SATURDAY: At the Atlantic, they say no names!

SATURDAY, JULY 11, 2026

The refusal to serve is general: "Back out of all this now too much for us?"  

As we've noted in the past, that's the opening line of Frost's difficult poem, Directive. We often think of that line in these extremely dark days. 

The poemit's a difficult poemstarts exactly like this:   

Directive

Back out of all this now too much for us,
Back in a time made simple by loss
Of detail, burned, dissolved, and broken off
Like graveyard marble sculpture in the weather,
There is a house that is no more a house
Upon a farm that is no more a farm
And in a town that is no more a town.

The road there, if you'll let a guide direct you
Who only has at heart your getting lost,
May seem as if it should have been a quarry -
Great monolithic knees the former town
Long since gave up pretense of keeping covered.
And there's a story in a book about it...

And so on, at length, from there.   

It's a difficult poem. With that acknowledgment, we now offer a question:

Do we Americans now find ourselves in "a house that is no more a house, upon a farm that is no more a farm and in a town that is no more a town?"  

If so, there are very few stories in books about it, in part because of what happened when Jeffrey Rosen's promising essay in The Atlantic moved past its promising start.   

Judged by the norms of the established world, Rosen is very sharp. At this point, we remind you of the things we showed you earlier in the week:  

Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)  

Jeffrey Rosen (born February 13, 1964) is an American legal scholar, journalist, and author.

Rosen is a law professor at The George Washington University, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the author of nine books, including New York Times bestsellers. He served as the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center from 2013 to 2026, where he is now CEO Emeritus. Rosen is a contributing writer for The Atlantic

[...]  

Rosen attended the Dalton School, a private college preparatory school on New York City's Upper East Side, and graduated in 1982 as valedictorian. He then studied English literature and government at Harvard University, graduating in 1986 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. He was subsequently a Marshall Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford, in philosophy, politics, and economics, from which he received a second bachelor's degree in 1988. He then attended the Yale Law School, where he served as a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal...  

As CEO of the National Constitution Center, he has produced a long series of outstanding public forumspublic forums which operate on what is seen as the culture's C-Span-adjacent high end.  

Over here in Blue America, we've been told that we should respect and admire "contributing writers for The Atlantic." At present, we especially recommend the work of that magazine's Helen Lewis, but there's something even she may be doingor may be agreeing not to do.   

There's something they've all agreed not to do? We'll turn to Frost again:

The Gift Outright 

[...]   

Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.

Something we were withholding made us weak? We've quoted that line before. Here's why we quote it today:

At present, here in Blue America, our journalistic and academic leaders refuse to "say their names." That is what is being withheld in this discourse which is no more a discourse in a nation which is perhaps no more a nation and which may almost seem to be perhaps going down.   

We agree with Rosen! The advent of various new technologies has turned our nation, which is now barely a nation, into a modern-day Babel. Putin smiles on a summer night as he sees Charlie Hurt, guest hosting on Jesse Watters Primetime, litter the landscape this way:

HURT (7/9/26): So Democrats finally got their pervy Platner off their back, but he's the least of their worries. Ranks of Commie radicals worse than the Nipple Nazi are mobilizing across the country, positioning for their takeover. 

[Photo of Abdul El-Sayed]

This Commie doc without a medical license is running for Senate in Michigan, and he's already hard at work indoctrinating your kids...   

(For the sake of the record: According to the leading authority, El-Sayd "is an American epidemiologist, politician, and former public health official and academic. He was the director of the Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services of Wayne County, Michigan, from 2023 to 2025.")

You see there how Hurt started. After he cited the "pervy Platner," producers played tape of the "Commie doc" telling a bunch of pre-school kids that they should share their cupcakes. 

That was the Commie indoctrination to which Hurt referred. Viewers were even told that this "Commie doc" is worse than "the Nipple Nazi!"  

This intellectual squalor only got worse as the guest host continuedthis guest host on the second most-watched "cable news" show in this, our nation which is perhaps no more a nation.     

Along the way, viewers were told that Brad Linder, the former comptroller of New York City, "went full Commie in his victory speech" after winning a Democratic Party primary last month. He'd been endorsed by "Commie Mamdani," viewers were pleasingly told.  

Eventually, the guest host read this copy, smirking as he went:   

HURT: The collapse of the media, and the lack of clear leadership in the Democrat [sic] Party, or a hopeful vision for the country, allowed an army of Commie radicals to take over the Democrat [sic] Party. 

The Commies are organized, they're mobilized, and they've just rolled out their takeover course of action. Project 2029. It's a ready-to-go, governing blueprint for their Commie leader in the White House... Desperate Democrats like Kamala see the end, and she's hopping on the Commie express train before it's too late.

It was low-IQ squalor like that, read from prompter by the constantly smirking Hurt. 

For the record, Project 2029 is the work of a liberal policy journal, not of the Democratic Party. As Hurt read his Commie-rich copy, the chyrons were saying this: 

HERE COME THE COMMIES! 
COMMIE QUACK IS FOR THE KIDS  
BRAD LANDER GOES FULL COMMIE
DESPERATE DEMS HOP ON THE COMMIE EXPRESS 
THE COMMIES ORGANIZE AND MOBILIZE  
COMMIES INFILTRATE THE DEMOCRATS

Enjoyable copy like that.

For the record, there's plenty that can be criticized about the Democratic Party and about some of its candidates. At this site, we've sometimes criticized Senator and then Vice President Harris, though we're going to guess that she hasn't "hopped on the Commie express" at this point in time.

There's plenty that a sensible persona person who is still a personmight critique or criticize about the party in question. Instead, Hurt was offering a braindead imitation of human political discourseof a discourse which is no more a discourse in a town which is no more a town.

It was a braindead imitation of lifeunless you read Jeffrey Rosen's essay in the Atlantic. In his essay, Rosen declines to say the names of people like Hurtof the types of corporate messaging agents who are no longer persons. 

Nor does he say the name of the Fox News Channel, or of "cable news" in general. It's an essay in which a highly promising, insightful start rapidly disappears.  

No, Virginia! No nation can remain a nation if it becomes a Babelif it turns into a welter of competing voices feeding different tribal groups the stories they long to hear. 

As he starts, Rosen gives voice to a profoundly sensible fearto the fear that our democracy (such as it is) may not "survive" the effects of the new technologies which have made every flyweight a king. 

Rosen's start is extremely strong, but then the withholding begins. He names "social media" and "the internet," but he doesn't mention cable news and he doesn't mention podcasts.   

Bowing to an intractable rule, he doesn't say the names of people like Charlie Hurt. He doesn't say the name of the ludicrous corporate messaging agent for whom Hurt was guest hosting. 

Rosen has been to what Dylan once mocked as "the finest schools," but he hasn't learned how to say their namesor it could be that his superiors at the Atlantic aren't willing to let him and others do that.  

"Something we were withholding made us weak," the poet Frost once wrote. Within the realms of Blue America's modern elites, we'll guess that the rewards are simply too damn high, and the risks are simply too great.

The celebrity and the salaries are too good to put at risk. No one wants to say the names of the modern-day jugglers and clowns who are devouring the present-day discourse.

At the New York Times, at MS NOW and CNN, but also at the Atlantic, they refuse to say the names of the people and the entities which are creating "all this"all this which does indeed seem, as we slide toward the sea, to be "now too much for us."

They type from a realm which is no more a realm, producing a discourse which is something quite different.   

Frost ends the difficult poem Directive with these difficult lines:  

I have kept hidden in the instep arch
Of an old cedar at the waterside
A broken drinking goblet like the Grail
Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it,
So can't get saved, as Saint Mark says they mustn't.
(I stole the goblet from the children's playhouse.)
Here are your waters and your watering place.
Drink and be whole again beyond confusion.

Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it!  

"Drink and be whole again beyond confusion," Frost wrote as his closing line. Here in the present day, the ginormous confusion largely results from an amazingly systematic act of withholding.

As a group, they simply refuse to say their names! There is zero sign that this deception, this failure to serve, is ever going to stop.


134 comments:


  1. "It was low-IQ squalor like that..."

    No matter how low-IQ their shit may be, judging by what I just read here, alas: your own IQ and the IQ of the idiot from Atlantic you quote is far, far lower. Taken together, even.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of low IQ....

      Delete
    2. anon 11:21, what's your qualification to judge anyone's IQ. Not at all apparent.

      Delete
    3. What is Somerby's qualification to judge anyone's IQ? This idea that remote diagnosis can be valid is contradicted by professional ethics in the field that measures IQ (clinical psychologists). Referring to someone's IQ online is just name-calling, your specialty AC/MA.

      Delete
    4. @9:34, my remote diagnoses is that you’re dumb as fuck. That’s just another way of saying “low-IQ.”

      Leroy

      Delete
    5. The “low IQ squalor” on Fox is quite calculated. It has its desired effect, wouldn’t you say, Leroy?

      Delete
  2. I wonder if Rosen was taught by Jeffrey Epstein at the Dalton school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When did Rosen attend Dalton, and when did Epstein teach there?

      Delete
    2. Epstein taught there from 74 to 76.

      Delete
    3. So Rosen probably matriculated after Epstein left. Too bad. It would have been a good story.

      Delete
    4. Rosen would have been about in 6th grade when Epstein was there.

      Dalton is funny, they hired Epstein to teach math even though he knew nothing about math and it took Dalton two years to figure it out before they let him go. So that is where Rosen got his primary and secondary education, might go a ways toward explaining his lack of insight.

      To be fair, Epstein was probably providing the Dalton admin/students with a steady supply of coke and the like.

      Delete
    5. If a massage is like coke.

      Delete
  3. The Somerby Critique:

    This "amazingly systematic act" of refusing "to say the names" of "jugglers and clowns" -- like Fox and its "ludicrous corporate messaging agents" -- by "Blue American elites (e.g., NYT, MS-Now, CNN, Atlantic) is unlikely ever to stop, because the elites won't risk their "credibility and salaries." This "withholding" of names is making the nation "weak," because a nation that descends into the "Babel" of an "imitation of human discourse" cannot "remain a nation."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, more simply: The NYT, etc., is too scared to expose and confront all the crap excreting from Fox, and that's killing the country.

      Delete
    2. From AI:
      Somerby's critique:

      The people who are supposed to explain why American political discourse is breaking down will discuss the problem abstractly, but they will not clearly identify and confront the influential media organizations and propagandists who are helping break it down.

      The Frost quotations reinforce that point. “Something we were withholding made us weak” becomes a metaphor for withholding names and responsibility. Somerby believes that this evasiveness makes serious diagnosis, and therefore any possible remedy, much harder.

      Delete
    3. They aren't "scared," unless it's fear of losing money. The current discourse, of two sides, neither of which has the moral or factual upper ground, is excellent for the journalism business.

      Delete
    4. Ie. "The celebrity and the salaries are too good to put at risk."

      Delete
    5. “two sides, neither of which has the moral or factual upper ground”

      One of the two sides clearly occupies a factual ground, while the Fox News side does not.

      Delete
    6. " ... and that's killing the country."

      What simplistic nonsense.

      Delete
    7. The Trump administration just subpoenaed NYT reporters for their story about the Qatari jet fiasco. They’ve also done some in depth reporting on Trump’s corruption. This angers Trump. Yet you think they’re too “scared” to … what? Discuss Greg Gutfeld?

      Delete
    8. They don’t call magas the party of free speech for nothing

      Delete
    9. "One of the two sides clearly occupies a factual ground, while the Fox News side does not."

      Has the "liberal media" ever said this? No.

      Delete
    10. There is so much content out there naming names every day, calling out Fox News every day, calling out corporate media every day. And these content creator audience's dwarf that of places like Fox News.

      Furthermore, data from 2024 show that the majority of those that follow news media, closely or even moderately, voted for Harris. So while corporate media is garbage (and it decidedly favored Trump if only for capturing an audience), it does not play a significant role in our elections, much to corporate media's consternation.

      Somerby is simply out of touch, his critique is nonsensical, but probably by design in order to fool the odd rube here and there.

      Delete
    11. I’m an old rube, and he doesn’t fool me.

      Delete
    12. Same.

      Probably meant right wing rube.

      Delete
    13. "Furthermore, data from 2024 show that the majority of those that follow news media, closely or even moderately, voted for Harris."

      What a fascinating observation. A majority of people who follow the news media also believe that, say, climate change is real, so clearly the news media have been doing a great job reporting on climate change.

      Delete
    14. There have been studies that show that when Fox viewers switch to something less extreme like CNN, their knowledge increases dramatically.

      A surprising number of Americans throughout the decades believe in UFOs and do not believe in evolution. Also advertising works unusually well in America. None of this is new, or news.

      Delete
    15. "Better educated than a Fox viewer."

      "Taller than a Pygmy."

      "Fatter than an anorexic."

      "Saner than a lunatic."

      The list goes on.

      Delete
    16. Low bar, indeed.

      Delete
    17. Tucker Carlson got a lot of flak for his soft friendly interview of Nick Fuentes (not that Tucker doesn't deserve all the flak that can be dished out). The NYT interviewed Gutfield - and what an inept softball interview! Ridiculous. Proves TDH's point.

      Delete
    18. An interview? With Gutfeld? Did Somerby mention this? I mean, we’re supposed to have pity on Trump, so how confrontational does Somerby think the times needs to be?

      Delete
    19. Also, AC, Gutfeld appeared a while back on Bill Maher’s podcast, (Maher has been routinely praised by Somerby), and the interview was more than softball. They joked about incest. So, please. Give us a break.

      Delete
  4. "Commie" is the new "woke" which was the new "socialist" which was the new "commie."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget the blahs! Or the gays. Or the kids who went to school a boy and during lunch, snip!, snip!, they come out a fucking girl. Donny says it happens all the time man.

      Delete
    2. As HCR points out, this "the commies are coming" stuff has been going on since the late 1800s.

      Delete
    3. Back then the commies really were coming, but capital beat them back.

      Delete
    4. There indeed was a progressive movement that got boosted in part by the democratization of media of its day with the muckrakers etc. It fizzled out for a bit after WWI, helped by the autocrats and oligarchs of the day, but they drove the economy into the ground and we got the New Deal which worked great until Reagan came along and pretty much ruined everything.

      Delete
    5. Commies took over Russia and China. After a long and bitter struggle the Russian commies collapsed and the Chinese commies morphed into state capitalists. Commies today are a joke, not a threat.

      Delete
    6. Commies are whatever the right wing propaganda machine can convince enough voters to support them says they are.

      Delete
    7. I’m a commy demon.

      Delete
  5. Somerby wants Rosen’s essay to be about Fox News. But his topic is social media and AI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's Somerby's point: Rosen is afraid to come after major propaganda outlets such as Fox.

      Delete
    2. No, Rosen is writing about social media and AI being the main threats. He isn’t “afraid”. He apparently believes cable “news” isn’t the real problem. Somerby can write his own essay, or deal with what Rosen actually wrote.

      Delete
    3. If he believes cable news isn't at least a major part of the problem, then he's stupid -- and his CV is not that of a stupid man.

      Delete
    4. This is Rosen: “Madison wanted to slow down communication to allow for thoughtful decision making; social media encourages instant responses and emotional, ad hominem arguments. Madison worried about factionalism; social media encourages it. More than any previous communications technology, social media has the effect of herding users into likeminded communities where they never have to hear an opposing point of view.” Again, this is his thesis, social media, and not cable news.

      Delete
    5. Saying someone is "afraid" is like schoolyard boys calling each other out by calling them chicken. That is majorly ridiculous in a discussion about media where economics, not fear, dictate what gets published to defined audiences.

      Delete
    6. Economics determines whether you live or die. Nothing is as frightening as economics.

      Delete
    7. When someone suggests journalists are afraid to name names (for example), they are not talking about economics.

      Delete
    8. Really? Tell me, why might journalists be afraid to name names? Or more precisely, why might journalism organizations not want their employees to name names?

      Delete
    9. Just to reiterate (I am 10:37), Rosen is talking about social media, and not journalism, or cable news, so there are no names to name. Maybe he wrote a column at some point decrying cable news. But this is a different topic.

      Delete
    10. They are all intertwined.

      Delete
    11. 1:39: Obviously, they are intertwined. Pull your head out of your ass.

      Delete
    12. When did it become the rule that every essay focused on the ills of social media must also include a dissertation on cable news?

      Delete
    13. Do clips from cable news not get spread on social media? Are clips from cable news not a meaningful part of a political social media?

      Thank you in advance for directly answering these questions.

      Delete
    14. It's not just that. Cable news itself is now shaped by how it will play on social media. As many people watch the news on social media outlets as on TV or their own websites. News is competing with other forms of entertainment -- and that's what news has become -- on social media. So they become more focused on drama and conflict to juice their audience. Which would, at least in part, be why they don't "name names" -- doing so would reduce the drama.

      Delete
    15. 7:21. I’m not buying that. MSM is owned by the elite and serves their interests as always

      Delete
    16. 7:53 Do clips from cable news not get spread on social media? Are clips from cable news not a meaningful part of a political social media?

      Delete
    17. (I'm just surprised that you would characterize the debate as So the disagreement isn't really "Fox News versus social media and AI.")

      Delete
    18. 8:02, yes that is true,

      Delete
    19. "MSM is owned by the elite and serves their interests as always."

      Their interest is making money. There are some people, like Larry Ellison, who are so rich the profits, or lack thereof, that come from CBS aren't even a rounding error in their net worth. But Larry Ellison's ownership is a new thing, and the media have been carnival barkers for decades now. The interests of corporations and the wealthy are part of it, but it's more complicated than the way you're portraying it.

      Delete
    20. Social media companies are owned by the elite, no?

      Delete
    21. “Their interest is making money.”

      And keeping the population uninformed

      Delete
    22. "And keeping the population uninformed"

      To inform, underinform, or misinform the public first requires that they pay attention to your product. People don't pay attention to a boring product.

      Delete
  6. DG said: “The NYT, etc., is too scared to expose and confront all the crap excreting from Fox, and that's killing the country.”

    We learned from Somerby the other day that people have a “perfect right” to believe in demons, thus, one supposes they have a “perfect right” to believe Talarico, for example, is a demon. Do republicans have a “perfect right” to believe that democrats are communists? This “perfect right” is anchored, one supposes, in the First Amendment.

    So, where in the NYT is this confronting supposed to occur? Outside of the opinion pages, I mean? Tell us what the dueling editorials would look like:

    “people have a “perfect right” to believe in demons. But we, the editors, do not feel that Talarico is a demon. Of course, we can never prove this to the satisfaction of those who believe it.”

    “Here’s why demons exist” by Ross douthat

    “Contrary to what Gutfeld says, The Democrats are not communists; here’s why. Of course, opinions differ”

    “Here’s why the democrats are communists” by Ross douthat.

    “Why calling a woman a whale is misogynistic”

    “It’s all in good fun: why liberals want to police free speech” by Ross Douthat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would appear in a news story explaining the news that a major media outlet is telling their audiences that demons exist and not in a metaphorical way.

      It may be people's perfect right to believe it, but it's also other people's perfect right to w
      produce a news story about it and how insane it is.

      (He linked to Mediaite News article that you can think of as an example.)

      Delete
    2. Next, 2:37, you’ll tell me the times should print a news story explaining how insane it is to believe that a virgin gave birth to a boy who was also the son of god, who performed miracles and rose from the dead.

      Delete
    3. Republicans view Talarico as a demon because he is a bit of a soy boy yet he has a hot girlfriend.

      Frustration borne cognitive dissonance.

      Delete
    4. Hot girls love demons.

      Delete
    5. This whole demon thing is a recognition by these right wing loons of their own demonic traits and an attempt to externalize that onto others.

      Delete
    6. 2:57 that would not be news. Everyone knows that.

      Delete
  7. Why does Somerby primarily quote right wingers?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No longer able to gain significant traction by fear mongering about terrorists or immigrants or trans people, Republicans are trotting out yet another Red Scare as they have tried many many times in the past, yet this attempt is not gaining traction either and this general failure to gain traction is due in part to the democratization of media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, commies aren’t very scary these days.

      Delete
    2. People are waking up to what a disaster capitalism is; it just leads to greater and greater inequality and chaos.

      Plus all the cool kids are commies.

      Delete
    3. My kid is the greatest thing in the universe.

      Delete
    4. It’s very important to let the invisible hand work its magic. The less regulation the better, just ask ENRON

      Delete
    5. 4:21 - ironically Enron is a example of why capitalism works better than socialism/communism. Under capitalism, a company that works badly goes out of business. So, the surviving ones tend to be well-run. Under the government, an organization's survival depends on political decisions. Badly-run organizations tend to never die.

      Delete
    6. Stick your ironically up your fascist lying ass, dickhead

      Delete
    7. , “In 17 months of President Trump’s second term, he has overseen the U.S. government using taxpayer money to purchase equity stakes in 14 private and 14 publicly held companies. Over the USA’s 250 years, this is—by far—the most significant change in American economic policymaking.

      The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, characterized Trump’s economic environment as state capitalism and a stepping stone toward what they refer to as “creeping socialism.”

      https://thefulcrum.us/economy/federal-corporate-ownership

      What kind of “capitalism” is this, DiC?

      Delete
    8. That’s not even getting to the fucking Freedom Gas Stations that just mysteriously sprouted out of thin air.

      Delete
    9. Without a doubt the best example of pure unadulterated in the raw capitalism is this:

      A ProPublica investigation revealed the White House intervened to secure a $620 million Pentagon loan for Vulcan Elements, a rare-earth startup. The loan, the largest ever issued by the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital, was finalized months
      after a venture capital firm where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner took a financial stake in the company.

      Delete
    10. That’s an advanced form of capitalism known as crony capitalism.

      Delete
    11. I agree @5:47. Grabbing pieces of private companies is a Trump f*ckup. Not only is it bad when Trump does it, but future Presidents are apt to even increase this practice.

      One dangerous aspect is that the government is so powerful that is they demand a piece of some private company, that company is almost forced to comply.

      Delete
    12. Fuck off, dickhead

      Delete
    13. If Trump shot someone would it make it more likely that future president’s would do so? How ridiculous. The degradation of the presidency by Trump is described as a f*ck up as if it were a mistake. It’s not by any means a mistake. It has profited him and his crime family well north of 2 billion dollars in 18 months. Trump has been a racist crook since he was in grade school. And MAGATs like DiC gravitate to him.

      Delete
    14. Notice how the activities of Trump and his crime family get transformed into the “powerful government”forcefully manipulating private companies, by DiC.

      Delete
    15. Take note: the $2 billion is only what Trump sucked up

      Delete
    16. Yea, his SIL has sucked up over $7 Billion from the mid-east being our fucking mid-east peace negotiator (fucking joke).

      Delete

  9. Capitalism has been so very effective that many people, especially young people, take its virtues for granted. They're like people who wish that the sun would shine at night when it's dark, rather than in the daytime.

    They like socialism and/or communism as a way to distribute what they see as never-ending wealth. They overlook the fact that this level of wealth doesn't get produced in non-capitalist economies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go take a flying fuck, dickhead.

      Delete
    2. 3:41 fake news troll, go away.

      Delete
    3. Tax structure is the issue to a large extent but CEOs earning 300+ times their average earners is disgusting and of course completely invisible as a problem to the MAGATs. Young people rightly see the disparities in this country. Codgers who live in a socialized world of Medicare and Social Security and have owned their homes and got an affordable education from back in the day don’t get it of course because it’s not in their interest to , or rather they like the idea of an oligarchy that would prolong their party’s relevancy.

      Delete
    4. On the other hand David the ass troll, with capitalism you can just fuck the poor so the rich can have another billion? "One year after President Donald Trump signed the law he dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” on the South Lawn of the White House, it has begun reshaping the country — altering who gets help from the government and who goes without.

      The most consequential legislation of Trump’s second term reaches into nearly every corner of American life. It supercharges immigration enforcement, pouring billions into border security and deportations. It rewrites student loan rules. It dismantles tax incentives for electric vehicles and clean energy. It creates a national school-voucher tax credit.

      And at its core is a seismic shift: extending roughly $4.5 trillion in tax cuts disproportionately benefiting corporations and the wealthy over 10 years while cutting about $1.1 trillion from healthcare and food assistance programs serving poor and working-class people.

      It ultimately adds a projected $4.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade."

      At least Lindsay Graham died. Fucking fag had it coming.

      Delete
    5. Finally getting the balance back in a tax programs right fuckface David in Cal:

      "Once all of the law’s major provisions are fully phased in, Congressional Budget Office estimates show, the poorest households will end up with roughly $1,200 less each year on average, while the wealthiest Americans will gain about $13,600."

      Delete
    6. And 1200 less a year does not include the added cost of gas, groceries and other essentials that Republican rubber stamp policy has imposed on the middle and lower class. For MAGA, it’s a small price to pay for being racist.

      Delete
  10. "At this site, we've sometimes criticized Senator and then Vice President Harris..." Somerby admits.

    This is why we have Trump as president.

    Actually, Somerby hasn't mentioned Senator Harris. He only started denigrating her when she became VP and then ran for President. He barely mentioned her back when she contested the nomination against Biden in 2020, earning her place as VP with the strength of her support. Somerby doesn't back black women, or any women, for office. He did the same with Hillary, saying he preferred Bernie and mocking both Hillary and Elizabeth Warren. Somerby has done absolutely nothing to put any Democrat into office, since Al Gore lost to Bush.

    A guy like Somerby doesn't get to stand by and do nothing while Trump gains office, then complain that the media or blue America aren't doing what he thinks they should. He is just another flea escaped from the circus.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The MAGA cult is the last vestige of the Confederacy and a battalion of KKK style marchers during the Fourth of July underscored that. These are the backbone of the cult. It was always about racism, our economy and world standing be damned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean Republican voters aren't economically anxious at all, but are really just an amoral dumpster fire of bigots.
      Who, but those who paid attention in the slightest, knew?

      Delete
    2. A basket of bigots.

      Delete
  12. Wahoo! Lindsey Graham is dead. Trump Lickspittle Syndrome claims another victim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I share your joy. My prayers have been answered.

      Delete
    2. "Some far-left extremists delivered callous epitaphs on the death of Lindsey Graham, while some far-right extremists spread conspiracy theories." [Mediaite]

      Way to both-sides Graham's death. Conspiracy theories are just like callous epitaphs, amirite?

      Delete
    3. Agreed. There is only one side to Graham's death and that is to be thankful.

      Delete
    4. Kristen Welker extended her sincere condolences to King Orange Chickenshit today on Meet the Press. Why? Nobody yet has figured it out. Something to do with the curse of the liberal media.

      Delete
    5. Was she being sarcastic?

      Delete
    6. Do you know what “sincere “ means?

      Delete
    7. It does deprive Trump of a senate vote.

      Delete
    8. It’s would be difficult for AIPAC to find another closeted warmonger, but they have a large library of photos.

      Delete
    9. Maybe Welker was taking Somerby’s advice and expressing genuine pity: “I’m sincerely sorry you’re a psychopath”

      Delete
    10. 1:51, yeah but that doesn't justify a reporter offering her sincere condolences to the president.

      Delete
    11. Did you hear about the Welker comments online or does your concern about them come from watching the actual show?

      Thank you in advance for honestly and directly answering this question.

      Delete
    12. My brother told me. I scrupulously avoid MTP ever since the Russert years

      Delete
    13. "Kristen Welker extended her sincere condolences..."

      It was pandering to her viewers, who expect -- perhaps "demand" is more accurate -- such displays of performative empathy, sincere or otherwise.

      Delete
    14. I don't mind condolences to Graham's family, but condolences to the orange abomination in the WH make me gag. Welker is a lightweight.

      Delete
    15. She's an entertainer. Do you know what to call an entertainer who doesn't give her audience what they want? An ex-entertainer.

      Delete
    16. Horseshit. She is the anchor for NBC News flagship weekly news program. The maggot crowd are not her audience.

      Delete
    17. Her audience doesn’t want condolences to Trump. Her bosses want her to say it.

      Delete
    18. Her audience is prone to being sentimental, as is the average person. Sentimental people like such displays. Which is why her bosses want her to say things like that.

      Delete
    19. I am wasting my time - you are being deliberately obtuse. You keep ignoring the point. Condolences to Trump might be appropriate if Lady Lindsey had been his adopted child. But fuck it, I think it is hilarious.

      Delete
    20. No, you are ignoring the point. Trump himself is irrelevant here; he's nothing more than a prop. What's important is her audience. She's talking to them, while ostensibly talking to Trump. I know that, in your mind she's nothing more than a dumb mouthpiece for her oligarchic overlords, but she is, in fact, a lot more than that. You just hate Trump so passionately you can't understand how anyone not expressing your hatred isn't stupid or corrupt.

      Delete
    21. What's not to hate? He is an evil bastard. An abomination. A liar. A megalomaniac. A crook. An ignorant fraud. A racist. A fascist. A sexual predator. But why does he need condolences over the death of a Senator no relation to him? It just doesn't compute in my live experience. This isn't about my hate for orange chickenshit. I have no respect for Kristen Welker.

      Delete
  13. "President Donald Trump is a desperate man. With the midterms on the horizon and his approval ratings under water, he doesn’t want to talk about affordability. Nor does he want to talk about his war with Iran. And he certainly doesn’t want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein.

    What does he want to talk about? Communists." Alternet

    ReplyDelete
  14. What does Somerby want to talk about? Well, it appears he has just discovered The Atlantic. But he is mischaracterizing it as a left-wing publication when it runs a variety of articles from different perspectives, often controversial (the equivalent of political clickbait). Rosen is not liberal. But there are lots of other sources Somerby could be reading, now that he has moved on from Gutfeld (hopefully).

    ReplyDelete
  15. That Robert Frost poem has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Somerby is discussing. It does not apply and the meanings Somerby attributes to it are not justified (supported). Calling it a difficult poem doesn't mean Somerby gets to use it however he wants. And why does he take up so much room in his essay with something that is irrelevant. This is what bad students do to pad their written assignments when they have no ideas and haven't done the assigned reading. And Robert Frost would definitely not condone "borrowing" his work and misapplying it, the way Somerby does, so this is an affront to the poet, not just a cheap way to fill up space and sound erudite without putting in any real effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, there it is. Was waiting for that Corby.

      Delete
    2. Uber-troll Corby doesn't understand the distinction between using literature as evidence and using literature as metaphor.

      Delete
    3. Frost would be grateful. His work is remembered and cherished.

      Delete
    4. Somerby quotes the poem (which he claims is difficult)…why? Is he perhaps expressing despair that the present time is “too much” for “us” (ie him) and he longs for the past, when life seemed “simple”? Frost says the past only seems simple because we wipe away its complexity.

      Delete
    5. If you abstract to a high enough level then anything can be like anything else. The specifics differentiate things, the details. Somerby must ignore a lot to find Frost’s despair anything like ours, which does not result from the passage of time but the actions of idiots.

      Delete
    6. I don’t hear Somerby cherishing Frost. He would need to hear Frost’s own meaning for that, but he doesn’t.

      Delete
    7. You interpret Trump, and you interpret Somerby. So do I. But then we draw different conclusions. Such is life.

      Delete
    8. In a world where trash people who treat women like second class citizens are called "pro-life", anything goes if you get enough people to fall for it.

      Delete
    9. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I also believe she’s a second-class citizen.

      Delete
  16. Somerby is correct.
    We are where we're at because not enough people call out Right-wingers as the pieces of shit they are.

    Cue the Somerby critics who will push back on this obvious point.

    ReplyDelete