feel the need to underline that whore is a sexual term, applied to Harris who doesn't deserve it?
You're a nut. Somerby does not imply that Harris engages in internet porn. Full stop.
DeleteHe says she is a whore, asshole.
DeleteNo, he doesn't. He says the MESSAGE sent to Red America, but not Blue America, is that she's a whore. Learn context!
DeleteNo, the reason Somerby repeats these Fox smears without debunking them is to attack Harris. He emphatically refused to state that Harris is not a whore and not a drunk. That is the opposite of your claim that he doesn't say she is a whore. He went out of his way and took a lot of trouble this morning to say that she is a whore.
DeleteLearn to think!
Somerby assumes his audience isn't so dense as to need a statement from him that Kamala is not a whore and a drunk.
DeleteBut it seems his assumption isn't valid in all cases.
Somerby says he doesn't know whether Harris takes drugs or not, or whether she is a drunk. I assume he would follow that up by saying "anything is possible." But we humans don't demand perfect proof before believing things, because waiting for the absolute info about that leopard in the tree by the watering hole would make someone dead. Better to move away from the possible leopard anyway, on the chance or the high likelihood there is a dangerous beast in the tree, since that is how they tend to hunt.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence, much less any plausibility to the accusation against Harris. She drinks like a normal person (Trump's non-drinking, if true, is abnormal for our culture, except for people in 12-step programs). Her speeches do not sound drunken, although Trump's slurring of words on a regular basis is troubling. Laughing, especially in women who are socialized to be pleasant and laugh at men's jokes, is not a symptom of drunkenness. A lot of drunks become maudlin and then morose not happy, joyful or optimistic. So this accusation doesn't make a lot of sense, but Somerby says he is willing to provisionally believe it, since there is no way of knowing for sure (other than everyone's denials and the lack of evidence or any history of drinking problems). But Somerby is highly selective about what he chooses to accept on faith and what he insists on proof about. That is where his bias shows.
Indeed, in reality, outside of math, nothing is certain, everything is on a spectrum and can only be known in terms of probabilities.
DeleteHarris, unlike Trump, has released her medical records which would list the drugs she takes. If she were taking recreational drugs, the medical tests would show that.
Deletehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/VP-Harris-Health-Summary.pdf
Alcohol is a depressant not a stimulant. Laughing is more common with stimulants not depressants. Or in everyday language, alcohol is a downer while the kind of drugs that make people laugh more are uppers. Adderall is a stimulant (upper).
DeleteHarris/Walz are campaigning on an uplifting message, saying we are all in this together and let’s work to spread joy throughout our society, at all levels.
DeleteTrump and the Republicans run on doom and gloom, so of course they want to warp Harris’ joy for life into a drunken stupor. It’s a cynical ploy from Trump and the Republicans, wrought by their tragic lives.
"Outside of math, nothing is certain." Obviously, you don't do the math's!
DeleteKamala’s claimed Black identity was a forbidden topic – everyone noticed it but nobody said anything. Then Trump mentioned that in an interview and on cue the media piled on in dissing him. Except, no one asked actual Black Americans (not DNC hacks). See MSNBC’s Alex Wagner interview of Philly area normal Black Americans yesterday. They consider her fake and not quite Black.
ReplyDeleteoh goodie! the race-baiters have arrived
DeleteAfrican American men are turning out in record numbers for Trump, although an overwhelming majority of Black Americans will be supporting Kamala Harris, the drunk hoe.
DeleteRace is a social construct, it has no biological basis, it exists as a function of racism, and is a relatively recent invention, largely as a way to justify racial chattel slavery as Europe sought to colonize the Americas.
DeleteHarris has always identified as bi racial.
Racial identity serves as a way to recognize racial oppression, or on the flip side, as a way to dominate and exploit others.
2:35’s racism is repugnant, a manifestation of their inner demons.
% of black vote for Clinton in 2016: 87%
Delete% of black vote for Biden in 2016: 87%
% of black vote for Harris in current polls: 87%
% of black vote for Obama in 2008: 95%
Black people turned out for Obama because his was a historic first presidency for a black man. There is no reason to believe that won't be true for Harris, as the first black female president.
Because race is a social construct, it is part of many people's identity (which is itself socially constructed from race, gender, nationality, religion, physical appearance, likes and dislikes, preferences, experiences and so on). When a person identifies with a candidate, they are more likely to vote for them.
The comments of a few black people in Philly are not going to determine this election.
Here is what Trump has said about Kamala Harris and race:
"Trump previously falsely asserted that Harris had not identified as both Black and Indian during an interview at the National Association of Black Journalists conference in Chicago in August.
"I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now, she wants to be known as Black. So, I don't know, is she Indian or is she Black?" Trump said during the NABJ interview."
Put this together with his repeated comments lately that she is lazy, and other parts of the negative stereotypes about black women, and this is certainly racist on Trump's part. And that is the way Trump supporters take such comments by Trump.
Harris is maintaining her lead in the polls, including garnering the same percentage among Black and Latin voters as Dems have historically.
ReplyDeleteHarris is gaining in the polls among independents, and has driven a startling increase in voter registration among young people, especially young women, who seem to be highly motivated by the Trump/Republican stance on abortion, reversing Roe, etc.
In early voting, turnout is exceeding expectations and causing long wait times and computers to crash (WI). That may be a sign of enthusiasm for Harris too, given the waning attendance at Trump's events.
Delete"... waning attendance at Trump's events."
DeleteHe's running out of money.
Kamala’s drinking problem story sounds true because how else can you explain the way she talks sometimes at her rallies – the high pitch and cackles. They give me heebie-jeebies.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I do when someone's voice gives me the heebie-jeebies (which I acknowledge to be my problem, not theirs):
Delete1. Turn on the closed captioning on my TV set.
2. Turn on the mute button so that the sound is off on all broadcasts.
3. Read the captions and hear what she is saying without the distracting high pitch and cackles.
You might also:
1. Go to the kitchen of your home.
2. Take any random chickens you find there to the door and put them in the backyard.
or alternatively:
1. Check the battery on your hearing aid.
2. Replace it so that it stops popping and cracking.
3. Remember to put it back in your ear again.
Or try this one, it always works for me:
1. Put your left foot in.
2. Put your left foot out.
3. Put your left foot in, then shake it all about.
Oh, wait, that isn't the heebie-jeebie, it's the hokey-pokey. But try it anyway, it can be a mood-changer.
Women's voices tend to be higher in pitch than men's. Why that should be annoying is between you and your therapist. There is no golden pitch that is universally pleasing to all creatures.
DeleteLaughter is usually contagious. When someone hears another person laughing, they begin to smile themselves, even when they don't know what is causing the laughter. That's why it seems strange that someone would find laughter annoying. I think it might be something else that is causing the annoyance, but again, that is between you and your therapist. It isn't the normal reaction.
Women tend to smile more than men, because women are often in a subordinate relationship in terms of power, so the smiling is ingratiating. It is often automatic and unconscious. Most men like it when women smile, because it signals that they are not going to be rejected. On the other hand, men don't like it if women laugh when they are not being intentionally funny. They worry that the woman is mocking them or finding them inadequate. So the way men react to women's laughter can depend on context. If a man has had previous experiences where women have laughed at him, they may be sensitive to it and find it annoying, but again, that is the man's problem, since women are usually just responding to the situation and not intending any hidden message with their laughing.
If a man believes that women should be always submissive and never laugh without permission, then a man might find Kamala Harris's laughter annoying because she represents an independent person who is in charge of her own laughter and able to express whatever emotion she desires without a man's permission or seeking to ingratiate herself. I can see that it would be annoying to a male chauvinist who expects to have more control over any and all women, even powerful ones running for president. That too is something to take up with a therapist, since most men are not going to have that level of control, nor should they given their attitudes of hostility toward women, especially the ones expressing pleasure or with a sense of humor.
There's no cure for the heebie-jeebies. Once you've succumbed to them, it's party over.
DeleteYou will not live long enough to know the joy of Kamala's presidency.
Harris has tangible accomplishments, so why is Somerby or anyone else talking about whether she drinks? Here is the real problem in this election [from Jeff Teidrich]:
ReplyDelete"John Kelly: “he would uh, he commented more than once that, you know, ‘that Hitler did some good things, too.’ and of course, if you know history, again I think he’s lacking in that, but if you know history, you know what Hitler was all about, you’d be pretty hard to make an argument that he did anything good.”
reporter: “so what would you say, what would you say when he said to you that Hitler did a lot of good things?”
Kelly: “well I would tell him that, you know sir, if you — first of all, you should never say that. but if you knew what Hitler was all about from the beginning to the end, everything he did was in support of his racist, fascist life, you know, philosophy, so that nothing he did, you could argue, was good. it was certainly not done for the right reasons. but he would say occasionally that.”
imagine having to be told — more than once — not to praise Hitler.
I have a question. John Kelly was Chief of Staff. it was his job to manage Donny’s time, set his schedule, coordinate with other departments, that sort of thing. so, given that context, how the fuck does Hitler did some good things come up in conversation?
“sir, you have a meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture at 2pm today. let’s go over this briefing paper.”
”that reminds me, John, that Hitler did some good things.”
How can anyone in the US, whether right wing or left wing or centrist, possibly consider voting for a man that doesn't know enough not to praise Hitler?
Being a moron is not a qualification for office!
Unless you are a republican.
DeleteWhy do you assume to know the various contexts in which Trump conversed with his Chief of Staff?
DeleteIn order to answer your question about how Hitler came up in conversation with Kelly, let us start with another: How does the dick of a deceased professional golfer come up at a political rally? When you can answer that question, the one about Hitler will be easier to answer.
DeletePeople who are sexist and racist are really struggling to cope with the fact that Harris is about to become the president.
ReplyDeleteMany will find their loony attempts to cope amusing, but I think it’s kind of sad.
Speaking of compassion for the loony, this is apt:
Deletehttps://www.rawstory.com/anti-trump-commercial-place/
Watch the commercial "A Place for Trump" at the end.