SATURDAY, JANUARY 11, 2025
One way we Blues have lost votes: In the face of our failing nation's ongoing "American carnage," we've been thinking—and thinking and thinking—about a certain old song.
We refer to the old American song, Lady of Carlisle. For the record, this old American song got its start in the British Isles.
We've also been thinking of the mysterious female character in that song—the "fair lady" who is said to have behaved in this peculiar way reported below.
Two brave soldiers have approached her, seeking her hand in marriage. This fair lady responds to them in this antique way:
Lady of Carlisle
[...]
[Verse 4]
Then up spoke this fair young lady
Saying "I can be but one man's bride.
But if you'll come back tomorrow morning
On this case we will decide."
[Verse 5]
She ordered her a span of horses
A span of horses at her command
And down the road these three did travel
'Til they come to the lions' den.
[Verse 6]
There she stopped and there she halted
These two soldiers stood gazin' 'round
And for the space of half an hour
That young lady lay speechless on the ground.
[Verse 7]
And when she did recover
Threw her fan down in the lions' den
Saying "Which of you to gain a lady
Will return her fan again?"
So behaved this fair young lady in this antique song. After lapsing into a trance, she defines a dangerous courtship test.
(For the resolution of that test, see below.)
We first heard the song, as performed by the late Mike Seeger (Pete Seeger's younger half-brother), when we were mere juniors in high school. We heard the song when we purchased the Folkways album, The New Lost City Ramblers Vol. 3, the same album which contained the old (fully) American song, The Baltimore Fire.
In part, we've been thinking about the Lady of Carlisle because of A Complete Unknown, the new film which treats Bob Dylan's arrival, as an extremely young man, on the Greenwich Village folk music scene in 1961.
We haven't seen it yet. We had plans to do so this week, but a vicious attack of the labyrinthitis brought those plans to an end.
Personally, we have a hard time believing that A Complete Unknown could possibly be good. (We're prepared to be surprised.) But there's one scene which surely won't be included in the film—that's the scene where the extremely young Dylan decided that he was going to have to start writing his own songs.
Dylan's describes the moment in his 2004 memoir, Chronicles Volume One. The moment involves Mike Seeger, who—though a young man himself at the time—was already a widely admired part of the burgeoning American traditional music scene.
Dylan describes the experience which led him to conclude that he had to become a song writer. He says he saw Seeger performing traditional songs in various high-end loft parties in Greenwich Village, and he says he concluded that he would never be able to perform such songs as well as Seeger could.
For the record, Dylan's debut album for Columbia was built upon his own remarkable performance abilities. But in his memoir, Dylan goes on and on, at substantial length, about the greatness he saw in Seeger's performances.
He says he knew that he'd never be able to perform those old American songs well as Mike Seeger already could:
"The thought occurred to me that maybe I'd have to write my own folk songs, the ones that Mike didn't know," Dylan writes (page 71). "That was a startling thought."
Has there ever been a greater tribune from one performer to another? A year or two later, Seeger—then 30 years old—recorded Lady of Carlisle on NLCR Volume 3.
(You may not hear what Dylan heard. But you can hear that performance here.)
Has there ever been a greater tribute? In part, we've been thinking about Seeger's performance of Lady of Carlisle because of all the recent talk about the young Dylan's emergence.
That said, we've also been thinking about this antique song because of its ancient sexual politics. Also, because it may help illustrate one of the three million ways those of us in Blue America may have lost votes in last year's election—may have helped earn our way out.
We always admired Mike Seeger as a performer. We did so for various reasons, many of which Dylan describes in the effusive praise for Seeger presented in his memoir.
That said, we also admired Seeger for what we'd call his sexual politics as a singer—specifically, for the way he would sing the women's parts in the old story-songs he would sing.
He always sang the women's parts with full respect. He would adopt no silly falsetto. No parodic performance occurred.
On Lady of Carlisle, you can hear him sing the part of that "fair young lady" with complete and total respect. We've always admired Seeger for that form of sexual politics.
We've been thinking about that old song because of the talk about Dylan. We've also been thinking about Lady of Carlisle because of what we read when the New York Times interviewed a dozen men—four of them Democrats—who voted for Candidate Trump this past year.
(For more about those interviews, see Thursday afternoon's report.)
The antique song, Lady of Carlisle, involve an antique form of gender politics. We ourselves wouldn't favor that form of courtship or gender relations, but—for better or worse—that antique form of sexual politics is deeply bred in the bone.
To our ear, a longing for that form of politics is stated at various times in the interviews with those twelve men. We ourselves don't share the feelings to which these voters give voice, but many other people do.
Those ancient behaviors are bred in the bone! But over here in Blue America, many elements of our coalition have aggressively jumped far ahead in matters of this kind.
(At the present time, this would also involve the way trans issues are sometimes treated by Blues.)
We Blues! We can sometimes seem to be very sure of our own moral greatness. We name-call those who haven't arrived at the same point of moral greatness that we ourselves have often only recently reached.
Along the way, we may be shedding votes. All too often, this is the business we Blues have chosen as we've earned our way out.
We've never favored the sexual politics lurking in that old song. That said, the longings in question are often deeply bred in the bone, for men and women alike.
Those of us in Blue America are playing with fire when we name-call such people. That said, we're often inclined to assert our moral greatness. All too often, this may be accompanied by a lack of perfect political smarts.
For inquiring minds only: What's the historical background to that old British/American song? (Where in the world do those lions come from?) You can start reading here.
To hear Mike Seeger sing the part of that fair lady, you can just click this. According to Dylan's account, when Dylan heard Seeger singing this way, Dylan judged that he himself would have to be moving on.
He would have to write his own songs, the ones Mike didn't yet know.
[Verse 10]Down in the lions' den he boldly enteredThe lions being both wild and fierceHe marched around and in among themSafely returned her fan again.[Verse 11]And when she saw her true lover comin'Seeing no harm had been done to himShe threw herself against his bosomSaying "Here is the prize that you have won."
Nice work, Bob.
ReplyDeleteThrough your work, you've convinced me that at least on liberal (you) are not at all morally better than a standard-issue bigoted Republican voter.
Anonymouse 11:19am, Bob completely surprised you with this one. You couldn't make your usual morning edits to the report you prepared the night before, based on your guesses about what he would write.
ReplyDeleteThat bastard….
What are you talking about?
DeleteHe is saying: we recently had a full moon and the effects are lingering, the lunacy it engenders.
DeleteBiden’s proclamation sinks like a stone, never to be heard from again.
ReplyDelete“ The Archivist of the United States, charged with officially publishing ratified amendments, has confirmed that the ERA was not ratified and based that analysis on binding legal precedent.
“There is no 28th Amendment.”
The ERA was ratified by the legislatures of the required number of states, as well as Congress. It has now met all of the requirements for becoming an Amendment to the Constitution. That is what Biden stated. The Archivist does not get to decide whether it becomes an Amendment or not. That isn't the job of the Archivist.
DeleteWhen you enclose a statement in quote marks, please also cite the source. We have no idea whose opinion you are quoting otherwise.
The ERA was NOT ratified by the required number of states within the required time period.
DeleteThe dispute is whether putting a required time period into the bill was legal. The right has done everything possible to torpedo the ERA and this is just the latest tactic. The ratifications show that the majority wants the ERA to become law. A minority is trying to stop it.
DeleteTrue, @12:31. However, the required time period was established by Congress and was upheld by the Courts, there's not much justification for claiming that the time period was illegal.
DeleteIMO the majority are oblivious to the ERA. Biden's proclamation will increase public interest. I think that was it purpose. But, IMO the issue will quickly disappear.
Women care about the ERA. I worked to achieve its ratification in IL back in the 1970s. I care a lot about it but assumed it was doomed. Times have changed since then, for the better when it comes to women's civil rights. There are many women like me who would like to see women's equality under the law affirmed via this ammendment. So many that the ERA has been ratified by the required number of states now and should be added to the Constitution because an arbitrary date has nothing to do with the content of the ERA. Women deserve equal rights because we are citizens and human beings, just like men. That fact doesn't depend on a date or a period of time but on our essential humanity along with men.
DeleteWhy are conservatives insisting that a time period is meaningful when the nation has shown that it wants this ammendment to be ratified? That is denying the will of voters and the people.
@1:58 -- IMO we no longer need the ERA. AFAIK there is no federal, state or local law that treats women worse than men. If you disagree, please provide examples of laws or regulations that treat women worse than men.
DeleteDo you not see a conflict of interest involved in men deciding that women do not need an ERA?
DeleteNo thanks. I'll just opine without any authority just like you.
DeleteFolk songs are not historical records. They may represent wishes and fantasies instead of reality. How many women actually ran off with Gypsy Davey as opposed to those who wanted to? How many men (writers of the folk songs) feared they might lose a woman to a more exciting man? Did women really get to choose their husbands or were these "contests" set up by the fathers of girls who had no real choice? Somerby doesn't know the answers to any of those questions. He accepts the lyrics at face value and assumes the bride herself chose the swashbuckling exciting male suitor in a situation where girls married whoever their fathers chose for them.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the influence of Mike Seegar on Dylan's singing style is obvious, but it is also that nasal traditional folk style that is found in all songs recorded by music historians among Appalachian hill folks where the old ballads were still being sung. Those who did not adopt that sound were considered inauthentic popularizers who used the songs for selfish gain. As Dylan himself does at the end of "A Complete Unknown."
Part of the fun of folk music is tracing the variants through their transformations, from their origins in Europe to the modern versions.
Somerby says "We've never favored the sexual politics lurking in that old song. That said, the longings in question are often deeply bred in the bone, for men and women alike." He doesn't specify which politics he is talking about. The fantasy of a woman choosing her own mate or the idea that a man must prove himself to a woman? Those are both embodied in this particular song. Neither is part of differences between red and blue voters today. That isn't anything to do with today's sexual politics. Or maybe he is trying to say that we shouldn't be disapproving Hegseth's infidelity and rape because mores change? That isn't part of the old song either.
Helen was fictional. We have no idea whether she ever existed, nor do we know whether she represents men's fears that women will leave them or be unfaithful, or whether women did stray as Somerby prefers to believe. In a time when women who left had to abandon their children (who remained property of their husbands) and left behind material support for an unknown future and also lost their social standing, how many women actually left, especially compared to those abandoned or tossed out? Were women who were raped by other men (not their husbands) treated as despicable for an event beyond their control? That seems more likely than Somerby's belief that this woman haphazardly threatened the lives of her two suitors by siccing lions on them. Or perhaps she resented being put into the position of having to choose between two men when she wanted neither of them?
Somerby's hints about sexual politics can cover a lot of territory and his unwillingness to state what he means is as annoying as ever. Who is doing any namecalling except the senators questioning an asshole like Hegseth who bears no resemblance to anyone in this folksong. Is Somerby trying to imply that his behavior was normal in the times of ancient Greece and noble Troy? He has no way of knowing that -- only of knowing that "sacred Homer" gave constancy as a virtue to Penelope while Odysseus fooled around with every woman he came upon. Perhaps that is what Somerby thinks is "bred in the bone"? It isn't what is expected of men in our culture and Hegseth deserves the namecalling, as do men who support him despite his mistreatment of women.
And no, male misbehavior is not "bred in the bone".
IMO anyone who wrote a “folk” song is an inauthentic popularizers who used the songs for selfish gain.
DeleteRight. Folk songs are traditional songs with no identifiable author, sung in homes by the "folk" over hundreds of years. Different singers individualized them and the versions evolved as the singers incorporated current events and concerns into the lyrics. Sometimes the melody was kept but the words changed. They had a traditional format. That is what is fascinating about them. Dylan wrote Dylan's own words and music in a pseudo folk style (initially) but he was no longer a folk singer at that point.
DeleteThe idea of cultural appropriation is part of this story, although those words were not used in the film. The folk songs catalogued by musicologists and sung by Mike Seeger and others came from rural immigrants who brought them from Europe, settled in the South and Appalachia and continued singing their songs from home in their family gatherings and at community dances and parties. The songs evolved with repetition in the US. Western (cowboy) songs are evolved from Eastern US versions of European songs.
Bob Dylan didn't come from any of those traditions himself but deliberately adopted them in order to become a singer. It is no different than if he picked up Clancy Brothers Irish songs (when he was Jewish) or sang sea chantys having never worked as a fisherman. His own music became more authentic to himself and a step in the right direction, given that he seems to have no respect for the traditions accompanying the songs (as many folk singers did).
Protest songs were a different genre than folk songs. Dylan borrowed from them too, with his talking blues format that came from black culture and his derivative imitations of Woody Guthrie's union organizing songs and protest songs. Dylan was blamed for not caring about the causes he wrote about in his protest period, whereas Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie and Phil Ochs all participated in protests, knew the organizers involved and raised money for causes. Dylan did none of that. The film glosses this as a dispute over use of electric guitars, but the larger point never made explicit was Dylan's self-involvement and narcissism. It is hinted at in his relationships. That vagueness undermines the film, in my opinion, because it couldn't decide whether to show Dylan truthfully or be a biopic and concern film for fans.
All of the rock and roll bands emerging in that time period were influenced by folk but also blues, black artists, and jazz. In the film "The Commitments" Jimmy Rabbit asks those auditioning for their band "Who are your influences" and the great artists of the 60s and 70s tend to refer to the same people. But they also weren't folk artists. They were creating a new form on purpose, not imitating traditional music. So did Dylan, except he didn't realize it (at least in the film).
The Lady of Carlisle and the themes of sexism and the figure of Helen of Troy intertwine to reveal significant cultural and historical critiques of gender representation. Somerby refuses to discuss the implications of these themes, and to explore the portrayal of women in literature, and analyze the impact of these narratives on society.
DeleteBob reveres the story of Helen of Troy, described as the cause of the Trojan War, her beauty has been scrutinized, leading to interpretations that highlight the objectification of women. In mythology, she is frequently portrayed as a passive figure, manipulated by the desires and decisions of powerful men. Bob ignores theo critical questions about agency and representation, illustrating how women have been framed in both mythological and literary narratives.
The Lady of Carlisle, is another figure that exemplifies the often-overlooked female agency within the context of traditional narratives. Helen of Troy is emblematic of unattainable beauty and conflict, the Lady of Carlisle is a more nuanced representation of women in medieval story settings. It’s curious that Bob is unable to see reflections of strength and resilience that challenged the prevailing notions of femininity of her time. Bob sees gender power issues as immutable as he deems human nature.
A crucial discussion revolves around the impact of these figures, but Bob will never broach that discussion. Helen's characterization highlights the concept of the male gaze, where women's value is largely defined by their physical appearance. This notion continues to resonate in contemporary society, where issues of body image and the objectification of women remain significant.
Bob won’t tell us that the recent reclamation of female stories reflects a societal shift towards recognizing the need for diverse representation. Contemporary literature increasingly features women with complex narratives that delve into issues of identity, agency, and empowerment. Works by authors like Margaret Atwood and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie have significantly contributed to the discourse on women's rights and representation in literature.
Literary adaptations and modern retellings of the myths surrounding Helen of Troy and the Lady of Carlisle demonstrate an ongoing transformation. For example, awards such as the Women's Prize for Fiction and initiatives promoting female authors lend visibility to female perspectives. These developments encourage a richer understanding of gender issues and create pathways for dialogue that critique longstanding prejudices.
Alongside literature, the impact of visual media, recent television series have reinterpreted the life of Helen of Troy and similar characters, presenting them in ways that emphasize their strength rather than merely their beauty. Recent series such as "Troy: Fall of a City" and "Helen of Troy" portray her as a complex character grappling with her circumstances, challenging the traditional narrative and highlighting her agency amid overwhelming circumstances. Such portrayals pave the way for new interpretations of gender roles since they can spark debate about the ongoing issues of sexism in modern media.
As society continues to evolve, the implications of these discussions extend into future developments regarding gender equality. Education aimed at promoting feminist literature and contextualizing characters in historical texts are crucial in shaping young minds. Understanding how literary figures like the Lady of Carlisle and Helen of Troy relate to modern societal structures is something that Bob abhors.
The intertwining narratives of the Lady of Carlisle and Helen of Troy reflect significant insights into the representations of women throughout history and literature. Both figures expose the pervasiveness of sexism and objectification, while recent developments suggest a gradual shift towards more nuanced portrayals that Somerby still refuses to consider.
This was cribbed from AI, but it is still worth saying.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:54pm, it’s a piece of cake, just like the others.
DeleteAnyone can cut and paste a long essay written by AI. Not everyone can write such an essay. YOU use language so poorly that you could never write anything original, approaching the level of language in the AI piece you posted above.
DeleteTo tell whether someone is using AI or not, copy a distinctive few sentences from the sample and put it into your search line. If you do that with what other commenters write here, you will find that they are putting their own thoughts down, not using AI to write for them, as you did. When you fail to give credit to AI (or Wikipedia) you are plagiarizing. Doing that will get you kicked out of any grad program in the country (or earn you an F on an undergrad paper). It is considered dishonest.
For all of his faults, Somerby apparently writes his own essays (except for the lengthy quotes that make up the bulk of his "reports" each day).
If a comment is too long to read, just skip it. That is what other commenters do here. No one needs you to comment on something too long for you to read, because you likely wouldn't understand it anyway. That is how we know you didn't write the comment @12:50. It shows a focus, knowledge and lack of errors that you are incapable of producing yourself.
Cecelia seems to think that commenters write their comments as drafts before Somerby posts his own essay. How on earth could any commenter here anticipate that Somerby would discuss Lady of Carlisle? Cecelia is making no sense.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:50pm, I couldn’t write anything on my own that that sounds like AI (not that I’d ever want to).
DeleteIs that AND AI all you’ve got?
Anonymouse 2:00pm, please. You have files on your computer of “essays” based upon Bob’s well known and particular interests and concerns. You pull one out each morning and edit out anything that superfluous to Bob’s focus of the day. You also have AI. Boy, do you have AI. .
DeleteNo one is accusing you of writing like an AI. What you posted as your own comment above was written by AI. I searched and found it on the internet, as described. YOU didn't write it.
DeleteI do not use AI when writing. I don't pull anything out and edit it. I write my own comments from scratch. I can do that because I am an educated person with good writing skills. I research my comments but I do not represent other people's writing as my own, as you did above and as Somerby does occasionally when he fails to cite a source.
For example, I took the following sentence from my own comment above:
"All of the rock and roll bands emerging in that time period were influenced by folk but also blues, black artists, and jazz. "
I put it into AI and this is what I got back:
"This statement is largely accurate; early rock and roll bands drew heavily from a mix of musical influences including blues, rhythm and blues (which itself incorporated elements of jazz), gospel, and even some folk music, with a significant impact coming from Black artists who pioneered many of these genres. "
When I did the same thing with a portion of your writing above, I got back the preceding and continuing sentences also included in your comment, showing that the AI itself had generated what you posted as your own writing. You are a fraud.
Anonymouse 2:46pm, that what I wrote is absolutely AI is the point, Einstein. No one has accused me of being able to sound like AI and no one ever will. On the other hand, anonymices can and endlessly do sound like AI (as abundantly exhibited today) and generally drop what sounds like AI within 20 minuets of Bob’s daily posting. But not you, anonymouse 2:46pm, you’re special.
DeleteAnyone who writes better than you is going to sound like AI. The point is that you should credit AI as the source, not pretend you wrote something you didn't write.
DeletePeople who write for a living tend to get faster at it. I doubt Somerby spends more than 20 minutes writing his essays each morning. Why should it take anyone longer than that to comment? Maybe it is Somerby who has a stack of old essays that he modifies to make appear current and then posts? For that matter, maybe Somerby is Cecelia + alcohol.
Anonymouse 2:46pm: “I do not use AI when writing. I don't pull anything out and edit it. I write my own comments from scratch. I can do that because I am an educated person with good writing skills. I research my comments but I do not represent other people's writing as my own, as you did above and as Somerby does occasionally when he fails to cite a source.”
DeleteI’ll pretend to take you at your word here in order to convey how laughable it is that Russia or any would hire me to defend Bob’s blog. You’re own Anonymouse insults toward me belie your contrived accusations.
However, foreign governments ( including Russia) would hire people with your self-declared learnedness and skills, and local political influencers such as Mr. Soros or the DNC would certainly appreciate your talents.
Anonymouse 3:22pm, I didn’t pretend anything. I made obvious fun of you.
DeleteIs that what you think you were doing? How does it make fun of anyone to post a well-written essay with a lot of correct info in it?
DeleteAnonymouse 3:22pm, anonymices seem to be arguing that no one can sound like AI, but they could if they really really tried.
DeleteYou’ve done it, baby. You generally sound just like AI, if AI was also prone to throwing in some personal attacks on Bob.
Anonymouse 3:47pm, that you do use AI signals a lot. As does the fact that AI can eloquently take any position you wish it to take.
DeleteYou have only proved that YOU can use AI. In fact, you can't write well without it. You can't even tell which are my essays compared to those written by other commenters here. You might have to be a native-speaker of English to identify writing styles and idiosyncrasies of different writers.
DeleteAnyone can use AI, even you. So what?
Anonymouse 4:00am, anyone can use AI and anonymices do.
DeleteI showed you how to prove someone was using AI, did that with you, but you have not proven that with me or any other anonymous commenter here.
Delete5:11 your comments are appreciated by everyone here, except the few loons - David/Cecelia etc. Although they do appreciate in one way your comments: it gives them an excuse to try to garner some attention, to quell the never-ending depths of their loneliness.
DeleteIt is pure folly to engage with these sad people, you are never going to change their views, and nobody takes their views seriously, so you are also not educating anyone by engaging with them. It is a waste of time and gives them oxygen, oxygen they do not deserve.
"Sexual politics was defined by the feminist Kate Millett in 1970 as encompassing the contestation of power-structured relationships with respect to sex, gender, and sexuality, and in relation to the social system of patriarchy."
ReplyDeleteThe term sexual politics does not refer to everything that is important in relationships between men and women, the way Somerby seems to be using the term. If a woman loves a man and wishes to have a sexual relationship with him, that is not "sexual politics". The dictates of society concerning how that pair may have a relationship, the roles assigned to men and women and the limitations, privileges, involvement of society in their relationship ARE sexual politics. The current form of sexual politics we engage in within the US is patriarichy, a system that assigns roles and privileges to men that are different than those assigned to women. In our version of patriarchy, men have advantages that women do not, which tends to give men a higher status and role than women. That is the basis for inequality in our country. Traditions and customs, attitudes and beliefs about the sexes, stereotypes, support the patriarchal system and perpetuate it. Misogyny is defined as support for the patriarchy and strong prejudice against women, while sexism is defined as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex". Patriarchy has not always existed everywhere and in every culture. There have been matriarchies in history and in different parts of the world. The attitudes that support patriarchy have not always existed, everywhere, either. Somerby seems to be saying that this is not true, but historians and anthropologists do not support that "bred in the bone" view that Somerby keeps repeating when he talks about Homer's fiction.
In the folk song Somerby uses as an example, does the ability of the woman to require a suitor to perform a challenge indicate power on the woman's part? Not necessarily. The men obviously have the ability to refuse whereas the woman is typically being required to choose one of the two men (at least in such songs and folk tales with similar themes). Often it is the woman's father who has set the challenge or task in such tales. The task is to find a man worthy of a high-status woman (such as a princess or daughter of a ruler), but does the woman have the ability or right to marry beneath herself, someone she might love but who is not outwardly "worthy" of her hand? What happens to women who marry beneath themselves? Typically social shunning and loss of position or status. Whereas women came move up socially because they do not have inherent status but derivative status that comes from a husband or father or family connection. Millett analyzed the politics behind such situations, where it might seem the woman is powerful sexually but isn't really.
It is annoying when Somerby uses the word sexual politics to refer to any situation he dislikes, such as when Stormy Daniels was able to challenge Trump in court due to his mistreatment of her (and Melania) in 2006. Somerby has said that because that event was so far in the past, it shouldn't matter now, but it does matter, especially to women (at least liberal ones). Hegseth's infidelities and assault accusation matter too. Caring about them is not sexual politics (challenging the patriarchy and Hegseth's privilege) but also a matter of deciding whether Hegseth can be trusted with responsibility for the safety of others.
"Stormy Daniels was able to challenge Trump in court due to his mistreatment of her . . . in 2006"
DeleteSo a hook-up is "mistreatment"? If so, did Daniels "mistreat" Trump? Or do you hold the sexist view that men mistreat women, but not vice versa, when they hook-up?
No, strong-arming her into signing an NDA was mistreatment. Arguably, failing to provide a dinner he had offered her, reneging on the audition for The Apprentice offered to her, and bragging all over the golf tournament the next day about being with a porn star was mistreatment too. But she had to go to court to get out of that coerced NDA. Trump does that routinely with his staff. Daniels didn't want to sign one, but she was threatened by two of Trump's goons in a parking lot while with her young daughter, so she believed she had no choice but to sign. That is a pattern in Trump's dealings with people too.
DeleteSomerby has repeatedly called Daniels a grifter and con artist, when it was Trump who was in the wrong. That came out in court during Trump's trial. Somerby mistakenly said Daniels approached Trump for money when she did not. Trump approached her because she had negotiated a deal to tell her story to a publication that Trump managed to suppress as part of his "catch and kill" operation while running for office.
Stormy Daniels was single when she and Trump hooked up (2006). Trump had just had a child with Melania, who was at home. He was married. Who has the right to hook up in such a situation? The husband who lies to his wife and commit adultery is wrong. How do we know Melania didn't condone the sex? Trump tried to conceal it from Melania (he said in court) when Daniels was going to make her story public. That's why Trump did the mistreating, not Daniels. Trump mistreated Melania by deceiving her and having sex with a porn star (endangering Melania's health via possible exposure to an STD, not using a condom). He then defamed Stormy by calling her account a lie, denying their sex after bragging about it at the time.
DeleteTrump behaved badly.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but nobody's defending Trump.
DeleteDaniels and Trump hooked-up. Daniels tried to cash in by selling her story right before the 2016 election. Trump bought her silence. She pocketed the money and told anyway. They are both schmucks.
"[Trump] then defamed Stormy by calling her account a lie."
DeleteDaniels sued Trump for defamation, lost, and now owes him over $600K as a result.
That doesn't mean he didn't defame her. It means her case wasn't strong enough. We all know what Trump said.
DeleteDaniels didn't pocket the money and then tell anyway. She kept silent until Michael Cohen himself broke the story, several years after the election when he made the plea deal over election fraud and record falsification (the same things Trump was convicted of doing). Then it wasn't secret any more so she spoke out because keeping silent was moot. Just as she testified at Trump's trial.
Daniels owed Trump legal expenses, not a fine or punitive damages.
Cohen did not admit the hook-up; he admitted the hush payments. Sometimes extortionists get money from their victims by threatening to lie about them.
DeleteAnd we know Daniels is a liar. At one time she said the hook-up did occur; later she said it did not occur; and later still she said it did. Who knows when she was lying and when she was telling the truth?
She said it did not occur because she was under the constraint of the NDA, asshole. That doesn't make her a liar. It makes her a person who was coerced into a false statement by threats. She was under oath at Trump's trial.
DeleteThe NDA did not, and could not, require that she tell a lie. She did that all on her own.
DeleteAnd remember: She was lawyered-up the whole time. She was not some little helpless flower, like you wish to pretend.
You are wrong about that. Look up what happened to Michael Avenatti.
DeleteSomerby has poor cultural taste (Dylan doesn’t represent good music, he represents nostalgic nursery rhymes for the elderly toddlers pining for their glory days) and is quite gullible, believing at face value the garbage pushed by obvious cons with obvious agendas.
ReplyDeleteHarris lost for three main reasons: lack of universal mail in ballots, sticky sexism (and racism to a lesser extent) among Dems, and increasingly sophisticated Republican dirty tricks/voter suppression. Republicans are defined by their racism and sexism, but “persuadable voters” are a myth, so the circumstance of Republican voters is of no electoral consequence to Dems.
But a not insignificant factor in how Republicans/right wingers maintain power and dominance is through people like Somerby that lack cultural sophistication and are willfully excessively literal, and proud of both.
Anonymouse 1:04pm, Harris lost for three main reasons, PLUS no real message other than she wouldn’t deviate from Biden’s perspectives, policies, and goals. Also the inability to think on her feet, exude anything that resembles authority, confidence, leadership, and a grasp of issues.
DeleteYes, we get it that you didn't like Harris and you didn't vote for her. That doesn't mean her message didn't appeal to those with different values than yours. Democrats have a real message for those who care about Democratic values. Comparing the ability of Harris to "think on her feet" to Trump, who can no longer follow a teleprompter, told the same stories over and over, and frequently spoke gibberish, is a huge joke. Harris won the debate by a landslide. You voted for Trump because you are a conservative, not because Harris did anything wrong.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:43pm, oh, you big whiney baby. You don’t know if I voted or not. It’s amusing that you’d go into a spiel about my political partisanship, when the things I’ve said about Harris are the stuff of post mortems by people on your own side.
DeleteI'll bet you voted in Eastern Europe, if they let you out of your troll farm to do it. Quoting something Somerby claimed about Harris didn't come from "our own side" because Somerby is not a liberal or Democrat. As I've said here many times, the only thing Somerby ever praised about Harris is her smile.
DeleteWhen someone votes against Harris because she is black and/or female, they aren't going to proudly declare themselves a bigot. They are going to justify their vote with specious claims, such as that "Harris gave bad interviews" or "avoided the press" etc etc etc. That doesn't make it true. No one who watched Harris perform during Senate hearings or watched her give press briefings (before she was a candidate) thought she couldn't think on her feet. Harris had detractors in her own party and some of them didn't want to admit their own lukewarm support for her, so they made up deficits and crapped on her. Those weren't YOUR reasons for not voting for her.
Anonymouse 2:06pm, you’re right. When someone shares their reasons for not voting for Harris, they are not going to justify that action by declaring themselves to a bigot. No, indeed. You’re going to do that for them. You’re going to treat them as though they could harbor no viable, honest, or rational reason for not voting as you voted. You’re going call them all sort of bad things and then say “but duh” after you say it. That’s because you are a militant ideological twit. You don’t need to inform anyone of that. We know. Duh.
DeleteWhen you compare Trump's ability to speak on his feet and his grasp of issues to Harris and come up with Trump as the better candidate, you are not being honest about your criteria.
Delete"Republicans are defined by their racism and sexism, but 'persuadable voters' are a myth"
DeleteTrump's percentage of the Black vote increased by 8% from 2020 to 2024. I would rule out "racism" as an explanation, wouldn't you? So doesn't this imply that some voters may be "persuadable"?
I didn't even have to tap into my sexism and racism to reject Harris. She's a drunken vapid libertine whose running mate gives tampons to boys and that's enough.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:27pm, call them dishonest or blinkered in their assessments all you wish, but THEIR outlook is positive.
Deletehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-more-hopeful-about-2025-than-2024-poll/
If black votes were being suppressed, you would expect Trump % to increase and Harris to decrease. When Obama ran, his black % increased. That suggests that sexism not racism may have influenced the black vote.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:05pm, or it could be something much more straight forward. Comma La was dropped into running with only three months to spare and lived up to her own reputation as being a light-weight.
DeleteBut you get a buzz from calling people racists. We get it.
Why would that give anyone a "buzz"? Do you think that because it gives you a buzz to say mean things to commenters here? You say that 3:05 gets a buzz from calling people racists but 3:05 said explicitly:
Delete"That suggests that sexism not racism may have influenced the black vote."
Do you not even read people's comments before saying mean things back to them?
Anonymouse 3:45pm, you do think racism influenced the vote and I certainly should have included your predictable of charges of sexism.
DeleteNow you're a mindreader? Like when you know what Somerby is supposedly thinking? You are a ridiculous person.
DeleteHarris was damaged goods. She was already a second stringer. Democrats ran Biden - they apparently wanted him at some point. But he dropped out for some reason and the Dems offered up their second choice, their backup, their runner up candidate. Who could expect that she would do well as a backup number two? Plus she was a woman and people don't want to be led by a woman. Especially a woman like her. We can finally let Harris and Biden go now. They did their best. Their results speak for themselves.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:03pm, actually, Pelosi said that the Democratic leadership wanted to have a sort of internal primary as to who would replace Biden, but the Bidens immediately declared her their candidate and congratulated her, so the media was off and running with her.
Delete3:05 - Trump's share of the black vote in 2024 increased 9% over his share against Hillary in 2016. That would seem to rule out "sexism" as an explanation, don't you think? We're really sort of torpedoing your idea that there are no "persuadable voters," aren't we?
DeleteI mean, the reality, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, is that a sizable chunk of black voters who at one time voted Democratic have been "persuaded" to vote for Trump. Neither "sexism" nor "racism" can explain this shift.
DeleteIt seems that your theory that "persuadable voters are a myth" is falsified.
Sexism can explain it. Why would you say it can't?
DeleteSee 4:36. In 2020, running against a woman, Trump got 8% of black vote; in 2024, running against a man, he got 17%. That 9% increase cannot be explained by "sexism," can it?
Delete"To hear Mike Seeger sing the part of that fair lady, you can just click this."
ReplyDeleteThis one is a link to nowhere, the kind Somerby has deplored in other people's writing.
Liberal democratic republic with conservatives in power > liberal conservative broligarchic democratic republic > monarchy > liberal democratic republic with progressives in power
ReplyDeleteThe sexual politics going on now is, Republicans have voted for a slew of sexual predators over the past few decades, and the leader of the Republican Party, Trump, is not only a sexual predator but he’s filling his admin with sexual predators - Hegseth, Musk et al.
ReplyDeleteSexual predators flock together.
Republicans are stuck in a feedback loop, a perpetual cycle of generational abuse and generational wealth/power; they know that things like education, societal safety nets, and diminishing religiosity tend to break these cycles, so they fight progress in these areas to maintain a death grip on their dominance.
Sexual politics apparently is having a serial rapist for a president and yet pretending like the biggest problem we have is corporate media and public insult battles.
Brother, please. Talk about blaming the victims, but this is what typically Republicans do.
I mean, yawn, Somerby is sexist, no shit Sherlock.
I voted for Trump because he was willing to demonstrate, even in front of children, how to fellate a man.
ReplyDeleteSomerby praises Mike Seegar for not using falsetto when he describes what the Lady of Carlisle said, but he never notices that Seeger doesn't use any different voice either when he sings what the "brave sea captain" said in his voice "both loud and strong." That is because the story is being narrated by someone uninvolved in the story. It is third person, with Seeger telling the audience what happened, not portraying any of the characters.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby feel that it shows some special respect for the Lady when Seeger treats her words exactly the same as the words of the men in the song?
No one uses falsetto to sing women's words in folk songs, to my knowledge. Here is Woody Guthrie singing Gypsy Davy, and he sings the man's questions and the woman's replies in the same voice as the rest of the song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufBNBaKO1fc
Does anyone sing women's voices in falsetto in their songs?
"You can hear Seeger's performance of Black Jack David simply by clicking this. He performs the song with Alexia Smith, his own wife, in an act of impressive self-confidence."
ReplyDeleteSeeger sings the song and plays the guitar. His wife sings harmony on the song. Why would a folk singer who has been singing all of his life be showing "impressive self-confidence" when singing a folk song? This is ridiculous.
Mike Seeger's father, Charles Seeger, was a musicologist and archived American folk music. His sister Peggy Seeger married Ewan McColl (a British folk singer) and they performed together their whole lives. Mike Seeger was a performer and folklorist himself for his entire career. Pete Seeger was their half-brother and he too had a long career as a folk singer and left-wing activist. Pete Seeger is portrayed in the film, helping Bob Dylan begin his own professional career.
So, why would anyone think that Mike Seeger's performance showed unusual self-confidence when doing something he had grown up with and done all of his life? These odd, never explained remarks by Somerby are irritating.
Alexia Smith, Seegar's wife, sings harmony but she doesn't sing the women's parts in the song. Sometimes male and female singers assign the parts along sex lines, as when Harry Belafonte and Odetta sing "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza" a question-and-answer song. Seeger chose not to do that in his performance. He may have done that because of the difficulties in switching voices in the middle of a phrase, not because of a respect for women, given that a woman he respected enough to sing with was available to sing the female phrases had they wanted to do that, no falsetto needed.
Cecelia, do you support or oppose the Equal Rights Amendment?
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 3:35pm, I haven’t thought about it. I don’t know.
DeleteGood! You are welcome to throw yourself against my bosom.
DeleteIf the Lady wanted to retrieve her own fan, she could do it by waiting until feeding time (or in the wild, until the lions wandered away) and get it then. There was no reason for anyone to risk his life. Does the lyric show bravery or foolishness? Hard to decide.
DeleteAnonymouse 4;08pm, she reasoned that the man who would risk death to be with her was the man who truly loved her “forsaking all others”. I would have told her “bye”.
Delete