HEART(S) OF DUMBNESS: Friend, do you hate dental floss?


The literature of self-defeat:
Which of our nation's mice is dumber—our highly erudite city mice, or their dimwitted country cousins?

This past Sunday, the New York Times gave the familiar mandated answer to this familiar old question. It seems that a small group of country mice decided to pay their town's librarian $19 an hour, even though a visiting, two-degree city mouse had told them to pay 25.

The city mouse denounced the dumbness of the rubes on the first page of the Sunday Review. She employed every hackneyed element of the familiar novelized genre, not excluding this shopworn groaner:
They won't even let us smarter people tell them what to do!
Also, the country mice were said to be "very religious." More on that to come.

The essay by this credentialed city mouse ran beneath a stinging headline. The headline explained where the country mice live:
In the Land of Self-Defeat
Those country mice are just so dumb that they don't even pursue their own interest! So it goes when our own dimwitted tribe shouts its own view of the world.

Is it really true that the rural white crowd is dumber than us Over Here? Is it really true that the country mice engineer self-defeat, while we city mice steam ahead, skillfully shaping our future?

We're not sure what planet that writer lives on—the writer who dreamed that contrast.

Concerning the erudition of the country mice, we'll assume that, as with everyone else, there's plenty of room for improvement. But good God! Has any tribal group been any dumber, or more self-defeating, than our own upper-class liberal tribe over the past thirty years?

We may be the dumbest tribe ever seen on the planet. That said, we're so dumb that our credentialed think tank scholars have no idea of this fact.

How spectacularly dumb has the liberal world been starting in, let's say, 1987? To what extent has the liberal world fashioned persistent defeat?

Liberal angst is currently focused on the reign of Donald J. Trump. For ourselves, we think the man is highly disordered and dangerous.

That said, our allegedly brilliant liberal team spent decades putting Donald J. Trump where he is. People like that think tank seer were too dumb—and not infrequently, too careerist—to blow the whistle concerning this gruesome process.

How did our dimwitted liberal team help elect Donald J. Trump? As an aside, standard jibes about the country mice being "very religious" probably didn't help.

For today, we'd mainly point to the decades of slander our city mice enabled and aimed at the candidate Trump beat, though only under our arcane electoral rules and only while losing the popular vote.

People like the New York Times' think tank expert sat on their ascots, year after year, while that other candidate was slimed and degraded as "Evita Peron" and "Nurse Ratched"—and we're speaking her about the gender-based sliming which came at her from the top end of the mainstream and "liberal" press.

Monica Potts sat on her aspic while Maureen Dowd had her deeply unfortunate way with the political world. On June 22, 2008, Clark Hoyt, then the Times' public editor, savaged Dowd for "the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on [Candidate] Clinton." Among other things, the gentleman offered this:
HOYT (6/22/08): Dowd’s columns about Clinton’s campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that [previously cited Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.

...[T]he relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton—in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1—left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed.
Plainly, Hoyt also believed that a line had been crossed. That said, these inane assaults on Candidate Clinton had been going on for many years by the time Hoyt wrote his column. And not only that:

During Campaign 2000, Dowd had written seven columns focusing on Candidate Gore's bald spot, including the demented column which appeared in the New York Times on the Sunday before that election—an election in which Gore was defeated by roughly 11 votes.

Stating the obvious, those attacks on Candidate Gore were also attacks aimed at Clinton and Clinton. This was a seamless, 25-year campaign, built around ongoing themes.

Needless to say, Hoyt's complaint about the sexist attacks on Candidate Clinton produced exactly zero discussion within the upper-end press. Maureen Dowd was too big a player at the Times to permit such discussion among grasping careerists at the journals, or in the well-funded billionaire/corporate realm of the think tank left.

Did Sunday's city mouse ever complain, back in real time, about the endless gender-based sliming of Nurse Ratched? As best we can tell, she did not. But the self-defeat in which our world has engaged simply defies comprehension. We kept it up right through Election Day 2016, at which point we put our brilliance on display by deciding to form a "resistance."

On the Friday night before that election, one of our academic wizards (Princeton) went on TV with Lawrence and said it would take a major weather event along the East Coast to give Trump a chance to win. Our rank and file believed these credentialed sachems, leading to the waves of confusion experienced by city mice the following Tuesday night.

By and large, we'd believed the credentialed experts, the people who had been failing us for decades by November 2016. These are the geniuses people like Potts strongly prefer to the dumb country mice who simply refused to take her advice about how to conduct their affairs.

It would take an entire book to chronicle our dimwitted tribe's decades-long romance with self-defeat. For now, let's move on to our manifest, world-class dumbness.

To put that dumbness on display, let's consider the literature of the New York Times. We'll direct you to a revealing feature which ran in print editions last Thursday morning.

Your lizard brain is going to tell you that we're being unfair. Your lizard will say that we've simply selected one piece out of the many wonderful items the wonderful New York Times runs.

We see the logic, but we reject the conclusion. Sometimes, the sheer stupidity of a tribe is too vast to wish away. That holds with the crazy things Donald Trump says—and with the frequently ludicrous work which appears in our glorious Times.

We're going to list last Thursday's feature under this unflattering heading:
Self-satisfied self-involvement
Self-satisfied self-involvement? Plainly, it's a major part of our deeply stupid, self-defeating city mouse tribal culture at the present time.

This dumbness presented itself on page A3 of last Thursday print editions, in a daily feature which started like this:
Here to Help
In our view, a tribe which tolerate nonsense like this as part of its journalism is a tribe that's too dumb to survive. A tribe reveals itself through its literature. On this day, part of our self-revealing literature continued along like this:
Here to Help

The research is limited, and flossing is not a cure-all, but it is still one of the few things people can do—along with brushing, drinking fluoridated water, rinsing with mouthwash, eating well, and going to the dentist regularly—to stand a chance against severe, long-term oral-health problems.
That's the way one youngish Times journalist started her feature this day. To read her longer on-line piece, you can just click here.

The writer was only seven years out of college (Wisconsin, class of 2012), but already she had descended to this level. It's where some of our brightest young minds end up under the weight of our dimwitted city mouse culture.

How dumb is that opening paragraph? If you can't see how dumb it is, you may be part of the problem! But as she starts, this young person is already pandering hard to self-involved New York Times readers.

Panic is invading the suburbs! She tells the readers to whom she is pandering that, aside from flossing, there are only a few things they can do to so much as "stand a chance against severe, long-term oral-health problems."

There are only a few things they can do! Along the way, she lists five:
A few other things they can do:
1) They can brush their teeth.
2) They can drink fluoridated water.
3) They can rinse with mouthwash.
4) They can eat well.
5) They can go to the dentist.
Might we make an observation about this list, which was assembled by a panic-stricken young city mouse who writes for the New York Times?

We'll guess that many New York Times readers are already brushing their teeth and going to the dentist. Beyond that, the leading authority on the topic says that roughly two-thirds of the nation's population can only avoid option #2 by refusing to drink their tap water.

It's hard to account for the hint of panic found in that opening paragraph. But as she continues, this fallen young journalist pretty much gives us a good solid laugh:
HERE TO HELP (continuing directly): Thankfully, in addition to string floss, you can find other interdental cleaners—things designed to clean between teeth—that are safe and effective. The best way to know whether an interdental cleaner is right for you is by asking your dentist, said Dr. Michele Neuburger, a dental officer in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health.
"Thankfully," New York Times readers who hate to floss "can find other interdental cleaners...that are safe and effective!"

So the journalist tells us. In a parody of journalistic process, she then asks a certified national expert how her readers can know which such cleaner is best for them.

The expert tells the New York Times journalist that her readers should ask their dentist! So it goes as the Times tries to help!

As she continues, the writer lists and discusses five different interdental cleaners the reader might ask about. As you can see at the link we provided, the third such cleaner is "Toothpicks." From there, the writers moves ahead to "Floss picks," a variant of same.

Please approach this remarkable piece as literature! Work like this is so stunningly fatuous that it inevitably tells us something about the tribe from which it emerges. And such nonsense appears on a daily basis on the Times' "reimagined" page A3, for which the Times fashioned a stunning motto:
You are the dumbest, most self-involved people on earth.
We at the Times want to serve you.
In fairness, this silly essay about the few ways the reader might stand a chance against severe, long-term oral-health problems is no dumber than vast amounts of the political writing the Times has offered down through the years. That includes the work of Dowd, the paper's defining star during the era in question.

It's also no dumber than much of what happens on the Rachel Maddow Show, whose beloved host refused to challenge the development of the Benghazi narratives all through the fall of 2012, then refused to challenge Comey the God after he attacked Candidate Clinton on July 5, 2016.

Indeed, the guest host on this TV star's program spent two nights endorsing Comey's point of view immediately after that July attack. These are a few of the ways the careerist sachems of our own ridiculous tribe engineered self-defeat.

How in the world did Candidate Trump squeeze by Candidate Clinton? Three of the prime-time hosts on our top tribal channel—Matthews, Williams and O'Donnell—played leading or significant roles in the decades of sliming aimed at Clinton, Clinton and Gore. This softened her up for the kill.

The biggest star on the channel, Maddow, will never tell you any such thing; she'll discuss Ed Meese instead. And because no one else will tell rank-and-file liberals such things, liberals out in San Francisco bow to cardboard cutouts of Maddow, their doula, much as many country mice defer to the claims of Sean Hannity.

Our tribe's behavior has been very dumb, almost wholly because of our "leaders." But at the Times, such a claim can only be made about our ridiculous cousins, the country mice! Good God, how dumb they are!

Our leadership has spent at least three decades fashioning self-defeat. Thanks to careerists at city mouse think tanks, good decent people within our tribe have never been told about this.

Still coming: Inside Arky churches


  1. "It seems that a small group of country mice decided to pay their town's librarian $19 an hour, even though a visiting, two-degree city mouse had told them to pay 25."

    Potts had no part in the decision except to document it. She didn't go around telling Clinton how much to pay its librarian, as Somerby suggests here. He clearly doesn't like Potts, but what does he have against librarians? Too many degrees?

    1. Somerby doesn't like librarians because they're not clueless, lying Trumptards like him.

    2. That whooshing sound you heard? It was the point going over your head.

      Of course Potts had no say in the librarian’s wages. And of course she reported on the issue, pointing out that people in her home town said they had no use for a library (now that they have the internet), think anything more than minimum wage for government employees is typical government waste, and can’t imagine why a librarian would need a masters degree.

      The point is that TDH thinks Potts is being condescending to the rubes, and that’s as may be. You, on the other hand, thought that TDH has something against librarians.

      You’d be a good fit for Potts’ home town.

    3. No, I think TDH has something against liberals but is all set on defending the likes of Ron Johnson, Moore and Trump, because he is a lying, clueless, Trumptard.

    4. Ya lost me at "think," Centrist.

      defending the likes.... PU|SU

    5. How about passionately defending with lies ? As befits a lying Trumptard ...

    6. How can anyone think Bob Somerby is really a Right-winger? Right-wingers waive away treason against the United States of America.

      I'll come in again.

    7. "Potts had no part in the decision except to document it"

      That is actually not true, you didn't read the piece?

  2. "Self-satisfied self-involvement? Plainly, it's a major part of our deeply stupid, self-defeating city mouse tribal culture at the present time."

    You think this is the root cause, dear Bob, but no, this is just a symptom.

    You zombies have to fill your diseased heads with meaningless self-congratulating bullshit, because there's no basis, in your existence, for anything real.

    No plan, no mission, and no vision. Hatred for Donald J Trump is your only aspiration. That's what's killing you. Sad

    1. Hatred for Donald J. Trump? What kind of nonsense are you trying to spin. I, for one, love Trump. What better way to show that Republicans are the treasonous pieces of shit liberals always said they were?

    2. Democrats should stop worrying about Donald Trump and start talking to the American people about jobs and health care.

      And not just hollow campaign trail promises.

      What are the values of Democrats and the left? In what do they believe and want from their political leaders?

    3. Talking about jobs, they sure can. But talk is cheap.

      Renegotiating NAFTA and raising tariffs on manufactured goods imported from abroad - that, as we already know, they won't do.

    4. "Democrats should stop worrying about Donald Trump and start talking to the American people about jobs and health care."

      Exactly. Who cares that those aren't concerns of Conservatives? Democrats need to let the rest of the nation know they are done cow-towing to Conservatives in the media (or what the rest of us just call "the media").

    5. Democrats should stop patting themselves on the back for being 100% correct about what the Republican Party has been for the past 40 years, and talk to the American people about jobs and healthcare.

      Fixed it for you.

    6. 10:57 is right, and TDH is wrong.
      Democrats should write off the rural Trump voters concerns, and instead speak about jobs and healthcare.

    7. What is important to Democrats? What values do they hold important politically?

    8. Politically, the 'dem-party' organization is mostly a tool of the international finance industry. Especially large hedge funds, like, for example, Soros Fund Management.

  3. "How did our dimwitted liberal team help elect Donald J. Trump?"

    We liberals didn't do that. Obama perhaps didn't move fast enough to investigate the intelligence he received about Trump's election tampering, but that may have been because the polls were telling him that Clinton would win anyway. It would have been bad for a sitting president to appear to be interfering in the election of his successor.

    Aside from that, the election was stolen by Russian interference, Comey breaking the rules, and by voter suppression in three key states (WI, MI, PA) permitting the electoral college to give the election to Trump. None of that involved liberal dumbness.

    This all hinges on Somerby's view that when someone is cheated or stolen from, it is their own fault for being too stupid to resist the criminal. Who thinks like that? Other criminals.

    Trump lost the election to Clinton by over 3 million votes. Without Russian interference, he would have remained a joke. Putin is having his last laugh as Trump continues to commit treason in the White House, abetted by Republicans who place party over loyalty to their own country.

    But Somerby calls liberals dumb! This is the best evidence that Somerby is working for the forces of evil and has no claim to be any kind of liberal.

    1. Somerby is a clueless, lying, Trumptard.

  4. In Bob's defense, he is too busy repeating Right-wing nonsense memes, to look back at what happened during the 2016 election.

  5. Somerby writes as if Clinton had lost the popular vote. He talks about her being "softened up for the kill" as if Trump had "killed" her at the polls. He didn't. He lost by over 3.5 million votes.

    What gave Trump the win? Bernie, who received Russian laundered campaign contributions, who showed faint support after promising to endorse her after he lost the nomination, whose supporters stayed home or wrote him in or voted for Jill Stein, who continued to attack Clinton during the general election. But Somerby says nothing about Bernie and his bros (whose sexist attacks were worse than anything Dowd ever wrote).

    Somerby has never acknowledged that Clinton's election was stolen due to Russian hacking, first of Podesta's email. He has never acknowledged that Comey shouldn't have torpedoed her with a last minute reopening of a supposed investigation of Wiener's computer contents (giving weight to right-wing conspiracy theories about her supposed emails and corruption). Somerby has never talked about the way black votes have been suppressed, or the hacking of voter data bases to throw voters off the rolls in key states. He hasn't talked about the way Russian companies conducted a campaign against Clinton, especially among black voters, via Facebook and other social media, whose intent was to suppress the vote, not necessarily boost Trump, targeted at those three key states. All of this has been documented by the Mueller report, but Somerby has fiddled and pretended that Mueller proved nothing and that liberals were fools to expect anyone to pay any attention to it, participating wholeheartedly in the Republican misdirection campaign against it.

    And if Somerby thinks liberals never complained about Dowd, he is very wrong. The same women who Somerby himself attacks were vocal in their complaints about Dowd and other sexist attacks on Clinton before and during the election. But Somerby doesn't like feminists any more than he likes other female professionals (especially professors), so he pretends that no one defended Hillary -- because if you are not male, you are no one.

    1. Somerby has fiddled and pretended that Mueller proved nothing.

      What Mueller showed should have been no surprise. And neither should any of the Republican election ratfucking. All that's a given. TDH's thesis is that even knowing the givens, Democrats still pursued self-destructive ends. Absent that pursuit they might have been able to win nevertheless. Now that's as may be, but why not deal with that argument instead of the straw one you like? After all, you could get your own blog to broadcast your own arguments.

      And I'd like to see a list of women whom TDH has "attacked" and who were "vocal in their complaints about Dowd."

      I'll wait.

    2. Somerby's thesis is to be a concern troll, and it seems to fool the dimwitted.

  6. “How spectacularly dumb has the liberal world been starting in, let's say, 1987? To what extent has the liberal world fashioned persistent defeat?”

    Everything about Somerby’s post flows from this central assertion. You have to agree that “the liberal world fashioned persistent defeat” since 1987. You would need to define “defeat” and see if Somerby’s characterization is accurate, keeping in mind that two of four presidencies were won by Democrats during that time, and also accounting for the 2018 results in the House.

    1. What are the core values of Democrats?

    2. @2:17
      I’m curious. Why don’t you tell me what *you* think they are, and how that relates to the notion of “defeat?” I’d really like to know, hence my original comment.

    3. Narcissism, self-admiration, haughtiness, the hatred of Others.

    4. "Narcissism, self-admiration, haughtiness, the hatred of Others." Mr. Mao - what a great summary of Trump's traits. Finally got something correct.

    5. Remember, Mart, that every right-wing accusation is a confession by projection.

    6. 2:33

      I just thought it would be a good way to gauge defeat or lack thereof. To understand what the core values of the liberal world are and traditionally have been and from that standard one could begin to gauge failure or success.

      What do you think the core values of the liberal world are?

    7. Like I would say a core value has been to stand up for the working man. To stand up for the poor. And to stand up to big business and power and the corruption thereof.

      Do you feel like those are core values of the liberal world?

      What do you think the core values of the liberal world are? What are your core values? What is most important to you politically?

    8. Please, dembot. Get your story straight.

      The working man is exactly The Other, who you're conditioned to hate. The working man is your deplorable: racist, misogynistic, homophobic. Won't give a shit about the global warming, or the bathrooms for transsexuals.

      As for the poor, the underclass, you're only supposed to pretend to care about the portion with a darker skin tone. Who, I'm pretty sure, amount to less than half of the poor.

      And if you're against power and corruption, how come (looking only at current events) Creepy Joe Biden is untouchable?

    9. "The working man is exactly The Other, who you're conditioned to hate."

      They are The Other, stupid. If they weren't, do you think Donald the Great would be elected President for stiffing his contractors for 5+ decades?
      Try to keep up.

    10. The liberals on this board haven't even thought about what liberalism means to them. What values they hold important. All they stand for is to be against Republicans which is exactly how Maddow has trained them be. Meanwhile the business of the people is left unattended and the divide between the rich and the poor grows bigger and corporations grow more powerful. Just as Maddow's bosses intended.

    11. The Democratic House of Representatives has passed lots of bills to help the people of this country. The Republican Senate refuses to move on them.

      But 1:41 has a point. I'm on this board, and I know Republicans are shitty excuses for human beings.

    12. What do you stand for? What are your beliefs and values?

    13. 4:53,
      Jobs and healthcare. Now,will that make you take your fingers out of your ears, and stop repeating, "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you"?

    14. Well what's the problem with Republicans if your core values are jobs? If what you're concerned about and what you want deeply are jobs, you should be very happy with Trump and Republicans.

      Jobs? Your core values are jobs? You stand for jobs? Okay so what is there to complain about Trump? He was the one who ran on wage growth. Hillary hardly mentioned it at all until towards the end. And he's getting his wage growth now.

      The truth is you don't have any core values. You don't know what you want. All you are is against an evil phantom that has been created by media charlatans.

      Jobs. Your core values are jobs.


    15. 10:32,
      Are you saying Trump voters are going to drop him in 2020 due to his job and wage growth? I ask because, other than equality for black people, I can't think of anything Conservatives are less interested in than jobs.

    16. "Well what's the problem with Republicans if your core values are jobs?"

      Other than the President of the United States 5+ decade history of stiffing contractors?
      BTW, how long does the list need to be before you are satisfied?

    17. 10:32,
      Sorry, but I'm also anti-treason against the United States of America, so I won't be voting for any Republicans.

    18. It's an issue of quality not quantity. The point is Trump ran on jobs, Clinton did not, Dems don't care about jobs. Trump may get the wage growth figures he promised which will get him re-elected. The people who vote, the racists in the sticks, care about jobs, He spoke to jobs and wage growth.

      Dems identified themselves with globalization, trade agreements and Silicon Valley like it was 1998 all over again but that shit was way past its prime and Trump took Democrats to school by engaging the people on jobs, wages, schools and Social Security. those are all issues the Democrats used to have a lock on but let go a long time ago.

      That's the point. Democrats forgot who they are and what they stood for.

      You should read that article if you want to learn something. You would have to come down from your throne of superiority and realize how you've been schooled by Trump.

      But that's the way of the world. That's how you learn and get better. You look at your mistakes, you look at your competition and enemies and what they are doing and how they are beating you and you figure out ways to evolve, get better and win. In short, you become honest with yourself.

      It's not 1998 anymore. We need to change.

    19. (and I realize you are just a toady. It's not you in charge and you are just following the herd but you can still learn something. I'm sure you don't want to play the fool forever.)

    20. 3:54,
      You forgot to accuse Democrats of supporting treason against the USA.

    21. It's no wonder those voters burnt Trump Tower to the ground, after Trump put Wall Streeters in charge of the Treasury.

      Bob Somerby,
      You need a smarter class of trolls.

    22. As a general rule, people, even Republicans, are much more naive and simple hearted than we supposed. And we ourselves are, too.

    23. Trump will be re-elected because voters don't want relatives of politicians making money from their connections, and they're also afraid Democrats will screw over the Kurds.
      Besides, many of the Democrats running in the primaries have shitty spray-on tans and wear bad hairpieces, and being against those things is a core principle for these voters.

    24. Sounds good. Let's see how everything works out. Bon journee.

    25. The Left is becoming a cult of sanctimony,disingenuous profiteering & fake purity.

  7. Bob,
    Despite the "hanging chads", rioting by GWB's republican lawyers at the re-count and the Supreme Court decision, Al Gore would have been elected president had he won in Tennessee. He lost his home state.
    The 3 electoral votes from his home state would have put him over the top. You know that.
    Dowd was and remains a blight on political commentary; but I doubt that many Tennessee voters were paying attention to her. Even in the Reagan landslide Mike Dukakis won Mass.

    BTW Dowd's sister in snark (Gail Collins) today agreed with you that Trump is nuts. And she never mentioned Mitt Romney's dog!

  8. Somerby pointed out, in real time, how the mainstream media was amplifying right-wing talking points about Gore and Hillary. He was right about that.

    But now, he seems to want to amplify right-wing talking points himself, when he asserts, as he did recently, that there must be something fishy about Biden/Ukraine or about Warren’s Indian thing and that right-wingers are right to wonder about this. And he goes on to say, rather inexplicably, that both of these candidates, indeed all of them now running, are terrible.

    It’s judgments just like these current ones of Somerby’s that led a not insignificant number of liberals to abandon Gore and Hillary in the first place and to vote for Nader or Stein, or just sit out the election.

    1. 'And he goes on to say, rather inexplicably, that both of these candidates, indeed all of them now running, are terrible.

      What's inexplicable about it ? He wants Trump to win since he is a Trumptard.

  9. Somerby’s conservative says: “If it weren’t for the fact that Democrats look down on me, I would so be willing to violate my core anti-tax and anti-abortion conservative principles to vote for the candidate proposing to raise my taxes and ensure a woman’s right to an abortion.”

    1. Sounds right to me. Look at all their core principles they've thrown over to support Trump.

      I'm just kidding. Conservatives don't have core principles; they've just got slogans.

  10. Shorter Somerby -- I am not going to comment at all on the right wing media that attacked and spread and still spreads conspiracy theories, Instead he blames Monica Potts for it.

    Somerby is a clueless, lying, Trumptard.

    1. And Somerby is truly inconsiderate in imprisoning two or so of you fools here, so that you can do nothing but yell “Dance!” at him.

    2. "I'm not trapped in here with you. You're trapped in here with me".

    3. Not at all. I come here voluntarily and always enjoy the time spent.

      You come here compulsively to vex yourself.

    4. Somerby is a clueless, lying, Trumptard.

      Not as clueless as someone who expects a blog not directed at criticizing right-wing media to criticize right-wing media.

    5. "I'm not trapped in here with you...."

      Dude, you gotta get outa yer parents' basement.

    6. At this point, who expects this blog to criticize Right-wingers? That would fly in the face of everything Bob is trying to do with his blog. i.e running interference for Conservatives.

    7. deadrodent, you are just a voice in TDFH's head posting full blog length posts and you wonder about where I live. All I do is do the public service of pointing out that TDH is a clueless, lying, Trumptard.

    8. 'Cecilia' dear, you are the one who seems vexed. It seems par for the course for Trumptard and Trumptard defenders

    9. 'Not as clueless as someone who expects a blog not directed at criticizing right-wing media to criticize right-wing media.'

      if a blog were to say it wants to find lung cancer and then ignores tobacco completely looking for alternate theories of blame, then I would say that the author is paid by the tobacco industry.

      In this case, I don't think the author is paid, except for the psychological sense of well being that TDH gets from defending Ron Johnson, Moore and Trump.

    10. I mean 'if a blog were to say it wants to find the reasons for lung cancer'

    11. Suffice to say, Centrist, that, in the way of current day liberals , you view NO reasonable or sympathetic person as being one who might harbor or regard your opinion as being different from a point of view supporting life and health over lung cancer, or from the tacit support of moral monstrosities.

      I do acknowledge your not having-it-both-ways consistency in opposition to Somerby in that way of thinking.

    12. Anonymous @8:40A:

      All I do is do the public service of pointing out that TDH is a clueless, lying, Trumptard.


      'Cecilia' dear, you are the one who seems vexed.

      And here we have two perfect examples of the adage “Every ideologue’s accusation is a confession by projection.”

      Cecelia’s comment doesn’t reveal any vexation on her part. She’s just pointing out the vexation of someone who shows up on this blog to shout names at the blog owner.

    13. Centrist,

      If a blog were to say it’s interested in lung disease and wants to restrict itself to discussing cystic fibrosis, what you say to a commenter who shows up to complain that the blog owner is ignoring tobacco use?

      You’re not very good at this analogy thing, are you?

    14. "And here we have two perfect examples of the adage “Every ideologue’s accusation is a confession by projection.”"

      deadrodent, Cecilia was the one who first suggested that I was vexed. You're not very good at the quote thing are you.

      Nor are you good at analogies, since Somerby claims to be talking about the media. It's useful public hygiene to point out that his view of media is as skewed as Trump's, as befits a lying Trumptard.

    15. Centrist,

      No, I'm pretty god at the "quote thing." Lotta practice. Cecelia did suggest you were vexed, but so what? (All of your shouting names at the blog owner would seem to confirm her view, but who knows? Maybe that's the way you are toward everyone.)

      But then you replied (ironically) in a Trumpian manner, "No, you're the vexed one." That's the confession by projection.

      TDH gets to talk about what he wants to talk about. Right-wing media doesn't interest him for the obvious reason. If it interests you, why not find a blog that discusses the topic? As it is, you're the guy who's upset because the opposing partners in your bridge game won't allow you to declare deuces wild.

    16. Sorry, deadrat, I consider it a public service to point out here from time to time that Somerby is no liberal, but a concern troll, a liar, and a Trumptard.

    17. “Sorry, deadrat, I consider it a public service to point out here from time to time that Somerby is no liberal, but a concern troll, a liar, and a Trumptard.”

      Yep. Like I said, you come here compulsively in order to be vexed.

    18. No, I come here to be entertained. You are the one who seems to be vexed.

    19. Sorry, deadrat, I consider it a public service to point out here from time to time that Somerby is no liberal, but a concern troll, a liar, and a Trumptard.

      No need to apologize, Centrist. I have no problem with your commenting, and even if I did, it would be plenty presumptuous of me to complain. If TDH allows spell casters and Mumbai movers to comment, then who am I to object to anyone?

      What’s more, I’m a fan of public service announcements, having myself taken on the task of periodically pointing out that Mao is our Village Troll and David in Cal is our Village Idiot in both the moral and intellectual sense. So service announce away, but at least when I do my PSAs, I respond to David in Cal’s idiotic pronouncements with the facts. (I never respond to David — when you’re in earnest conversation with an idiot, people will soon not be able to tell the difference between the two of you — just to the right-wing propaganda he regurgitates here.)

      You say you come here to be entertained, not to be vexed. I find that hard to believe — is your threshold for entertainment really so low? How effective do you think you are, serving as the one-note counterpoint to Mao? You say “Trumptard,” Mao says “dembot.”

      Let’s call the whole thing off.

    20. 4:53

      I agree. We meet here (comment section), to be entertained. Some of us hope to learn as well, and to teach if possible. You have done neither.

      It was fun to see your ass being handed to you. deadrat has done that to me a coupla times though I must admit, he was gentalmanly.

      I received the latest edition of Current Affairs, and it has a map of the internet. As you might imagine, the continent was surrounded by an ocean of porn. Amongst the countries were:

      “Clickbait Cave,” “Flatearth Falls,” “Reddtit Mountains,” “White Guy Hills” and so on. Wish I could share the graphic.

      Of course there exists, in this imaginary land, “Flame War Fields.” In that regard, I’m a bit puzzled as to why you’re participating, since as I mentioned, you’ve been scorched.

      Scratch that. You’re bored, and have nothing else to do. I get it. I was going to write “fuck off,” but what’s the use? Conversation-wise… Zero. Don’t come ‘round here anymore, cuz. Cuz you’re not paying attention.


    21. Anon 11:22 is not me

      'How effective do you think you are, serving as the one-note counterpoint to Mao? You say “Trumptard,”'

      I'll switch to Trumpanzee from now on.

    22. 'You say you come here to be entertained, not to be vexed. I find that hard to believe — is your threshold for entertainment really so low?'

      There is something oddly compelling about TDH's ramblings at time. It is like watching a train wreck to wonder what twist of 'logic' he'll use to blame liberals this time. So yes, it is entertaining.

    23. Leroy, thanks for your concern, but I have an asbestos (non cancer causing) suit.

  11. Their mamas would be better off with water bugs in
    their basements, Deadrat.


    1. Robert Somerby is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    2. Were you born yesterday ?

  12. Hate to say it, but Bob is wrong on this one about the library. That piece is pretty reasonable in its tone of disappointment throughout, and it ends with the sad reflection that these neighbors of hers are unreachable in their ideology. They'll vote for Trump no matter what.

  13. I should have deleted "(comment section)" from that reply to 4:53. What the hell, I was drinking tequila. Took me longer to edit my comment than to write it. I’m a “swooper” rather than a “basher” if I’ve been drinking when I write.


    In fact, I find this site to be very entertaining, as well as educational. Most in the comment section don't understand the lessons so they kick and shout. Old-timers sometimes become weary of Bob’s receptiveness, and being wrong, but Bob never scolds these children, which I think makes him a good teacher. He leaves it to the classmates to sort it out. We’re adults, amiright?

    He also has his analysts, on his sprawling campus, which are too numerous to name. Often, I think, they can be found in this comment section. At least, in my imagination.


  14. 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 believelovespelltemple@gmail.com 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