WEDNESDAY: Morning Joe's great god, Speculation!

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022

Imitations of discourse:  Like Jesus, the analysts wept.

They'd watched the opening 34 minutes of today's Morning Joe. You can watch eleven minutes of the longer fandango just by clicking here.

Sad! The uninterrupted segment was largely devoted to the task of solving the "murder mystery" aspect of the Supreme Court leak. Agatha Christie, come on down!

Who had leaked the Alito draft? Offering a giant dose of "cable entertainment product," the various children fell to the task of trying to puzzle it out.

Please understand! The various children simply don't know who leaked the Alito draft. In all honesty, it's likely that we'll never know who actually leaked the draft.

There is exactly zero way to know who leaked the Alito draft. Beyond that, there is exactly zero way to figure out why the draft was leaked. 

For those reasons, the segment was fueled by one of this program's most entertaining gods—by the great god, Speculation. And needless to say, their speculations all took the gang to the same pleasing place:

One of The Others had leaked the draft, the Morning Joe gang kept saying! It may even have been Ginni Thomas—or so Joe helped one wayward child come to understand.

The sheer stupidity of this segment almost defied belief. But this was "cable entertainment product" at its best, laced with a serious dose of tribal reinforcement. This is the way "discourse" looks within this stupidified world. 

At the start of the 8 A.M. hour, things may have gotten worse:

Mika began the hour with this angry screed. She assailed Mitch McConnell for presuming to tell "the press" that they should be focused on the question of who engineered the leak.

Mika really let Mitch have it for offering that advice. Then she threw to her husband, Joe, and he went  back to discussing that very point, offering us the pleasing assurance that the leaker must have been one of The Others.

This is the best this gang can do. This is what our discourse is—who and what we are.

Like Jesus, the analysts wept. In fairness, and as a general matter, the comparison ends right there.

More of the 6 A.M. hour: If you're interested, here's more of the program's opening segment

Basically, the program began with some chuckling about the violent assault on Dave Chappelle last night. At that point, the children pivoted to that entertainment / tribal reassurance product.

This is the way our discourse has worked, dating back to the days when the MSM was deeply worried about the meaning of Candidate Gore's deeply troubling three-button suit jackets. The jackets had three buttons, not two, and the children were very disturbed.

This is who and what these people are. This helps explain how all of us, in our flailing nation, have reached this disordered place.


34 comments:

  1. "They'd watched the opening 34 minutes of today's Morning Joe."

    Big, big mistake, dear Bob. Amateur mistake. Some lousy analysts they are, we're sorry to say.

    "The sheer stupidity of this segment almost defied belief."

    Meh. They are liberals, ain't they? Sheer braindead stupidity is their permanent condition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Offering a giant dose of "cable entertainment product," the various children fell to the task of trying to puzzle it out."

    Meanwhile, the leak is the only part of this situation that the Republicans have focused on at all. It is their main and only talking point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "There is exactly zero way to know who leaked the Alito draft."

    This is clearly untrue. For one thing, the person who leaked the draft could fess up. For another thing, the person who was given the draft knows where they got it from and could also fess up. This has happened before -- we now know who deep throat was, for example. Somerby has no idea how the draft was leaked, so he cannot say with any certainty that it is impossible to trace how the leak occurred. Police and investigators solve similar activities (embezzlement, corporate espionage) as part of their professional work. Somerby would have to know much more about the leak to know for sure that the leaker(s) cannot be identified.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The sheer stupidity of this segment almost defied belief. But this was "cable entertainment product" at its best, laced with a serious dose of tribal reinforcement. This is the way "discourse" looks within this stupidified world. "

    Meanwhile, on the right, The Others have been suggesting that Ketanji Brown Jackson leaked the draft. That would be a twofer -- it would villify the left for the leak while also removing her as a justice before she has even started her term. Needless to say, she lacks opportunity (access), having not started her job on the court yet.

    But the trophy for stupidest speculation belongs to the right, not the legal experts who have been speculating on the left about who benefits most from the leak, leading them to conclude someone on the right did the leaking.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Mika really let Mitch have it for offering that advice. "

    Joe and Mika both discussed the unwarranted, exclusive focus on the leak and not the draft by Republican leaders, but Somerby gives most of his ire to Mika, as if Joe wouldn't have said a thing if she hadn't engaged in a 'screed'. Like Eve offering Adam the apple. Somerby's dislike of women leads him to ridiculous framings, like this silly complaint about Mika's lead-off on their joint show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Somerby's dislike of women leads him to ridiculous framings"

      Who are these 'wimmin' you speak of, dear dembot?

      Even Ketanji Brown Jackson -- the unmatched genius! -- doesn't know who they are.

      Delete
    2. Mika, for starters. Somerby has had it in for her for years now. Just put her name in the Daily Howler search box and see what he has said about her previously. (Not you Mao, other readers here who might be wondering the same thing.)

      Delete
    3. How do you know, dear dembot, that the 'Mika' person is a womyn? Even Ketanji Brown Jackson -- the unmatched genius! -- wouldn't be able to determine that.

      Alas, binary-gender fascism is raising its ugly head again. How many more must suffer? ... sorry, scratch that. How many more must SUFFER?!!!

      Delete
    4. A female has a certain set of chromosomes, broadly speaking; there are exceptions.

      A woman is whoever identifies as a woman.

      This is bone simple.

      Eve offered Adam an apple (curiously the variety of the apple was not specified), but what did she offer Cain? Who mothered Cain's children? Some theologians say incest was ok at that time because it was technically before God decreed such activity as forbidden. This is hilarious, the twisted logic!

      Let's return to those chromosomal exceptions, researchers have found that at least 1 in 15,000 males, born with the XY chromosomes, are actually girls and grow up as such (they do not exhibit "male" anatomy, etc), some can even give birth. 1 in 15,000 is not that rare. This is merely one type of exception.

      If you feel uptight about gender, try to figure out why you feel that way; you will not find a justification that is reasonable or tenable for said uptightness. Protestations from such inclined folks are easily and completely refuted and answered by merely pointing out the obvious: so what, who cares, it does not matter. Try to breathe, try to relax, maybe try a little tenderness, and remember when it comes to gender, such as who or what a woman is: A woman is whoever identifies as a woman.

      Delete
    5. @7:23 thanks for a lucid description of the modern view of what gender is. It seems to apply pretty well to a lot of people, but IMO it has some difficulties. Maybe you can help me by responding to these concerns

      1. There seems to be no objective definition of 'gender'. Can one be wrong about one's gender? If your gender is whatever you think or decide it is, then it would seem that it could never be wrong.

      2. Can you identify as a gender even if you don't feel like that's your gender? E.g., some "male" prisoners said they identified as female and therefore were locked up with the women. They went on to impregnate some of these women. (If I were locked up, I'd be tempted to say I was a woman, because it seems safer to be with the women than with the men.)

      3. A traditional joke is the crazy person who imagines that he's Napoleon. Is there way to distinguish between a man who thinks he's a woman because he's crazy vs. a man who truly believes he's a woman (whatever "truly" means) because that's really his gender.

      Delete
    6. @9:01 Some people are born with both a penis and a vagina. Some babies have circumcision complications and no longer have a penis. Some people have extra X or extra Y chromosomes. Nature is complicated. Some people are born as conjoined twins. Some have multiple hearts or organs in unusual locations. These are birth anomalies. Nature is complicated. Is there any point in being mean to those who are born different?

      Delete
    7. Re your last 2 questions, psychologists can tell such things, just as they routinely identify malingering and feigned mental illness in forensic situations. In the case of pregnancy among incarcerated women, I would suspect the guards. I also think you may be repeating an atrocity story circulated on the right, not something that actually happens.

      Delete
    8. Does David think it is right to deny all people the ability to live as their authentic selves just because some prisoner tells a lie to prison authorities to avoid hard time?

      Delete
    9. @10;34 Someone's chosen gender may not always be authentic.

      @7;23 said, "A woman is whoever identifies as a woman." (Of course, @7:23 was talking about gender, rather than sex.) So, if a male prisoner chooses to identify as a female in order to be put in with women, then that prisoner has female gender. But, there's nothing authentic about that decision.

      More broadly, the concept of "authentic" implies that there is some objective determinant of one's true gender -- something beyond one's personal choice. But, nobody knows what this hypothetical determinant is.

      Delete
    10. This is not true. The concept of authenticity is part of the Rogerian approach to psychotherapy and humanistic therapies in general. Psychologists have methods of determining whether someone is authentic in their identity claims. Beyond that, psychologists have methods for determining whether someone might be lying or faking an identity claim. Why did you blow right past that in my comment above?

      For everyday interactions, take people at their word. If there is something more at stake, get an expert involved. And yes, there are people who are trained to assess what others think, say, and do from a psychological perspective (identity is a psychological issue). Those people are called Psychologists.

      Delete
    11. David in Cal,

      1. None of your fucking business. Leave these poor people alone, you fucking wretched busy body.
      2. Noe of your fucking business. You can worry about that, you fucking wretched troll, when somebody decides to lock you up for you racist fascist life.
      3. Go fuck yourself, you wretched creature.

      Delete
    12. It strikes me as ridiculous to claim that people should be prevented from living as their authentic selves because someone like David is worried that someone will lie about their identity (e.g., be inauthentic).

      I agree with 8:42 that this over-concern with what is intensely personal for someone else is ghoulish. Next he'll be calling for purity tests of some sort or inspections of underwear.

      This is why the Supreme Court 50 years ago asserted a right to privacy. One's identity is private unless a person chooses to reveal it.

      Delete
    13. Well you know, conservatives like David already are suggesting authorities should be inspecting my school children's genitals, so year, that's where we are.

      Delete
    14. Some critics think I believe things I didn't say and don't believe. @8:42 tells me to "leave those people alone", although I have done nothing to interfere with "those people." On the contrary, I've always been particularly supportive. @12:02 thinks I want to prevent people from living as they choose, although I never said any such thing. @12:07 imagines that I want schools to investigate children's genitals.

      Delete
    15. "One's identity is private unless a person chooses to reveal it."

      Oh yes, definitely. We're happily agree with that.

      As far as we're concerned, you can be Napoleon Bonaparte all you want, as long as you aren't trying to conscript us into your imagined army.

      Yes, keep your identity to yourself, dear. Or reveal it in a blog, or something.

      Delete
    16. David, you represent your Republican friends here. They have certainly been persecuting LGBTQ people and others, so don't think you can support them politically and then distance yourself from their ugly actions.

      Delete
    17. David,
      So nothing incoherent about believing that LGBTQ people should be left alone, and voting for a political party that wants to harass them?
      I'm starting to believe stupid has evil on the run, when it comes to the way you "think".

      Delete
    18. @3:19 Where do you get the idea that Repulicans want to harass LGBTQ people?

      Delete
  6. "This is the way our discourse has worked, dating back to the days when the MSM was deeply worried about the meaning of Candidate Gore's deeply troubling three-button suit jackets. "

    Was Al Gore attacked on stage because an audience member disliked his coat buttons?

    I am tempted to go watch the video and see whether Mika and Joe were actually chuckling over Chappelle's attack, and not expressing distress about the frequency of such attacks on public entertainers. I think the attack is worth talking about, both as something that shouldn't happen, and as an example of the rising violence in our culture.

    Meanwhile, Dave Chappelle chuckled over his own attack, setting the tone for others with a not-very-funny quip:

    "Dave Chappelle was slammed on social media for joking that a “trans man” attacked him on stage Tuesday night.

    After a man armed with a fake handgun tackled Chappelle in the middle of a performance at the Hollywood Bowl, the stand-up comedian turned to his audience and declared, “It was a trans man!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Predictably, Somerby doesn't tell us about that part of the story.

      Delete
    2. Trans Hispanics are leaving the Democratic Party in droves.

      Delete
    3. I wish trolls would leave here in droves.

      Delete
    4. The Democratic Party is really unappealing to a lot of people. Maybe they can reform themselves and stop putting their corporate donors before the people they want to support them.

      Delete
    5. 9:05 I don't know. Let your conscious be your guide.

      Delete
    6. 9:05,
      Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party more than two decades ago.

      Delete
  7. Former Republican and current not-Democrat TV blabbermouth Scarborough is speculating about something. Huh.

    Meanwhile, most liberals are critical of the focus on the leak/leaker, because they feel the content of the opinion is the most important thing. Because, you know, the ending of abortion is a tad more important than who leaked the damn thing.

    And therefore, Somerby must characterize liberal discourse as that thing that former Republican and current not-Democrat TV blabbermouth Scarborough is speculating about. Whadda surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “ In all honesty, it's likely that we'll never know who actually leaked the draft.”

    Gosh darn it. Better tell John Roberts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Man. Just think if Bob tried "Fox and Friends."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nice Blog, Thanks for Sharing. BE Global LLC is a leading social media marketing company in Michigan. We have an expert and highly skilled team of social media.

    ReplyDelete