BREAKING: What did Capito, Scott and Rubio think?

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2018

You saw no journalist ask:
Is it true, what sacred Aristotle is frequently said to have said? Can his paraphrased statement be true:

"Man [sic] is the rational animal?"

In fairness, it's hard to know what Aristotle meant by whatever it is he said. For all his greatness, he never learned English, and he lived at a different time and in a different place.

This means that even his most storied statements are subject to the vagaries of translation and to the misunderstandings endemic to cultural difference.

Sometimes, Aristotle made mistakes, as in his controversial statement about what all matter is made of. In this instance, we may not know what he actually meant by whatever it is he said. but we do know how the famous remark has been taken, at least in the western world.

Man [sic] is the rational animal! We humans have found a hundred ways to distinguish ourselves from the lesser animals, who either lack consciousness, or lack a soul, or just aren't as smart as we are.

The idea that we humans are "the rational animal" is part of this sweeping self-affirmation—though it increasingly seems that, in imagining ourselves this way, we're "seeing ourselves from afar."

Are we humans the rational animal? If we might borrow from NAME WITHHELD, in a sense, but not as such! What kind of animal are we really? We would suggest these ideas:
Homo sapiens, observed in the wild:
Man [sic] is the animal which divides itself into groups.
Man [sic] is the animal which invents and repeats tribal script.
How we love to do these things! Consider this morning's newspapers.

In this morning's Washington Post, Christine Emba complains about these all-too-human impulses. She discusses our love of tribal script in terms of thE recent academic hoax in which deliberately silly papers got published, and in terms of the recent fight over Christine Blasey Ford's charge against Brett Kavanaugh.

We can't say that we agree with all of Emba's assessments. In this passage, it seems to us that a category error may be lurking::
EMBA (10/11/12): In the battle over Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, two tribes organized around closely held identities that relied on narrow preoccupations (liberals: “Believe women!”; conservatives: “Roe v. Wade!”). The dysfunction that followed was the result of straining to buttress those positions rather than seeking an actual common good—which is what, so I’ve heard, politics is actually for.
In this passage, Emba criticizes liberals for tilting toward an emerging tribal dogma which basically doesn't make sense. (Stating the obvious, there is no category of people who should be believed in every instance. Just consider Kathleen Willey, who pundits hailed as incredibly credible when she first appeared.)

Somewhat fuzzily, Emba pairs this emerging dogma with conservatives' devotion to a certain position regarding abortion. We're conventionally pro-choice ourselves, but strong adherence to a position on an issue would seem to differ from the adoption of an irrational dogma.

In that passage, we thought Emba was perhaps a bit unfair to conservatives. In this passage, she seems to tilt things the other way:
EMBA: [In the case of the academic hoax], supposedly rigorous journals on the left proved all too willing to accept any nonsense that aligned with their obsessions. Meanwhile, the researchers, attacking from the right, were willing to act unethically to get their “point” across. The end result? No truth gathered, no new knowledge shared. An exercise in cynicism rather than creation, sowing doubt about the academic enterprise in an era when truth and education are already under attack.
Emba assumes the hoaxers came "from the right," a claim they seem to dispute. She then says they acted unethically, and she says that, for this reason, no learning emerged from their work.

This strikes us as wrong in several ways. Regarding the hoax, we'd say a lot of knowledge emerged, as you can see from reading the first half of Emba's column!

We don't agree with elements of Emba's analysis, but we think she's squarely on target in her major point. She's describing our failed human nature, in which we tend to divide ourselves, in unhelpful, invidious ways, into unreasoning, warring tribes.

Do we humans really do such things? It's easy to see The Others when they engage in such conduct! If you want to see our own liberal tribe behaving this way, we'll suggest that you read an op-ed column in today's New York Times.

Online, the headlines say this:
Maybe Girls Will Save Us
They’ve eclipsed boys in political participation and shown incredible moral clarity.
That headline strikes us as amazingly dumb, and as deeply unwise in the political sense. But dear God! How we humans love love love to split ourselves into Us and Them, often on fairly narrow statistical distinctions drawn from certain selected studies.

Girls aren't going to save us! That said, if girls or any other group ever planned to do any such thing, they should have started in early 1992, when the New York Times launched a 26-year journalistic war with the first of its front-page Whitewater hoax reports.

Girls aren't going to save us! As long as we keep dividing ourselves in invidious ways, neither will anyone else.

It's also true that no particular group of people can always be believed. Meanwhile, we liberals are making The Others mad when we adopt such invidious attitudes and such dull-witted tribal beliefs.

In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation, the New York Times "asked women across the country to tell us how they were reacting." For background, see yesterday's report.

The Times received 40,000 reactions. On some basis which went unexplained, the newspaper published eleven.

On a statistical basis, those eleven published reactions are representative of nothing. That said, we were struck by the several reactions in which women complained about the way our liberal tribe divides us up, in invidious ways, on the basis of gender and race and region and age and anything else we can find.

We'd have to say that those women have a point. Consider the way our corporate hacks behaved on corporate cable.

Again and again and again and again, our own tribe's corporate hacks on our own "corporate liberal" TV complained about the "old white men" who supported Kavanaugh in spite of Blasey Ford's accusation.

They also wondered about how Collins and Murkowski would be voting. They asked about this again and again and again and again. After that, they asked about it again, then they asked about it some more.

Members of our extremely prehuman tribe knew how to snark and complain about "old white men." They never asked about Senator Scott, a 53-year old Republican man who is socially defined as black. They never asked about Senators Rubio and Cruz, who are defined as Hispanic (each is 47).

They never asked about Senators Capito, Ernst, Hyde-Smith and Fischer, four other Republican women (average age: 59.5). They never asked about Senator Sasse (age 46), who spends a lot of time defining himself as a type of free-thinking free thinker.

All those Republican senators voted for confirmation. What did they think about Blasey Ford's claims? We never saw anyone ask!

Did they think Blasey Ford was lying? Did they think she was mistaken in the statement she advanced with 100 percent certainty? Did they think the march of time meant that her charge didn't matter even if true?

What exactly did they think? Nobody ever asked!

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we humans just aren't very sharp. We've extremely good at praising ourselves and our own select groups, less skilled at everything else.

As we finish today's deep thoughts, let's add to our earlier definitions:

"Man" is the animal which divides into groups and plays it dumb all the way down!

Still coming: What did The Others actually think concerning Blasey Ford?

107 comments:

  1. "Members of our extremely prehuman tribe knew how to snark and complain about "old white men.""

    Oh, Bob. I'm begging you: realize, for once, that your 'tribe' is actually a post-human zombie death-cult. That's it, end of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then why are you posting here? Duh!

      Delete
    2. Because I enjoy discussing the lib-zombie death-cult with my favorite dembots. Is it too much to ask, dear anon?

      Delete
    3. Mao Cheng Ji, David in Cal, and other similar sad souls can be dismissed out of hand and should be ignored (ie not replied to) for being unintelligent to the degree of being irrelevant, evidenced by science:

      Trump Appeals to Cognitively Challenged Voters

      These aforementioned commenters simply lack basic cognitive ability. Need an example? See how they respond, it merely reenforces the fact that they are, colloquially put, dumb.

      Delete
    4. Why, thanks for replying, dembot. I really enjoy reading your drivel; very entertaining.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousOctober 11, 2018 at 2:35 PM

      Whoa, right on cue:

      Mao Cheng JiOctober 11, 2018 at 2:40 PM

      Why, thanks for replying, dembot. I really enjoy reading your drivel; very entertaining.

      Eerie. Reflexively cognitively challenged.

      Delete
    6. The difference between Mao and DavidinCal is that Mao's in it for his deep, deep love of the Establishment Elites, while David just digs the bigotry.

      Delete
    7. That's me alright; Deep-Deep-Love is my second name.

      And what's the difference between the butthurt-Iraq dembot and the liar-thief-and-bitch dembot?

      Delete
    8. "The Establishment is my" is 8:35's first name.

      Delete
    9. Yes, it is, butthurt dembot.

      Tell me more about me, butthurt dembot. Your unending attention is so flattering.

      Delete
  2. Did they volunteer their position? Apparently not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sing, sing, sing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGxf93NqH74

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Killer! Funny at around 3:05 a clarinetist thought he had a solo coming on – or maybe was just adding three notes to the jam. And then at 3:38, another three-note phrase. Right. That was Goodman. My bad.

      I’ve had an ear worm for the last few weeks, must have heard it when I was ten. Can’t wait to share it with my younger brothers, because I’m sure they’ll remember.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4GOCL2kBmY

      Is that you, your eyes slowly fading?
      Is that you, your mind full of tears?
      Is that you searchin' for a good time?
      Is that you waiting for all these years?


      And I hope you're feelin' better
      Yes, I hope you're feelin' good
      Yes, I hope you're feelin' better

      Is that you, look across the ocean
      Is that you thinkin' nothin's really there
      Is that you waitin' for the sunshine?
      Is that you when all you see is glare?

      And I hope you're feelin' better
      Yes, I hope you're feelin' good
      Yes, I hope you're feelin' better

      Is that you who never saw your baby?
      Is that you who never had a friend?
      Is that you, movin' to a new town?
      Is that you, will diamonds replace your friends?

      Well, I hope you're feelin' better
      Yes, I hope you're feelin' good Well,
      I hope you're feelin' better

      Leroy

      Delete
    2. We're glad you're enjoying your trek down memory lane, but this stuff doesn't belong here. It is discourteous to other readers to keep posting this here.

      Delete
    3. Take a hint from 2:35:

      “Mao Cheng Ji, David in Cal, and other similar sad souls can be dismissed out of hand and should be ignored (ie not replied to) for being unintelligent to the degree of being irrelevant…”

      Leroy

      Delete
    4. BTW, the lyrics can easily be applied to Bob, if you read them. And to me as well. Or maybe even to you.

      Leroy

      Delete
    5. I like music. Any kind of music.

      Delete
  4. Somerby takes a bold stand against categorization today!

    Then he complains because no one wonders why Republican men vote along party lines, no one asks them what their votes mean.

    Was there ever a time when political parties didn't try to enforce party discipline? Not in my lifetime. Not in my reading of American history. The whole structure of the legislature is that each party has a whip whose job is to count the votes for his party, to make sure measures will pass, that votes will have the desired outcome before they are taken. Do congressmen barter their votes for the benefit of their constituents? Yes, that's how the system works. Somerby seems unaware of how politics operates. He thinks we should pretend that every vote is one of conscience. Hah!

    And once again, Somerby demonstrates that he hasn't clue one about how the brain operates either. Categorization is the foundation of memory and reasoning. It isn't only people who are categorized, but objects in the world and situations. How would you recognize a tree if you didn't classify tree-like objects based on their characteristics, so that you would know what to expect from them upon seeing them again?

    People are born into their categories and define those who are "other" in comparison to those around them, on the basis of similarity and difference. They do this because it is useful in living our lives. If an apple is similar to other apples, it can be eaten without consequence and sustain life. If it is difference, better leave it alone. Same with friends and enemies. It is how we stay alive. But Somerby thinks this innate human functioning is wrong. How does he propose to change something that happens automatically and is necessary to human functioning? He obviously won't. But it is enough for him to label us evil (just the liberals among us). Because we don't worry about how the hacks will cast their votes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Elsewhere, people are talking about how Kavanaugh manhandled his wife while standing next to Trump at his swearing in. He grasps her tightly by the neck and shoulder, shoves her out of the way, then pulls her back, as if she were an object and not a person. She twists at one point to shake off his hand. Who touches another person like that? Not someone who thinks of others as people and not objects (or extensions of themselves).

    It is no coincidence that a man who thinks of his wife's body as something for him to control would also think of other women's bodies as something for him to control, whether at a high school party or via Roe v Wade. He was literally pushing her around.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Somerby reactes negatively to a headline that says perhaps girls will save us, with their increased political participation and moral clarity.

    Somerby says "Girls aren't going to save us!"

    But how does he know that? He just seems to assume it. What is his evidence that increased participation by women in politics won't improve things materially? He just knows.

    Somerby not only doesn't believe women, but he doesn't believe in them either. He is unwilling to admit that more women on the scene will improve politics. He says it without even giving an argument why not. He doesn't have to, because our society agrees that women are not good at anything, won't improve anything, are useless in real life and good only at home and in the bedroom. So why would Somerby even bother to argue his blatant assertion?

    Perhaps he objects to the word "save"? But that isn't what he says. He objects to women as a distinct category from men. He objects to the world being divided into groups. He thinks, clearly, that women are an extension of men and men are people.

    Ask Somerby who Diotima was. He has probably forgotten, if he ever paid attention to her in the first place. After all, she wasn't going to save anyone or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Emba assumes the hoaxers came "from the right," a claim they seem to dispute."

    She assumes this because the assault on academia is coming from the right, from folks like Dinesh d'Souza and David Horowitz and their spawn. There is a concerted attack on universities orchestrated and coming from the right. This is inherent in fascism, the alt-right, and dictators of all stripes, but in our country, the right has been systematically attacking professors and universities for decades now. The left doesn't do this. And, of course they would deny it. But why else would someone go to all this trouble? Who else is dismantling ethnic studies and gender studies on campuses? Who is taking the accomplishments of women and people of color back out of textbooks? Who has the motive?

    And where has Somerby been living, that he doesn't know this? Under a rock?

    Maybe it is hard to see the people who are part of your own group, when they are closely similar to you. Somerby regularly attacks professors here, he is routinely anti-intellectual (while pretending to read books about relativity), he has no love for those elite universities that send their graduates out to work for news organizations. Somerby bears no resemblance to the left, but looks and stinks a lot like the right. He too denies his motives, but he is clearly not a liberal. That's what these guys do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Who else is dismantling ethnic studies and gender studies on campuses?"

      for example the 3 academics that wrote those hoax papers that were accepted into the many academic journals explicitly stated that they were from the left. There's many people who are disenchanted with the state of universities that are not on the right.

      Delete
  8. @12:48 Ethnic studies and Gender studies are not true academic work. Pointing out this fact is a way of supporting real academic work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, it isn't up to you to decide what is and is not true academic work. Researchers decide that. One of the tenets of academia, encompassed by the whole idea of academic freedom, is that researchers choose their own topics, they decide what to study. They publish their results for others to read, or not, as they choose. They NEVER sit around questioning whether other researchers have the right to study what they do. That is something politicians and people like you do. Scientists understand that there is value in all studies, even if it is not recognizable at the moment.

      Saying that ethnic and gender studies are not true academic work implies that efforts to uncover the contributions of women and members of ethnic groups to our culture and the sciences and industry is not a worthwhile endeavor. These people have been excluded from traditional studies of history (for example) and they deserve to be brought back into the canon, into textbooks and into public awareness. Otherwise, people like you wouldn't know that a woman heads the CERN project, for example. They might think all physicists and their accomplishments are male.

      Delete
    2. @1:17 - Thank you for your polite response. I am not so sure that gender and ethnic studies, as they actually exist, are helpful in encouraging contributions by women and ethnic groups. I think classes in engineering, business, and other practical areas are more conducive to contributions by women and ethnic groups.

      Delete
    3. Comrade DinC with another of his patented "drive-by hit and runs"

      Delete
    4. David, their job is not to "encourage" contributions by women and ethnic groups, but to uncover and make known past contributions that have occurred but were not recorded in mainstream history and other disciplines. Despite the many obstacles, women and members of ethnic groups are talented and do pursue achievements of various sorts. They have already made an important contribution that remains invisible due to lack of interest by mainstream historians, biographers, and other researchers. A good example is the woman who just won the Nobel prize in physics but has been largely ignored by other physicists, remains an Associate Professor and did not have a Wikipedia page before winning the prize. Her recognition may be due to the increased spotlight gender and ethnic studies place upon the contributions of neglected groups to our society.

      The goal of gender and ethnic studies is to decrease ignorance about their topic, not to foster progress for women in STEM disciplines or business. Contributions are already being made. They deserve attention by scholars too.

      Delete
    5. @3:03 PM
      You're ignoring contributions and achievements of various sorts made by homosexuals, transvestites, and polygamists, you bigot.

      Delete
    6. @3:03 -- IMHO the primary actual goal of women's and ethnic studies is to promote a far left agenda. People who don't fit their agenda tend not to get recognized. E.g., the brilliant Thomas Sowell who rose from poverty in Harlem to become the leading conservative political philosopher for decades. Or, Clarence Thomas, another black who started in poverty. By dint of his clear writing and clear thinking, he has become the leader of a particular school of Constitutional interpretation. Or the late David Blackwell, who invented a field of mathematics. Or, Dorothy Fields, a leading lyricist for many decades.

      Delete
    7. Mao is definitely cognitively challenged. He doesn't understand why Dachshund and dog are not two different kinds of dogs.

      Delete
    8. David, who put you in charge of gender studies and told you that you get to decide what the actual goal is? If you think Sowell is important, you could study him to your heart's content if you were an academia researcher. There is no law against it. There is no one who doles out assignments to academics, no statement of agenda, no one who interferes with anyone or anything you might want to study.

      I suspect that Sowell is not studied in African American studies programs because he is not regarded as sufficiently important by anyone to spend their time on him. Sowell seems to have found a voice among conservatives, so in what way is he being neglected?

      I also find myself wondering how you collected syllabi from African American studies courses, how you surveyed the research topics among ethnic studies scholars and exactly how you determined that he is not of interest to anyone? I'd bet you cannot name a single African American Studies professor without using Google to find one. Or maybe you remember Angela Davis but no one else is on your radar. Wouldn't you need to be informed to know whether Sowell is being discussed or not?

      Delete
    9. David, as far as I can tell, Dorothy Fields was not black. But here's one of her songs performed by blacks:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRkzetyfGwA

      Delete
    10. Glad that Joe Williams does justice to the clever lyrics. Still I prefer Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire in the movie "Swing Time". That includes the entire lyric. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRqK-KxNLAY

      Few people know that she wrote, "I Can't Give You Anything but Love" and |"On the Sunny Side of the Street" a long, long time ago, as well as the more recent, "Hey, Big Spender."

      Delete
    11. Dodging my questions, I see.

      Delete
    12. “Ethnic studies and Gender studies are not true academic work. Pointing out this fact is a way of supporting real academic work.”

      DinC, have you ever encountered the terms “anthropology,” or “sociology?” You might not be aware, but these fields have expanded enourmously since they became fields of academic study. The more knowledge gathered, the more it drills into specificity. But then you write this:

      “I think classes in engineering, business, and other practical areas are more conducive to contributions by women and ethnic groups.”

      Conducive to what? Capitalism? What about humanism?

      I’m dumb. I’ll never respond to Mao, and going forward, you’re in the same camp. Cmike warned us long ago that you were the same person, and now I see the truth of it.

      Leroy

      Delete
    13. Leroy - capitalism provides food, shelter, clothing and other necessities. It provides computers, software, automobiles, bicycles, airplanes. These are a lot more valuable to human beings than whatever anthropology and sociology provide.

      Delete
    14. David,
      i live in a capitalist society. You are over-playing your hand.
      Also, anthropology and sociology provide WAY MORE value than the University of Chicago and George Mason University's Economics Departments, which provide a guideline for sociopaths.

      Delete
    15. What have been the primary accomplishments of gender studies?

      Delete
    16. Bullshit 'studies' splitting the working class into segments with bullshit grievances against each other is exactly what capitalism does, in order to prevent any change, you silly dembot.

      Delete
    17. Gender studies have provided a theoretical framework for understanding the way women and men interact in American society, historically, and in different cultures worldwide.

      Now that businesses are required to respond to complaints by women about sexual harrasment and mistreatment but also about lack of inclusion and opportunities to participate in those businesses, gender studies provide ideas for how to accomplish change when people themselves may not understand the necessity or the means for achieving that change. Grievances may be inchoate but gender theory is not. Making the implicit explicit is what permits effective change in organizations and in broader society.

      From my perspective, the primary accomplishment of gender studies is helping women understand their own lives and the obstacles to progress in them. It has given hope by bringing to light the many accomplishments of women despite their situations. There is also hope arising from the knowledge that women have not always been treated the same way and have not always taken on the same roles at other points in time and place. Women then can ask, "If she could do that, maybe I can too." That's not nothing.

      Women were excluded from American history prior to the advent of gender studies. The dissertations of women in gender studies programs have included biographies of women who were important in their time but were forgotten because male historians didn't include them in their narratives.

      For example, Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to hold a seat on the stock market and she ran for president, despite being unable to vote herself. She was well known in her time period. How many people today can tell you what she did? Anyone who takes a gender studies class. And there are now histories with her name in them, and many others.

      Delete
    18. So it's just theories at this point? No proofs at all? Just theories, ideas and suppositions that attempt to affect change in broader society by educating its students about late 19th century female stock brokers?


      Interesting.


      Let me know how that works out for you. ;)

      Delete
    19. "How many people today can tell you what she did? Anyone who takes a gender studies class."

      What's the use of this knowledge? Factoids like these are easy to find nowadays, and so it sounds like your gender studies graduate can be easily replaced by a few wikipedia articles.

      Delete
    20. impCaesarAvg: Indeed, her father (being Jewish) emigrated from Poland in the 19th century and had his own successful show business career in a comedy duo (Weber and Fields), then as a theater producer. She in turn was part of a successful songwriting duo with Jimmy McHugh for Harlem revues like the Cotton Club, which is why so many of her songs are popular with black singers....
      [Wikipedia] [Songwriters Hall of Fame]

      Delete
    21. "Factoids like these are easy to find nowadays..."

      So is gaslighting.

      Delete
  9. "Still coming: What did The Others actually think concerning Blasey Ford?"

    The vote in congress wasn't solely about Blasey Ford and her testimony. It was about putting a conservative who would rule the right way onto the Supreme Court. A cynic might say it was about putting someone who would save Trump onto the Supreme Court in advance of constitutional issues arising from investigations of Trump's wrongdoing.

    Blasey Ford and her testimony underscored the unfitness of this person's qualifications for the court. Beyond his high school wrongdoing, he was a political operative who did questionable things throughout his previous career. He lied about his background, while Republicans withheld documents that should have been made available to congress. He was unsuitable for the court without ever considering Blasey Ford's testimony.

    Blasey Ford's treatment by Republicans illustrates their attitude toward sexual mistreatment of women, but it is not the heart of how Republicans voted and why. Somerby seems preoccupied with examining her veracity, but he ignores the major liabilities in Kavanaugh's background. Although her experiences are important, to herself and to women in general, they are a smokescreen for the real deficiencies of Kavanaugh's nomination, which were partisan because his whole appointment was inappropriately partisan in the first place.

    So, we don't need to know what the Others (presumably Republicans) think about Blasey Ford. We don't need Somerby to convince us their reservations about her were legitimate. We need him to tell us why he thinks it is OK for Republicans to behave in such a blatantly coercive and partisan matter over a corrupt attempt to save Trump from his criminality. Why are those Others (Republicans) giving cover to a mob boss -- is a tax cut really so important that it justifies selling out our country to an enemy power? I want Somerby to discuss that, because I truly don't know how Republicans can sleep at night, doing what they have done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I truly don't know how Republicans can sleep at night, doing what they have done."

      Sure you know, dembot: that's because they are evil.

      It's like whats-his-name said: conservatives think liberals are stupid -- liberals think conservatives are evil.

      That simple.

      Delete
    2. I have heard that many conservatives are both stupid and evil. We must come together as a nation.

      Delete
    3. Uh-huh. Tell me what else you've heard about them, please. Are they also ignorant? What else?

      Delete
    4. As an unwavering believer in reality (2 plus 2 = 4) and someone who never obeys "Dear leader", let me say this: Trump has three world leaders he likes.
      1) Maximum leader Kim who sent his agents to Singapore to kill his brother.
      2) Putin who sent his agents all over the world to kill his "enemies".
      3) The Saudi Prince Salman who sent his agents to Turkey to kill and dismember one of his critics. They used a bone cutting saw.

      Trump can't do this as of yet, but he can instigate his followers to scream "Lock her up".
      Mao and DinC are good with that and wish he could do more.
      Bob would rather write about dead "philosophers" and, maybe if Trump could arrange it, dead liberals.
      Right wing nuts are evil.

      Trump is a liar and a thief.
      And Putin's bitch.

      Delete
    5. Here's the problem though.

      1. Conservatives won a whole bunch of elections - the Presidency, control of the House and Senate.

      2. That meant they get to put a conservative on the court.

      3. If you do not like #1 and #2, then win the next election.

      4. The current tactics are perhaps not the best way to "just win, baby".

      If there was a better case against voting for Kavanaugh, then we should have done a better job making it and getting that message out. The Ford story became the shot heard around the world and drowned out other messages.

      Delete
    6. Election results? Racism is a bitch.

      Delete
    7. Yes, they restricted voting rights of minorities, elderly and young voters. Conservatives also gerrymandered the voting districts and accepted help from Russia to put Trump into office. That is an abuse of the system.

      Democrats made no objection to Gorsuch, a conservative. They objected to putting a sexual abuser and partisan crony on the court in place of an actual jurist. That is corruption.

      We won the election in which Gore was kept out of office by Bush's brother, Neil, governor of FL. We won the election in which Hillary ran because the tampering with the election by Russia and by Comey was illegal. We would have a liberal court by now if these abuses of the system hadn't occurred.

      Conservatives don't mind Kavanaugh's failings because they see them as virtues. They want a guy who will protect Trump when Democrats take office after the midterms.

      You don't have any right to say "we" when you clearly hold views sympathetic to the right and are not a liberal or a Democrat. If the people had voted on Kavanaugh instead of Congress, he wouldn't be on the court. So don't tell me the case wasn't made. That's bullshit. The fix was in.

      Delete
    8. Dr. T, President Obama won 2 elections with actual the majority of voters, you know, people voting for him.

      Then Majority Leader McConnell decided to make up a new rule thereby preventing the duly elected President from filling the Scalia vacancy. Just made it up out of whole cloth, Pure bullshit.

      Democrats have won the popular vote 6 out of 7 times since 1992, yet we are facing a radically conservative Supreme Court majority for possibly decades.


      4 out of 9 justices now on the SC have been appointed by republican presidents who lost the popular vote. This isn't representative democracy, this is tyranny of the minority.
      So take your win election bullshit and stick it up your ass.

      Delete
    9. "If there was a better case against voting for Kavanaugh, then we should have done a better job making it and getting that message out."

      To who? The Republicans you just told us get to make the decision due to election results? What case could be made to dissuade Republicans from putting Kavanaugh on the court? Not his blatant lying to Congress. Not his career as a panty-sniffing rat-fucker. Not his history of sexual predation.
      We could take a page from Right-wingers and make-up something about our political enemies to sway public opinion and support for them. In that case, I suggest we tell their followers that Republicans want to give black people a fair shake.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous @ 1:11pm: “Somerby seems preoccupied with examining her veracity, but he ignores the major liabilities in Kavanaugh’s background.”

      In multiple posts he repeats this diversion.

      This is an example of why I consider Somerby a concern troll.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. 1:11

      You make good points, such as this:

      “Blasey Ford and her testimony underscored the unfitness of this person's qualifications for the court. Beyond his high school wrongdoing, he was a political operative who did questionable things throughout his previous career. He lied about his background, while Republicans withheld documents that should have been made available to congress. He was unsuitable for the court without ever considering Blasey Ford's testimony.”

      So how in the world did the Dems eff this up? I’m not a scholar on Senate proceedings. As Dr. T mentioned, “The Ford story became the shot heard around the world and drowned out other messages.” Were the Dems completely helpless, or are the Senate rules so tilted to the ruling party that nothing could have been done? The fact that the the Repubs blocked the nomination of Garland for an entire year seems to indicate that this is the case. I’m astounded that this was allowed to occur, but not entirely convinced that the Dems were unable to draw a line.

      If an opposition party has NO SAY in contentious issues such as this, dependent on Senate rules, then the entire Congress is just a chess game, with the common voter left on the sidelines.

      Leroy

      Delete
    13. Raven, long time. Miss your regular commentary. Your post is a good example of why I do.

      Leroy

      Delete
  10. If Somerby were any kind of liberal there wouldn't be so many right wing trolls and conservative commenters here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's true.

      In my experience all members of the totalitarian lib-zombie death-cult censor their blogs very carefully, deleting all comments not made by dembots.

      Bob is different. Respect, Bob. You da man.

      Delete
    2. It isn't a matter of censorship. It is a matter of who is attracted by the content, who is interested.

      Delete
    3. "totalitarian lib-zombie death-cult".
      Ladies and gents, I present your conservative intellectual. And Trump lick-spittle.

      Delete
  11. Bob loves liberals. MLK, Ghandi and Mandella.
    Two were assassinated and one was imprisoned for decades.
    Go liberals!!
    Bob's kind of liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In real time, Bob would tell us MLK, Ghandi, and Mandella deserved it, because some liberal somewhere honestly called rat-fucking Republicans "rat-fuckers".

      Delete
    2. "Bob loves liberals. MLK, Ghandi [sic] and Mandella [sic]."

      None of these is a liberal, dear illiterate dembot.

      To begin with, the lib-zombie death-cult (now in its last throes, thankfully) is a purely American phenomenon.

      And King - who, of course, never was a lib-zombie - had become an outright lib-zombies' enemy in 1967, when he smartened up and switched from 'racial' to class politics. Which is, incidentally, the reason why he was assassinated (assuming he was assassinated by the regime): precisely for not being a liberal anymore.

      Delete
    3. I too would like to see all Right-wing campaign rallies begin with a prayer in praise of black people and how they deserve a fair shake. Republicans should put Slavery reparations in their National Republican platform.
      That would be an awesome way to troll liberals.

      Delete
    4. It's funny, because it's true.

      Delete
  12. Mao is a persona of Uncle Vova's paid trolls. Beginners use that persona on this unimportant blog to practice their craft. The present Mao has better English-language skills than his predecessors but is just as stupid.

    David in CA is a real individual who disagrees with us politically.

    Now let's enjoy Haydn's 104th symphony.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OitPLIowJ70

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I think David is a troll too. He never really engages with anyone abd his views never change or evolve. His comments are always right wing talking points. A person would deviate from that and show some personality.

      Please stop forcing your music on us.

      Delete
    2. @10:16 Nobody changes their view on these sorts of political debates.

      Delete
    3. 11:06,
      Before reading these sorts of political debates, I had thought Right-wingers just had differing views, and weren't evil. These sorts of political debates have changed my view.

      Delete
    4. "Before reading these sorts of political debates..."

      Which 'debates' do you speak of, dembot?

      As you can see above, dembots doesn't engage in debates. Anything that isn't dembot drivel is declared trolling.

      Nevertheless, carry on, dembot, tell me more about your 'view', please.

      Delete
  13. Consider three minority groups who suffered discrimination, but who have now achieved great success: Mormons, Jews, and Asians. Their success did not come from ethnic studies departments or from whining. Minority groups who want to succeed should follow the successful approach used by these three groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were covert quotas on Jewish students at Harvard at one point. It's interesting that these gender studies girls actually want to turn to paternalism to solve their perceived problems. The one here suggested recently she was waiting for redress from the "legal system" to afford women some kind of "institutional protection" so they can roam the streets drunk without any expectations of consequences which shows one the distance between utopian fantasy and actionable reality these gender studies acolytes have yet to travel.

      Delete
    2. The Groups you mention, did they experience slavery?

      Delete
    3. I hope you racist bastards experience horrible deaths.
      BTW, Jesus was NOT blond and blue eyed.

      Thank you Jesus!

      Delete
    4. 300 years of slavery.
      100 years of subjugation.
      50 yeas of resentful bigotry.
      Die.

      Delete
    5. At the end of their lives George Wallace and Lee Atwater begged black people to forgive them.
      They both had horrible deaths.

      Delete
    6. Thank you Jesus!

      Delete
    7. Were Asians ever slaves? 10s of millions of Asians are slaves today!

      Delete
    8. And you are content. Racist bastard.
      Life is good.
      Die.

      Delete
    9. "Lee Atwater begged black people to forgive him." Actually, that is false.

      Delete
    10. Racialism. It's all y'all know. It's what's going to sink you here in about three and a half weeks.

      I wonder how Obama and Clinton feel about the slavery they brought to Libya? Only $400 for one slave.

      Delete
    11. No shit? You are actually a liar.

      Delete
    12. I know and racists and anti woman and anti gay etcetera haha.

      Have a good weekend.

      Delete
    13. Make shit up. A lot of people like you do that all the time.
      I ascribe that to lack of guts to reveal your real beliefs.

      Delete
    14. Right, hiding my racism right? Haha.

      actually that is true, there are millions of slaves in Asia now and attwater did not say that and Obama's actions in Libya have wreaked havoc which includes the reinstitution of slavery. It's documented all of that. You can look it up.

      Take care, have a good one.

      Delete
    15. Your racism is not hidden.
      But you can't run away from yourself.

      Delete
    16. @6:29 300 years of slavery.
      100 years of subjugation.
      50 yeas of resentful bigotry.


      If you're trying to explain blacks' lagging income and educational achievement, I totally agree. No other group experienced this terrible situations.

      But, if you're goal is to see how blacks can best progress today, then the methods that worked so well for other groups are the ones most likely to work for blacks.

      Delete
    17. Ladies and gents,
      We will now consider racism and slavery in Libya and Asia.
      What occurred in the USA, and lasted for 400 years, is no longer relevant.
      Ever since the 1960's black people have had Voting rights and Civil rights.
      Why the hell are they still bitching and moaning?
      Will someone please explain.

      Delete
    18. "Why the hell are they still bitching and moaning?"

      'They' are not bitching and moaning.

      Lib-zombie death cult leaders (who are not 'they' by any stretch of the imagination) are stirring shit up, day in and day out, deliberately inciting hatred between 'blacks' and 'whites'.

      Divide and rule, the oldest trick in the book.

      Delete
    19. It's privileged whites for the most part who do the bitching and moaning about race. They mistakenly see blacks as inferior. Helping black people is not their real goal. They play the race card to express their own hostility. In doing so they actually harm black people, because their hostile attitude and race baiting intensifies race hatred.

      Delete
    20. 8;22,
      Ha ha ha. Good one.

      Delete
    21. Thanks 8:22. I'm ready to move on.
      Can you now explain why Conservatives know nothing about economics?

      Delete
    22. "Ever since the 1960's black people have had Voting rights and Civil rights."

      You might want to start paying attention. Conservatives---the people who aren't evil, but just have a different ideology from me (LOL)---have been chipping away at these since they had The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act shoved down their throats.

      Delete
    23. 204. The best thing you can do at this point is try to develop some self confidence and self reliance and stop scapegoating. Deal directly with your feelings of inferiority and self hate. You're right about conservatives and you are right about a lot of things but you have to be a man first. All of this tribal scapegoating is just putting ofd that task which is the most important task you are facing right now. Stop wasting your time and your life.

      Delete
    24. 3:22,
      Thanks for the warm words.
      I sometimes forget how lucky I am to be a Liberal, and not a moron.

      Delete
  14. Bob Somerby, trying to channel Aristotle:
    "Homo sapiens, observed in the wild:
    'Man [sic] is the animal...'"


    It has of course not occurred to you that the species term 'homo' is simply the Latin word for 'man' (as in "Ecce Homo", "Behold the Man"; the Latin word for 'woman' is 'femina'); so to be consistent you should equally have put "[sic]" between "Homo" and "sapiens".

    Why indeed do we refer to another species as Lion (Panthera leo) when that too consists of both genders, lion and lioness (the Latin words for the latter: 'lea' or 'leaena')? And so on down the list: Tiger (without mentioning Tigress), let alone Dog....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the most salient point of Aristotle’s alleged observation was the recognition that humans are animals. I assume that translates from the Greek.

      And it's disappointing that you didn’t get the gender discrimination Bob was implying. Heh heh.

      “Why indeed do we refer to another species as Lion (Panthera leo) when that too consists of both genders, lion and lioness (the Latin words for the latter: 'lea' or 'leaena')? And so on down the list: Tiger (without mentioning Tigress), let alone Dog....”

      Maybe it's because lions don’t perceive their dimorphic differences in the way that humans do. The difference may be that a female lion can actually kick a male lion’s ass most of the time, especially when other female members get involved – unless, of course, a new male takes over the pride by killing the leader, and then killing the offspring of his predecessor, at which point the female is subservient to the sperm donor. Not like elephants, in which females definitely rule the roost.

      Homo is quite distinct from this, in that we’re able to put our grievances on the table, using language that is far more sophisticated than other species. We evolved from hairy beasts. It’s only through our socialist nature that we thrive.

      Leroy

      Delete
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESDtBD36Uk

      I don't understand a damn word, but I know what it means.

      Leroy

      Delete
    3. Leroy - and exception is the cow, where we refer to the species by the female, rather than the male.



      Delete
  15. POWERFUL SPELL CASTER THAT BROUGHT MY EX HUSBAND BACK INTO MY LIFE AFTER HE LEFT ME EMAIL HIM VIA EMAIL INFINITYLOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM OR INFINITYLOVESPELL@YAHOO.COM ADD HIM ON WHATSAPP +2348118829899

    Hello my fellow friends online I'm Diana Gilbert from USA, I want to use this medium to thank Dr Great because he brought back my Ex husband. my husband left me for his ex girlfriend he had before he married me it's a difficult situation for me I called and beg him to come back he refused he said he don't love me anymore I tried every possible way to get him back all was in vain I told my friend about it and she gave me Dr Great email and I emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it and he cast a love spell which brought back my husband within 24 hours. If you need help in getting back together with your Ex, email Dr Great at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com WhatsApp him +2348118829899

    ReplyDelete
  16. POWERFUL SPELL CASTER THAT BROUGHT MY EX HUSBAND BACK INTO MY LIFE AFTER HE LEFT ME EMAIL HIM VIA EMAIL INFINITYLOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM OR INFINITYLOVESPELL@YAHOO.COM ADD HIM ON WHATSAPP +2348118829899

    Hello my fellow friends online I'm Diana Gilbert from USA, I want to use this medium to thank Dr Great because he brought back my Ex husband. my husband left me for his ex girlfriend he had before he married me it's a difficult situation for me I called and beg him to come back he refused he said he don't love me anymore I tried every possible way to get him back all was in vain I told my friend about it and she gave me Dr Great email and I emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it and he cast a love spell which brought back my husband within 24 hours. If you need help in getting back together with your Ex, email Dr Great at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com WhatsApp him +2348118829899

    ReplyDelete
  17. Since you credit yourself with understanding who is rational and who is not, Aristotle's point is proven. Did he say "all humans are always rational"?

    ReplyDelete