SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 2026
Why was Blanche confirmed? Was that an example of tribal group rage in that Senate hearing room last week?
Was that an example of the deadly rage no modern society can really expect to withstand? (Was that a gang of Achaeans coming over the walls?)
Presumably, stated opinions will differ.
No senators embarrassed themselves more than Hawley and Moreno did. But two questions remain to be answered concerning Dr. Fauci.
Question: Why did Dr. Fauci take the Fifth so many times?
Answer: Fellow citizens, please!
Dr. Fauci took the Fifth 111 times because he was asked 111 questions by the rampaging senators, quite a few of whom almost seemed to be showboating. (As usual, Senator Lankford, R-OK, was the glaring Republican exception.)
Presumably, every journalist knows the legal dangers involved in so-called selective pleading. So did the grown child known as Hawley, as he pimped himself to the voters back home.
Regarding the conduct of the rampaging Republican senators:
As usual, Senator Lankford, R-OK, was the glaring exception. The invaluable Rev provides a transcript of the hearing right here.
Question: Why did Dr. Fauci take the Fifth at all?
Answer: We can't necessarily answer that question. But the culture built around "Lock her up" (2016) has aggressively spread in the last two years, even reaching the point reported today by Fox Digital.
Yes, this has actually happened:
Trump urges Jeanine Pirro to revisit dropped Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool vandalism case
President Donald Trump on Friday urged U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to take a second look at the recently dropped charges over vandalism at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
"Now that people are able to see it up close, they are reporting pure VANDALISM at The Reflecting Pool," Trump wrote on Truth Social, sharing photos from a freelance photographer that allegedly showed vandalism.
The president claimed that "People were on their knees with their hands in the water at the exact location of the ‘slashes.’ Additionally, there were witnesses to the VANDALISM, and the flexible areas of the material were cut with a knife.
"U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro should re-visit her hastily made decision, especially since it turned out that the ‘gentleman’ involved is a big player in ActBlue, a disgraceful fundraising SCAM, and is represented by a TRUMP DERANGED SLEAZEBAG, Political Hack Lawyer, Norm Eisen, and CREW, a group that uses ‘charity’ for political purposes which is, to the best of my knowledge, ILLEGAL!"
And so on from there. To see the furious president's new post, click this.
That's right! Given the madness of the time—the (tragic) condition the New York Times is never going to report or discuss—the president is back on Truth Social, urging the former Judge Jeannine to get David Hearn locked up.
Given the (unfortunate) madness of the time, this was the environment in which Dr. Fauci and his legal counsel decided that he would refuse to answer any questions.
He showed up and took a three-hour beating. But he was being asked to speak about 111 different topics at a time when an apparent form of (always unfortunate) mental disorder seems to be in control of the land.
The New York Times won't report discuss that apparent condition. Neither will MS NOW.
We move on to a question about a separate topic:
Question: Why was Todd Blanche confirmed?
Answer: We've seen an obvious part of the presumptive answer dodged by an array of cable news commentators right here in our own Blue America.
One after another after another, we've seen them go on CNN and MS NOW and agree to play dumb.
There's an obvious presumptive answer they all agreed to swallow. To see Lawence O'Donnell report that obvious presumptive answer, we'll suggest that you click right here.
The answer he gives is blindingly obvious, unless you watch other shows.
A self-evaluation: Sadly, no verses today from Homer!
As with the Harrison Ford character in Witness (1985), it was time to return from a brief sojourn in a simpler and purer land.
We saw Witness that summer on Block Island. Sadly (in retrospect), we were weekending there.
Why do I have to sit through an O’Donnell performance? Why won’t Bob just tell us what was said?
ReplyDeleteCoy Bob, showing a little leg and acting irate because you looked.
DeleteThe Standoff: Senators Cornyn and Tillis had previously demanded that a "Trump slush fund" and tax amnesty for the Trump family be eliminated in writing before they would support Blanche’s nomination (0:19–0:38).
DeleteThe Surrender: Despite the senators' initial stance, Blanche provided two non-binding, unenforceable documents. Cornyn and Tillis subsequently declared themselves satisfied and announced their support for his confirmation (0:43–1:44).
Lobbying Interests: O’Donnell argues that these senators are prioritizing their future careers as Washington lobbyists, fearing that opposing Donald Trump would cost them their influence, access, and future professional opportunities (2:05–4:47).
White House Coverage: The video highlights an exchange where MS NOW correspondent Jake Traylor repeatedly pressed Donald Trump on whether he signed off on the deal regarding the "anti-weaponization fund" and tax codes, receiving evasive answers (7:55–10:58).
O’Donnell contends that the behavior of these senators represents a complete corruption of the standards once expected of high-ranking Republican officials, characterizing their actions as a "public surrender" to Trump’s will
Thank you
DeleteOnly the perpetually victimized wingnuts think CNN is part of "Blue America."
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteSomerby wanders to the edge, sees the situation for what it is, and still refuses to say, "Fuck Trump's feelings."
ReplyDeleteIt is wild how Republican voters are attracted to men that are so openly repulsive like Trump, Musk, etc.
DeleteOne voter’s attraction is another voter’s repulsion.
DeleteNot just repulsive. If someone is manifestly suffering from mental illness, the odds are they are Trumpists. It's like they recognize, and celebrate, one of their own.
Delete"So did the grown child known as Hawley, as he pimped himself to the voters back home. "
ReplyDeleteSomerby is getting closer to pointing the finger at the real culprits here: the people Hawley panders to, i.e., his voters. And since he clearly has grander ambitions, he is pandering, not just to Missouri's voters, but the GOP as a whole. Time for a reminder: half the population is below average in intelligence. A majority of them vote for Republicans.
Good point.
Delete"the (tragic) condition the New York Times is never going to report or discuss"
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby keep telling this lie?
Exactly.
Delete
ReplyDeleteHe took the fifth because his previous lies are covered by the Autopen's pardon (or so he hopes), but his new lies wouldn't be.
Isn't this obvious?
Given that Republicans cannot tell the difference between lies and truth, Fauci shouldn't have to take a chance. Isn't that obvious?
DeleteWhen a guy can be prosecuted for sticking his hand in the reflecting pond, Fauci is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Everyone sees that this is a trap except @10:57 and his buddies.
According to AI Overview,
Delete"Dr. Anthony Fauci testified extensively before U.S. congressional committees regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, pandemic restrictions, and virus origins. High-profile appearances include a 14-hour transcribed interview and a public hearing before the House Select Subcommittee in mid-2024."
So, he had no problem testifying before the House Select Subcommittee in mid-2024, when the House controlled by Rs. But in 2026 he suddenly held his lying tongue, because you Dumbocrats hate Rs.
Yes, Dumbocrat, your theory makes perfect sense.
Biden had pardon power in mid-2024 (the actual pardon happened in 2025), you everdrooling dumbfuck.
Delete"everdrooling dumbfuck" Ha! I'll have to file that.
DeleteAlso, in 2024, congressional committees had not yet demonstrated a fondness for finding instances of "lying to Congress" in every disagreement over policy.
DeleteOur world has changed.
DeleteFor "finding instances"? Have you read his diary, what it says about the most likely COVID origin, Dumbocrat?
Oh, never mind, Dumbocrat. Keep being what you are.
It’s a diary, not a scientific report or published paper or congressional testmony. It was meant to be private.
DeleteThe ass-diddled dumbfuck is at it again, making his dullardness evident simply repeating right wing propaganda, because he's too stupid and lazy to do the work himself. Had HE read Fauci's diary, he'd have known that what fills his foolish head was carefully selected to take advantage of his trollishly low IQ, and keep him making a jackass out of himself -- granting that isn't hard.
Delete"Given the (unfortunate) madness of the time, this was the environment in which Dr. Fauci and his legal counsel decided that he would refuse to answer any questions. "
ReplyDeleteContrast this with the way Trump's friends and family have been stonewalling during the Epstein hearings.
Is it Day One yet?
ReplyDeleteNot yet.
DeleteInflation and unemployment are up and we are embroiled in an unnecessary war and Ukraine is still standing strong against Russia's invasion even though Trump, as Putin's puppet, refuses to help.
Hold your horses.
The most beautiful health plan is only two weeks away.
lol
Delete"A self-evaluation: Sadly, no verses today from Homer!"
ReplyDeleteYay yay yay!
Why highlight Fauci invoked the 5th 111 times?
ReplyDeleteBoth tribes play this game. Even if you think paying hush money to a porn star is a crime (like that True Blue NY jury), remember how the Blue tribe reveled in saying “Trump is a 34 times convicted felon”?
Tribal logic works that way.
The difference is that Trump committed 34 felonies and was found guilty by a jury, whereas Fauci did nothing criminal and has been charged by no court. Equating the two shows the irrationality of the right.
Delete"As with the Harrison Ford character in Witness (1985), it was time to return from a brief sojourn in a simpler and purer land."
ReplyDeleteRomanticizing religious separatists like this stinks. Somerby is failing to see such communities for what they really are and just superimposing his own fantasies on them, to suit his own needs. He does the same with the film, which is probably his only experience with this group.
I suggest that Somerby rewatch Big Love, then watch "Keep Sweet, Pray and Obey," a documentary about life in such a community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Sweet:_Pray_and_Obey
Throwback religious communities that avoid modern technology do not have the cure for what ails anyone. Somerby's desire to escape is understandable, but running away is not the solution to anything. For one thing, it doesn't scale. For another, someone like Somerby would not be welcome.
Kelly McGillis was beautiful.
DeleteKelly McGillis was the victim of a home invasion and sexual assault in 1982, which is why she chose to be the prosecutor in The Accused, a good movie, instead of the victim.
DeleteShe was a victim of another home invasion in 2016 where she had some minor injuries after being assaulted by a woman that broke into her house.
McGillis came out as a lesbian in 2009.
That is her personal business and has nothing to do with the movie or the Amish.
DeleteIt has to do with unnecessarily or inappropriately romanticizing something.
DeleteCelebrity culture and the like are an outward expression of America's relationship with servility and the tension that has with its urge for dominance.
lol. what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual claptrap
DeleteThese trolls don't care what Somerby actually says -- they will defend him no matter what. There is nothing intellectual about the movie Witness, so calling commenters "pseudo-intellectual" makes no sense at all.
Deleteagreed. these anti-somerby trolls don't care what somerby actually says.
DeleteExcessively literal interpretations that spare Somerby from saying anything meaningful are misreadings of Somerby's message.
Deleteagree. the anti-somerby trolls will use any tactic they can to attack somerby, including being excessively literal
Delete"Sadly (in retrospect), we were weekending there."
ReplyDeleteSomerby does not need to reveal anything about his private life and past here. But if he does choose to do so, these partial hints about unexplained events are annoying to readers. People who live in Block Island are presumably not sad about it.
This kind of dramatic tragic hint is adolescent at best, striking a pose that really only says that there are things he knows about himself that he is not willing to share, but "woe is me, woes is me." Were babies thrown off the cliffs, as they were off Troy's walls? Did the seagulls make too much noise. Only Somerby knows and he won't tell.
Phooey on this!
Well said.
DeleteAdolescent dramatics is spot on.
Bob Somerby taking a little break today from his usual whining about how Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding is probably a good thing for his mental health.
ReplyDeleteIt would be better for his mental health if he stopped blogging entirely.
Delete"Greenland issues ‘strong warning’ as Trump-linked oil firm prepares to drill - The Guardian
ReplyDeleteAn American oil company connected to Donald Trump is preparing to sink wells in remote Greenland despite not having received permission from the local authorities.
As the US president renews his threats to claim the vast Arctic territory, materials to prepare for drilling were brought ashore in recent days on Greenland’s eastern coast.
That has prompted Greenland’s government to issue a “strong warning” that no approval had been granted to land the kit. “All future logistical matters must be advised and approved by the mineral resources authority – before they are carried out,” the government said in a statement."
The Guardian via Simon Rosenberg
Trump is a thug.
DeleteThis would start WWIII because Europe will defend Greenland.
DeleteIf Europe were to kidnap or assassinate the US president, most Americans would be at least relieved if not happy.
DeleteIran, if you're listening, I love it, especially later in the summer.
DeleteJust a reminder: Somerby never whines that Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding. This is just made-up shit. Instead, he says Gutfeld is bad. Period.
ReplyDeleteIf Gutfeld is bad period, then it follows that he is also bad for Republican branding, because Republican branding is a subset of everything that is encompassed by saying he is bad, period.
DeleteIf Gutfeld is working so hard to advance Republican propaganda, and it is good for that branding, then why are so many people who voted for Trump and Republicans previously now turning away from them? It seems to me there is plenty of evidence that Republican branding is no longer effective. If you think Gutfeld exemplifies anything other than Republican branding, you are the crazy one.
And if you think "Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding" is something that Somerby says, you are the crazy one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat is the essence of what Somerby says, denying it only makes one look foolish.
DeleteMore power to you.
I guess you say "the essence" when you can't find any quote, right?
DeleteI'm suggesting that "the essence" exists in your imagination.
DeleteYour game is to demand quotes and then disagree that they say what they plainly say, wasting everyone's time. You also retreat to excessively literal interpretations, as you do by disallowing "the essence". That leaves you only willing to accept a sentence by Somerby that says "Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding" and nothing else, including "Gutfeld is hurting Republicans when he makes sexist remarks about left-wing women" or "Gutfeld makes a fool of Republicans when he talks over Tarlov" or "Gutfeld isn't helping right wing election chances with his verbal gymnastic" or whatever Somerby said in essence. Nitpicking like that isn't disproving anything. It is a game, while everyone who reads Somerby's blog knows what the essence is, except you.
DeleteAnd your game is to claim that Somerby says something he never said, and when challenged, to throw a lot of dust around.
DeleteIt isn't me this time, but I don't think anyone agrees with you about this characterization of complaints about what Somerby says. Defending Somerby by claiming his critics are throwing dust around isn't very convincing argument.
DeleteWhen people have supplied exact quotes showing Somerby saying what he has clearly said, you still don't admit he said what he plainly said. That undermines your credibility. It is no wonder no one wants to look up quotes any more.
DeleteAll this is dust. The original claim was Somerby whines that Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding. But Somerby never said that; instead, it was made-up shit. Everything else is dust designed to hide that obvious fact.
DeleteDefend Somerby all you want. His words do speak for themselves. People also see you for what you are.
Delete"His words do speak for themselves."
DeleteExactly. And that's precisely what we do not see here: Somerby's words saying anything to the effect that, "Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding."
As noted above, you do not respond to quotes of what Somerby has said. You play a silly game, causing those who take you in good faith to waste their time.
DeleteAll I know is that some anon said, "Somerby says Gutfeld is bad for Republican branding," and lots of dust has been tossed to conceal the fact that no quote is forthcoming.
DeleteI hate you, Dogface George.
DeleteAre you sure that’s dust?
DeleteWhy was Blanche confirmed?
ReplyDeleteBecause the defining feature of Republicans, aside from their racism, sexism, and xenophobia, is a total lack of integrity - and they are proud of it.
TDH says Gutfeld, while bad for Republican branding, often makes valid points that he agrees with.
ReplyDelete"TDH says Gutfeld [is] bad for Republican branding"
DeleteThe Big Lie technique is to just keep repeating a lie until it is believed.
Let's unpack the thinking here. First, you have to believe that Somerby is a fifth columnist, pretending to be a liberal in order to con other liberals through affinity fraud. But then you face the dissonance that Somerby constantly and savagely attacks Gutfeld!, a prime outlet for the Red team. So: You try to reduce this dissonance by saying that the reason Somerby attacks Gutfeld is because he thinks Gutfeld's propaganda is counterproductive to Republican interests.
DeleteBut that is nothing that Somerby ever says; instead, it's just made-up shit. It's an epicycle designed to prop up the thoroughly ridiculous theory that Somerby is secretly on the Red team
Somerby does say this. He scolds lefties for not watching Fox because we miss the times when the Fox crew are right about things, thus failing to understand why the Others might support Trump and think as they do. He has said that over and over. Your sophistry changes nothing about what Somerby has said here repeatedly.
DeleteSomerby is not secretly on the red team. It is obvious whose talking points he repeats daily. There is no secret about it. He is lying when he claims to be on the blue team.
Nothing you have said here, DG, provides any evidence to the contrary about Somerby's motives. We get it that you disagree and that you want to defend Somerby, but you never quote him either. Why is that?
“…the thoroughly ridiculous theory that Somerby is secretly on the Red team”
DeleteYup. Amazing, the pretzels they contort themselves into to say Somerby is a right-winger. Slabby© would write 7 – 800 words making the twisted journey. It’s a strange obsession.
Leroy
Fanboy tag teaming…
Delete"the pretzels they contort themselves into"
Deletethere's no "they." there's one weirdo dumb-ass whose life revolves around getting attention by leaving patently absurd, always negative comments in this (and probably other) comments section. this psychopath tries to make it seem like there are other people who are in agreement with it, sometimes by posting something and then replying in support of its own post. it sometimes will go so far as to use various phony names like Selby or Corby. ironically, this loony tunes dumb-ass is quite a bit like trump -- constantly lying, desperate for attention, and employing the trumpian fraudulent tactic of pretending it's speaking for more than just its deranged self -- like when Trump calls reporters pretending to be someone else, or says things like "people are saying" and "everyone knows"
btw, Leroy and DG, you give the dumb-ass oxygen every time you respond to its nonsense. it feeds on your attention
Deletemore tag-teaming
Delete10:25 - Yeah, you’re probably right — I should knock it off.
Delete10:33 - Thanks. I’m taking your advice.
Delete10:25
DeleteSpot on.
The problem with 10:25's theories is that I know that I have written some of the comments DG complains about, but I also know that I have not written all of them. That shoots down his single-commenter theory. I also know that I have received an occasional "agree" or "spot on" or "exactly" bit of encouragement. That shoots down the "no one agrees" theory.
DeleteDG needs to fuck off and take David in Cal with him. Other commenters are not going to stop just because DG whines about them.
Commenters here feed on food, just like everyone else.
Delete9:10 fuck you idiot troll. Stick it up your ass
DeleteNow there's a cogent argument! What is wrong with these Somerby-defending right wing trolls? Too much bile, too little brains.
Delete"We saw Witness that summer on Block Island."
ReplyDeleteEarth to Somerby: Nobody cares.
I watched Jaws while visiting the Grand Canyon. It made me feel safer to be that far from water.
DeleteHa!
DeleteFor kids of the 70s, Jaws was terrifying.
Our problems with Republicans are not occurring because of technology. They are happening because Dear Leader has no conscience, no empathy, and no sense of responsibility to anyone except himself. His goal is to enrich himself and steal whatever isn't nailed down. He has surrounded himself with similar miscreants and sexual perverts (sociopaths do not consider the pain of others, so they take what they want, including sexually). As a malignant narcissist, Trump loves only himself -- not his country, not his family. There are no curbs on his behavior because the Republicans are being bought off and the Democrats are following the law and cannot touch him without a majority in Congress.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, Trump will not live forever, Democrats will be elected to replace collaborating Republicans in November, so there will be a reckoning.
The Amish do not seek and rarely accept converts. Somerby's fantasy of living a simpler life is ridiculous given that he did not even accept Catholic rules, much less the stricter rules of the Amish. If the miscreants in our broader society were able to accept rules, they wouldn't be causing the problems they are for the rest of us. Imagine the Amish perspective on The Iliad to see how ridiculous this fantasy is. But it is a bit offensive seeing how Somerby embraces the peace while glamorizing war, entirely ignoring their religious beliefs which motivate everything they do in their community.
If Somerby wants peace, it would be better for him to stop blogging, stop obsessively watching Fox, ignore Trump until he goes away, volunteer to help the needy in his own community, and touch grass. Failing any of that, his misuse of the Amish in "Witness" is ludicrous stereotyping based on ignorance and is as ugly as when people say they want to live like Native Americans because they want to be close to the land.
The world would be a better place if Somerby just focused on being the best Somerby he can be.
Set an example. Ignore Somerby.
DeleteGiven that Somerby spreads disinformation, it is important to address him to fact-check his propaganda.
DeleteNo, it’s not important. It’s a complete waste of time.
DeleteYes, that is part of Somerby's disinformation. He is a nihilist who wants people to believe that all effort is useless and nothing matters, so why care.
DeleteSome effort is useless, not everything matters. We need to decide what’s worthwhile and what isn’t.
DeleteWe are doing that.
Deleteyou're doing a poor job of it
DeleteSenator Josh Hawley has been outed as being gay, he was seen kissing a man, and he seemed to like it.
ReplyDeleteSo what?
DeleteHe and the other Republicans hide their private lives while castigating everyone else for doing the same thing they do privately.
DeleteRepublicans: Rules for thee but not for me.
So comment on that, not his sexuality. You make it sound like being gay is something wrong.
DeleteGod likes ‘em straight.
DeleteTo be clear then, being gay is natural and healthy.
DeleteStudies in the 1950s showed that gay people are as mentally healthy as straight people. That caused the DSM to be revised to remove homosexuality as a disorder. It is natural because of its likely physiological cause, occurrence across all time periods, cultures, geographic locations and species. It is part of human variability.
DeleteThe term healthy is problematic. Being left-handed is unhealthy because left-handers have more accidents due to the design of our artifacts (esp machines) for use by right-handers. Does that make being left-handed inherently unhealthy?
No.
DeleteHawley being outed/gay may prove to be "unhealthy" for his chances of running for president, but that is likely a healthy outcome for society. And if Hawley can later live as his natural self, that will be healthier for him.
DeleteGod prefers straight males. Straight females are second best. Nobody else is even close.
DeleteThere is no god. Somerby prefers the Greek gods.
DeleteThe Greek gods were Republicans.
DeleteRepubs are calling El Sayed a trojan horse that will import Muslim terrorism. Is that why Somerby keeps talking about Greeks attacking Troy, without mentioning the horse, so no one is tipped off. Then Rudy Guiliani said Greek children learn critical thinking in preschool. (Actually, they have free preschool and start learning English.) Why is the right obsessed with old Greek stuff?
DeleteEveryone should learn English.
Delete"Why was Todd Blanche confirmed?"
ReplyDeleteHe's a mediocrity and a Trump toady, BUT there was no specific reason to reject him IMO. He has Justice Dept experience. He has years of legal experience. He has committed no scandal (that we know of.)
Dave, you just gave two reasons to reject him.
DeleteConflict of interest, asshole.
DeleteNot to mention vindictive sham prosecutions against Trump’s political enemies.
DeleteBullshit, there was no reason. He carved a deal out for Trump to the tune of almost 2 billion dollars which if it went to trial he would have lost. First because the case brought was after the statute of limitations. Second because the case had been brought by Ken Griffin, hedge fund manager, over the same disclosure, and it was tried and the government won. Blanche tried to steal taxpayer money for his client. Plain and simple.
DeleteOh yeah, and third , Trump would have to explain how he was damage by the disclosure financially, a hard sell given that he and his family have been raking in over 6 million dollars daily since his inauguration. And that is only the money that we know about.
Delete“no specific reason”??? Dickhead? Really? Are you fucking kidding?!
DeleteThe Trump v. IRS Ruling and "Fraud on the Court"
The Sham Lawsuit: Judge Kathleen Williams found that a lawsuit filed against the IRS was not a genuine, adversarial legal dispute, but rather a collusive arrangement designed to bypass standard litigation limits and manipulate the court.
DOJ Complicity: The judge determined that Todd Blanche's Department of Justice acted in bad faith, disregarded official DOJ policies, and participated equally with private counsel in an abuse of the judicial process.
Sanctions and Rebukes: Judge Williams barred the parties from referring to the arrangement as a legitimate "settlement," opened the door for potential state bar disciplinary actions, and permitted outside groups to pursue legal fees.
Judge Williams further found that Blanche manufactured a fraudulent lawsuit to give the scheme a facial legitimacy, and that his conduct warranted Florida state bar discipline.
DeleteGotta wonder how many dollars/bitcoin exchanged hands to get that last push for Blanche done. DiC is a craven amoral troll here, in perfect harmony with the Republican Congress.
DeleteBlanche, working in full coordination with Trump, tried to steal nearly 2 billion dollars in taxpayer money, a jaw dropping act of corruption to anybody but DiC and the Republican Congress. I have previously (privately) disdained the commenter telling the resident troll here to fuck off, but go ahead and fuck off, DiC.
DeleteI’d like to fuck off, too.
Deleteno one's stopping you. i'm fucking off this very moment
DeleteIf you had told me 25 years ago, Republican voters would be okay with child rape as long as minorities were being mistreated, I had have said , "No kidding."
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteFauci is a distraction from this statement to Congress by Chris Murphy (D):
ReplyDelete"Colleagues, over the last year and a half, our president Donald Trump has turned the White House into a 24/7 corruption operation. This is a national crisis, and we should start acting like it. The president’s goal is to engage in so much corruption, so much self-enrichment, to hand out so many favors to his friends, his family, and his political allies, that it just becomes the pitter patter of rain. It’s normal. It’s constant. It’s neverending. Trump’s bet is that if there is a new story of corruption, of self-dealing every few days, that the press will stop covering it, or the public will just stop paying attention.
To an extent, he is, tragically, succeeding.
But he also is betting that the public will just come to the conclusion that this is normal, because all of our politics are this corrupt. That every senator, that every previous president is this corrupt. That is not true. While I disagree with my Republican Senate colleagues’ decision to largely remain silent in the face of this misconduct, it is true that not a single senator - on either side of the aisle - engages in the behavior that our President does. Senators - Republican and Democrats do not trade our votes for cash or for political contributions. We don’t run side hustles like crypto companies. Senators don’t give contracts to their kids just because we can.
And no president, in the history of this country, has done what Donald Trump has done. No president has done 5% of the self-dealing that Donald Trump has done in the last year and a half.
This moment is exceptional. It’s a one of one moment, and if it becomes normal, if people stop being outraged at what he is doing to enrich himself, then I fear there is no going back. The White House will just become a place to get rich.
So, I think it’s time to pull back and see the full picture, to not view this as just one isolated scandal after another, every single one popping up each week or every few days, but to understand the full scope of the illegality.
Last year, I came to the floor to document the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s mind-blowing corruption. Since then, especially in 2026, the pace of his misconduct has quickened, dramatically. And so I am here on the floor today, and I’m going to spend more than a few minutes doing this, laying out what has happened since I gave that last speech. This is the story of the last 500 days of corruption."
Details of Trump's corruption linked here:
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-details-unprecedented-corruption-of-trump-white-house-over-the-last-500-days?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
1. Corruption
Delete2. Epstein
3. Iran war bungling, invasion of Venezuela, Greenland threats
4. Destruction of national monuments
5. Obvious symptoms of dementia
6. ICE abuses of Constitutional rights
Any one of these would justify impeachment and removal. Why is Trump still in office? Why isn't Somerby calling for Trump's removal.
Why isn’t Somerby leading a revolution?
DeleteHe is, 12:36. He is at the vanguard of the “I pity Trump” movement.
DeleteHe was pro-coup on 1/6.
DeleteBullshit.
DeleteGo back and read Somerby's arguments about why Trump should not have been impeached over 1/6.
Delete9:05
DeleteFuck off troll.
BREAKING! Should Donald J. Trump have been impeached?
DeleteSATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2021
https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2021/02/breaking-should-donald-j-trump-have.html
Here is Somerby's reaction to the impeachment of Trump for his participation in the 1/6 attempted coup:
Delete"After the Senate vote, Chuck Schumer rose to speak, followed by Mitch McConnell. As he closed his speech, Schumer said something which strikes us as almost definitively wrong:
SCHUMER (2/13/21): This trial was about the final acts of a president who represents the very antithesis of our first president, and sought to place one man before the entire country, himself. Let the record show, let the record show, before God, history, and the solemn oath we swear to the constitution, that there was only one correct verdict in this trial, guilty.
And I pray that while justice was not done in this trial, it will be carried forward by the American people who above any of us in this chamber determine the destiny of our great nation. I yield the floor.
We agree with Schumer's general statement about what Donald J. Trump "represents." Concerning the highlighted statement, we will only say "Wow."
"Let the record show, before God...that there was only one correct verdict?" It's almost never true, in our human affairs, that there's only one correct assessment.
Nor can you run a modern continental nation on the basis of such tribal certainty. That's especially true if that nation is going to run on "the consent of the governed."
Was guilty "the only possible verdict?" We can't necessarily say that it was. "
That is not “pro-coup.” dumb fuck troll. Go fuck yourself.
Delete10:26 Learn to read you retarded, dipshit troll. Go fuck yourself.
DeleteInsults instead of arguments -- typical.
DeleteThe Senate laid out the evidence of Trump's complicity in the coup and Somerby could only criticize Maddow's mocking tone and claim that Congress embarrassed itself during the proceedings. And here he explicitly says that he disagrees with a guilty verdict. If the response to the evidence is disagreement with the guilty verdict, that makes Somerby pro-Trump and pro-coup. Somerby's larger argument was that the people elected Trump, so removing him via impeachment is not how our country should be run (despite it being part of our Constitution, the remedy for the kind of acts Trump committed). That sophistry enables Somerby to continue supporting Trump no matter what he did -- and what he did based on the evidence is conduct an attempted coup, one that failed but obviously occurred. Somerby nit-picked the liberal presentation of evidence. He didn't disagree with the coup.
I suspect Somerby would similarly nitpick and dismiss any attempt to remove Trump for insanity or malfeasance. There will be new impeachment charges brought after the midterms, especially if the Democrats win both the House and Senate. Impeachment charges have already been filed in the House. When these are debated, look for Somerby to attack the Democratic managers, as he did before, and try to dismiss the importance of the evidence by mocking Rachel Maddow and Jamie Raskin. And look for him to claim that no guilty verdict is ever possible given the needs of the people, as he did for 1/6.
Opposing a means of holding Trump accountable is not the same as supporting the thing Trump is being held accountable for, dumbshit, lonely idiot.
DeleteHe opposes every means of holding Trump accountable.
DeleteThere were two sides in that debate. One was pro-Trump and the other was anti-Trump. The pro-Trump side justified the 1/6 insurrection. The anti-Trump side tried to impeach Trump for it, presenting evidence that he instigated and supported it. So, yes, opposing the impeachment was absolutely the same as supporting the insurrection because Trump was trying to stay in power and fight the results of a legitimate election.
DeleteSomerby does not get to redefine his opposition to a nation trying to do the right thing by removing a traitor who failed to uphold the Constitution in order to steal an election. That Somerby has a bizarre reason for supporting Trump changes nothing about the FACT that Somerby opposed finding Trump guilty despite the facts presented, which is support for the coup and for Trump remaining in office.
There are consequences for supporting Trump. One is the stuff happening in this second term. Somerby is on the hook for all of that, no matter how he splits hairs about his opposition to the impeachment efforts of the Democrats. Somerby does not get to call himself a Democrat or anti-coup when he did not support the effort to hold Trump accountable.
Calling people names like dumbshit, lonely, idiot, does not make your arguments valid.
Many of us on the left have been refusing to associate with our right wing family and former friends. That is because there is too much at stake in terms of deportations, ICE harrassment, and other damaging acts by Trump to forgive relatives who couldn't see what was coming and especially the ones who knew what Trump stood for and supported him anyway. This is in that category. Somerby knew what Trump was going to do, but he has been supporting him anyway, by arguing that Trump shouldn't have been charged and convicted of fraud, shouldn't have been impeached. You don't get to do that and remain a good decent person. It makes you among those who are bad, including the rest of the Others.
Somerby makes no statements of conscience here. He stands behind no democratic values and expresses no concerns about Trump's wrongdoing. That makes him 100% a subscriber to all the bad things, because he has failed to oppose any of it. In Hitler's Germany, Somerby would be considered a collaborator, especially given his routine tearing down of those trying to fight Trump and his cronies. He can't have things both ways.
Sounds like we're going to have to agree to disagree about your conclusion that he is "pro coup".
DeleteAn unconvincing excuse for Fauci's use of the 5th is to avoid prosecution. He supposedly feared that any testimony might might lead to being charged with a crime. The theory is that if he said anything of questionable accuracy, he might be accused of perjury.
ReplyDeleteBut, this makes no sense. By invoking the 5th, despite having been pardoned, Fauci chose the virtual certainly of being prosecuted. He will now be charged with Contempt of Congress.
Fauci took the fifth. He should take the second.
DeleteWhy would there be any need for new hearings when Fauci has already answered all relevant questions?
DeleteYou are smarter than Fauci's lawyers, you dimwitted fuckup.
DeleteContempt of Congress is a misdemeanor with no real consequence.
DeleteFauci has testified before Congress over 200 times, there is nothing new to learn.
Trump invoked the 5th over actual crimes, invoked it over 450 times.
Fauci's use of the 5th was not to avoid prosecution but to block persecution. It was a clever way to expose Republicans as foaming at the mouth lunatics.
Contempt of Congress is the only correct stance to take regarding Congress.
DeleteThe Dems put Peter Navarro in prison for refusing to testify before Congress. I certainly do not want that to happen to Fauci, who I consider a hero, but this is a risk Fauci chose to take.
DeleteFauci will not be going to prison.
DeleteDavid, according to AI, “A witness cannot legally be prosecuted for contempt of Congress simply for invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment” Are you saying no one has their constitutional rights anymore once they are hauled before Congress?
DeleteGood question, @12:53. IANAL but there is a curious legal issue here. Fauci was pardoned, so he is under no legal risk for confessing to crimes. That is, he cannot incriminate himself, because he cannot be prosecuted for anything he admits.
DeleteAFAIK this point has never been adjudicated. So, it may be caught up in the Courts for a long time.
Navarro has engaged in numerous illegal activities and was then convicted for refusing to present documents and to even appear before Congress, by a DC jury. DC juries were happy to convict J6ers but probably not so much Fauci.
DeleteSo your facts are all wrong David, the cases are not comparable.
Furthermore, Navarro is a key force behind Trump's disastrous tariff policy which has led to high inflation and unemployment, in fact in the last month alone we lost 23k jobs - an absolutely wild jobs number for July.
David, this is a perjury trap. The idea is that by saying something that diverged from previous statements, he would be committing perjury, which is a new crime.
DeleteI suspect Fauci was less worried about perjury and more interested in exposing Republicans as petty madmen.
DeleteThis guy's wife's husband's great-grandniece's, uncle's father in law is a lawyer and congressional scholar, and he says Fauci -- whom he believes is a great American --blew it by taking the fifth, and it signals the end for the Democratic Party.
DeleteTrump's niece Mary Trump is calling his new hair a symptom of dementia because Trump's father showed a similar bizarre change in fake hair when he turned 80, and he had Alzheimer's. But it isn't like Trump hasn't always been vain and lacked self-awareness of how ridiculous his attempt to have hair has appeared to others. But there are lots of other symptoms of Trump's dementia, which Somerby ignores in favor of pretending he doesn't need to be removed from office ASAP.
DeleteJohn D Rockefeller wore wigs.
Delete"The Dems put Peter Navarro in prison for refusing to testify before Congress."
DeleteNo. A judge sentenced Navarro for failing to respond to a congressional subpoena, by failing to appear. Fauci responded by appearing, and then took the Fifth.
"Fauci was pardoned, so he is under no legal risk for confessing to crimes."
In a normal world with a normal president, yes. But:
"President Trump claimed on Truth Social that pardons and executive actions issued by former President Joe Biden are "VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT" because they were executed using an autopen rather than a physical handwritten signature."
And since Trump is a psycho nutbag, it's very possible he could order a toady like Pirro to prosecute Fauci despite the pardon.
Hector - Peter Navarro refused to testify because he believed Executive privilege applied. In his view, he was precluded from testifying. That's based on the the need of the President to have confidential conversations with their subordinates. Others in the past have refused to testify based on executive privilege and were not punished for their decision. But, the Dems played hardball and put Navarro in prison. That's an unfortunate precedent IMO.
Delete"Peter Navarro refused to testify because he believed Executive privilege applied."
DeleteTrue. But Executive privilege, to apply in a given case, must be invoked by the President. Trump never invoked Executive privilege in Navarro's case. And Navarro, for reasons that were clear only to him, thought he could invoke it for himself.
So the big bad Dems were perfectly within well-established constitutional law in jailing Navarro. His case set no precedent.
Fauci was subpoenaed, he showed up, and he exercised his constitutional 5th amendment rights. How is this contempt of Congress, DiC?
Delete@7:59 - see my comment above at 12:58.
DeleteThe malice that these pedophile enablers extended to an 85 year old award-winning scientist is an extension of their war against science in the US, in general. Everything about the pandemic and the response to it is cut and dried, black and white retrospectively to a gaggle of incompetents who only apply nuance and grace to the actions of the most corrupt president in the history of the United States.
Deletewhat a dumb-ass
DeleteGoogle AI: From a criminal defense strategy perspective, it was vastly safer for Anthony Fauci to plead the Fifth Amendment and risk a Contempt of Congress charge than to answer the questions.While both options carried severe legal risks, answering the committee's questions exposed him to far more destructive, un-pardoned criminal liability that could not be easily defended in court.Option 1: Answering the Questions (The Higher-Risk Path)If Fauci had chosen to answer the questions, he would have faced immediate, un-pardonable legal jeopardy:The "Perjury Trap": A presidential pardon cannot cover future acts. Because his testimony took place in 2026, any statement he made under oath was entirely unprotected. If his answers contradicted his voluminous[!] past public statements, emails, or transcripts, the Department of Justice could immediately indict him for perjury or making false statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1001).State Criminal Exposure: President Biden's federal pardon offers zero protection against state laws. Answering questions about virus research, funding, or public health mandates could have handed state prosecutors in aggressive jurisdictions (like Florida or Louisiana, the attorneys general of which have already launched a joint criminal investigation into Fauci) the exact admissions they needed to file state-level criminal charges.Waiver of Rights: In legal proceedings, the Fifth Amendment is generally an "all-or-nothing" right. If Fauci had answered questions on a specific topic, he would have legally "waived" his right to remain silent on that topic, forcing him to answer subsequent, even more damaging follow-up questions.Option 2: Pleading the Fifth (The Safer Legal Strategy)By refusing to answer and risking a Contempt of Congress citation, Fauci chose a path with highly survivable legal defenses:The "Good Faith" Defense: To be convicted of criminal contempt, a witness must "willfully" default. Fauci's lawyers can argue in court that he did not willfully defy Congress, but rather acted in good faith to protect his constitutional rights against un-pardoned state and perjury risks.The Court Battle Buys Time: A contempt referral is not an automatic conviction. It triggers a lengthy legal process. The case must go to the Department of Justice, clear a grand jury, and wind through federal courts. This process takes months or years, giving his legal team ample time to negotiate, challenge the congressional subpoena, or wait out political cycles.Control of the Narrative: Pleading the Fifth allowed Fauci to completely deny prosecutors any new, self-incriminating evidence. It confined his legal battle to a procedural dispute over whether he has the right to remain silent, rather than a substantive criminal trial over what he actually did.
In summary, Contempt of Congress is more easily defended and has a maximum jail time of 12 months. Perjury, False Statements, and State Felonies are extremely difficult to defend if contradicted by evidence and carry stiffer penalties (each count of perjury, for instance, carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison).
Ultimately, a defense attorney will almost always advise a client to face a misdemeanor contempt charge—which has a maximum sentence of one year and a lengthy appeals process—rather than risk multiple felony perjury or state-level indictments that carry decades of prison time.
I still don’t understand why a person’s fifth amendment rights wouldn’t apply when testifying before Congress. How can the exercise of a constitutional right lead to contempt of Congress charge?
DeleteThe Fifth Amendment absolutely applies to congressional testimony, but a witness can face a contempt charge if Congress believes the right was used invalidly.The conflict arises because the Fifth Amendment is not a blanket shield to avoid answering any question you dislike. It only applies if an answer could create a real risk of criminal exposure. When Congress issues a contempt citation in this scenario, they are challenging the validity of the claim, arguing that the witness has no legal risk and is therefore obstructing their constitutional power to investigate.The Clash of Two Constitutional PowersThe legal standoff happens because two distinct constitutional powers collide:Congress’s Power to Investigate: The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has an implied constitutional right to investigate and compel testimony to write laws.The Witness’s Right to Silence: The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced by the government to incriminate themselves.If a witness refuses to answer, Congress cannot simply ignore it. If lawmakers believe the witness is using the Fifth Amendment as a political stall tactic rather than out of genuine legal danger, they vote on a contempt citation to force a federal judge to decide who is right.When Can Congress Legally Overrule the Fifth Amendment?There are two specific situations where the legal system says a witness's Fifth Amendment rights no longer apply:When Immunity is Granted: Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 6002), Congress can request a court order granting a witness "immunity." This means the government promises that nothing the witness says can ever be used to prosecute them. Because their criminal risk drops to zero, the Fifth Amendment protection disappears. If they still refuse to talk, they go to jail for contempt.When Criminal Risk is Legally Impossible: If the statute of limitations on a crime has expired, or if a flawless, absolute pardon covers the exact act, courts have historically ruled that the witness cannot incriminate themselves.Why the Fauci Case is DifferentIn standard cases, a clear grant of immunity settles the issue. In Anthony Fauci's specific case, Congress argues that his presidential pardon eliminated his criminal risk, making his Fifth Amendment claim invalid and his silence an act of contempt.Fauci’s lawyers argue the exact opposite: because the pardon does not protect him from state-level prosecutors or future perjury charges, his legal risk is still very real.Ultimately, the exercise of the right itself is not a crime. The contempt charge is simply the mechanism Congress uses to bring the dispute before a federal judge, who will make the final determination on whether the legal risk was real or imagined.
DeleteThe reason why Blanche's confirmation is controversial is because several Republicans claimed to not support him due to the various scandals he is embroiled in.
ReplyDeleteLikely Republicans confirmed Blanche in part as a way to ease Trump's ire at not passing the voter suppression SAVE Act.
You're so much smarter than Fauci's lawyers, you ignorant, dimwitted fuckup.
ReplyDeleteSomeby's buyer's remorse over Trump is delightful.
ReplyDeleteBeing a fanboy, Somerby distinguishes Langford twice in his congressional-monkeycage screed.
ReplyDeleteLangford epitomizes Hannah Arendt's description of Adolf Eichmann as the banality of evil. In some ways, this cipher pretending to be "the reasonable Republican" is worse than many of of the poo-flingers Somerby names.
Eichmann wasn’t banal at all. Arendt was wrong.
DeleteHe was considered banal because he was a highly efficient bureaucrat, not a fanatic. He illustrated the danger inherent when men just follow orders of their leaders without questioning evil. The evil was not banal but the man was.
DeleteEichmann will be remembered long after Arendt is forgotten.
DeleteBut not in a good way.
DeleteI’m just saying he wasn’t banal.
DeleteThe whole point is HE was banal, but what he did, wasn't. He was an average man who was empowered, morally and institutionally, to do extraordinarily evil things, and he did them. To him, it was just a job, like being a cop or an accountant. That is largely what she meant.
DeleteHe wasn’t mediocre. He was talented and he worked hard. He believed in the cause, and he dedicated himself to it. Hannah Arendt was wrong.
DeleteShe didn’t mean he was “mediocre”, 1:04. She meant that eichmann, or people like him who do evil things, aren’t necessarily possessed of demonic or evil intent, but instead …. are dedicated to a cause (in this case an evil one) and work hard to carry it out. Kind of what you said.
DeleteTalented? He scheduled trains.
DeleteIt isn't about mere talent. It's about what ordinary people will do given their circumstances. Without Eichmann and literally millions of other ordinary people who were willing to go along with Nazism because A) it was the zeitgeist of the time; and B) they could personally benefit from it, Nazism dies. Trumpism, without people like Doug Burgum and JD Vance (both far more able than Eichmann) acting as willing lackies, dies. A few years ago, they held run-of-the-mill conservative beliefs and denounced Trump; now, they are ardent Trumpists -- because it benefits them.
Delete"Bill Maher told Democrats they need to accept that “whiteness” is “not a disease” during a rant against progressive Wisconsin gubernatorial hopeful Francesca Hong."
ReplyDeleteWhat a moron Maher has become. What if a father said his understanding of women had changed because he now has a daughter? Would Maher say that being female is not a disease?
But it is a disease. It’s caused by a genetic anomaly, two X chromosomes instead of the normal one X and one Y.
DeleteKeep believing that and see how far it gets you.
DeleteWhile we are focused on Fauci, this is happening:
ReplyDelete"“President Trump’s war against Iran has depleted U.S. weapons stockpiles to troubling levels, siphoning supplies from Asia and Europe, according to senior officials,” the New York Times reports.
“The rapidly shrinking supply of air-defense missiles and other critical weaponry in Europe and Asia not only leaves the U.S. military less equipped, but could also leave Russia and China feeling emboldened should they contemplate a potential conflict with the United States, experts said.”
This is what happens when you have an obsessed incompetent as president. Trump has nothing to threaten Greenland with, given his lack of weapons. Meanwhile, China can reach out and take Taiwan and we will have to just sit and watch, because Trump is stealing the money that should have gone to replenishing weapons used to attack Venezuela and Iran.
The Battle of Hastings was fought on October 14, 1066, resulting in a decisive victory for the Norman-French army led by William, Duke of Normandy, over the Anglo-Saxon army under King Harold Godwinson. This historic clash took place near present-day Battle, East Sussex, and effectively ended Anglo-Saxon rule, initiating the Norman Conquest of England. William was crowned King of England less than three months later, on Christmas Day.
ReplyDeleteThe Context and Causes
Succession Crisis: King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 without leaving an heir.
Contested Claims: The Witenagemot crowned Harold Godwinson. Duke William argued Edward had previously promised him the throne.
Two Invasions: England faced a double onslaught. King Harold rushed north to defeat a Norwegian invasion led by Harald Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25.
The March South: Three days later, William's fleet landed at Pevensey. Harold had to rapidly march his exhausted army 300 miles south to face this second threat.
Key Details of the Battle
The Shield Wall: Harold positioned his infantry along a ridge, forming a dense shield wall that stubbornly resisted initial Norman attacks.
Feigned Retreats: William drew the English out of their positions by staging intentional, fake retreats.
Military Balance: The English fought entirely on foot without archers. The Normans utilized a combined force of heavy infantry, cavalry, and archers.
Death of Harold: King Harold was killed late in the afternoon—traditionally depicted as receiving an arrow to the eye—causing the remaining Anglo-Saxon forces to break ranks and flee.
Deep Historical Significance
Elite Replacement: The victory resulted in the total replacement of the Anglo-Saxon ruling class with a new Norman aristocracy.
Language Shift: Norman-French became the official language of the royal court. This vocabulary eventually blended with Anglo-Saxon to create modern English.
The Domesday Book: To consolidate control, William ordered a comprehensive wealth and land census across England, known as the Domesday Book.
The Ultimate Weapon: Motte-and-Bailey Castles
Before 1066, England had virtually no castles; Anglo-Saxons relied on fortified towns called burhs. The Normans introduced the motte-and-bailey design, which could be erected by forced Anglo-Saxon labor in just a matter of weeks.The Motte: A massive, man-made earthen mound topped with a wooden defensive tower (keep).The Bailey: A large, walled courtyard at the base of the mound that housed soldiers, stables, and supplies.
The Upgrade: Once a region was pacified, these quick timber structures were systematically rebuilt into formidable, permanent stone fortresses.
The Brutal Strategy of the Harrying of the North
The Harrying of the North (1069–1070) was a deliberate, state-sanctioned campaign of total destruction ordered by William the Conqueror to crush persistent Anglo-Saxon rebellions in northern England. Angered by the murder of his newly appointed earl in Durham and the threat of an invading Danish fleet aligning with local rebels, William chose to permanently eliminate the north’s ability to resist.Rather than fighting traditional battles, Norman troops deployed a merciless scorched-earth policy across a hundred-mile expanse
Systematic Destruction: Armies burned entire villages, destroyed farming tools, and salted agricultural fields.
Mass Starvation: Normans slaughtered all livestock and burned stored grain to intentionally trigger widespread famine.
Human Toll: An estimated 100,000 people died from starvation and violence. Contemporary sources record desperate survivors resorting to cannibalism or selling themselves into lifelong slavery just to buy food.
The Aftermath: The Domesday Book compiled 16 years later still categorized vast tracts of Yorkshire as wasta (wasteland), recording that up to 75% of the local population was completely gone. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fp8uJ5kYSHw
Here is an assessment of Trump's frontal lobe symptoms by a clinical psychologist:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.alternet.org/trump-decline-deterioration/
Somerby is willing to consider Trump crazy but he will not accept the idea that Trump shows cognitive decline related to stroke or dementia, impairing his judgment.
Robert Reich says:
ReplyDelete"Today the great divide is not between left and right. It’s between democracy and oligarchy.
The word “oligarchy” comes from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning “few to rule or command.” It refers to a government of and by a handful of exceedingly rich people who control the major institutions of society and therefore have most power over other people’s lives.
Oligarchs may try to hide their power behind those institutions, or try to justify their power with platitudes about the public good, or try to excuse their power through philanthropy and “corporate social responsibility.” But no one should be fooled. Oligarchs wield power for their own benefit.
Even a system that calls itself a democracy can become an oligarchy if power becomes concentrated in the hands of a corporate and financial elite. Their power and wealth increase over time — as they make laws that favor themselves, manipulate financial markets to their advantage, and create or exploit economic monopolies that put even more wealth into their pockets."
Somerby has never expressed the divide in our country in these economic terms. That makes him not liberal, not part of Blue America (for whom economic issues matter). Somerby mocked Biden and called him too old, despite his progress on behalf of workers and the middle class. He failed to support Harris, who pledged to carry on Biden's programs. Somerby doesn't mind being ruled by billionaires, and that makes him part of red America, not liberal.
As prices go up and inflation increased while job creation declines and we lose net jobs, Somerby hums and fiddles, saying nothing about Trump's costly war, gas price increases, the dysfunction in Congress where Republicans enable Trump's efforts to stay in power. This is not the way any Democrat behaves. Yesterday, Somerby could only discuss Fauci. Don't be fooled by his distraction from what matters in the upcoming midterms -- affordability (a word Trump cannot even pronounce).
agree. you're a dumb-ass
Delete"Somerby has never expressed the divide in our country in these economic terms."
DeleteSomerby has never tried to express the divide in our country in any terms.
These Sunday morning trolls either don't go to church, or they live on a troll farm in Eastern Europe, where there is a different time zone. Either way, the question is "why are they here"?
ReplyDeleteTiedrich understands that news continues on Sundays:
ReplyDelete"...you’ve heard the latest, right? apparently, at last week’s Camp David cabinet meeting, Preznit Fuckwit took Piss-Drunk Pete Kegstand aside, and was all, ‘hey, fucknut, how could you let us run out of missiles?’
The encounter took place on the sidelines of his Cabinet meeting at Camp David on Friday where Trump vented at Hegseth that he thought the munitions issue “had been fixed,” according to both people familiar with the conversation, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation.
now, I hate to take Donny’s side on anything, but you have to admit he had a fair point.
it’s counting. you know, one-two-three-four. how do you fuck that up?
so, did Piss-Drunk Pete own that shit? was he all, ‘sorry, Dear Leader, I’ll try harder next time’?
no, of course not. that’s not how warfighting warfighters roll. what Pete did was to grab hold of the nearest underling, and toss that poor schmuck straight under the bus.
Hegseth defended himself and blamed his deputy, Stephen Feinberg, for the shortages and for not ensuring Trump was fully apprised of the issue, both people familiar said...
now, when we talk about Pete Kegstand, we usually talk about what a crackpot he is — his obsession with makeup and having perfect hair. his constant blathering about warfighting. his christofascist tattoos. his adolescent fixation on stupid shit like testosterone levels.
and then there’s a his racism, his misogyny, and his transphobia.
but here’s the thing often that gets overlooked when we talk about Pete: he is the least-qualified doofus ever to hold the job of Secretary of Whatever The Fuck He’s Calling It Today.
he has no fucking clue what he’s doing — and it shows.
look, Secretary of Defense is not an entry-level position. it’s a role that’s traditionally been held by lifelong military professionals — for a good reason: the Department of Defense is a ginormous bureaucracy, with millions of employees and a trillion-dollar budget.
Piss-Drunk Pete Kegstand has zero qualifications to be running any of that shit. the only thing he’s ever run in his life is his fool mouth.
he’s a weekend chat-show host. he’s the guy Fox News called when they needed a buffoon to pull goofy stunts, like getting drunk on New Year’s Eve, or flipping a skateboard up into his own nuts.
this silly dipshit was barely one step up from a birthday party clown, and now he’s running the entire military? that’s fucking insane.
so no one should be surprised that ‘hey, let’s not run out of missiles’ wasn’t on his to-do list. counting isn’t in Pete’s skill set.
and Donny has no one to blame but himself. he’s the one who made all these dumbfuck hiring decisions. he’s the one who saw Pete flattering him on Fox News and said ‘yeah, here’s my guy, straight outta Central Casting.’
that’s how we ended up with a piss-drunk incompetent in charge of the military. it’s how we got a reality-show never-was in charge of making sure planes don’t fall out of the sky. it’s why the State Department is now run by a neutered coward who is too terrified to point out that his shoes don’t fit. it’s why we have a woman who organized rigged wrestling matches now in charge of education policy. it’s why a sleazy fake-diet-pill-selling scam artist is running Medicare and Medicaid.
and don’t even get me started on Whalehead McChainsaw. he’s probably snorting coke off a toilet seat even as I sit here typing this.
not one of these ass-clowns has any idea how to do the important jobs they were handed. they’re all making it up as they’re going along. it would be hilarious if it weren’t totally fucking terrifying."
If you read the comments to Thom Hartmann's substacks, they are all slabbies, long and expressing thoughtful opinions, on-topic and contributing insights. It would be more like that here if it weren't for the fanboys, or if Somerby moderated his comment section.
ReplyDeletejust stay over there then, dumb-ass
Delete"if it weren't for the fanboys, or if Somerby moderated his comment section."
DeleteOr if you shut up.
"A Texas school principal accused of touching cheerleaders' chests found protection from an unlikely source; President Donald Trump, a new report revealed Sunday.
ReplyDeleteThe unnamed principal, under federal investigation for sexual harassment, was not the only accused person to escape consequences because of Trump — people who hurled racist insults at children were spared, too, the Washington Post reported Sunday.
"Instead of resolving such investigations, the Trump administration indefinitely froze them," eight anonymous sources told the Washington Post. "The administration gutted the Office for Civil Rights and prioritized investigations into transgender athletes and other conservative priorities." [Rawstory]
Virgil was a Republican, Euripides was a Democrat
ReplyDeletewhat works of literature are considered the greatest of all time?While there is no single official list, Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote is widely cited by authors and scholars as the single greatest work of literature ever written. Major literary consensus—including evaluations by the Bokklubben World Library and aggregates like The Greatest Books—consistently places a core set of multi-era masterpieces at the absolute peak of human artistic achievement.The primary works universally recognized across global literature are organized below by category.Ancient Epics & Drama: The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer (8th century BCE): The foundational cornerstones of Western narrative poetry, exploring honor, wrath, and the grueling journey home.The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2100 BCE): The oldest surviving epic masterpiece, detailing humankind's eternal quest for immortality.The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri (1320): A monumental, three-part allegorical journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise that defined Italian literature.The Pinnacle of Drama: Hamlet and King Lear by William Shakespeare (Early 1600s): Unmatched psychological dramas delving into existential madness, generational betrayal, grief, and the frailty of the human condition. Pre-Modern & 19th-Century Masterpieces: Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes (1605): The pioneering meta-novel that satirized chivalry and laid the groundwork for all modern fiction.War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (1869): A breathtakingly vast fresco of humanity interweaving personal lives with the grand sweep of the Napoleonic Wars.The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky (1880): A profound theological and psychological trial exploring faith, free will, and morality. Middlemarch by George Eliot (1871): Often ranked as the premier English novel, analyzing social progress, provincial life, and the internal constraints on women. Modernist Breakthroughs: Ulysses by James Joyce (1922): A dizzying, monumental stream-of-consciousness epic that entirely restructured the possibilities of language.In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust (1913–1927): A massive, glittering reflection on memory, time, art, and involuntary recollection.One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel GarcÃa Márquez (1967): The definitive work of magical realism, tracking generations of the BuendÃa family in Macondo.
why are the illiad, odyssey, and the epic of gilgamesh considered greater than the aeneid? While Virgil's Aeneid is undeniably a masterpiece of Latin poetry, literary critics, historians, and authors generally rank The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Epic of Gilgamesh higher due to originality, foundational status, and raw psychological independence.The primary reasons the three earlier epics are considered greater than the Aeneid boil down to specific thematic, historical, and structural factors.1. Structural Derivation (The "Homeric Copy" Critique)The Aeneid is intentionally structured as a direct hybrid of Homer's two masterpieces. Critics often point out that the Aeneid is a "secondary epic" because it explicitly mirrors Homeric architecture:Books 1–6 mimic The Odyssey, charting a hero's wandering journey across the sea.Books 7–12 mimic The Iliad, detailing brutal warfare and culminating in a final duel.Because Virgil closely adapted Homeric plots, similes, and character arcs, the Aeneid can feel more like a highly refined piece of literary homage than a completely organic, standalone creation.2. Primary Myth vs. Political Propaganda: The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, and The Odyssey grew organically out of deep oral traditions over centuries. They were composed to explore basic human struggles—grief, mortality, and home—independent of a national agenda.By contrast, the Aeneid was commissioned as a literary project under Emperor Augustus to provide Rome with a glorious founding myth and legitimize the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Because it functions partially as political propaganda, it lacks the raw, unpolished, universal human truth found in the earlier works.
3. The Flawless Hero vs. The Compelling Protagonist: The central characters of the three older epics are profoundly flawed, volatile, and deeply human: Gilgamesh is a tyrannical king who learns humility through the crushing grief of losing his best friend.Achilles (The Iliad) is consumed by a destructive, petty, and terrifying rage.Odysseus (The Odyssey) is a brilliant but arrogant trickster.Conversely, Aeneas is defined by pietas (duty and devotion to the state and gods). He often acts as a passive tool of destiny, suppressing his personal emotions to fulfill his civic mission. Modern and ancient readers alike often find Aeneas a less compelling and more rigid protagonist than his Greek and Mesopotamian predecessors. 4. Primacy and Foundation: The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest surviving epic in human history, establishing the very concepts of the heroic quest and the underworld journey.The Iliad and The Odyssey created the foundational framework for Western literature, introducing tropes that every subsequent author (including Virgil) was forced to use.Because Virgil was standing on the shoulders of these giants, the Aeneid is historically viewed as a brilliant continuation of a tradition, rather than the spark that created it.
DeleteEuripides' works seem to meet the above criteria of great literature. why are homer's works and the epic of gilgamesh considered greater? also, are there any works of roman literature that meet the criteria above - psychological independence, etc.Why Homer and Gilgamesh Rank Higher Than Euripides: Euripides is universally considered one of the greatest playwrights in history, renowned for his radical psychological independence, subversion of traditional myths, and deeply sympathetic portraits of marginalized figures like women (Medea) and victims of war (The Trojan Women). However, literary consensus places Homer and The Epic of Gilgamesh even higher due to differences in genre, scope, and chronological primacy.1. Form and Architectural Scope: Euripides wrote theater. Tragedies are structurally tight, limited in running time, and hyper-focused on a single, isolated emotional crisis or tipping point (e.g., Medea's revenge).By contrast, The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Epic of Gilgamesh are breathtakingly vast epics. They encapsulate entire cosmological worldviews, chronicle decades of travel, and handle massive thematic scopes—man's relationship to nature, the creation of civilization, and the psychological evolution of a character over a lifetime.2. Chronological Primacy: Euripides was writing in late 5th-century BCE Athens, a highly literate, philosophically advanced society. He was actively reacting against, deconstructing, and critiquing the heroic templates that Homer had established nearly 300 years prior.Homer and the Gilgamesh poet did not have models to subvert; they invented the medium.Euripides’ brilliance is intellectual and reactive, whereas Homer’s is generative and foundational.
3. Collective Mythic Universality: While Euripides masterfully captures human pathology, his works are heavily colored by the specific socio-political anxieties of wartime Athens. Conversely, Gilgamesh and Homer emerged from centuries of collective oral tradition. They represent a raw, unpolished, and universally shared human subconscious that feels less like the production of a single intellectual playwright and more like the foundational voice of humanity itself.Roman Masterpieces with Psychological Independence: While much of Roman literature was tied to civic duty, the state, or aristocratic patronage, several towering works achieved total psychological, artistic, and philosophical independence from national agendas.1. The Metamorphoses by Ovid (8 CE)This is the closest Roman equivalent to the universal genius of Homer. Ovid weaves together over 250 myths into a sweeping epic unified by a single theme: change.Why it meets the criteria: Ovid completely rejects the Roman state's pietas (civic duty). Instead, he focuses entirely on the psychological chaos of human emotion—obsession, grief, terror, and love. His characters are raw, fluid, and vulnerable. The work was so subversive and independent of imperial propaganda that Emperor Augustus personally exiled Ovid from Rome.2. De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius (c. 50 BCE)A monumental philosophical epic poem written to explain Epicurean physics and philosophy to a Roman audience.Why it meets the criteria: It possesses staggering intellectual and psychological independence. Lucretius argues that the universe is made entirely of atomized matter moving through a void, completely devoid of divine intervention or an afterlife. The poem is a profound psychological toolkit meant to cure humanity of the fear of death and religious superstition, standing as an incredibly brave, completely independent intellectual achievement.3. The Satyricon by Petronius (1st Century CE)A highly sophisticated, fragmented Roman novel written during the reign of Nero.Why it meets the criteria: It offers an unvarnished, gritty, and fiercely independent look at the ancient Roman underbelly. Written in a mix of prose and verse, it follows the chaotic, deeply human, and amoral misadventures of a group of grifters and lovers. It completely strips away the grand, idealized illusions of Roman nobility, replacing them with raw human greed, lust, and psychological survival.4. Pharsalia (De Bello Civili) by Lucan (65 CE)An epic poem detailing the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey.Why it meets the criteria: It is the anti-Aeneid. Lucan completely bans the traditional Olympian gods from his epic, focusing strictly on human psychology, political nihilism, and the horrors of tyranny. The characters are driven by raw ambition and terror rather than divine destiny, marking a massive leap forward in psychological realism for an epic.
DeleteWay to kill blog comments asshole.
Deletein fairness, most of the comments on here deserve to be killed
DeleteSerious comments are better than the blog.
Delete