Is John McWhorter allowed to do that?


Engages in rational conduct:
Is John McWhorter allowed to do that?

Six days ago, at The Atlantic, McWhorter engaged in rational conduct while acting as a journalist.

Such conduct is virtually unknown within the tents of American journalism. McWhorter engaged in this highly unusual conduct in an essay which appeared beneath this triple headline:
Are All Instances of Blackface Alike?
Perhaps there is a difference between donning it to mock black people and donning it to resemble someone, as Mark Herring did.
Is McWhorter allowed to do that? How about his editors at the Atlantic? Are they allowed to publish material which undermines the pleasure of the stampede?

In his essay, McWhorter suggested that all behaviors which can conceivably be described as "blackface" may not be alike. In this way, he challenged the latest stampede which had grabbed the soul of every halfwit American pundit, especially those who are socially defined as "white."

The children were staging their latest stampede, killing the pigs as they went. McWhorter suggested that every instance to which they referred may not be just like all the rest.

Is this kind of thinking permitted within the intellectual pigpen known as the American press? We're not sure, but let's
be fair to the Atlantic's editors.

They may have felt that McWhorter's heresies could be justified by running his essay under the heading of IDEAS. But having said that, make no mistake. It was the essay's obvious rational quality which made it stand out within the landscape of modern sub-rational pseudo-journalism.

Is McWhorter allowed to do what he does in that essay? Among other acts of misconduct, he suggests that when a 19-year-old college student dressed as the rapper Kurtis Blow for a 1984 costume party, that may not have been the moral equivalent of what the Virginia Minstrels were doing in the 1840s.

Claims like that challenge the pleasures of stampede and the fun of killing the pig—and the stampede is one of the only social behaviors at which our pundit class excels. Our pundits understand the joy of Saying What Everyone Else Has Said, and every pundit understands what his or her role is in any such stampede:

He or she is expected to Say What Everyone Else Has Said, but to say it in language which is increasingly hysterical. This is the way these idiots have behaved over the course of the past many years, dating at least to the joy of their stampede against Gary Hart.

(Hart was charged with having a girl friend without the press corps' permission.).

Is McWhorter allowed to challenge this conduct—conduct which defines the heart and soul of this sub-rational class? We're not sure, but how inane is that pundit class? To ponder that very important question, we'll suggest that you consider the latest "round" in what seems to be a new weekly series at the Washington Post.

The highly typical, brain-dead series is called the "Post Pundit 2020 Power Ranking." Children are dead all over the world because these sub-humans have been behaving this was at least since 1987. We're sorry to say that Karen Tumulty, who we know a tad and like a lot, seems to be the author of this appalling gong show (see below):
THE RANKING COMMITTEE (2/15/19): Welcome to Round 3. You’ve got me, Hugh Hewitt, this week. Given my record on 2016 predictions, I am assuming everyone else was just as wrong as I was and thus we are all equally qualified to prognosticate this go-round.

The Commentary

I thought this race to challenge Trump would be like a NASCAR thriller. Now it seems more like this political contest will resemble the 2001 Daytona 500.
Eighteen cars wiped out at once that year, and another wreck on the last lap killed Dale Earnhardt.

Crowded fields can be exciting, but they lead to crack-ups and deadly miscues. We’ve already had the latter with Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test-turned-Texas Bar card implosion. She committed identity politics’ unpardonable sin: cultural appropriation. Then Amy “The Impaler” Klobuchar emerged from a blizzard of oppo research and snow, showing her grit but also a knack for awful event planning. Kamala D. Harris pitched to the stoner and rapper constituencies in an interview you know she’d like to do over. Now mix in Cory Booker’s blast at meat eaters and his gaffe with the clerk-less Neomi Rao, and of course, Howard Schultz’s reception a la Ancient Booer: “Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime!"
The nonsense continues from there. According to reliable sources within the world of our nightly dreams, even the gods on Olympus felt forced to avert their gaze from this latest embarrassment on the part of us, the humans.

That said, this is the way these blatant subhumans have mugged and clowned for decades now. Our presidential elections are a chance for them to showcase their matchless clowning skills. Children are dead all over the world because they love this pastime so.

Please note:

The sheer stupidity of our species is one of its defining characteristics. Al Gore was wearing three-button suits! Obama was too skinny to get elected! Currently, Kirsten Gillibrand eats fried chicken wrong!

These corporate hounds will never abandon this brain-dead behavior until they're forced to do so. That said, we liberals have been very reluctant to challenge this endless conduct, and our corporate leaders, like Rachel Maddow, will never take a leadership role in this important matter.

She's too busy mugging and clowning herself. Plus, it just isn't done!

How dumb is the rational animal? Until you're able to walk away from the paradigm which tracks to Aristotle, you won't be able to see the world as it actually is.

You'll continue to think that the pundits on your "cable news" channel actually know what they're talking about. You'll think that they're displaying good judgment. You will continue to think that only The Others are wrong.

Since Rachel won't challenge this constant clowning, you won't challenge it either! In fairness, Rachel is busy all night every night sending The Others to jail.

Key point! It's very important for you to know that our own liberal leaders are routinely sub-rational too. As tribal beings, it's very hard for us members of Homo sapiens to understand a fact like that, but McWhorter's essay suggested as much. Is McWhorter permitted to do that?

The dumbest thing we saw all week came from CNN's Don Lemon. We'll expect to get to that segment next week.

But for today, we wanted to speak in praise of Professor McWhorter. His essay put basic rational skills on overt display in the face of the latest stampede. This is virtually never done within the American press corps.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. Unfortunately, our species is highly tribal and deeply committed to fiction.

Our species runs on killing the pig. Our pundit corps is daft.

It's how we ended up with Trump. When and how are sensible people going to make this stop?

Just a total embarrassment: Who are the members of the Washington Post's "ranking committee?" Here's the lineup, as disclosed in their initial post:
THE RANKING COMMITTEE (2/1/19): The members of your Ranking Committee, if you will, are progressive brawler Greg Sargent, voice of the millennials Christine Emba, bard of the heartland David Von Drehle, economic wunderkind Catherine Rampell, provocateur (his words) Charles Lane, data whiz David Byler, ahead-of-the-curve expat Anne Applebaum, unrepentant libertarian Megan McArdle, Republican stalwart Hugh Hewitt, ex-Republican stalwart Jennifer Rubin, new kid on the Post block Henry Olsen, block fixture Eugene Robinson, and me, Karen Tumulty (Homeric epithet pending). We’re excited to be here.
As always, the pundits are excited. We'd call that a total embarrassment. What else could anyone say?

"Man [sic] is the rational animal!" Also, children are dead all over the world because the nation's corporate pundits refuse to stop playing these games.


  1. "Are All Instances of Blackface Alike?"

    Sorry, Bob, but this is not journalism. This is pure idiocy.

    If you accept zombie 'worldview' as legitimate and engage in discussions of the fine details of it (e.g. "Are All Instances of Blackface Alike?"), then - and there's no denying it - you yourself are a zombie.

    And that's all there is to it, Bob.

  2. “Rachel is busy all night every night sending The Others to jail.”

    While the Post is involved in the silliness of the “Ranking Committee”, Rachel is reporting on a serious topic, the Mueller investigation. And she, oddly enough, is not the one sending The Others to jail...that would be Mr Mueller.

    It should be noted that “The Others” in this case are Manafort, Gates, Stone, etc. It’s odd to refer to them as “Others.” They are dirty political operatives who get what they deserve.

    So, Somerby can complain all he wants about the vacuous Post “Committee”, but by juxtaposing it with reporting on a serious topic, he yet again trivializes the Mueller investigation. He does the same thing by bringing in his kitchen sink of complaints, about Al Gore’s buttons, the pursuit of Gary Hart’s womanizing, etc, as if the Mueller investigation belongs in that list.

    1. Somerby is once again doing Trump's bidding, like a good conservative. He has been calling the Mueller investigation "the chase" and pretending it is all partisan fake news, just like a good Trump defender should.

      It is interesting that Somerby also promotes Sanders and AOC and the progressive left. Just as Russia promoted Sanders and Stein to undermine the Democratic nominee.

      Maybe Somerby isn't supporting the right, but is paid by Russia to undermine the democratic process. If so, he perhaps has no favored candidate but does whatever will take down a Democrat frontrunner, just as he undermined Hillary with his columns here, and is now propping up Trump. He is another Russian operative as surely as Mao and David are.

      What will old Roomie Al Gore think about his defection? Maybe he just needed the money, but will his old liberal pals understand? I doubt it.

    2. The Mueller investigation is over reported. It's a legitimate complaint. Slaves are being sold openly on the streets in Libya thanks to Hillary and Obama. Maddow should report about that. Or the 8 people that die every hour right now in America from opioid abuse. Or the disparity between the rich and the poor. Somerby is right. She is selling you a movie. Good guy bad guy, cops and robbers. Wake up and you will see it. Never watch TV. Read the Bible. Read Confessions by Augustine or the Brothers Karamazov. Stop doing what you are doing. It's not working.

    3. The Mueller investigation is the biggest story of our times, barring stories about climate change. Our election was manipulated to put an incompetent imbecile into office. This was done by an enemy foreign power, Russia, in order to get even with Hillary Clinton, and to install a puppet who will remove sanctions and allow Russian Oligarchs to pursue lucrative business interests. American traitors worked with them out of greed, up to and including Trump and his family.

      That is a huge story. So will the removal and incarceration of the President be. Libya slavery just can't compete with a blockbuster like that.

      Maddow and other cable celebrities are reporting new developments in this unfolding story. The rest of their show may be less worthwhile, but this story is just beginning and is far from over-reported.

      It is understandable that those involved and their supporters would prefer that the public turn away and remain blind to what they have done. But it isn't going to happen that way.

    4. I regret to inform you (interrupt you stampede in the parlance of our proprietor) but Mueller has not issued any charges, provided any evidence, or made any collusion allegations. If there does exist a case, Mueller hasn’t revealed it yet. You're making baseless claims. You can't support your claims. They are wishes. You are not even familiar with Mueller's filings probably because of the new entertainment to which you expose yourself.

      Perhaps Mueller is sitting on secret evidence that could change this picture, and prove all of your speculation correct though but it is more likely you are involved in one of the biggest episodes of hysterical groupthink in modern times due to the trauma you suffered after Trump's election. That is the more interesting story, how social media breeds hysterical political groupthink.

    5. 5:33 Culture and media has crushed you. It's eaten your soul and devoured your brain.

    6. Nice try @6:05, but your denials won't save Trump's bacon. He is going down.

    7. Republicans waving away treason against the United States of America is the least surprising thing to happen in my lifetime.
      i knew it was coming the moment they accused me of being a traitor, because I marched against the Iraq War.

      Every Right-wing accusation is a confession.

  3. Whatever flaws one may find in Maddow or MSNBC, they do provide a platform where Democrats can be given a fair hearing and where they have a chance to share their views with the public without the aggressive antagonism of Fox. All of the Democratic presidential candidates have been interviewed. Bernie Sanders is a frequent guest. So give some credit here.

    1. A safe space for batshit crazy leftists, free from "aggressive antagonism" of having their insanity exposed.

    2. The only way a cult can function: inside the echo chamber, shielded from any criticism or scrutiny.

      Incidentally, liberals aren't leftists. They serve multinational capital, oppose national interests. They hate the working people, the 'deplorables'. They are far-right.

    3. "They serve multinational capital, oppose national interests. They hate the working people, the 'deplorables'. They are far-right."

      You'll get no argument about far-right Donald Trump hating the working people. The 5+ decades of Trump stiffing his contractors make any argument otherwise silly.
      The bad news is the Trump voters knew all about it, and wanted him to be their President anyway, because his bigotry was sweet, sweet music to their ears.

    4. Repeat after me, dembot: Orange Man Bad.

      Saves you time typing.

    5. Repeat after me, Mao: You're not fooling anyone.

    6. Sure, sure.

      Hey, btw: did the nurse-in-charge clean up your recent 'emergency'?

    7. Orange man and Mao both work for the Establishment Elite.

    8. Mao sees nothing wrong with Trump stiffing his contractors for half a century.
      Not exactly a "Stop the presses!" moment.

    9. This is not about Orange Man for me, dembot.

      Only for dembots Orange Man Bad is everything, is all they know. Sorry.

    10. "This is not about Orange Man for me, dembot. "

      We know. It's about fucking over the working class for the benefit of the elites who pay you.
      What other great insight about yourself will you "surprise" us with? That you are a troll?

  4. Here is who John McWhorter is. He is not a journalist.

    "John Hamilton McWhorter V is an American academic and linguist who is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, where he teaches linguistics, American studies, philosophy, and music history. "

    He is also a conservative. He came to fame arguing that ebonics is not a dialect of English but a corruption of it, defending the English language from the black community. That, at least, is within his area of expertise, linguistics.

    Somerby likes it that he points out that blackface can have different intended uses. Duh. The blackface of the minstrel shows was not necessarily intended to demean black people. Its main goal was to provide entertainment and employment to white people who portrayed black people on stage. But it was performed in a racist environment, a system that excluded black people from participation as performer or audience. It was a racist tradition and it did also occasionally mock black people in its content as well. But when Al Jolson blacked his face and sang Mammy, was he mocking black people or entertaining white people, or both? McWhorter cannot so easily get blackface off the hook (and the people who use it).

    Somerby should know something about the history of blackface performances, given his interest in Irish hucksters, charlatans and stage entertainers, but he doesn't apply that here. Instead he "likes" yet another conservative opinion writer (NOT journalist), first Sullivan and now McWhorter.

    Maybe Somerby calls McWhorter "acting as" a journalist to avoid admitting that he is a professor with another of those ivy-league pedigrees. Somerby isn't intellectually honest enough to admit anything these days.

    "he suggests that when a 19-year-old college student dressed as the rapper Kurtis Blow for a 1984 costume party, that may not have been the moral equivalent of what the Virginia Minstrels were doing in the 1840s. "

    Seems to me he is doing exactly what the Virginia Minstrels did -- just on an amateur level, not for pay. Did the minstrels of the old days necessarily have racial animus or were they just earning a living? Does it matter? Of course not. This is still a throwback to our misbegotten racial past, regardless of the intentions of any individual with a blackened face (including the occasional black person who wore black face to circumvent race laws).

    Somerby is no liberal and he is definitely an ass.

    1. Anonymous @Noon,

      You have made a valiant effort at displacing David in Cal as this commentariat’s resident idiot.

      Here is who John McWhorter is. He is not a journalist.

      Perhaps not primarily a journalist, but here’s a description of his career:

      McWhorter became a regular contributor to a number of publications including The New Republic where he served as contributing editor from 2001 to 2014 and a columnist from 2006 to 2008 for the New York Sun. McWhorter also has written columns regularly for The Root, The New York Daily News, and The Daily Beast. (

      He is also a conservative.

      No, he’s a soi disant liberal. He describes himself “as a cranky liberal Democrat who supported Barack Obama for president and gay marriage,….” (ibid)

      He came to fame arguing that ebonics is not a dialect of English but a corruption of it, defending the English language from the black community.

      180 degrees from the truth. McWhorter describes AAVE as a complete and nuanced dialect with its own grammar. ( He thought the Oakland school system’s plan to use “ebonics” as a teaching tool was misguided, but not because of any defect or “corruption” in AAVE.

      The blackface of the minstrel shows was not necessarily intended to demean black people.

      While not every blackface performer intended to demean black people, the minstrel shows always did. The exaggerated and unrealistic makeup, the invented slang language, the gaudy clothes — these were all an integral part of the performance and intended to mock.

      McWhorter cannot so easily get blackface off the hook (and the people who use it).

      Here’s what McWhorter says (and which apparently, you didn’t bother to read, either at all or at least not for comprehension): “Yes, many say that intent doesn’t matter and that the key is how a message feels to the receiver. Okay—but there is an extent to which we control how we receive a message, and tarring Mark Herring as having channeled Al Jolson exhibits a certain hypersensitivity.

      McWhorter says that when he was in college, he and a friend dressed up for Halloween as George and Louise Jefferson. His friend was George and went in blackface. McWhorter was Louise and didn’t have to, because McWhorter is black. I like the rule that you can’t be more upset on behalf of someone was has been wronged than the person who was wronged.

      By the way, McWhorter says that Northam must resign.

      Maybe Somerby calls McWhorter "acting as" a journalist to avoid admitting that he is a professor….

      Maybe not. First of all, as I pointed out above, McWhorter has extensive journalistic credentials, and if TDH wanted to keep readers from knowing that McWhorter is a professor, TDH is doing a poor job. All you have to do is click the link to find below the headline of McWhorter’s piece, a description of the author: “Contributing editor at The Atlantic and professor at Columbia University.” (Emphasis mine.) But you didn’t bother to click, did you?

      Seems to me he [Mark Herring dressing as rapper Kurtis Blow]is doing exactly what the Virginia Minstrels did -- just on an amateur level, not for pay.

      Lots of things that aren’t so seem to you. If Herring closely represented Kurtis Blow as KB actually was, then, no, he wasn’t doing “exactly” what the Minstrels did. Not even close.

      Your post does show promise — David in Cal levels of stupidity and ignorance. Keep up the good work. You may displace the incumbent yet.

  5. "and of course, Howard Schultz’s reception a la Ancient Booer: “Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime!"

    Karen Tumulty wants to list Howard Schultz among the Democratic contenders. He is an independent contemplating a 3rd party run. He is not a Democrat.

    Democrats aren't ruling out any of those contenders. Why is Tumulty? The ones who drop out will be the ones who cannot get campaign funding or who lose primaries NEXT YEAR.

  6. "These corporate hounds will never abandon this brain-dead behavior until they're forced to do so."

    Somerby's daily rants are a lot like Trump's tweets. They are repetitive, full of personal references that no one else understands, using shorthand to evoke memes and repeating what others have said (e.g., retweeting) but saying nothing.

    Is this how people with advancing dementia express themselves? Like Trump, Somerby doesn't read comments and thus doesn't respond to anything anyone else says. He never changes his mind about anything because he doesn't hear what anyone else says. People express concern, make corrections, but Somerby repeats the same wrong info, much as Trump repeats his favorite lies.

    I suppose he will stop when he starts to find daily chores like eating and dressing challenging and doesn't have the wherewithal to recycle the same old stuff any more.

    On the other hand, Somerby used to be worth reading. Can't say that about Trump.

  7. “You will continue to think that only The Others are wrong.”

    And yet, “our cable news channel” reported on the Northam blackface scandal, the Omar controversy, the Al Franken scandal, Hillary Clinton’s emails, and many other negative stories about “our tribe.”

    Ironically, though, when they do report these things, Somerby often chides them for doing so. Seems they can’t win.


    Read McWhorter along with this history of blackface. Then see if you agree with him.

  9. McWhorter:
    “Ralph Northam must go. But must Mark Herring?”

    Neither is going. Not many were calling for Herring’s resignation. This represents the general consensus of views amongst Democrats.

  10. @12:44 PM complains that Trump is not worth reading. His comment illustrates what I see is too much focus on words and symbols. Trump may be a poor writer, but thousands fewer black Americans are being murdered and millions of Americans have been lifted out of poverty. Aren't these actual developments more important than words and symbols?

    1. Remember when Comrade DinC, treasonous bastard, used to tell us how dumb we were for taking Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, literally instead of seriously? Remember how Comrade DinC told us he never really believed Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, wanted to build a literal wall across our southern border? Turns out, Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, meant it.

    2. mm - You seem certain that Trump wants to build a wall across our entire southern border. I'm concerned that he may only want to build a partial wall. After all, his $5.3 billion request to Congress was only enough to build 200 miles of wall. IMHO a limited wall has only limited value, because illegal immigrants can just go around.

    3. You needed to watch Chris Hayes show on Thursday. His staff showed the entire length of the border, which parts have walls and which don't, and talked about where the problems were and were not. Much of the border has natural barriers such as mountains, deserts (without water or outposts), and rivers. There is no way to fence such areas and the natural features are a better barrier than a wall would be. Other areas have no people trying to pass there. The main areas where people are attempting to cross already have walls. In those areas there is a humanitarian crisis because too few people are being processed and the rest are being interned in Mexico with no idea when they will be allowed to leave the camps. These camps are unfit habitation for the families with children who live there indefinitely because of the US "metering" of the border entry ports. People who try to avoid those ports and attempting to cross desert and dying of thirst or exposure (single degree temps at night). This is not a good situation and it is being caused by the delays and camps at the entry ports, not the lack of wall.

      Critics of the wall are saying that the facts on the ground mean that spending more on any amount of wall would have no value (not limitied values). It would be a waste of money.

      Meanwhile, Trump is harming border residents by imposing imminent domain on ranchers, separating families who live on both sides (as many do), and he is even trying to destroy the Monarch Butterfly Preserve (2/3 of which is in Mexico) by putting a wall across it. The entire length cannot be fenced because large sections are owned by Indian tribes who refuse to have a wall across their reservations -- their rights are protected by treaty.

      This is a complicated problem and Trump's approach is wrong because he doesn't have the ability to understand it fully and he won't listen to advisors. You are better than that, David. Do some research.

    4. Thanks, Not mm. I just went to Youtube and watched a recent segment by Chris Hayes . I had several big problems with what he said:

      1. He accused people of bigotry without evidence. He said Trump and his advisers were prejudiced against certain nationalities. It's improper to accuse people of behaving in disgusting ways based on POOMA.

      2. In order to justify his insult, Hayes ignored legal immigration. The US is accepting about 1 million legal immigrants per year. Hayes ignored the fact that Trump has called for an increase in legal immigration.

      3. It would be great if we could get along without a southern border wall as in the past, but conditions have changed. Hayes's review of history ignored the growing magnitude of the problem. When President Reagan instituted an amnesty, there were 3 million illegal immigrants in the country. Today, there are 22 million -- 7 times as many. Since there are billions of impoverished people in the world, there's no guarantee that the number might not continue to increase.

      Again, I thank you Not mm for recommending that I watch Chris Hayes. Though I disagree with much of what he said, I appreciate being introduced to his POV.

    5. Trump has not called for an increase in legal immigration. He made an unscripted statement in his SOTU about increasing immigration while his staff has been cutting legal immigration in various ways.

      Did you miss the part where Hayes showed the graph of recent illegal immigration -- showing that it has decreased greatly in the past 20 years and that it has held steady since Trump took office -- not increased. This crisis is being caused by the metering at the border, not an increase in illegal immigration.

      Did you also miss the part where border control people said that most illegal immigration comes from overstaying tourist visas, not crossing the border. And the majority of such cases involve Canadians, not Mexicans or Latin Americans.

      The focus on Latin Americans and Mexicans despite the fact that illegal immigrants are coming from other countries is part of the evidence Chris Hayes has of Trump's racism. He hasn't been calling Canadians rapists and murderers, has he? He hasn't been aiming his harsh treatment and separation policies against Canadians. Why are Latin Americans a problem when other illegal immigrants are not? That's where the racism comes in.

    6. Not mm

      Did you happen to notice how David the treasonous bastard completely avoided responding to any of the substantive points and facts concerning the geography at the border, the new punitive policy Donald J Chickenshit instituted, the eminent domain issues. I don't see where the village idiot, Comrade DinC, addressed a single one of the complicated issues. Nope, Comrade DinC instead decided to deflect to a ad hominin attack on Chris Hayes.

      A pipeline of undocumented workers for Donald Trump ran from Costa Rica to N.J.: 'My whole town practically lived there'

      Oh look, Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, is a fucking lying sack of shit fraud, hiring undocumented workers at his properties so he could pay slave wages. Gee, I wonder if Comrade DinC missed that.

    7. By the way, David, you treasonous bastard, get with the program. The new Trumpbot chant is "Finish the Wall"!, cause the fat fucking lying sack of shit just said he's already building his "wall". You believe that, don't you Comrade DinC?

    8. *** Public Service Announcement ***

      David in Cal is a moral and intellectual idiot, and is, in fact, the incumbent resident idiot of this commentariat. You may safely ignore anything he has to say.

      You should ignore everything he has to say.

      Not mm: No, he’s not “better than that” because he’s an idiot. Don’t tell him to “do research”; he can’t. Would you ask your dog to do some research on why he shouldn’t shit on the kitchen floor?

      mm: We don’t hold idiots responsible for what they say, so quit calling David names. That’s like going to the Special Olympics and booing the losers.

    9. "A pipeline of undocumented workers for Donald Trump ran from Costa Rica to N.J.: 'My whole town practically lived there'"

      Dear dembot,
      Does, in your 'mind', this allegation serve as an argument against stricter border control?

      Please enlighten.

    10. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2019 at 6:46 PM -- My reaction to talking points is affected by my background in statistics and corporate planning. It may not do any good, but I will respond to a couple of your talking points.

      1. "illegal immigration has decreased greatly in the past 20 years and that it has held steady since Trump took office -- not increased." I'd be mocked if I made that sort of statement at top level planning meeting. I'd be asked for actual numbers of illegal immigrants. Giving only a comparative rate is a type of spin. Even if the rate hasn't risen, the number could be so large that it's an emergency. Also, we're now seeing something new -- "caravans" with thousands of people walking across the border, overwhelming the US border agents.

      I'd be asked how reliable the supposed rate of illegal immigrants was. Are you aware that the "official" number of illegal immigrants in the US is 11 million, but a recent Yale-MIT study says the actual number is 22 million? With a huge uncertainty in the total number, how much confidence should one have that a measurement of the rate is be reliable?

      2. "border control people said that most illegal immigration comes from overstaying tourist visas, not crossing the border." Which people made this claim? Is this a generally accepted opinion?

      Also, the statement is ambiguous. When a tourist overstays her visa for a few weeks, she’s technically an illegal immigrant. But, she’s not someone trying to live permanently in the US. If you count the number of individuals who have ever been illegal immigrants, the majority might well be tourists who overstayed their visa. But, if you count the number of illegal immigrants attempting to live permanently in the US, I think we all know that the largest number would indeed be Hispanic.

    11. Yeah, Anonymous at 6:46 PM.
      If illegal immigrant crossings aren't an Emergency, why are David and his fellow racists worked-up so much by the story Republicans have been telling them about "caravans" of brown people overwhelming our border, huh?

      Also, comparing white people who overstay their visas to brown people trying to live permanently in the US, makes no sense. It would be like not calling 5-year old refugees from war-torn and gang-plagued nations 'terrorists".

      So there.

    12. Dear dembot,
      Does, in your 'mind', this allegation serve as an argument against stricter border control?

      Please enlighten.

      Dear Trumpbot,

      They were all flown into Newark Airport, dumbfuck.

    13. Dear dumbfuck, I know this is all very exciting to you, but try to concentrate, please.

      Does, in your dembot 'mind', this allegation serve as an argument against stricter border control?

  11. "Our species runs on killing the pig."

    As if this were a bad thing. How do you get pork and bacon without killing the pig?

    Journalists are supposed to identify political wrongdoing. They are supposed to closely examine candidates for office. They are supposed to report on current events.

    Somerby doesn't like their job, so he attacks individual journalists. Some are too young. Some went to the wrong schools. Some advanced their own careers (the horror!). He nitpicks their mistakes (usually trivial). He calls them names.

    All of this conceals Somerby's actual agenda -- complaint about how Al Gore was treated, combined with narcissism about his own faded references to Aristotle and other obscurities, a lack of humor, and discharge of massive hostility toward those who succeed in their careers, especially those who graduated from colleges like the one he attended. This grows old.

  12. @2:45 "Killing the pig" is a phrase from "Lord of the Flies". It doesn't actually refer to killing a porcine animal.

    1. Don't be an ass.

    2. Soros dembots working from a warehouse in Mumbai are not familiar with English literature.

      Alas, I suspect they don't read Sanskrit either...

  13. *** Public Service Announcement ***

    David in Cal is a moral and intellectual idiot. In fact, he is the incumbent resident idiot of this blog’s commentariat.
    You may safely ignore anything he has to say.

    “Killing the pig” is not a phrase from Lord of the Flies, the William Golding novel about a group of English schoolboys stranded on an island. Instead this is a central trope of the novel, as the group learns to kill wild pigs for food and then turns their awakened blood lust on one of their own, the aptly nicknamed Piggy.

    If DAinCA speaks of the novel, the actual phrase “Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Spill her blood” certainly does refer to “killing a porcine animal”, namely the pig the boys butcher and cook. Piggy, of course, becomes the hunted “outsider,” originally one of the group and then just a porcine animal, whose killing is averted by the timely arrival of an adult rescue party.

    If DAinCA speaks of the comment by @2:45, then of course the phrase isn’t about actual killing, and neither TDH nor @2:45 contemplates such.

    Our resident idiot understands neither Golding’s novel nor @2:45’s comment.

    1. Isn't the expression describing the bloodlust you mention which originates man's appalling ignorance of his own nature?

    2. @8:29, Could you rephrase your comment in English. I don't understand what you're asking.

      My point is that David's comment is just one more addition to his work here of ignorance. "Killing the pig" is a literal description of events in the novel and a metaphorical trope employed by TDH that no thinking person would interpret literally.

    3. It's not also metaphorical in tbe book? Is the expression in the book "kill the pig" describing human bloodlust, the kind of which that originates man's appalling ignorance of his own nature? The type of ignorance often described here? In the book, the expression kill the pig is only literally in your interpretation?

    4. It's not also metaphorical in the book? Is the expression in the book "kill the pig" not also a metaphor for human bloodlust, the stampeding bloodlust that originates from and is driven by mans's appalling ignorance of his own nature? The type of ignorance often described here? In the book, the expression kill the pig is only literal in your interpretation?

    5. Is the entire book not a metaphor in your interpretation? The author set out to tell a literal story in your reading? That's an interesting take for someone who feels entitled to lecture others about ignorance.

    6. Have you read the book? “Kill the Pig” is a literal description of the boys’ chants and their actions. They learn to kill wild pigs for food, and then turn their urge to kill against one of their own, a boy they’ve defined as an outsider and whose nickname is Piggy. Piggy is saved only by the timely intervention of a rescue party of adults.

      Since these are schoolboys, I don’t think there’s any expectation that anyone in the group makes any nuanced analysis of humankind’s “nature.”

      When TDH uses the phrase “killing the pig,” he’s speaking only metaphorically, and no rational person would interpret his words otherwise. TDH describes a type of Gruppe denken among journalists that leads them to attack people for no good reason or to become obsessed with the downfall of people to the exclusion of what they’ve actually done wrong.

      Again, my point is that David in Cal is either ignorant if he’s referring to Golding’s novel or he’s fatuous if he’s referring to TDH.

    7. Is the entire book not a metaphor in your interpretation?

      Perhaps we differ on the semantics of the term metaphor. I regard a metaphor as a symbol for something else. For example, one might write a story in which materialistic greed is a metaphor for the fatal weakness in society.

      In Lord of the Flies, Golding tells a literal story of the bloodlust just below the surface of a veneer of civilized behavior. The lesson is that no matter how advanced we think we are, a literal primitive urge to kill the outsider lurks nearby. This urge isn’t symbolic. That’s what gives the novel its power.

      And to counter your oblique accusation, yes, I think my understanding of this particular novel entitles me to lecture David in Cal about his abyssal ignorance.

    8. Yes, thank you. You mentioned the timely arrival of the adult before. And you don't have to announce that you think that your interpretation allows you to lecture others about ignorance, That is clear as you have already done so! We all know you feel so entitled, for better or worse. No need you to state the obvious.

      Maybe the schoolboys in the novel don't make any nuanced analysis of humankind’s “nature” but maybe ... the author who invented them did.

      Just a thought.

      When you come down off your bong hits and have the ability to think clearly, you might stop to consider that descriptions in novels, what you call literal descriptions, can also be metaphors.

      I do thank you for your interesting take on the absolute literalism of novels. That is very, very interesting.

      There's something you may be interested to know about Gilding. In an interview for "Books and Art" in 1958, he makes it clear that the basic problem of modern humanity was that of "learning to live fearlessly with the natural chaos of existence, without forcing artificial patterns on it." They say "Writing about school boys, Neanderthals and dead sailors, appeared to him to be a simple means of turning a light on contemporary human nature." and "he proclaimed himself a moralist for whom the novel is a 'vehicle for pressing upon fellow creatures the reality of their moral condition.'.

      In a reply to another literary magazine's questionnaire, Gilding wrote "I am very serious. I believe that man suffers from an appalling ignorance of his own nature. I produced my own view in the belief that it may be something like the truth. I'm fully engaged to the human dilemma but see it has far more fundamental than a complex of taxes in astronomy."

      So maybe what he wrote was not a literal description of boys killing a pig to satisfy their hunger that day. The entire undertaking may have had a symbolic purpose. Prick.

    9. "Prick."

      Meh. Take it easy @1:58 AM, it's just a standard dembot-stalker, whose only purpose it to suppress any dissenting opinion. There are millions of them on the net, servicing the totalitarian lib-zombie cult. Trying to reason with them is just a waste of time.

    10. I'll put my boot in your seat Jap prick.

    11. And you don't have to announce that you think that your interpretation allows you to lecture others about ignorance….

      My “interpretation” is not what give me license, but in any case, I’m just responding to your “interesting take” comment.

      you might stop to consider that descriptions in novels, what you call literal descriptions, can also be metaphors.

      Thank you, Capt. Obvious. But we’re talking about a particular novel in which literal descriptions describe literal actions, and the lessons to be learned from the narrative concern those literal actions.

      I do thank you for your interesting take on the absolute literalism of novels.

      Allow me to set alight your straw man. I’m not extending my claim of literalism to “novels”; just this one. If that’s not obvious to you, then I suggest that I’m not the one lacking the ability to think clearly.

      There's something you may be interested to know about Gilding.
      Yeah, sure. It’s Golding.

      Thanks for the references to the interviews. Nothing that you quote Golding as saying makes the thrill of killing as related in his novel in any way metaphorical or symbolic. The story is certainly a cautionary tale about human nature, but the caution is about the literal savagery that’s close to the surface.

      The entire undertaking may have had a symbolic purpose.

      Certainly Golding’s story has implications beyond his fictional band of English school boys, but that’s different. if you had any coherent case to make about your claim of symbolism, then you would have made it instead of calling me names and suggesting that I’m stoned.

    12. It's a symbol for human decent into blood luast and its savage nature, fucking bimbo. You lost this one. It's not literal. Like him or not, David was right and you are wrong. The whole book is a metaphor, a means of "turning a light on contemporary human nature.". Stop embarrassing yourself.


    13. I can't believe how stupid your interpretation is. It's funny. You have the blood lost to undercut your enemy. You lost the ability to think and reason. The manifestation of your Shadow had to be killed, logic be damned.

      Now shut the fuck up, stop killing your personal pig and try to get yourself together.

    14. "Certainly Golding’s story has implications beyond his fictional band of English school boys"

      Certainly and obviously. That's the whole point from the beginning. It's a metaphor. The chant is a metaphor, obviously. Certainly, as you say.

    15. And you lecture others about ignorance. Hello? We are all ignorant. We're human beings. The point is we are all ignorant and crazy. Get off your high horse.

    16. Deafrat- I admit, you were right and I was wrong. You are free to interpret that chant as literal. You may even think that although it literally happened in the book, it doesn't symbolize or represent and anything further. I don't know. I think I understand your logic and reasoning as it pertains to the comments above. David, referring to the piece written by Bob here, said the phrase "doesn't actually refer to killing a porcine animal", (ie it is metaphorical, which we all know is true) after 2:45 said that (for journalists, metaphorically) killing the pig is not a bad thing and how does one (metaphorically) "get bacon"? (Which is a misinterpretation of the metaphor on their part.) You seem to be saying that David didn't understand that the reference to getting bacon was metaphorical and that in the book, a pig is actually killed, ie. it is literal, it does actually refer to killing a porcine animal and is not a symbol or metaphor for anything but a literal action from which a lesson can be learned. And you seem to be saying that proves his ignorance and idiocy. I was wrong, you are totally free to make that judgment. In the book, they chant kill the pig and they do kill a pig and David did say that it doesn't refer to actually killing a pig. Obviously, the phrase has become a metaphor in our culture and was used as a metaphor by 2:45 and Bob. You seem to believe that it wasn't intended to be a metaphor or a symbol by the writer, but a literal description from which we should draw a lesson, or at least it is ignorant and idiotic to think of it as purely a metaphor because it did literally happen in the book.You are free to think that, there's nothing wrong or illogical about that.

      I'm sorry to have called you a faggot and a prick and I forget what else I said, I think that you are a stupid, idiot dick cocksucker or whatever. A pot-smoking faggot.

      A pig is literally killed in the book. The 'kill the pig' chant is carried forward to a killing of a human (although I believe that there was a timely intercession before it happened, correct me if I'm wrong) and the phrase rests firmly in our culture as a metaphor and a symbol (and you did refer to it as a 'trope") but I want to apologize because I understand what you were trying to say and it did literally happen in the book and David's claim was that the phrase doesn't actually refer to killing an animal. So I see where you're coming from and I really don't think you're a faggot cocksucker dick.


    17. Anonymous @various,

      Shit’s gotten weird. Around six in the morning, you blast four consecutive abusive comments in ten minutes. And then two hours later, give a strange rambling apology. (I can only imagine that you fell asleep, exhausted by your early-morning Tourettish outburst.)

      Am I supposed to think you’re serious in your apology? Hard to say, but in any case there’s no need for one. There are people whose insults I would take to heart, but trust me, none of them posts here. Also, I don’t find being called a homosexual insulting. The most puzzling thing is why you signed your last post “Cunt.” That’s certainly nothing that I’ve called you.

      As I’ve suggested earlier, the whole disagreement may turn on what you consider a metaphor. And you provide a number of illustrative examples in your comments.

      Let’s start with addressing me as Deafrat @8:17A. Now assuming that this isn’t just one of your many typos (like “blood lost” for blood lust), that’s a clever play on my nym. It’s not to be taken literally. After all, you can’t know whether or not my hearing is impaired. But it can easily mean that I won’t listen to reason. In other words, the deafness is metaphorical.

      Let’s take another. You say, “[S]top killing your personal pig” @5:57A in reference to my comments about our resident idiot, David in Cal. Now, I’ve never classified David as a pig or relegated him to any non-human status. I certainly don’t advocate killing him. But “pig” is a metaphorical stand-in for an unworthy opponent, and killing is likewise a metaphor for winning an argument.

      I’m also sure that you don’t think I’m actually astride a large horse @6:01A.

      Is the chant “Kill the pig” in Lord of the Flies likewise a metaphor for say, overheated political rhetoric? Is the actual pig killing and the attempted Piggy killing a metaphor for the electoral defeat of political opponents? I suppose it’s possible to make such a case, although that’s something you haven’t even attempted. But that vitiates the power of Golding’s story, which tells us that the actual urge to kill the other lies just beneath the surface of our civilized selves waiting for a time when the usual constraints are absent.

      As always, YMMV, and contrary to your expectations I would actually listen to an argument from you. Insults and bald assertions, not so much.

      I understand that you’re irritated with my cyber-persona. And that’s OK. Believe me when I tell you that I’m even more unpleasant in person.

    18. High horse is an idiom. If you consider that a metaphor, yes we diverge on what they are. I don't need to make a case for the metaphoric interpretations of kill the pig, the internet is replete with them as you know and it's obvious to most. Although not to you which is perfectly your right!

      Sorry about 'Cunt'. That is actually my first name. I'm Bangladeshi. I was just autographing my brilliant riposte. I'm not irritated with your whatever. I don't care and it doesn't matter.


      (That's my last name - sorry, I know it may seem strange.)

    19. Yes, “high horse” is an idiom. It’s also metaphoric, as many idioms are.

      I don't need to make a case for the metaphoric interpretations of kill the pig

      Of course not. There’s no compulsion here. You only need to make a case for your argument if you want to be intellectually honest.

      the internet is replete with them

      The internet? Bwahahahahahaha! Good one.
      Oh, wait. You weren’t being serious, were you?

      I’m not irritated with your whatever.

      Oh, really? That makes your profanity-laced outbursts earlier this morning a little strange. Have you considered getting help with your problem?

      I don't care and it doesn't matter.

      This is a blog, so it certainly doesn’t matter. But you’re spending an awful lot of time on something you don’t care about, “which is perfectly your right!”

      Sorry about 'Cunt'. That is actually my first name. Dumbass…That's my last name

      Er, very nice to meet you?

    20. In Cunt Dumbass's defense, it is true Golding has been quoting as saying "I think in metaphor.".

    21. I’ve traced this quote to the Times Literary Supplement from 1959, but I haven’t tracked down the source, mostly because Golding’s novels are probably metaphorical. I’ll have to admit the only one I’ve read is his first, LOTF. Interlibrary loan is delivering two of his subsequent novels, The Inheritors (about Neanderthals confronting Homo Sapiens. Shades of Harari) and Pincher Martin about — spoiler alert! — the experiences of a corpse washed up on a rocky island. (What is it with Golding and islands?) These would seem necessarily heavily metaphorical.

      CD could have made a convincing if banal argument for the metaphorical nature of LOTF: It’s a parable in which the island stands for our society, and the boys stand for ordinary seemingly-civilized citizens who descend to savagery once when societal constraints are absent. And blah so blah on blah.

      My original comment was much more limited. I merely noted that our resident village idiot, David in Cal, was once again displaying his ignorance claiming that the quote “Killing the pig” appeared in LOTF and was metaphorical. Again, the gerund does not appear in the novel, and the imperative form “Kill the pig” is a literal exhortation to kill wild pigs and the character nicknamed Piggy. If DAinCA was referring to Golding’s use of the phrase, then DAinCA’s comment is as usual wrong, and if DAinCA was referring to TDH’s use of the phrase, then DAinCA’s comment was as usual fatuous.

      That’s it.

    22. "If DAinCA was referring to Golding’s use of the phrase". What kind of moron would think that? Clearly that was not the case. There's is no reason to think that for a second.

      He misread the comment 2:45 about the bacon. There's no mystery.

      Are you ok? Are you having a bad weekend? You should not feel entitled to call anyone an idiot.

    23. Let’s go to the video, then. Here’s what our resident village idiot wrote:

      "Killing the pig" is a phrase from "Lord of the Flies". It doesn't actually refer to killing a porcine animal.

      “Killing the pig” (notice the quote marks) isn’t a phrase from LOTF. It’s a phrase from TDH blog entries. Since there’s no bottom to the ignorance and idiocy of David in Cal, I’ve covered both cases. Perhaps he misread the comment @2:45; perhaps he misread the novel.

      What kind of moron would refer to Golding’s use of a similar phrase? The same kind of moron who would assume that commenters thought TDH was talking about literal pig slaughter. For values of moron equal to moral and intellectual idiot.

      I’m OK. My weekend has been good. Thanks for asking.

      Everyone with three or more neurons that can fire simultaneously is entitled call David in Cal an idiot. Why would you think otherwise?

    24. A 2 year old retarded orangutan could make a convincing case for the obvious and famous metaphors of that book. I don't see why this Cunt Dumbass fellow would waste his time. Mr. Denrat seems to have gone a little funny in the head here. For Lord's sake he appears to even be the type of pillock that thinks Trump colluded with Russia. Perhaps he can find a plane to Norway and visit one of those famous spas for a few weeks. Maybe read some magazines and eat some of that potato soup they are so famous for. Or just stare out the window to try to somehow slowly get his bearings back.

    25. “Killing the pig” (notice the quote marks)"

      Yes, sorry dredtrat - the quotes are referring to the previous comment which also has quotation marks around it and is also referring to this blog post. the quotation marks make it clear he is referring to the blogpost.Basta. But I disagree with the previous comment. I feel like you are so, so, so smart and insightful. Don't take any shit from these ignorant idiots. They are not even close to being in your league.

    26. Well, find a 2 year old retarded orangutan and have him make this convincing case for you and report back to us. Make sure the orang explains what a metaphor is. The whole thing should be fascinating. But you can bet that pig killing won't be part of the case.

    27. See, what a comeback. More vast, inpenetrable insight and brilliance. Never stop dadcat. Those others are fools and idiots.

    28. @10:13,

      Point taken about the quotation marks. But I stand by my covering both cases because after all, it's David.

      Three so's? Thanks if you're not a troll. In any case, it doesn't take much in the way of smarts to warn people about our resident village idiot. It's my way of giving back.

    29. Hey partner - maybe you can get your local library to rustle this one up for yee. They can send it on over by car train in a timely fashion.

    30. Dadcat,

      I would have your library system shuffle over a copy of The Void and the Metaphors: A New Reading of William Golding's Fiction or the book Leighton Hodson published about Golding with the chapter about Lord of the Flies called “The Metaphor of Darkness" to bone up on the subject. To show these fools that in Lord of the Flies, Golding tells a literal story of the bloodlust just below the surface of a veneer of civilized behavior. That any reading of a metaphor, while possible, vitiates the power of Golding’s story, whose literal descriptions describe literal actions, and the lessons to be learned from the narrative concern those literal actions.


    31. @10:39,
      I read the article from Why don't you tell me why you think it's relevant to the discussion? Remember that it's not my thesis that the novel isn't metaphorical. I've already said it's a parable.

    32. From a synopsis of TheVoid and the Metaphor:

      The characters in Golding's fiction endeavour to symbolise the void, but it ultimately resists symbolisation.
      Mainly from the perspective of semiotics, psychoanalysis, and philosophy, the book looks at the way in which the elements excluded from the symbolic system react against it and leave this void.

      Semiotics and psychoanalysis? Count me out.

      As for Hodson, I'm agnostic on whether darkness is a metaphor in LOTF, mostly because it's not germane to the discussion, which is pigs all the way down. Some time in the google finds that Hodson abandoned his critical approach to Golding, who apparently himself became unamused with the "over-interpretation" of his novel.

    33. You're so smart man. Thank you so much. You vitiate the power with your timely, agnostic interventions. It's just so, so, so germane. God, just think if everyone had your brilliance what a world this would be.

    34. "it's not my thesis that the novel isn't metaphorical. I've already said ..."
      it is a novel "in which literal descriptions describe literal actions, and the lessons to be learned from the narrative concern those literal actions."

      Dumb Faggot

    35. Just to sum it up, you had two main points, both based on misreadings on your part (ironic coming from the guy who feels entitled to hand down from the mountaintop declarations about other people's intelligence ).

      1. "David in Cal is ignorant if he’s referring to Golding’s novel" which, as I have clearly shown based on the quotation marks was never in question for even a second. That was your first misreading.

      2. "Or he’s fatuous if he’s referring to TDH." As is clear, but you somehow missed in your fervid lust to take your enemy down a notch, he was referring to the bacon comment from the commenter to whom he was responding. A misreading on his part and your second misreading.

      Have a good week.

    36. Let’s go to the video again. Here’s what our resident village idiot wrote:

      "Killing the pig" is a phrase from "Lord of the Flies". It doesn't actually refer to killing a porcine animal.

      1. “Killing the pig” isn’t a phrase from LOTF. Whether our resident village idiot is mistakenly quoting from Golding or properly quoting from TDH, this statement is wrong. How you figure that David in Cal couldn’t be referring to Golding’s novel is beyond me. The clue is that his statement actually contains the title of the novel.

      2. Yes, of course he could have been referring to the bacon comment. That’s pretty much one half of my point. Only someone as fatuous as DAinCA could have failed to understand that the commenter was extending TDH’s metaphorical use of Golding’s trope.

      I’m typing as slowly as I can in the hope that you’’ll be able to follow: ignorance or fatuity — your only choices with DAinCA. (Although sometimes you get both.)

      Now it should be obvious that I love the sound of my own voice, but “fervid lust” and take down an “enemy”? Project much?

      David in Cal isn’t my enemy. I don’t know him, and I don’t know anything about him. (And that includes what he claims about himself.) I don’t bear him any animus for his comments. We shouldn’t hold idiots responsible for what they say, which is why I object to others shoveling vituperation his way.

      I have merely taken on the task of pointing out that David is a moral and intellectual idiot who may safely be ignored. This in the hope of saving others the time of reading or responding to him.

      It’s just my way of giving back to the community.

      I hope to have a good week. Thank you.

    37. You thought that original quote didn’t refer to the Howler? And you think it is someone else who is the idiot? Interesting. Good luck there sonny.

    38. I. am. not. the. one. who. thinks. that. the. original. quote. didn’t. refer. to. TDH.

      Is your inability to read for comprehension an isolated problem or is it a sign of a larger cognitive deficit? Please get that checked out, if only for your own sake.

      David in Cal is the one who wrote that the quoted phrase is from LOTF. Did he think he was talking about LOTF or TDH or both? Who knows what he actually thought? It’s hard enough to discern what ordinary people think from their writing, let alone idiots.

      So I covered both bases. What’s not clear about this?

    39. You're a colossal idiot for even pondering the distinction.

    40. "Whether our resident village idiot is mistakenly quoting from Golding or properly quoting from TDH, this statement is wrong."

      That is insanely idiotic to even ponder that distinction as if that is such a huge mistake or if it proves anything about anyone's intellect. Except yours I guess, you're a moron for even going there but I see that you don't see that. I know you think you're smart. I'm just here to tell you that, you're not.

    41. And how colossal of an idiot do you have to be to keep responding to someone you think is a colossal idiot?

      I'm smart enough to know when I'm being trolled.

      Bye, bye.

    42. "David in Cal is the one who wrote that the quoted phrase is from LOTF. Did he think he was talking about LOTF or TDH or both?"

      It doesn't matter. Either one signifies nothing bimbo. Unless you're 12 years old or stupid.

      The point is neither one proves anything or says anything unless your an idiot.

      What happened is clear. He misread to comment referring to the bacon. Everything else is just your stupidity and rush to take him down a peg. You picked the wrong example to show his idiocy and in doing so, showed yours. No big deal. You think you're smart so you don't see it.

  14. Megyn Kelly certainly couldn't say what Mr. McWhorter said.

    NBC sacked her for asking precisely this question.

  15. Couldn't have happened to a better person.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. Gotta love how Somerby’s own comment section becomes exactly the kind of tribalistic hate fest (from both sides) that he so despises.

    Or pretends to despise.

    1. I blame David in Cal.

      And the drugs, of course.

  19. I want to share a testimony of how Dr odoma herbal mixture cream saved me from shame and disgrace, my penis was a big problem to me as the size was really so embarrassing ,and i was also having weak erection problem i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for Which was very painful and then i saw some few testimonies about this herbal specialist called Dr odoma and decided to email him on so I gave his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me and we discussed, he gave me some comforting words and encouraged me also ans then gave me his herbal pills and cream for Penis Enlargement Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, " and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 10 inches longer and am so happy contact Dr odoma via ( Via whatapp +2348100649947

  20. I Want To Appreciate Dr.OYAGU for hs great deeds, I Was Diagnosed With type 2 Herpes Virus Last year,And Was Looking For Solution To Be Cured Luckily I Saw Testimonies On How Dr.OYAGU Cure Herpes Virus I Decided To Contact Dr.OYAGU I Contacted Him He Prepared A Herbal Medicine Portion And Sent It To Me,I Started The Herbal Medicine For My Health.He Gave Me Step By Step Instructions On How To Apply It, When I Applied It As Instructed, I Was Cured Of This Deadly Herpes Within 2 weeks, I Am Now Herpes Negative.My Brother And Sister I No That There Are So Many People That Have There Same Herpes Virus Please contact Dr OYAGU To Help You Too,And Help Me To Thank Dr.OYAGU For Cure Me, I’m Cured By Dr. OYAGU Herbal Medicine,His Contact

    Or Cell Whatsapp Number +2348101755322 thank you


  22. How I Got My Ex Husband Back..Am so excited to share my testimony of a real spell caster who brought my husband back to me. My husband and I have been married for about 6 years now. We were happily married with two kids, a boy and a girl. 3 months ago, I started to notice some strange behavior from him and a few weeks later I found out that my husband is seeing someone else. He started coming home late from work, he hardly care about me or the kids anymore, Sometimes he goes out and doesn't even come back home for about 2-3 days. I did all I could to rectify this problem but all to no avail. I became very worried and needed help. As I was browsing through the internet one day, I came across a website that suggested that Dr Aluya can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and and told him my problems and he told me what to do and i did it and he did a spell for me. 48 hours later, my husband came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my family are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Aluya Powerful Love Spell that really works. If you have any problem contact him and i guarantee you that he will help you. He will not disappoint you. Email him at: or whatsapp him on: +2348110493039 

  23. I has suffered for Human papillomavirus HPV) for 2years, I was given some tablets at the hospital but I refused to take it, They said I have to be on it for life so I don't want take a drugs everyday for life. No point in taking medicine everyday when u won't get cure from it and I was advice to seek for natural herbal cure, after some time I found dr onokun is the most trustful herbalist that have herbs to cure wicked symptom's,I emailed dr onokun, for 2weeks been his patient he cured my (HPV) with his herbal. I only used his natural herbs for two weeks it was 100% cure. I'm not (HPV) patient anymore. I'm happy about it i finally got cured out of this mess been in my body for 2years. I also recommend you if you're living with (HPV) or herpes symptoms i also want you to be free contact dr onokun with the email attach to my post.

  24. I was diagnosed of herpes virus, I have tried all possible means to get cure but all my effort proved abortive, until a friend of mine introduced me to a herbal doctor called Dr Agaba, who prepare herbal medicine to cure all kind of diseases including herpes virus (Herpes), when i contacted this herbal doctor via email, he sent me herpes virus herbal medicine via courier service, when i received the herbal medicine he gave me step by step instructions on how to apply it, when i applied it as instructed i was totally cured from the virus within 3 weeks of usage. Contact this great herbal doctor today to get your cure. 
    Via Email: or WhatApp: +2349074536486