THE WOKE AND THE BUSED: Still no explanation from Harris!


Protected by Gardol shield:
Several weeks later, the question lingers, though it's largely unasked:

Was mandated busing a good idea in 1973? If so, not support it today?

In a slightly more rational world, the question would go to Candidate Harris, since she's the one who raised this question during the first Democratic "debates."

That said, we live in a tribal, not a rational, world. According to major anthropologists familiar with this non-dispute dispute, Harris is being swathed in layers of privilege—layers of privilege designed to keep current tribal "fictions" alive.

"This is simply the way the human brain worked," these forlorn future experts have said, speaking in the past tense.

According to these future experts, Candidate Harris should have been pushed much harder on the basic question we've posed. This is why they've said this:

Harris has made the mandated claim according to which public school segregation is worse today than it was in the past.

If that's so, why doesn't she propose large-scale federally mandated busing to address the situation? If Biden should have supported the practice back then, why isn't she proposing the practice today?

By the end of last week, it was clear that Harris was having a whole lot of trouble answering that basic question. The humor came when mainstream journalists worked to protect her from this problem, thereby keeping themselves in line with narratives and novelizations preferred by the tribe and the guild.

We've been describing this process of novelization for more than twenty years. That said, nothing stops our misfiring species from telling the stories it likes.

A protective shield has been built around Harris. We offer three examples:

Ella Nilson in Vox:

We chuckled when youngish Ella Nilson (UNH, class of 2013) tried to handle this topic for Vox.

Presumably, Nilson's salary is low; this helps Vox survive. On the downside, young liberals are handed remarkably murky "journalism" which appears beneath headlines like these:
Kamala Harris is fielding questions about her stance on federally mandated busing
Harris says federally mandated busing was needed in the 1970s but is rarely needed today.
How strange! If public school segregation is worse today than it was in the past, why wouldn't federally mandated busing be a good idea today? Nilson's bow to tribal verities started out like this:
NILSON (7/5/19): Kamala Harris and Joe Biden aren’t done sorting out the fallout from her lightning rod moment at last week’s Democratic debate, when the senator criticized the former vice president for his record on school busing.

The attack sent Biden reeling and solidified Harris’s ascent into the 2020 presidential field’s top tier. Harris successfully portrayed Biden as out of touch with the current Democratic Party, but after her viral moment, she is also being asked to go on the record about how she would handle busing in the current era.

At a recent campaign event in Iowa, Harris said that while federally mandated busing was necessary to integrate schools in the 1960s and ’70s, she didn’t think it was necessary now, because she no longer sees state or local opposition to integration. In fact, she said she believed it was a decision that should be left up to local school districts and municipalities, rather than the federal government.

“I think of busing as being in the toolbox of what is available and what can be used for the goal of desegregating America’s schools,” Harris said. “I believe that any tool that is in the toolbox should be considered by a school district.”
According to Nilson, Candidate Harris' lightning rod moment sent Candidate Biden reeling and solidified Harris' ascent! And not only that—Harris had "successfully portrayed Biden as out of touch with the current Democratic Party," the youngish scribe murkily said.

Why then isn't Candidate Harris proposing mandated busing? Swaddling Harris in a type of "Gardol shield," the youngish reporter ended up saying this:
NILSON: Segregation and busing are not nearly as big an issue today as they were in the middle of the civil rights era (although there’s data to suggest progress on desegregation has actually stalled in recent years).

But as Vox’s P.R. Lockhart wrote, “These critiques of Biden are clearly intended to make a broader point: that the former vice president, in continuing to defend his stance on busing, is out of step with the current Democratic electorate on issues of race and fighting racism. And that could be an issue for many of the black voters Biden is counting on for support.”
There! According to Nilson, segregation and busing aren't nearly as big an issue today!

In some way, is that supposed to explain why Candidate Harris proposes no large-scale busing, even though Biden should have supported it in 1973? Nilson went on to quote the even younger P. J. Lockhardt (Duke 2014), who offered a thoroughly murky statement designed to quell further discussion:

By defending his anti-busing stance, Biden is out of step with the current party electorate!

So this woke youngster is said to have said. But since Harris also seems to oppose mandated busing, why isn't she out of step with the electorate too?

Nilson never quite addresses that point. Along the way, she says this: "there’s data to suggest progress on desegregation has actually stalled in recent years."

In fact, Harris has said that public school desegregation is worse than it was in the past. Vox readers were spared from learning this fact, perhaps because it undermines the protective swaddling of the demagogue, the current tribal line.

Is Ezra Klein still in charge of this site? Its product is quit poor, though in that sense quite human.

Judy and the geriatrics:

In fairness, Nilson ends up saying that Harris needs to explain her position. No such suggestion was offered that evening on The PBS NewsHour.

Judy Woodruff invited Brooks and Tumulty to discuss the Biden-Harris non-dispute dispute. (This was the standard Friday night "Brooks and Shields" discussion segment, with Karen Tumulty subbing for Mark Shields.)

By now, it had been clear for several days that Harris was having a hard time explaining her own position on large-scale mandated busing.

That said, so what? In the course of a fairly lengthy discussion, Harris' problem went unmentioned on The NewsHour—but every crime in Oklahoma was added to Biden's name! To watch the segment or read the transcript, you can just click here.

Balz maintains narrative too:

The younger scribes were weak at Vox, but how about the aging mainstream authority figures—the ones who sent Candidate Gore to the ovens during a twenty-month war in 1999 and 2000?

Judy Woodruff was part of that gang. To a lesser extent, so was the Washington Post's Dan Balz. Below, you see the way the seasoned charioteer struggled to Keep Script Alive in Sunday's print editions:
BALZ (7/7/19): In the debate, Harris talked about herself as a beneficiary of school busing as a child and attacked Biden’s past position. She has since made clear that, while she believes busing should be available as a tool for local school districts dealing with issues of integration, she does not favor busing mandated by the federal government.

To which the Biden forces ask: Well then, why was she criticizing the former vice president
for opposing mandatory busing in his state of Delaware back in the early 1970s when he was a young senator? What was that attack about if the two currently share the same position on mandated busing? To which the Harris camp responds: The real issue is whether Biden regrets “working with segregationists against busing in the 1970s.” Does he have any regrets about the position he took then?


Harris is the embodiment of a new generation of Democrats, especially those of color, who see the world differently than those of Biden’s generation and will judge him through a different lens. To them, his position on busing in the 1970s was wrong, and on the wrong side of history, regardless of what people think about the use of busing in school districts today.
You seem to get two different choices there:

Biden had the right position in the 1970s, but he was agreeing with the wrong people!


Biden's position on busing was wrong back then, and who cares what a "Democrat of color" says about this topic today? Such Dems will be "judged through a different lens!" In short, there are two different standards at play!

The anthropologists with whom we consult report to us from the years which follow the global conflagration they refer to as Mister Trump's War.

"This is the way we got to that war," these disconsolate scholars despondently say. "Within this hapless, misfiring species, different candidates were constantly 'judged through a different lens.' "

According to these future analysts, Candidate Harris is being swaddled in privilege by both the tribe and the guild. In effect, she's being protected by a modern-day "Gardol shield."

Why doesn't Harris propose mandated busing? Tons of gorilla dust have appeared, keeping that question obscured.

According to our future experts, the tribe and the guild are struggling hard to disappear a forbidden fact:

Dems of color can be demagogic too! Just like everyone else!


  1. Somerby plays gotcha against Harris again today.

    He asks: "Harris has made the mandated claim according to which public school segregation is worse today than it was in the past. If that's so, why doesn't she propose large-scale federally mandated busing to address the situation? If Biden should have supported the practice back then, why isn't she proposing the practice today?"

    Somerby allows no room for anyone, Harris included, to have learned from the past. The public doesn't like the "mandated" aspect of past busing. It almost appeared punitive to take children against parental wishes and put them on buses (much as we object to putting kids in camps today), for some abstract idealistic good such as racial justice.

    Today, however, we know that busing turned out to be good for the kids involved, both the bused and those who attended integrated schools without being bused. Those kids who rode buses had better outcomes. But the parents weren't told about that. Those who had the first-hand experience know it benefited them, but the public wasn't told. In better days, Somerby would complain about that.

    Harris wants to be elected. She also wants to support African American issues and she wants to be on the side of helping kids and racial justice. She knows that if she supports forced busing, parents will rebel again. But she also knows that being critical of busing is wrong too. So she behaves like a politician. And Somerby thinks THAT is something to criticize her for.

    Biden is an asshole who cannot keep his hands off women. He blew it with Anita Hill. He put everyone in debt by sponsoring a bill to make student debts exempt from bankruptcy proceedings, on behalf of credit card companies. He pushed a now-unpopular crime bill. And he was against mandated busing. He was on the wrong side of many issues, in my opinion. And he cannot keep his hands off women and children. And he won't apologize -- doesn't know how to do it and mean it. He is an asshole, but that has never stopped Somerby from supporting anyone.

    Harris is not being a demagogue. Somerby is trying to portray her as one because he perceives her as serious competition to whom? Bernie? Trump? His own vision of the presidency as a male-owned and operated enterprise? He never says and we must guess, but none of these answers reflect well on him.

    1. @11:15 -- Here's a serious question: It has become conventional wisdom that Biden blew it with Anita Hill. Can you tell me what Biden's misdeeds were with respect to Anita Hill?

    2. There were several women who were prepared to corroborate Anita Hill's testimony against Clarence Thomas. Biden made the decision not to let them testify. That made it appear to be a he-said, she-said situation when it was not. This resulted in damage to Anita Hill's professional reputation and career, her integrity in the legal field. It made her appear to be a hysterical person without a legitimate complaint, perhaps making stuff up because of being jilted. This was far from the case but the public never got to hear the others, because of Biden.

    3. Thanks, @11:55. IMHO this is an unfair rap. A couple of women were held back by Biden because they were obvious nut cases. That was a wise decision IMHO. In the Kavenaugh hearings, the nutty stories had the impact of undermining the plausible charges by Christine Blasey Ford.

      There were also dozens of women who wanted to testify in favor of Thomas. Biden allowed only 4 of them to testify and scheduled them for the middle of the night.

    4. There were 16 women and they were not "nut cases".

      There is no way that a woman can testify that sexual harassment didn't happen because it didn't happen to her. There was no reason to give the four women supporting Thomas equal time.

    5. Apparently 12 women testified in support of Thomas. They argued that they would have known if Thomas was doing that kind of stuff. I doubt that is true. No one knew Ted Bundy was a serial killer in his daily life with his wife and children, but he was.

      The point is that Biden let Anita Hill twist in the wind instead of letting her corroborating witnesses testify in the public hearing -- despite the 12 witnesses who supporter Thomas. The vote was 52 to 48 and might have gone the other way if Hill had not been portrayed as a spiteful scorned woman.

    6. Thomas is a sexual predator, just like President Tiny Hands and Brett Kavanaugh, the alcoholic.
      All three have the support of Conservatives, because Conservatives are who we always thought they were.

    7. If Harris wants to beat Trump, she will shut up about bussing and focus on the inability of either party to truly represent their constituents because of corporate influence and corporate money.

      EARTH TO DEMOCRATS: In the 2020 election, business as usual will fail. There are issues - the disparity between the rich and poor, low wages etc. that for decades have been swept under the rug and replaced with sideshows like BUSSING.


      Any one who wants to win has to address these issues head on. You can fool some people, like this idiot girl here, and get them to get all upset about BUSSING - but the cat is out of the bag and huge swaths won't fall for it anymore.


    8. @2:12 - It will be difficult for Dems to win on the issue of low wages. Wages have risen faster under Trump.

    9. "There are issues - the disparity between the rich and poor, low wages etc."

      The only thing a president can do about it is exactly what The Donald is doing: to stop - and hopefully reverse - liberal globalization. To re-industrialize the country, prevent offshoring, and let the workers fight for higher wages.

      Whatever else you do, as long as competing with Bangladesh (and illegal Guatemalans) continues, it'll only get worse.

      "...that for decades have been swept under the rug and replaced with sideshows like BUSSING."

      As far as the liberal zombie cult is concerned, it's a feature, not bug.

    10. Of course they can win on low wages, that's what helped Trump win. We have seen modest real wage gains over the last five years, but these gains have not come close to making up the ground lost in the recession and the first years of the recovery.

      Perhaps you have money and can look at data on a spreadsheet and make a claim such as that but there are people out here who are getting "jobs" and a "wage", like $15 an hour at Walmart or some warehouse where they will soon be replaced by a machine and these people feel it. Engaging them, is how Trump won.

      The stats you cite, politics as usual, is over. That party is over.

      But if you like Trump, you're looking good. These Democrat fools will spend their time talking about bussing (Bussing for God's sake!!!) or Russia which is essentially handing Trump the victory in 2020.

    11. I'll be wearing stilts on election day 2020.

      Friggin loud and proud.

    12. I think you mean "busing." "Bussing" is kissing.

    13. It's a gigantic loser politcally, no matter hows you spell it.

    14. @3:45P, so are you for or against forced bussing?

    15. Friggin Hickenlooper 2020 bro.

    16. Bob's blind literalist doctrinaire take is tedious, racism while still prevalent and horrible today, was worse in ways that made busing more of a significant issue back then.

    17. Wages have not risen faster under Trump. Wage growth has been steadily increasing since the 2008 Bush recession, has actually flattened out in the last two years, and the growth is lower than under Obama. Additionally, real wages have been stagnant for over 40 years.

      United States Wages and Salaries Growth

      click on the 10year chart for context

      For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

    18. Dembot, your own chart shows wages and salaries growth going up, from 2% in 2016 to over 4% in 2017, and staying on that level after that.

      Aside from that, "steadily increasing" definitely isn't a reasonable description of the 2009-2016 interval on that chart.

    19. Yes as I said, the wage growth rate has been largely flat for the last two years. The chart shows the wage growth rate steadily increasing in terms of long term trends from 2010 to 2016, where it dipped and then mostly recovered by 2017, although not quite to the rates that held during much of the rest of Obama's two terms.

      Wages have not risen faster under Trump.

      Real wages have been stagnant for over 40 years.

      You seriously are a fucking idiot.

    20. "Real wages have been stagnant for over 40 years."

      Wonder what happened 40 years ago, other than the election of the worst President in the history of the United States.

    21. 9:59,
      Glad to see you learned something in Kindergarten this year, even if it was just the "I know you are but what am I?" comeback at recess.

    22. "It's a gigantic loser politcally, no matter hows you spell it."

      This. Democrats need to drop their strong beliefs and pander to the voters so they can win. The Right-wing complaint about Hillary was she wasn't opportunistic enough. LOL.

      If nothing else, your concern trolling is duly noted.

    23. 9:59, I am sorry this issue is difficult for you, the wage growth rate dip at the end of 2015 that then recovered by 2017, prior to Trump, and then mostly flattened since then, is short term variation on the long term trend of the rate increasing since the Bush recession.

      The Federal Reserve, as predicted, raised rates at the end of 2015. Wage growth and workforce participation suffered short term drops around the same time frame, while decreasing inflation was halted, and the stock market started a two year surge.

      Real wages have been flat for 40 years.

      Workforce participation is at a 40 year low - part of a long term trend resulting from the Bush recession.

      Trump has had essentially zero positive impact on wages, interest rates, unemployment, employment, or the stock market. These all follow long term trends.

    24. You have the right to an opinion, dembot, no matter how tendentious and stupid your assertions are. I don't really care.

      I just pointed out that your description of the chart was unjustified, that's all. One doesn't describe a jumping up and down line as "steadily increasing", and, like I said, the wage growth went from 2% (2015-16) to over 4%, under the new management.

    25. It is not opinion, it is data. I'll state my opinion at the end.

      All data has variation - jumping up and down - the long term trend is one of steadily increasing since the Bush recession. My description is justified.

      The 2016-2017 wage growth rate increase was under Obama, although he played no role in it (wondering who or what causes wage growth could be a productive exercise). Trump did not become president until nearly a month into 2017, and that year he was operating under Obama's budget management as the fiscal year does not end until October. Furthermore, Trump has never managed wage growth.

      I am sorry this is so difficult for you, you have little understanding of how our economy works.

      A lot of people are saying that you are a total moron, I have heard even your mom agrees. Mom if you're listening, I hope you're able to find those 30,000 brain cells Mao is missing.

    26. Thank you for your concerns, dear dembot, and for (allegedly) entertaining my mother. I'm sure she appreciates it too.

      You might be surprised to learn that normal humans have over a trillion brain cells. But I do realize that for a dembot brain 30K is a lot, a half, perhaps?

      "Furthermore, Trump has never managed wage growth."

      Brilliant. I enjoy your insights; please keep them coming. Thanks in advance.

    27. A dembot zombie, like Mao, is uninterested in your fancy mathematics. He thinks anyone who can add 2+2 and get a result of 4 is an elitist. That's just how dembot zombies roll.

  2. ""This is simply the way the human brain worked," these forlorn future experts have said, speaking in the past tense."

    No, Bob, that's not what future experts have said.

    They reminded of the well-known historical fact: in the late 20th century and early 21st century, just before its final collapse, liberal ideology degenerated, transforming into the infamous liberal zombie cult, with no brain activity in its membership at all...

    1. It's a real shame that "All Lives Matter" is just a slogan used to shutdown calls for police accountability when shooting unarmed African-Americans. If it were anything else, it could be used to hold ICE accountable for how they treat children.

    2. Now the dembot zombie at 11:19 is so brain-dead he imagines he has a working time machine.

    3. You have to know Mao, that all you are capable of doing is saying the same thing over and over again, which does nothing to contribute to intelligent debate. So STFU and go somewhere else.

    4. David, that is fake news, you got conned.

    5. DavidinCal,
      Great point about how police so don't want to be held accountable, they'll just stop doing their jobs.
      Time to follow the NRA's call to shoot cops with our 2nd Amendment Rights.

    6. You can't shoot cops for refusing to put their lives on the line to prevent someone from harm, for fear of being hounded and threatened by Al Sharpton and the MSNBC racists. You can only fire them. Thousands of blacks died directly because of MSNBC and woke Democrats and their deranged need to scream RACIST.

    7. "You can't shoot cops ..."

      That's not what the NRA says. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.

    8. David in Cal,
      Since those threatened with accountability just stop doing their jobs, it's all the more reason to vote for Warren*.

      *The one the Establishment Elite-lovers call "Pocahontas".

  3. "Why doesn't Harris propose mandated busing? Tons of gorilla dust have appeared, keeping that question obscured."

    You can achieve the same goals with voluntary busing. This is a lesson learned since the 1970s.

    It was necessary to force busing in the 1970s because the public was not voluntarily accepting the remedy to forced segregation. The government needed to make it very clear that integration would happen whether bigots liked it or not. That is no longer necessary because our society has changed.

    Harris is rightly proposing ideas that are appropriate for our current times, which are different than the 1970s. Biden is being criticized because he is currently talking about working well with segregationists and because he never apologizes as a matter of principle.

    Why is Somerby working overtime to make Harris appear to be a hypocrite, or to make her supporters appear inconsistent on this issue? He once again seems to be willfully misunderstanding in order to attack a female candidate. His complaint against Harris is manufactured, but the criticisms of Biden are not. Harris is not the problem, Biden is.

    Somerby is once again defending a Southern male candidate who coincidentally (?) puts his hands all over women without their consent, and does the same thing to children to the point that their parents try to protect them from him without making a scene, in some truly agonizing video clips. Why does Somerby work so hard to protect men who behave inappropriately, while attacking women who have the gumption to run for office? Somerby is a mega-asshole.

    1. Yeah, some remedy. Blacks never whine about racism these days.

    2. Bob has very well demolished Harris' position on both Biden and busing. She can't have it both ways: either busing is a good solution or it isn't. And if it was good in 1973, why not now when she says the problem is worse?

      As to abuse claims, quell it. Biden's innocent

    3. Innocent of what? There is plentiful video of him putting his hands all over women and children, and his targets squirming uncomfortably and trying to move away, and the kids' parents trying to intervene without calling him out. He is guilty as hell of putting his hands where they don't belong. And since he never apologizes for anything, he is hopeless as a prospective candidate.

    4. 2:25, 11:28 just explained for you.

  4. I see Trump has been invoking Ronald Reagan's name, to remind the public Trump can't possibly be the worst President in the history of the United States.

  5. Why would future analysts talk about a long-gone advertising gimmick like Gardol? They likely wouldn't even know about it. This is an artifact of Somerby's childhood and his advancing senility.

  6. Harris is saying that Biden opposed busing 40 years ago when it might have made a difference. Perhaps it was an inherently bad idea, which Biden believed, or perhaps it was a decent idea that never had a chance to succeed because of the opposition of people like Biden and the segregationists he so happily worked with. In other words, if Biden had been a leader on this issue, rather than following the opinion polls and the “crowd”, who knows what might have happened?

    And Biden’s assertions, that he always supported voluntary busing and that he always supported busing as a remedy for de jure segregation, are rendered ridiculous, because, in those areas where segregation was de jure, the local officials were never going to voluntarily implement it, so it had to be court ordered, which Biden and his segregationist buddies opposed. Catch-22! And there is no record of Biden ever praising or supporting busing, voluntary or otherwise. On the other hand, there are plenty of public statements where Biden condemns the very idea of busing.

    Harris knows the history of busing, and how it ultimately failed, at least partly due to people like Biden. Now that segregated schools (or racially isolated schools, if you will) are a fait accompli, and busing has been discredited, she understands it is no longer appropriate for the federal government to mandate it.

    This is the way it always works in matters of racial justice. The opponents of integration, along with their supposedly civil-rights supporting fellow travelers like Biden, resist and oppose and bring about the fait accompli of even more segregated schools, which, according to Somerby, can now not be undone.

    1. And all this info will help us beat Trump?

    2. Trump is self defeating, the fuss will be over which Dem will win.

  7. What does "woke" mean?

    ""Woke" is a slang term that originated in the African-American community, gained traction on social media and has now permeated mainstream culture. In the vaguest terms, "woke" refers to an intangible level of awareness about community issues and social justice, but the specific meaning changes depending on the speaker."

    Here, Somerby uses it as a term of derision, to mock Harris.

    What does it say about someone's sensitivity to racial issues when they grab a term that originated with African Americans and use it in an ironic or sarcastic manner to mock an African American woman who is concerned with a racial issue?

    It says nothing good about Somerby or his commitment to beautiful black children.

    1. Instapundit and other conservatives are now using the word "woke" to mean excessively focused on social justice issues. Their favorite slogan is, "GET WOKE, GO BROKE:. The city of Seattle is their current example:
      So it looks like this is another part in the saga of Amazon leaving Seattle. All of this is because we have a city council and a mayor who have gone fanatic about socialism. They keep pushing anti-business policies.

      What this means for the downtown Seattle real estate market is that when the economy inevitably starts to turn, it will be cataclysmic.

    2. *** Public Service Announcement ***

      DAinCA is a moral and intellectual idiot, in fact, this commentariat’s Village Idiot. There’s no right-wing propaganda that he won’t swallow whole and regurgitate here. Case in point: his latest url to a piece by one Dori Monson, a talk-radio blatherer about whom Wikipedia reports

      … his show turned decidedly conservative around the time of the September 11 attacks in 2001, enthusiastically supporting the Iraq invasion and accusing global warming activists of being "phony, global warming cultists". He also once asked Washington State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz if he was a communist.

      You may now ignore both David and Dori and safely return to your blog reading.

      Please do not write abusive comments to or about David. It’s just pointlessly cruel.

    3. Here's @11:15A: [Harris] knows that if she supports forced busing, parents will rebel again.

      Just like Biden did back in the day. So the two are in violent agreement, but Harris attacks Biden nonetheless. That's cynical politics, which is OK because as Mr Dooley pointed out "politics ain't bean-bag. But don't pretend it's woke.

      You ask what it means when TDH uses "woke" in such a sarcastic manner. It means he thinks that Harris is an opportunistic hypocrite. Now, perhaps his analysis is faulty and his conclusion is wrong.

      I notice you didn't spend any time on that proposition. What does that say about you?

    4. Bob does not care about black people.

    5. Deadrat, there is no equivalence between Harris's current unwillingness to support forced busing and Biden's refusal to support in in the 1970s. In the intervening 50 years, times have changed. Biden made his decision in the face of the civil rights movement. His common cause with segregationists was a slap in the face to the aspirations of those trying to overturn Jim Crow, including de facto school segregation.

      Despite the figures presented regularly by Somerby, no black child will encounter spitting parents if he or she tries to attend a nearly all white school. Not so in the 1970s.

      Harris is not a hypocrite when she points out that Biden did not support an important plank in the civil rights movement back in the 70s. She was not around in the 70s for comparison but, having her own civil rights record to stand on, she has never shown common cause with segregationists in her life. Portraying her as opportunistic because she doesn't support busing now is a silly game that politicians play. Somerby shows himself to be an idiot by going along with those who want to attack Harris using this specious argument. So do you, apparently.

      Once again, you will not allow any anonymous poster to have said anything beyond the confines of a single comment. I did point out earlier why Somerby's analysis is faulty and his conclusion wrong.

      I agree with 8:30 too, Somerby doesn't care about black people. He also clearly doesn't care about nominating the best candidate or supporting liberal values. He is still shilling for conservatives, who have singled Harris out as a threat and are not making her strengths into liabilities in that fine old conservative tradition.

    6. typo: not = now (in final paragraph)

    7. @3:48 is so woke, so triggered, so literally shaking.

    8. deadrat - have you been in Seattle recently? Is Dori's description of the city accurate? Or, is a mere ad hominem all you have?

    9. Once again, you will not allow any anonymous poster to have said anything beyond the confines of a single comment. I did point out earlier why Somerby's analysis is faulty and his conclusion wrong.

      I won’t allow? What powers over commenters do you think I have? And if you pointed out anything, I’m sorry I missed it. No, wait. That’s a lie. I’m not sorry at all. If you insist on posting as Anonymous, you don’t get to complain about others not being able to follow your arguments.

      I agree with 8:30 too, Somerby doesn't care about black people.

      @8:30 is probably just a troll making fun of you (or posters like you). How could either of you know whom Somerby likes or doesn’t like?

      I take it that your argument is that forced busing was effective in school integration in the 1970s but it’s not now. OK, do you have any evidence to support that? If schools are even more segregated today than they were in the 1970s, why would you remove a tool to correct that? The only answer is that there are now too few white students in public schools for busing to work. Did you stop to consider that so-called forced busing was an important factor in white flight from the schools? If so, why wouldn’t that make Biden prescient then instead of a segregationist now?

      Or perhaps your argument is that regardless of busing’s effectiveness, it was a litmus test that Biden failed and Harris would have passed. I suppose for the record that I need to note how absurd that position is.

      Back in the ‘80s, a notable public figure declared “It’s not the bus” and proposed alternatives to busing such as redrawing district boundaries, consolidating separate school systems, and magnet schools. I suppose you think that made him another traitor to the civil rights movement. It was Jesse Jackson. His full slogan was “It’s not the bus, it’s us.” If you need that explained, just ask.

      Harris acts like a typical opportunist. That doesn’t make her bad; that makes her a politician. Pointing out facts isn’t shilling for conservatives, even if they don’t like Harris for different reasons.

      [Someby] also clearly doesn't care about nominating the best candidate or supporting liberal values.

      Lots of things that don’t obtain seem clear to you. Is Harris the best candidate? By the measure of beating Trump, I doubt it. And you wouldn’t know a liberal value if one bit you on the ankle.

      [Biden’s] His common cause with segregationists was a slap in the face to the aspirations of those trying to overturn Jim Crow, including de facto school segregation.

      You’re as ignorant as a stump. Jim Crow is legalized apartheid. It doesn’t include de facto segregation. When Biden joined the Senate, he had two choices thanks to Dixiecrat control of Senate committees — work with Dixiecrats like Talmadge and Eastland or refuse to have anything to do with them. The latter strategy would gave gained nothing but the current admiration of ignoramuses like you for moral purity. The former strategy sometimes paid no dividends (Talmadge) and sometimes did (Eastland). If you need me to repeat the story of the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, I will.

      It’s fair to say that Biden’s experience with Dixiecrats is irrelevant to dealing with today’s Republican ideologues, but that experience didn’t make him a segregationist then or now.

    10. deadrat,
      I like some of your posts, but the ones pretending Somerby doesn't repeat Right-wing memes are nonsense.

    11. @5:47,

      Thanks. Perhaps you can help me understand why you think some of my comments are nonsense. I try to evaluate TDH’s posts on a standalone basis. To oversimplify, what he says is either based in fact or it isn’t, independent of what right-wingers say. I don’t pay much attention to what right-wingers say for the obvious reason.

      (The exception here are my PSAs warning people not to waste their time pondering David in Cal’s vomitus.)

      Are you talking about some right-wing meme about busing to integrate public schools? If so, can you point me to one? Right-wing memes about public schools revolve around the claim that public schools are government conspiracies with teachers unions to indoctrinate students in liberal viewpoints. Do wingers care about busing or integration? They got the school systems they want.

      Are you talking about some right-wing meme about cooperating with Dixiecrats fifty years ago? The old Dixiecrats are now Republican heroes, and the new Dixiecrats are Republicans.

      Are you talking about some right-wing memes about Harris? As far as I can tell these are that 1) she’s not black (or not authentically American black) enough and 2) she screwed her way to political success.

      TDH’s posts about Harris make the point that her attacks on Biden for his politics from fifty years ago make very little sense except as a strategy to bloody a primary opponent. Is that a right-wing meme?

    12. "I don’t pay much attention to what right-wingers say for the obvious reason."

      If only Somerby would do the same.
      Also, I'm not sure how you can criticize the media when you don't even pay attention to it.

    13. @7:35,

      Do you think TDH pays much attention to right-wingers? I don’t. Much of the gnashing of teeth around here arises from TDH’s criticism of liberals and liberal media to the cry of “What about Fox News? Why doesn’t Somerby go after Fox News?”

      Also, I'm not sure how you can criticize the media when you don't even pay attention to it.

      I’m confused. Is that the second person indeterminate or are you addressing me? If the latter, I’m not in the business of criticizing the media. What would make you think otherwise? I just like to argue with commenters. Mostly to hear the sound of my own voice.

    14. @deadrat:
      “Jim Crow is legalized apartheid. It doesn’t include de facto segregation.”

      Delaware was a Jim Crow state. Perhaps you aren’t aware of that. It gives the lie to so much of Biden’s and Somerby’s pretended views on all of this.

    15. You're right on both counts. Delaware was a Jim Crow state from 1875-1963, and I didn't know that until I looked it up.

      That still doesn't change the fact that de facto segregation is a problem separate from Jim Crow (i.e., de jure segregation).

      Perhaps you could explain how Delaware's depressing but not unusual racial history "gives the lie" to Biden's and Somerby's "views." Start with listing those views and how you know them. Then tell me the relationship of Jim Crow to those views. Be specific; show your work.

      Keep in mind that Biden was first elected to public office seven years after Delaware's repeal of its Jim Crow laws.

    16. ""I don’t pay much attention to what right-wingers say for the obvious reason.""

      I pay close attention to what left-wingers say, because I want to hear both sides.

    17. David, the heart of the Seattle/Amazon conflict was a tax which the City Council then dropped even before it took effect.

      Amazon is not pulling out of Seattle, it is actually expanding in the area. The building in downtown Seattle that it no longer will use, will be subleased to other companies. Bellevue is part of the Seattle metropolitan area.

      Amazon does have major quality control issues, good luck not getting an imitation knock off product when ordering something. Wouldn't it be nice if Amazon had some real competition? At any rate, while Amazon has taken advantage of technological advancements, 3D printing may be it's greatest threat.

      Your unfounded fear of wage growth is bizarre.

      Right-wingers tend to be reactionary, and are not reliable sources of accurate information. This is a feature as their goals include clogging up progress with tedious and disingenuous assertions (which oddly enough also well describes the peculiar commenter named deadrat, who inspires much mockery and eye rolling, which in turn spur his output to even sillier heights of creepy masturbatory indulgence - a very odd dance to observe)

    18. @7:08A,

      And this is the thanks I get for posting public warnings about David in Cal, warnings that “oddly enough” characterize of all his comments in the same way you describe his particular comment @9:46P on 7/9.

      “Tedious and disingenuous”? I’ll have to object to that description. No, wait. Tedious is a fair cop. But what exactly do you find disingenuous about what I write?

      And, Sparky? If you think posting comments to a blog is “masturbatory indulgence”, then let me tell you this: you’re doing it wrong.

  8. Apparently the Harris woman is quite a scumbag: dirty tricks, evidence tampering, false testimony, bribes, the whole nine yards.

    I must say: she definitely deserves to be zombie cult's nominee next year.

    ...and probably a psycho too, like the one in 2016. So, continuity will be established, and that's important.

    1. Mao, this shows your utter dishonesty. The Consortium News story about Harris you cite castigates Harris for her role as California Attorney General from the left for defending against claims of wrongful convictions, the type of thing that upsets liberal 'dembots.' This has been discussed elsewhere, including the NYT. It's valid criticism of her, but it's liberal criticism. Consortium doesn't accuse her of bribery, dirty tricks, evidence tampering or false testimony. Did you read the part where she went easy on Stephen Mnuchin? Maybe you could cite some of the other contemporaneous articles in Consortium News - "The Trump Administration's Contrived Citizenship Question"; "Trump presides over Dwindling Greatness'; "American Suicide and what Trump Isn't Doing about It"; "Jingoist Military Fetishazation."

    2. Rosneft anyone?

    3. "Consortium doesn't accuse her of bribery, dirty tricks, evidence tampering or false testimony"

      Have we read different articles?

      “Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.”

      "Mnuchin donated $2,000 to Harris’s Senate campaign in February 2016. It was his only donation to a Democratic candidate."

    4. Harris is an enraged psycho who makes Crooked look like June Cleaver.

    5. Mao, you either can't read that well - or you just don't understand how it works. Harris was the AG of California. In cases that she didn't handle, involving district attorneys or local or state police - claims were made that convictions were wrongful for various reasons - evidence not disclosed, proof of innocence later discovered, etc. Harris wasn't involved in the underlying cases. She is being chastised in her role as AG in defending the original convictions. AG's are prone to taking that type of position, from both parties. Maybe you aren't aware of what goes on. As to Mnuchin, yeah, he gave the donation - the writer also calls Harris to task for going easy on Mnuchin in his role as head of a corrupt bank; did you notice that additional aspect? You call Harris a "scumbag" based on this Consortium post? Take a look at the last few weeks or months of the Consortium posts about Trump - how would summarize those?

    6. Forget it AC/MA.
      Mao is a dembot zombie, beyond any hope of learning anything.

    7. Yeah, right, obviously it's I who can't read well.

      Obviously “Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors” meant as compliment. Because everybody does it.

      Go on, tell us more, please.

    8. Mao, you are being obtuse. The quote you give states exactly what I've been saying. Harris is chastised for trying to uphold wrongful convictions - not for being the one who effected the wrongful convictions. There is a distinct difference. It's similar to the way Trump approaches the wrongful convictions of the Central Park 5 - if it were up to him, they're convictions would never have been thrown out. I'm not defending Harris, or the common way AGs and DAs often defend wrongful, or allegedly wrongful convictions. I'm just pointing out the facts without any intended bias.

    9. "There is a distinct difference"

      No, there isn't. But you're certainly entitled to an opinion.

      "the wrongful convictions of the Central Park 5"

      The Armstrong report said it wasn't wrong, and found no misconduct. So you may want to check your assumptions.

      In fact, it's the same phenomenon: the unstoppable force of zombie cult's political expediency.

    10. "No there isn't {a distinct difference]" What's your reasoning? There doesn't appear to be any. I haven't devoted hours to studying the case, but it seems the DNA evidence exonerates them from attacking the jogger. (What gets left out a lot by the defenders of the 5 is that they were also found guilty of other attacks that night). Weren't these impoverished teenagers interrogated for hours (14 hours?) when if they exercised their right to remain silent or to have an a lawyer, there would be no case at all? And how do you know that the persons whose convictions Harris defended weren't actually guilty? I'm not sure the Jordan report is gospel authority - it's not conclusive. You go on ad nauseum about liberal dembot zombies, and I understand where you are coming from, but you don't seem to have any interest in being objective, and instead come across as a trolling Breitbart stooge.

    11. "And how do you know that the persons whose convictions Harris defended weren't actually guilty? "

      I don't. The consortiumnews piece alleged it, and provides some evidence. That's why I said "apparently".

      What's with sophistry and changing the subject (not to mention ludicrous lame insults)? I read the consortiumnews piece, and wrote a perfectly reasonable comment. Sorry if it caused you a mental discomfort, but hey, live with it.

    12. The Armstrong report is not evidence-based, it is just his opinion.

    13. No response to inquiry as to reasoning behind "no distinction." I don't think the changing of subjects or sophistry is on my part. No mental discomfort either - just trying to have reasonable exchange. No need to be sorry on that score.

    14. "What's with sophistry and changing the subject (not to mention ludicrous lame insults)? "

      Need a safe space?
      Conservative America hears you, and left this message for you: Fuck your feelings.

    15. What kind of response do you expect?

      Since you're the one holding an eccentric view here (that 'fighting tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions, secured through official misconduct etc.' is markedly different from official misconduct), then the burden of proof is on you.

  9. Bob promised a week ago that he would revisit his years as a teacher in Baltimore.
    He has not hidden behind those kids (yet). I'm waiting to see if busing was useful in Baltimore back in the day. Probably not.
    You have opted in with your bigoted compadres that historic results are as they should be. You offer no ideas as to how to remediate these results.
    Thanks Bob for your agreement with your bigoted supporters.

  10. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
    Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever