Joe Biden's racism brought to the fore!

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2019

There's no cure for stupid and righteous:
This past Monday morning, the New York Times' perpetually-furious Charles M. Blow wrote a column about Candidate Biden.

For ourselves, we regard Biden as a terrible candidate in a field of terrible candidates. In our view, the field is so bad that they've begun to suggest a startling possibility—the possibility that Donald J. Trump could actually win again.

We think Biden's a terrible candidate—but is he guilty of racism? That's what one Trump-enabler took away from the latest expression of Blow's perpetual fury.

Yesterday morning, her letter appeared in the Times. Charles M. Blow had helped the writer crystallize these thoughts:
To the Editor:

Charles M. Blow’s incisive critique of Joe Biden helped me to crystallize what exactly bothers me so much about Mr. Biden. His racism and hypocrisy, and his unwillingness to learn, listen or grow, are unnervingly disturbing to me, since he is the current front-runner.

I hope that Mr. Blow’s critique will illuminate these issues for both black and white voters. C’mon, Dems! We have so many other truly exciting and qualified candidates. Warren, Bernie, Booker, Harris. Even Beto and Castro. We decide, as voters, who is not only electable but also right for the job!

P— A—
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Expressing her gratitude to Blow, the writer urged black and white Democrats to reject Biden's racism. Other Democratic voters? They were left on their own!

All kinds of people are found within our sprawling U.S. electorate. Based on a simple Google search, this letter writer has been a clinical social worker since 1990.

During the bulk of that time, she has also been the owner of a concern which sells fine clothing and jewelry. For twenty-four of those years, she was director of an eponymous consulting firm which continues to promote itself in the kind of consultant language which no normal human being could paraphrase, react to or fathom.

Whatever! The writer has spotted Biden's racism, the one sin our tribe knows. She hopes others will see his racism too, perhaps including Hispanics.

To his credit, the perpetually furious Blow didn't accuse Biden of racism—or at least, not in so many words. He did say that Biden had given "racial offense" in at least two different ways in the course of a rambling, discursive answer to a rambling, discursive question from ABC's highly presentable Linsey Davis at last Thursday night's debate.

As we noted yesterday, Blow didn't seem to know what Biden was talking about in his rambling answer. For that reason, he declared that Biden's racially offensive answer had also been "nonsensical," which it pretty much wasn't.

Blow did know enough to complain about the fact that Biden referred to a "record player" in the course of his rambling statement. Within our pitiful upper-end press corps, everyone has agreed to offer that jibe, just as everyone once spent years making "invented the Internet" jokes at Candidate Gore's expense.

In that way, this guild of fools sent us into Iraq. What are they trying for now?

All scribes have seemed to know that they should mention that record player! That includes the hapless Roger Cohen, fulminating and showboating in this morning's Times:
COHEN (9/21/19): His reference to a “record player” in the last Democratic debate in the context of a question about reparations for slavery tied Biden to a bygone era, but that was far from the worst of it. Talking about black families—that is what the question was about—he actually said: “We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t, they don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the, the — — make sure the kids hear words.”

They don’t know what to do! Make sure the kids hear words! This is insulting toward African-Americans...
"Make sure the kids hear words!" We'll guess that Cohen has never heard of the co-called "30 Million Word Gap." For that reason, we'll guess he didn't recognize Biden's reference or understand his (jumbled) point.

As a member of the world's dumbest guild, Cohen did know that he should play the "record player" card. Also, that he should fulminate in a way designed to showcase his own racial greatness. This will always be part of the deal, wherever this hapless band roves.

Must we move on to Astead Herndon's news report in this morning's Times? The youngster is four years out of college (Marquette, class of 2015). In our view, his work just "goes from to worse." Here's the way he started today:
HERNDON (9/21/19): A groan erupted at a debate watch party at Texas Southern University last week as former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr. got a question about slavery and racism and gave an answer about Venezuela and record players.
For the record, Biden was asked about "education and race" (among several other things) in the course of Davis' rambling question. In the main, that's what his rambling question addressed.

But whatever! Like the rest of this hapless guild, Herndon knew he should start things off with that "record player!" As anthropologists continually tell us, these peculiar life-forms are only happy When They All Get to Say The Same Things, but especially When They All Get to Make The Same Pointless Jesting Remarks.

Once, they clowned about the Net; today it's that record player. None of them is discussing the factors which may hold black kids back in school, and none of them ever will. Instead, they thrash about, seeking ways to announce the latest "racial offense."

Joe Biden is a terrible candidate; the others are terrible too. With respect to the liberal/progressive world as a whole, you just can't be this dumb and uncaring for this long without re-electing a Trump—or so experts say.

Top anthropologists keep telling us that there's no cure for any of this given our species' wiring. "Given modern social arrangements, this is simply the best this species can do," they despondently tell us, though only late at night.

There is no cure for this, they say. We're beginning to think they're right.

73 comments:

  1. "There's no cure for righteous and stupid"

    Hear, hear.

    "We think Biden's a terrible candidate—but is he guilty of racism?"

    I don't care about Creepy Joe specifically, but let us note that in your libzombie newspeak 'racism' is defined as precisely the absence of smug-and-stupid race-bating.

    So, in this sense, Creepy Joe may very well be guilty.

    But wait - guilty? Is libzombie 'racism' already a crime? Say it ain't so, dear Bob...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't race-baiting to call out someone's racist statements or behaviors. It is race-baiting to call members of other races names and demean them. Race baiting is the making of verbal attacks against a racial group.

      Delete
    2. Race-baiting is exactly what liberals do: turning every human endeavor into a bullshit rivalry of fictitious 'races' (or, more generally, of irrelevant 'identities').

      As in "education and race" - one of the prime examples of race-baiting.

      Delete
    3. You don't get to have personal meanings for words, different from those other people use. It creates confusion at a minimum, which is no doubt the intent of this particular redefinition.

      Framing history or current events in terms of a racial struggle is not "race baiting." To some extent, it is what members of a minority race do in order to understand and cope with the racism they encounter in daily life. When you are the target of racial animus, every action needs to be filtered through a lens of "was that racially motivated"?

      You can look race baiting up in any number of online dictionaries and you will not find your definition, so please stop trying to confuse matters here by inventing your own definitions.

      Delete
    4. "Framing history or current events in terms of a racial struggle is not "race baiting.""

      Sorry, but I have to disagree: yes it is.

      There's no such thing as "racial struggle". Defining anything as a "racial struggle" is race-baiting, pure and simple.

      "so please stop trying to confuse matters here"

      Yeah, right. You dembots have a dream of a totalitarian society where only your zombie-cult's talking points are publicized. Any anyone who isn't a doubleplusgood dembot keeps quiet.

      We aren't quite there yet, dembot, but pretty close, I'd say. Technology is improving, so why don't you wait a few years.

      Delete
    5. Don't worry your shitty little head about us,Mao

      You just keep working for the Establishment, and we'll take care of ourselves.

      Delete
    6. way to bury the lede, Somerby. hmmm what HUGE story is Somerby noticeably ignoring?

      Suck on that Greenwald.

      Delete
  2. "During the bulk of that time, she has also been the owner of a concern which sells fine clothing and jewelry. For twenty-four of those years, she was director of an eponymous consulting firm which continues to promote itself in the kind of consultant language which no normal human being could paraphrase, react to or fathom."

    Here is an example of the kind of treatment someone receives when they participate in online and apparently newspaper dialog on issues. This is an ad hominem attack because the info Somerby reveals about her personal life is irrelevant to any ongoing discussion, invaded her privacy and is not necessary to consider her ideas.

    Somerby omits her name but that is another of his coy, not-so-cute devices that only underscores the manner in which he has made her private info known.

    This is why some of us who remain anonymous do so. We do not want motivated stalkers using Google to track back everything we've ever written and compile the invasive bio Somerby uses to discredit this woman (and yes, this happens most often to women and it is a reason why they do not participate as often on the internet).

    Somerby should be ashamed of himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t understand what’s so terrible about selling fine clothing and jewelry. And an ad hominem attack says that a person’s argument is wrong simply because that person is making the argument. TDH’s comment about “consultant language” is meant to disparage the letter writer’s rhetorical abilities.

      Somerby omits her name but that is another of his coy, not-so-cute devices that only underscores the manner in which he has made her private info known.

      She didn’t omit her name (or her city of residence). It appears after her letter. None of her information is private. Do you think Somerby doxed her? If so, you’re a moron.

      This is why some of us who remain anonymous do so. We do not want motivated stalkers using Google to track back everything we've ever written….

      No one here wants to know who you are. I, for one, object to the discourtesy of commenting with the group name Anonymous, which makes following threads difficult. If you used a nym, you wouldn’t be any less anonymous. No one could use the google to stalk you based on a random nym. (Which, by the way, you could change on a per thread basis.) And anyone who could hack the google and get into blogspot could track you no matter that you used Anonymous to comment with.

      Delete
    2. light my altar candleSeptember 21, 2019 at 6:28 PM

      I don’t understand what’s so terrible about anything TDH posts, ever.

      Delete
    3. Those that use a nym here are the ones that do not comment in good faith.

      Delete
    4. not light my altar candleSeptember 21, 2019 at 10:30 PM

      @deadrat
      The policy concerning letters to the editor is that they must include a real name and address. My local paper requires not just a name, but contact info. They call you to make sure you aren’t a fake.

      And perhaps you don’t understand what “doxxing” means. I will inform you: “search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.”

      Did Somerby search for and publish identifying information about that letter writer? Yes. Yes he did. There aren’t two definitions, one for Somerby and one for everyone else.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the nyn, not light my altar candle. I appreciate it.

      The key here is “private.” The letter writer already identified herself by name and place of residence, and all of the identifying details that TDH writes about are publicly available and provided by the woman herself.

      Delete
    6. Of course you don't get why this is so wrong. You don't do implication. You don't see that assembling the details of one's life is an act of intimidation, of control, and its purpose is only to instill fear in another person.

      Anyone can find private info about any of us, with sufficient motivation. Stalkers don't find out anything that isn't publicly available. It is their motivation and the fact that they are doing it that is wrong. It is an act of exerting control over another, saying "I know where you live..." that is frightening. In Somerby's case, he also invites other people to harrass this letter writer, should he have deranged lurkers interested in hurting other people.

      You don't know who reads this blog or who would be suggestible enough to act on information, neither does Somerby, so he shouldn't have done that.

      That you see no harm in it makes you the world's largest douche.

      Delete
    7. Of course you don't get why this is so wrong. You don't do implication.

      This is becoming a theme. But implication is the wrong word. I think you mean that I can’t extrapolate from the act to the potential harm you see. But, of course, I can. I just disagree with you that the potential is at all likely or that TDH’s remarks are a critical element.

      Anyone can find private info about any of us, with sufficient motivation.

      Really? Sort of non-falsifiable since anyone who fails obviously didn’t have sufficient motivation.

      Stalkers don't find out anything that isn't publicly available.

      This is flatly untrue.

      In Somerby's case, he also invites other people to harrass [sic] this letter writer….

      This is also flatly untrue.

      You don't know who reads this blog or who would be suggestible enough to act on information,….

      Of course not. But we can conjure up any evil outcome because there are always people out there unhinged enough to match the imagined outcome. So how do we decide where to define the line between responsible and irresponsible, between legitimate discussion of people we don’t know and doxing?

      Here are my rules:

      1. Don’t reveal the identity of someone who’s chosen to remain anonymous. I use a nym, so if you can figure out my name by whatever means, don’t post it here.

      2. Don’t reveal information about someone who’s identified through no actions on their own. People often end up identified in the news because they got entangled in events that they had no part in making.

      3. Don’t reveal protected information. If you can hack google, you may be able to find out who I am. If you can hack credit bureau databases, then knowing my name can lead you to all sorts of information about me. Don’t reveal anything you find in that way.

      4. Don’t reveal information you got by data mining, by which I mean the correlation of publicly available sources to piece together information not directly accessible.

      (Extraordinary circumstances might prompt exceptions.)

      None of this applies to P___ A___. She chose to identify herself in the NYT. Everything that TDH mentioned is directly accessible via the google and was placed there by P___ A___ herself.

      And I find it absurd to believe that rather than reading the NYT and googling the name from there, “stalkers” would read TDH to seize on the assertion that the woman ran a clothing store.

      That you see no harm in it makes you the world's largest douche.

      Oh, dear. But tell the truth: that’s a fib. You really think that I’m the world’s largest douche because I disagree with you and do it rudely.

      Delete
  3. "Blow didn't seem to know what Biden was talking about in his rambling answer. For that reason, he declared that Biden's racially offensive answer had also been "nonsensical," which it pretty much wasn't."

    Biden's statement only made sense after Somerby filled in some of the details for him, telling us what he was probably alluding to but didn't actually say. Somerby commits the same sin as the rest of the media, cleaning up Biden's language and thinking for us, to make him appear sufficiently presidential. The media does this for Trump all the time, hiding his confused, mistaken and nonsensical tweets and statements to the press and to rally audiences. Somerby can fill in the blanks, but that doesn't mean there were no blanks.

    Blow isn't on the hook for an education plan, the way Biden is. Blow doesn't have to be able to fill in those blanks, even when they concern some guy in Mississippi who happened to be black.

    Blow didn't make a jibe that everyone else had already made! That should be to his credit, especially since it was a cheap shot. But Somerby wants to hang that around his neck too.

    Somerby is working way too hard to condemn Blow. Why? I believe it is because Blow's criticism may alienate some of Biden's support among black voters. Those voters might then shift to Harris or Warren or one of the others in striking distance of Biden's lead. Not to Bernie, who doesn't seem interested in relating to black voters.

    So Somerby needs to portray Blow as someone without any credibility as a black parent and a perpetual racial axe to grind that isn't fairly aimed at poor old Joe.

    Somerby is being an even bigger ass these days. Not surprising he is working overtime while Trump is having a major scandal that may undermine reelection efforts. At a time when Trump is at his greatest jeopardy, Somerby says he might win reelection! That is the sign of a shill doing his job for Russia and conservatism, not a media critic or clear thinker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby is a 'useless idiot' for Trump.

      Delete
    2. Blow didn't make a jibe that everyone else had already made! That should be to his credit, especially since it was a cheap shot. But Somerby wants to hang that around his neck too.

      TDH doesn’t. He says Blow knew enough not to make that stupid reference.

      So Somerby needs to portray Blow as someone without any credibility as a black parentAt a time when Trump is at his greatest jeopardy, Somerby says he might win reelection!

      And so he might. Trump can count on a solid 40% of the voting public. That looks like he needs 10% to win, but with the Russians, our insecure voting systems, a malfeasant media, and the electoral college, it’s actually much less. How is that TDH’s fault?

      Delete
    3. If Trump doesn't win re-election, it certainly wouldn't be TDH's fault, since Somerby has tried to support him and his proteges gallantly, like a Trumptard.

      Delete
    4. The reality is, the electorate is highly polarized (Get ready!).

      The progressive Democratic strategy this election is to mobilize voters (check out 2018, check out college student turnout, etc), conversely TDH seems to (just watch me now) support a strategy of convincing Trump supporters, or those that lean towards Trump, to switch sides - similar to the Biden/Buttigieg approach.

      TDH posts often focus solely on pedantic criticism of issues that specifically motivate progressive supporters.

      TDH will neither be at fault nor be able to claim righteousness if Trump wins, as TDH has little influence and is wrong on strategy.

      There are some evil mothers here (Somerby, Mao, deadrat, David in Cal) that will tell you everything is just dirt: Republicans aren't racist, Dems only virtue signal, context doesn't matter.


      Delete
    5. TDH seems to … support a strategy of convincing Trump supporters, or those that lean towards Trump, to switch sides….

      Could I have an example? TDH’s hobbyhorse is the criticism of “liberal” media malfeasance (or what he deems malfeasance).

      TDH posts often focus solely on pedantic criticism of issues that specifically motivate progressive supporters.

      Could I have an example? TDH’s posts mostly focus on obsessive criticism of individuals.

      There are some evil mothers here (Somerby, Mao, deadrat, David in Cal) that will tell you everything is just dirt: Republicans aren't racist, Dems only virtue signal, context doesn't matter.

      Somerby doesn’t comment here. I doubt he even reads his commentariat. Why would he? But “evil”? As harsh as that is, it’s not as bad as lumping me in with the rest of that company. It would hurt my feelings if I had any.

      Mao, our Village Troll?
      David in Cal, our Village Idiot?

      You think I don’t tag Republicans as racist? I’m the guy who thinks the whole lot walks amongst us as human.

      You think I’m of the opinion that Dems only virtue signal? Where did that come from? Now that the New Yorkers are gone, I can find something to like in all the Democratic candidates.

      Everything is just dirt? No, not everything. But there’s a tsunami of dreck coming. A wave of xenophobia and misogyny enabled and encouraged by Republicans, who know no bounds when it comes to lying and cheating.

      A reliable 40% back Trump already. The only things that I can think of that will budge them is a Trump depression or Trump losing a war. And only then if they can be moved to believe Trump was at fault. Which history says is a dubious bet.

      And you really think that I believe context doesn’t matter? I’m beginning to think that you don’t really follow my comments. You know how hurtful that is? Why, you only have to go back to August 20th of this year to find that I think context is everything. Go here.

      Delete
    6. No one is going to click on your link, deadrat. We’re here for Bob.

      Delete
    7. No one is going to click on your link, deadrat.

      Can you even imagine how crushed I must be?

      We’re here for Bob.

      Can you even imagine how frightened he must be?

      Delete
    8. 'TDH posts often focus solely on pedantic criticism of issues that specifically motivate progressive supporters.'

      Nah, TDH and his clone deadrat are equal opportunity Dem attackers. He attacks all Dems. When it comes to Rs, he defends the vilest Rs such as Trump and Roy Moore.

      Delete
  4. "For the record, Biden was asked about "education and race" (among several other things) in the course of Davis' rambling question. In the main, that's what his rambling question addressed."

    The actual question was quoted here yesterday. It concerned our legacy of slavery and how to address inequalities in education. Biden did not answer it. Things that are good for all children or for poor children, do not address the lingering racism that feeds those inequalities in schooling for black kids. It was obviously an invitation to talk about desegregation because that is aimed at addressing racial inequalities, not problems of poor kids or kids in general. Biden ignored that part of the question. So does Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn! A cogent criticism of Biden's response. The other Anonymous commenters aren't going to like that.

      Biden ignored the question. Bad on him. TDH isn't running for office; why would you care what he thinks about the question?

      Delete
    2. Actually desegregation is good for all children.

      Biden did not address racism, this criticism may be cogent, but it is not unique, nor disliked by anonymous commenters.

      Delete
    3. @deadrat
      Charles Blow isn’t running for office; why should Somerby care what he thinks?

      Charles Blow isn’t tasked with creating education policy; why should Somerby care what Charles Blow thinks about education policy?

      You get the idea.

      Why would TDH have to be running for office for anyone to care what he thinks? Do YOU care?

      We can just cut to the chase regarding your comment: since Somerby isn’t running for office, why should anyone care what he thinks about anything?

      And, additionally, did you think your rejoinder made any sense at all?

      Delete
    4. Charles Blow isn’t running for office; why should Somerby care what he thinks?

      I don’t know Somerby, so I don’t know why he cares about what people in the “liberal” media write. He does, though.

      Charles Blow isn’t tasked with creating education policy; why should Somerby care what Charles Blow thinks about education policy?

      TDH cares about the media fumbling of current issues, especially those concerning public education. Charles Blow occupies some important op-ed real estate, he’s an excellent writer, and he probably has some influence on public opinion. So he comes under TDH scrutiny.

      Why would TDH have to be running for office for anyone to care what he thinks? Do YOU care?

      I was comparing him to Biden. He wouldn’t have to be running for office for anyone to care about his education policies, but he would at least have to write about the topic. Do I care about TDH’s policies for public education? Supposing he had any, the answer is no. He’s not running for office, so he has no capability to implement any, and whatever miniscule platform he has couldn’t influence anyone with that capability. So, no.

      [S]ince Somerby isn’t running for office, why should anyone care what he thinks about anything?

      I’m sorry, but am I supposed to be in the business of convincing people to care about what Somerby thinks? They can care or don’t. Max nixt to me.

      [D]id you think your rejoinder made any sense at all?

      <shrug> At least as much as your tirade. Do you think I care if you couldn’t understand my comment? You’re not running for office are you, say, on the Know Nothing ticket?

      Delete
    5. @deadrat
      Your reply shows no comprehension of what I wrote. Of course Somerby ought to care what Blow writes. But it isn’t important whether Blow is running for office, and the fact that Blow isn’t in charge of education policy isn’t a reason to be uninterested in his opinion. My point was to show you the idiocy of your so-called rejoinder, suggesting that the commenter shouldn’t care what Somerby thinks about this, *because he isn’t running for office.” Why should that matter?

      Is it because Blow is prominent and Somerby isn’t? That should be completely irrelevant.

      Somerby is important enough to YOU to cause you to spend some effort reading his commenters and replying to them to correct their “errors.”

      Somerby apparently means enough to these commenters to prompt them not only to read his blog fairly faithfully, but to comment. It seems important to you to keep correcting what you view as their reading comprehension problems.

      Delete
    6. And for some reason, it’s important to you to keep hammering away on a point that I’ve explained.

      No, it doesn’t matter that Somerby isn’t running for office. I should have been clearer: Somerby isn’t running for office like Joe Biden, Somerby isn’t writing potentially-influential op-ed pieces like Charles Blow, Somerby isn’t in the business of pushing any particular agenda for education policy, we have no evidence that Somerby has or should have any expertise in the area. So why would anyone task him with publishing such an agenda?

      Mea culpa: my rhetorical skills failed me when I wrote a comment to a blog nobody reads.

      Happy now?

      Somerby isn’t important to me at all. I. Don’t. Know. Somerby.

      I find it amusing to spend some effort — and believe me, the intellectual effort is minimal, less than the typing — to reply to some commenters on Somerby’s blog. So what? It’s my time and effort to spend as I see fit.

      Somerby “apparently means enough” to some of those commenters to not only read his blog faithfully and comment, but to try to read his mind and dissect his life. I find that amusing.

      You have concluded that it seems that it’s important to me to “correct” errant commenters. It’s important enough that I keep doing it. How low do you think that bar is?

      Delete
    7. Now I'm thinking deadrat and Mao are the same person, who is Somerby. Mao always, always commenting first, sounding wackier than even real Russian and Chinese trolls. ("Dembots!", even trolls don't use that.) deadrat complains almost too much how he's not Somerby, though I'm not clear anyone ever asked. Oh well, this place is a shitshow of sad anyway, a strange dismal place.

      Delete
    8. deadrat complains almost too much how he's not Somerby, though I'm not clear anyone ever asked.

      Ya had me at “I’m not clear,” Sparky. Everything else is talking past the close.

      A short trip through the google would have told you that in the time I’ve been commenting here, I’ve said I’m not Somerby all of three times. All three in response to claims that I really am the blog owner.

      Delete
  5. "As anthropologists continually tell us, these peculiar life-forms are only happy When They All Get to Say The Same Things, but especially When They All Get to Make The Same Pointless Jesting Remarks."

    An anthropologist might point out that this behavior occurs cross-culturally, but it is social psychologists who study people's tendency to prefer to agree with others (peer pressure, conformity). Somerby might know that if he had paid attention at Harvard or ever taken a psychology course. But he is almost as ignorant as Trump and shows the same disinclination to get things right, preferring to make up his own facts about anthropologists, cognition and Aristotle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Psst, Sparky! TDH isn't really talking to actual anthropologists.

      Delete
    2. Psst, ratty...the commenter is talking about Somerby’s ignorance regarding what anthropologists do. It is obvious that Somerby speaks to no actual anthropologists. It’s doubtful he speaks to any actual humans at all.

      Delete
    3. Excuse me, Not 12:58, are we on a diminutive nickname basis? I think not.

      Try to follow along, now.

      We both understand that TDH isn’t talking to real anthropologists, right?

      So it follows that TDH is just joking when he references supposed discussions with anthropologists. With me so far?

      Which means that no one is supposed to take those imaginary discussions seriously. Got it?

      We’re almost there.

      People who complain about the misrepresentation of real anthropologists are missing the point. Kinda like watching the movie Airplane! and complaining that air traffic control isn’t properly portrayed.

      And how would you know whom Somerby speaks to?

      Delete
    4. Well, Sparky, you seem to call everyone sparky, so that kind of invites a response, doesn’t it? It’s a two way street.

      Somerby’s imagining of anthropologists saying something isn’t funny, because he doesn’t understand what anthropologists do. “Airplane” on the other hand, is about airplanes and air traffic controllers, who in actual fact control air traffic.

      But your analogy to a comedy movie is instructive. If you are comparing TDH to a comedy, perhaps that is apt. It’s just that TDH isn’t funny.

      And why do ask how I know whom Somerby speaks to? You said yourself that he doesn’t talk to actual anthropologists. How do YOU know that?

      Delete
    5. Well, Sparky, you seem to call everyone sparky, so that kind of invites a response, doesn’t it? It’s a two way street.

      Dear God, please tell me you didn’t take the nickname thing seriously.

      Somerby’s imagining of anthropologists saying something isn’t funny, because he doesn’t understand what anthropologists do. “Airplane” on the other hand, is about airplanes and air traffic controllers, who in actual fact control air traffic.

      I don’t think Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau is funny, but it’s not because I don’t understand how the Sûreté works. You think the movie Airplane! is about airplanes?

      If you are comparing TDH to a comedy, perhaps that is apt. It’s just that TDH isn’t funny.

      I’m not comparing TDH to a comedy. I’m comparing his anthropology shtick to the gags in the movie. Try to keep up. For the record, I don’t find the anthropology trope funny either.

      And why do ask how I know whom Somerby speaks to? You said yourself that he doesn’t talk to actual anthropologists. How do YOU know that?

      Dear God, I suppose you think he actually leaves his “sprawling campus” on occasion to go to “undisclosed locations on missions of national import.”

      Delete
    6. Deadrat is an annoying dick.

      Delete
  6. So, let me get this straight, if you care about racial inequalities affecting black children and don't think Biden talked about that, you are "dumb and uncaring" and Trump will win?

    Is Trump more caring, less dumb? Does Trump want to address racial inequalities affecting children in schools? Shouldn't someone ask Betsy DeVos about that? All signs point to no. But Trump is somehow going to win.

    The only way this sentence can be true is if the fix is in with Putin and they have already rigged the next election. Because liberal/progressive/Democratic ideas are more popular with voters and Trump has been losing support even among his base and will probably have trouble staying out of jail. Being unashamedly liberal will not get Trump elected. But Somerby wants us to think it will. Why? To undermine our party and weaken our efforts to elect one of the several candidates who are better than Joe Biden (which includes pretty much all of them).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Putin didn't rig the last election. It was rigged by corporate dark money, Bannon and Breitbart, Trump and Facebook themselves who worked with them to spread propaganda, the vast sums the Koch brothers put into state elections as a hedge against Trump's expected loss ended up helping him, billions of dollars of free advertising by mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC and some strategic mistakes by the Clinton campaign.

      Delete
    2. This is a nice theory but the Mueller Report also catalogs the efforts of Russian firms to hack voter databases, spread manipulative and fake stories via Facebook, hack Podesta's emails and generally disrupt the election on Trump's behalf. And don't forget the Russian money laundering via the NRA that helped Republicans and PACs. Russians also provided funding to Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders to undermine Clinton's election. I agree that the efforts you mention also aided Trump, but don't let Putin off the hook.

      Delete
  7. The Times featured two reader letters with opposing views of the Blow column. One was the one Somerby discusses. The other was highly critical of what the writer called Blow’s “character assassination in the guise of journalism.” It was also written by a Democratic voter.

    Which of these views is the more prevalent? Biden remains the clear front runner among Democratic voters. So, it would seem Democrats aren’t really buying the notion that Biden is a racist.

    And Somerby at least correctly notes that Blow did not call Biden a racist. This is actually an important point. One can, and perhaps should, call out someone for what one perceives as “problematic positioning on racial issues” and one can do it without accusing that person of racism. Blow merely urges Biden to be more honest in dealing with his past remarks and stances on race.

    Blow’s column doesn’t come across as particularly angry, but it is typical for Somerby to use such ad hominem epithets as “perpetually-furious” to describe Blow. It is Somerby’s attempt to undermine Blow’s writings as the emotional rantings of a furious person, and it serves to bias TDH readers against Blow.

    And, just for what it’s worth, Blow also said that Biden “would be a vast improvement over Donald Trump.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. White people have historically feared black anger, projecting anger and violent tendencies onto blacks out of their own guilt for oppression of black people.

      See Winthrop Jordan's "White Over Black"

      "In 1968, Winthrop D. Jordan set out in encyclopedic detail the evolution of white Englishmen's and Anglo-Americans' perceptions of blacks, perceptions of difference used to justify race-based slavery, and liberty and justice for whites only. This second edition, with new forewords by historians Christopher Leslie Brown and Peter H. Wood, reminds us that Jordan's text is still the definitive work on the history of race in America in the colonial era. "

      Delete
  8. IMHO the Times doesn't want Biden to get the nomination. I would guess that their motive is that he's neither minority nor female.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think about that for a minute.

      Do you think it’s because the Times really wants a female or minority president?

      Delete
    2. Well, yes I do. I think the Times is deeply into identity politics.

      Delete
    3. I would suggest that they want such a nominee because they want to see Trump run against a minority or a female for the sheer theater. It would be great for their business, lotsa clicks, doncha know, and with the side benefit that Trump voters will be less likely to vote for such a nominee, thus raising the possibility that Trump gets re-elected. Biden after all theoretically has more appeal to disaffected Trump voters and swing voters than Warren or Harris.

      You have been reading this blog long enough to be made aware that the Times isn’t a liberal outfit. Their negative coverage of Hillary helped ensure her defeat. You think that wasn’t what they intended?

      Delete
    4. @4:38 In the last three elections, the candidate who got the most votes was female or black. So, a female or a minority could obviously win in 2020. I personally think Warren would be a stronger candidate than Biden.

      Delete
    5. You’re right about the popular vote.
      Whether Warren is stronger than Biden, not sure. Trump sure seems scared of Biden. All he does with Warren is call her Pocahontas. On the other hand, he seems to be going to rather great lengths to get dirt on Biden to try to discredit him.

      Of course, none of this necessarily applies to the Times and why they may want to see a female or minority nominee. Their reasons are quite likely different from those of actual voters.

      Delete
  9. "I think the Times is deeply into identity politics."

    Meh. The Times is just a zombie propaganda outlet; it's not into anything.

    It's the 'deep state' that doesn't want Biden, possibly because they calculated that his mafia activities in Ukraine and China will sink the boat eventually.

    Or maybe they calculated that he would lose - the current 'register voters' polls may be masking a potentially low zombie turnout in case Biden is nominated.

    And so their most recent goebbelsian hit - the phone call - is probably aimed mostly at Biden. The 'Orange Man Bad' component in it is just the cherry on the cake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's the 'deep state' that doesn't want Biden, possibly because they calculated that his mafia activities in Ukraine and China will sink the boat eventually."

      Uh-oh. A Right-winger is making specific accusations again.
      I wonder what that means?
      Just kidding. I know exactly what that means. Everyone does.

      Delete
  10. 'Joe Biden is a terrible candidate; the others are terrible too. '

    Naturally, because Somerby's preferred candidate is Trump, like the Trumptard that he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please, please, better trolling.

      Delete
    2. I’d say it’s pretty good trolling.

      It got the desired response from you.

      Delete
    3. The desired response for a troll is an angry outburst that helps derail a conversation, something along the lines of "You idiot! Somerby doesn't support Trump!"

      See the difference?

      Delete
    4. but TDH does support Trump fervently. Only liberals doth he attack !

      Delete
    5. Annnnddd...deadrat responds to yet another troll.

      I’m sure there are plenty of deadrat posts defending Somerby against the charge of being a Trumptard, a Republican, a conservative, a Russian agent, and so on. Come on, somebody spend 5 seconds and find half a dozen or so.

      Delete
    6. What? I can't make fun of trolls now? When did that rule go into effect?

      Delete
  11. We don’t have great leaders in this country. We don’t have statesmen.

    We don’t have potential ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you doing Saturday night?

      Delete
    2. And the award for the most disturbing troll comment goes to Anonymous on 9/21/19 @ 9:05P. Congratulations.

      Delete
    3. Yang is going to save us

      Delete
  12. Die tote Ratte ist ein ArschlochSeptember 22, 2019 at 4:05 AM

    *** public service announcement ***

    Please do not respond to deadrat. He is a troll. He is not interested in actual discourse. He attempts to stifle honest discourse and denigrate any who disagree with him. He posts remarks in an attempt to get someone to comment negatively to them and to redirect attention onto himself. These remarks are most often inflammatory and derogatory. Sometimes, the comments are outrageous enough to cause the other commenters to want to respond back with their own negative remarks which starts a flame war and changes the topic and attention of the discussion. He does this because he most likely doesn’t get enough attention in real life and needs someone else to acknowledge his self-worth and existence.

    deadrat is this blog’s Village Idiot Who Thinks He’s A Genius.

    It is tempting, but please do not feed him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not just ignore him when you see his name?

      Delete
  13. From Eric Boehlert at Daily Kos. This is what media criticism is:

    "Signaling that it's going to work hard to elevate Donald Trump during the upcoming presidential campaign, The New York Times recently suggested that Trump and Elizabeth Warren are politically similar because both offer up a version of "populism." They just do it from different perspectives, the article posited. Specifically, the Times dissected speeches that each gave on the same day last week. "The two back-to-back addresses laid out the competing versions of populism that could come to define the presidential campaign," the newspaper noted.

    This is wildly misguided. It's also a continuation of the media’s Both Sides Olympics, and represents a depressing preview of 2020 coverage, where journalists scramble to make sure Trump and whoever the Democratic nominee is appear to be somewhat similar, or at least of similar stature. (The Times is not alone on this: "Trump v Warren rallies preview possible 2020 populist duel," read a BBC headline last week.)"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Get Your Wife Back, Perfect Urgent Love Spell. Am Alexis scorpio from FL Usa All Thanks To Dr happy Who Brought Back The Love Of My Life. my girlfriend cheated on me and asked for a breakup. I don't believe at first i try to get back with her but all she told me was she’s with someone else. that she is no longer interested in marrying me at that point i was heart broken coz i love my girlfriend so much that i could not let go off her all of a sudden she left me, i really love her and never can imagine my life without her. not until i came across a powerful real spell caster Dr happy who promise me 24hours urgent love spell to get back with my girlfriend, good twenty-four {24} hours. hmm-mm, it was a good night time at 11:pm within the days that Dr happy told me that my girlfriend will be back, at first i heard the bell rings getting close to my door i heard someone saying honey!!!, it sound familiar i opened the door and i saw my girlfriend standing and weeping in front of me. i was not surprised because its all i have been praying for her to come back home. Guess what 2 weeks after she noticed her system and her body temperature was changed and i took her to clinic for check up and the doctor told me that there is life in her which means she was pregnant i really wants to use this opportunity to thanks Dr happy so much and the love page that directed me to Dr happy if you have any problem getting your ex back, or predicament that is worse or exactly like this you have been into, contact Dr happy on happylovespell2@gmail.com Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774
    visit his website...happylovespell2.webnode.com/
    about his love spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Am so happy to share this testimony thank you Dr Oduku i never believed i will be herpes negative again despite all i passed through Dr Oduku you are truly sent by God and you can also place your order for Dr Oduku roots and herbs medicine email odukuherbalremediess@gmail.com or what-app number +2347067706774.

    ReplyDelete

  16. my ex boyfriend Peter and I.have been dating for 8 months, and we have been talking about getting married and spending the rest of our lives together. But things started to changed Peter he isn’t willingly to be fully committed relationship and every time we talk about these things with each other he keeps walking away and gets upset about it. also i was heartbroken,
    Thanks to the internet which has seems to have made everything more easy and possibilities to come out of difficult issues. At first when peter
    left me i didn’t have any idea on how to restore my relationship back, But through the internet i was able to get the details of this powerful spell caster
    called Dr.Noble whose details are:templeofjoyandprosperity1@gmail.com Call or WhatsApp: +2348145643630
    Whom i contacted and my broken relationship became restored within 11 hours,thanks Dr,your kindness will never be forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hello everyone out there, help me Thank Dr UGO! My name is MRS LINDA from Netherlands. I am here to give testimony on how I got my ex husband back, my husband left me for no reason 6 Months. He moved in with another woman, I felt like killing myself, my life became very bitter and sorrowful. Then 1 day, a friend of mine told me about a great spell caster that is very good and she said that he told her all about her life history and the problem she is facing, I didn't believe it because I've worked with so many of them and it didn't work. She begged me further so I decided to try this great spell caster called Great Dr UGO. I still didn't believe, but inside me I wanted to give a try and as God will have it, I used the spell solution he gave me and the next day I received a call from my darling husband Romero last month. He apologized and came back to me. I'm very happy now with my family it worked for me and I believe it will work for you too just give him a try and follow up this is a clear truth from a testifier. Thank you Dr UGO once again, if you want to reach him via email:(dr.ugo.temple@gmail.com) 

    ReplyDelete
  18. HELLO EVERYONE.. FEW MUNINETS TO REDY THIS INFOR ON HERPES CURE 2018..
    2017 MY MOTHER WAS DIAGNOSED OF HERPES/ KNOWN AS GENITAL WARTS ,I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON HER MEDICATION TILL A POINT I EVEN LOST HOPE,BECAUSE MY MOTHER WAS GRADUALLY DYING AND LOST HER MEMORY TOO, I WAS SO DESPERATE TO GET MY MOTHER BACK TO NORMAL, ONE DAY MY UNCLE WHO LIVES IN LONDON UNITED KINGDOM TOLD ME ABOUT DR OLIHA ,WHO HELPED HIM GET RID OF HERPES /GENITAL WART WITH HERBAL MEDICINE AND HIS HERBAL SOAP ,I WAS SO SHOCKED WHEN HE TOLD ME ABOUT THIS ,ALTHOUGH I NEVER BELIEVE IN HERB BUT, I KEEP TO BELIEVE BECAUSE MY UNCLE CAN'T TELL ME LIES WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTH CONDITION I CONTACTED DR OLIHA VIA HIS EMAIL; OLIHA.MIRACLEMEDICINE@GMAIL.COM , YOU CAN TALK TO HIM VIA CALL OR WHATSAPP MESSENGER ON +2349038382931 , HE REPLIED AND ASK ME TO SEND MY HOME ADDRESS AND MY MOTHER'S DETAIL AND THEN I PURCHASED THE HERBAL MEDICINE,SENT ME THE HERBAL MEDICINE THROUGH COURIER SERVICE, WHEN I RECEIVED THIS HERBAL MEDICINE USED IT FOR 2 WEEKS, AND 4 DAYS OF USAGE THE WARTS FELL OFF, MY MOTHER I NOW TOTALLY CURED AND MY MOTHER IS LIVING FREE AND HAPPY AGAIN. YOU CAN TALK TO DR VIA HIS MOBILE NUMBER OR WHATS APP HIM ON +2349038382931 or website i saw on the :https://olihamiraclemedicine.webs.com/    ALL THANKS TO DOCTOR DR OLIHA  

    ReplyDelete