GOBLINS AND US: Elon Musk is a billionaire freak!


But quite a few goblins are Us: Unfortunately, the anthropology lesson continues! Let's start with some billionaires—that is, with some billionaire humans.

Elon Musk seems to be a person of zero discernment. As seen in this CNN report, he proved that for the ten millionth time with yesterday's braindead tweet:

DARCY AND O'SULLIVAN (10/30/22): Elon Musk on Sunday gave credence to a fringe conspiracy theory about the violent attack on Paul Pelosi.

The new Twitter owner tweeted a link to an article full of baseless claims about Pelosi. The article was posted on a website that purports to be a news outlet.

Musk, who has 112 million followers on the platform he now owns, posted the baseless story about Pelosi in response to a tweet from Hillary Clinton at 8:15 am ET. He later deleted the tweet around 2 pm, but not before racking up more than 28,000 retweets and 100,000 likes.


In 2016 the same website falsely claimed that Clinton had died and that the person on the presidential campaign trail was not Clinton but her body double.

It isn't possible to have less discernment than Musk. That said, he also has billions of dollars and millions of followers. Their discernment may at times be limited too.

Musk may be the world's richest person. He now controls the "platform" to which we humans repair when we want to invent ludicrous claims or to call Others names.

Jeff Bezos is also a billionaire. Now that he owns the Washington Post, its online edition is being turned into a rolling clown car. 

It's harder and harder to recognize the online Post as an actual newspaper. This very morning, as we type, the publication's top three news reports appear beneath these headlines:

‘I really thought I was going to die’: A reckoning awaits Seoul

Musk’s inner circle worked through the weekend to cement Twitter layoff plans

15 turkey alternatives for your Thanksgiving meal

Two out of three ain't half bad, you might say. That said, the dumbness and the distractions are everywhere at the online Post, presumably boosting profits for the former newspaper's billionaire boss.

Completing the rule of three, Donald J. Trump may not be a billionaire, but he plays one on TV. 

As of Monday morning, he hadn't offered any comment about the violent attack on Paul Pelosi. In fairness, he had offered words of condolence to the family of Jerry Lee Lewis, who died last Friday at the age of 87.

Increasingly, our national discourse lies in the hands of people with zero discernment—of those who, at least in certain cases, are almost surely some version of "mentally ill."

They unloose the crazy claims which crazy people believe to be true. It's been this way for a while now, dating all the way back to the mainstream press corps' wars against Clinton, Clinton and Gore—wars our own tribe's lack of discernment didn't allow us to spot.

The discourse is being shaped by defectives like Musk, Bezos, Trump. But when our own blue tribe attempts to respond, who do we have in charge?

Over the weekend, we were struck by a set of readings. We'll offer several examples:

On Saturday, a letter in the Washington Post directed us to an opinion column we didn't see in real time. The column was written by Perry Bacon, a good and decent person. The headline on Bacon's column said this:

America’s problem is White people keep backing the Republican Party

In our view, Bacon showed very poor journalistic judgment—showed substantially limited human discernment—at various points in this heartfelt piece. 

Inevitably, no editor at the Washington Post seemed to spot these problems. The column was waved into print, leading to the letter which led us to its text.

We also read David Frum's lengthy report at The Atlantic. 

Frum's report takes us deep inside the world of the associate, assistant and adjunct professors of our own blue tribe. The essay's twin headlines say this:

The New History Wars
Inside the strife set off by an essay from the president of the American Historical Association

Frum's report concerns the angry debate which followed a recent essay by James Sweet, president of the American Historical Association. Frum's essay begins as shown:

FRUM (10/30/22): Even by the rancorous standards of the academy, the August eruption at the American Historical Association was nasty and personal.

The August edition of the association’s monthly magazine featured, as usual, a short essay by the association’s president, James H. Sweet, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Within hours of its publication, an outrage volcano erupted on social media. A professor at Cornell vented about the author’s “white gaze.” A historian at the University of San Diego denounced the essay as “significant and substantial violence.” A historian at Knox College, in Illinois, organized an email campaign to pressure the AHA to respond.

Forty-eight hours after the essay’s release, Sweet posted a statement of regret for his words. The four-paragraph message concluded: “I apologize for the damage I have caused to my fellow historians, the discipline, and the AHA. I hope to redeem myself in future conversations with you all. I’m listening and learning.”

That attempt at mollification only widened the controversy...

This angry dispute generated a bit of mainstream coverage back when it occurred. Concerning the tenor of the dispute, we'd be inclined to offer this:

For reasons which are the fault of no living person—but also, due to the limits of human discernment—it can be very, very, very hard to sustain a "diverse democracy."

Frum goes into excruciating detail in the course of his essay. For ourselves, we clicked the link to the work of the historian who complained about the  “significant and substantial violence" involved in Sweet's short essay.

We'll only say that a glance at this professor's writings left the analysts wringing their hands and tearing wildly at their hair. Human discernment is very limited, and our own blue tribe now relies on such assistant, associate and adjunct professors as we continue our slide toward the sea.

Rather plainly, things are falling apart. The center seems to be failing to hold.

In large part, this is the work of the billionaires. But no one can address this state of affairs but our own blue tribe, and our own blue tribe is disastrously short of human discernment too.

In this morning's New York Times, the paper has done it again! The Times has gone to several precincts in Pennsylvania to see how the Other tribe lives.

Shane Goldmacher speaks to several Others about the Pennsylvania Senate race. Deep in his report, he even quotes one of these goblins:

GOLDMACHER (10/31/22): Justin Taylor, the mayor of nearby Carbondale, is another Obama-Trump voter. Elected as a 25-year-old Democrat almost two decades ago, he endorsed Mr. Trump in 2020 and grew increasingly more Republican, just like the city he serves.

Today, he is adamantly opposed to Mr. Fetterman, calling him a liberal caricature and the kind of candidate the left thinks will appeal to the people of Carbondale, a shrinking town of under 10,000 people that was founded on anthracite coal. “I think, quite honestly, he is an empty Carhartt sweatshirt and the people who are working class in Pennsylvania see that,” Mr. Taylor said.

Mr. Taylor is still technically a registered Democrat, he said, but he feels judged by his own party. “The Democratic Party forces it down your throat,” he said, “and they make you a bigot, they make you a racist, they make you a homophobe if you don’t understand a concept, or you don’t 100 percent agree.”

Still, Mr. Taylor said he might not vote in the Senate race at all...

The New York Times actually put that in print! Within our own infallible tribe, we've long tended to rise in protest when publications like the Times report the views of such monsters and freaks.

If we lived in Pennsylvania, we'd vote for Candidate Fetterman. That said, many former Democrats will be voting for Candidate Oz—and in our view, Taylor's observations are well worth considering on this most frightening day of them all.

Goblins are everywhere tonight. They're also found all over the discourse, sometimes perhaps Over Here.

Tomorrow: Where does a person start?


  1. "The discourse is being shaped by defectives like Musk, Bezos, Trump. But when our own blue tribe attempts to respond, who do we have in charge?"

    We have pregnant men and "medical experts" pushing body mutilation and castration for children to respond to those awful defectives. No worries.

    1. Name one expert pushing "body mutilation and castration for children". Name one pregnant man.

    2. Castrating children would be a smart move for Democrats. What are Republicans going to do about it, make a good faith argument? There's no risk of that happening.

    3. “Name one expert pushing "body mutilation and castration for children"‘

      Gender affirming care, that includes top and bottom surgery on minors, is like CRT in that it is does not exist in actuality within the scope of known practice.

      However, both GAC surgery and CRT are vital in protecting and supporting vulnerable populations and anyone who argues that they must be stopped is a horrible person who wants these people to treated as subhumans or better yet, to die, although none of this stuff is actually being practiced.


      “Gender affirming care that provides breast and genitalia surgery can be done in adolescence “on a case by case basis”


      “Name one pregnant man.”

      Fair point. This is something that does not exist.

      Please tell NBC News.


    4. "Gender affirming care, that includes top and bottom surgery on minors, is like CRT in that it is does not exist in actuality within the scope of known practice."

      It only exists in the fevered minds of the totally gullible.

    5. I miss Right-wingers pretending to care about inflation. It really seemed like they were really serious, right up until the point they were told it was caused by lack of business regulation.

    6. Anonymouse 11:23am, such as the Department of Health and Human Services.

    7. Such as the lack of anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulation and enforcement.
      Feel free to reply in a way that makes it look like you don't already know that, but you should know, I'm not going to believe you.

    8. Why would Republicans think they know more about children's health and best interests than the parents of such children and the experts at the Department of Health and Human Services?

      Please quote a link to anything they say that encourages castration and mutilation of children. And no, gender-affirming treatment does not mean that and is not sufficient to include radical right wing claims that anyone is castrating or mutilating children (aside from routine circumcisions, an occasional ear-piercing or chip implantation to prevent kidnapping, none of which Republicans object to).

    9. I like this part:

      Because gender-affirming care encompasses many facets of healthcare needs and support, it has been shown to increase positive outcomes for transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents. Gender-affirming care is patient-centered and treats individuals holistically, aligning their outward, physical traits with their gender identity.”

      Sex is not a matter of biology, but transkids need all the accoutrements that come with the biology.

    10. Anonymouse 11:54am, as always with the double talk:

      Nothing means what the opposition says it means, even when the literature expressly stated that it does.

      This therapy doesn’t exist within the scope of practice, but who are you to question the expertise when it does.

    11. Cecelia,
      Trans kids don't yet have political power. That's why the GOP is happy to punch down on them, at this time.

    12. Is CRT real? Is the castration and mutilation in service to people who are different than Cecelia real? Who knows? The only thing Cecelia can be sure of, is it would be a shame if the GOP lost votes, and couldn't deliver more corporate tax cuts.

    13. I'm no expert, and I don't follow these issues closely, but my understanding is that "gender-confirming" therapy, as it applies to minors, doesn't involve surgery, they have to wait until they reach majority age for that. For minors, they get hormone inhibitors, or treatment that prevents them from maturing into their sex at birth, which might be just as objectionable. I've seen sites instructing us on the new woke terminology that a pregnant woman shouldn't be referred to as a "pregnant woman" but as a "person who is pregnant" to avoid the offense that could be caused when a biological woman who considers herself a man gets pregnant and gets "misgendered" as a pregnant woman - this pregnant person is a pregnant man.

    14. AC/MA, check with Cecelia. She is the expert. Not medical doctors

      Seriously, I do not understand why this has become a left/right issue.

    15. I know that links are hard for anonymices to manage…but if you can…check out the link to the Dept of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs, from my first post.

      You’ll find the presentation of GAC categories labeled “What It Is” and “When It’s used”.

      “Gender-Affirming Surgeries-
      “Top” surgery – to create male-typical chest shape or enhance breasts
      “Bottom” surgery – surgery on genitals or reproductive organs- Typically used in adulthood or case- by-case in adolescence.”


      Note my post was in answer to the invariable anonymouse formulation/gaslighting that both CRT and GAC surgery (on adolescents), are forces for vast societal good, YET (incongruously) are solely the stuff of right wing fever dreams.


    16. @Cecelia 4:33 PM
      "...are forces for vast societal good, YET (incongruously) are solely the stuff of right wing fever dreams."

      Ah yes. This is known as "kettle logic". Goes like this:
      I returned your kettle undamaged, it was already broken when I borrowed it, and I never borrowed it in the first place...

    17. It isn’t being done on children. How much clearer can that be said?

      Adults have the right to make decisions about their own bodies (unless female and pregnant).

    18. The right wing commenters above seem to have fallen for more right wing misinformation:

      “Gender reassignment surgery is typically only available to those 18 and older in the United States.”


    19. Where's that "misinformation" you speak of, dear mh? Your quote explicitly confirms that gender reassignment surgery is available to those under 18y.o.

    20. For the illiterate, here is what the media matters article says:
      “ The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States.”

    21. Your quote in 5:08 PM, dear mh, says "...surgery is typically only available to those 18 and older".

      So, either "politifact.com" or "media matters" spread misinformation.

      ...of course we strongly suspect that both of them do (as all dembot publications); "media matters" being, apparently, a more blatant liar.

    22. Arnold Schwarzenegger was pregnant in 1992.


    23. The quote was from the link I provided. I typed media matters, when I meant politifact.

    24. Politifact is a source for correcting misinformation not spreading it, as Mao suggests.

    25. Mh, my opinions are this stuff
      are not fully formed, but I do
      know one thing: Mao is a
      degenerate mentality, not
      worth your time.

    26. Right wingers like Cesillyia always argue in bad faith, and generally are incoherent in their mutterings.

      When you go the link Cesillyia quotes from, you see that it uses a source for the quote, which you can also follow the link to, and it says:

      "In the United States, adolescents are not able to consent for removal of their ovaries/uterus/testes/penis (considered sterilization procedures) until they are 18 years old. However, some surgeons may perform surgical removal of breast tissue (“top surgery”) in adolescents younger than 18 years who are able to fully understand the risks and benefits. In this setting, a qualified mental health professional must confirm gender dysphoria, confirm that any psychological or social problems have been addressed and are stable, and confirm that the adolescent is emotionally mature enough to consent to the procedure."

      While in the case of adolescent gender affirming surgery, which applies only to breast tissue, there is a rigorous protocol to follow, FOR NON GENDER AFFIRMING ADOLESCENT BREAST SURGERY, SUCH AS BREAST REDUCTION OR IMPLANTS, THERE IS NO SUCH RIGOROUS PROTOCOL, AND IS RELATIVELY FREQUENT AND NOT ATTACKED BY RIGHT WINGERS. huh! who knew?

      Holy non binary! Cesillyia just has zero integrity.

      Here is some bone simple, straightforward edification:

      Gender is not the same as sex.

      A woman is whoever identifies as a woman.

      CRT describes systemic and institutional racism that persists even after passing laws such as the Civil Rights Act. That this exists is evident in the dramatic inequality between White and Black experiences; White people on average own a dollar for every 15 cents a Black person has, and then you can look at hiring practices and abuse from cops, etc etc etc. IT IS EITHER RACISM OR GENETIC, PICK YOUR LANE CESILLYIA.

      CRT is not taught outside of college; however, it is lived by every Black person of every age.

      Cesillyia is an angry, bitter, hate spewing right wing nut, but there is no such thing as free will - their condition is the result of being wounded, traumatized. Unfortunately, they are inclined, as right wingers typically are, to crucify everyone else for their own sins.

    27. Mao: Kettle Logic - “I returned your kettle undamaged, it was already broken when I borrowed it, and I never borrowed it in the first place...”

      Thank you for magnificent example of this anonymouse reasoning”/gaslighting.

      This technique is now employed in shifting the narrative as to who was responsible for the riot mayhem during Trump’s tenure, and is now a burgeoning device against any post-pandemic criticism of the hysterical rage generated by pushback against Covid-19 restrictions.

    28. Anonymous 7:49pm, what do you think is meant by “Typically used in adulthood or case- by-case in adolescence” other than that exceptions ARE made based upon certain criteria.

      Oh, how I tried to pull the wool over your collective eyes citing THAT word-for-word.

      In actuality, your post is far less aligned with your fellow anonymices in its admission to there being exceptions for the surgical treatment of transminors than it is with my post where I quoted the government saying that exceptions could and have been made.

      Anonymouses need to learn to read. Then all their arguments wouldn’t be “No! No! No! Yes, but”…

    29. non-responsive -- typical of what Cecelia writes when she is backed into a corner

    30. The characterization by the apparent troll at 9:18 (the OP) of gender-affirming surgery was “body mutilation and castration for children”. Both terms are loaded, and generally imply force.

      As we see from the above, “castration” is NOT performed on anyone under 18.

      The word “mutilation” always implies forceful disfigurement. Applying that to gender affirming care is as appropriate as using it to describe ear piercing, plastic surgery, or the amputation of an appendage due to necrosis.

    31. You may be unaware, Cesillyia, but you are not providing a counterpoint to me debunking your nonsense.

      Even worse, you and all the other right wingers that inaccurately say the sky is falling in one case, are okey dokey just fine in the other case.

      You got called out, you lost. What is with all your sour grapes? You want those removed? I know a doctor...ooh, uh, it's a delicate issue, might require a psych evaluation.

    32. What’ is stupidly “responsive” is to suggest that I tried to mislead by directly linking and quoting material that directly countered the numerous avowals seen here today that such surgeries NEVER happen with minors.

      Of course, NOW you must move from there to where you should have been at the start— they have and can occur, but are guided by specific criteria and experts.

      You didn’t start there because then you must grapple with the fact that our government leaders do have a duty to exercise judgment in setting boundaries and even blocks upon these sorts of procedures on minors.

    33. mh, castration is a widely used term for the removal of the penis.

      Body mutilation is subjective, but not outrageous so when discussing these procedures in the context of minors.

      Now, that we’ve gotten beyond being told that such things never happen, we can now say that is the purview of government in way that the entire medical profession is accountable to state and federal government agencies.

    34. You didn’t counter anything.

    35. You in retreat gives no one any solace.

      Frankly, it is ugly to observe. I understand the root cause is beyond your control, that is sad.

      You are making a strawman argument- while you mislead about the "avowals", it turns out they were accurate; and even weirder, you try to suggest that non right wingers are opposed to government regulation. Hey, I appreciate the chuckle though.

    36. Anonymouse 9:37pm, whose retreat is it when you first argue that such surgeries never happen and then must change to saying that they do, but only under the aegis of medical experts. Then you must then admit that government does play a regulatory role in such matters,

      Is there another goalpost you’d like to move?

    37. You said castration and mutilation. Girls get breast enhancement surgery in wealthy families, routine rhinoplasty and no pne cares. There are no gender-affirming surgeries on children and you did not counter that with anything you linked. Shut up and leave people alone now, you tiresome troll. You had your chance and you had nothing.

    38. Anon 7:49, you say a lot of things. It's been said that gender roles are societally enforced, that girls are trained to act feminine, and boys, masculine, that it's not inherent or biological. But if that's the case, how is it that nowadays, we are told that "gender" is different than" sex." Some people born males, with a penis, but are inherently female, a woman with a penis, and vice versa I suppose, that's how we have pregnant men. It doesn't make sense. It seems that there is some type of mass hysteria afoot. Something is wrong upstairs if you want to be a different gender, requiring surgery, hormones etc. I recently had to get a new primary care physician. An intake person from his office asked a bunch of questions, about my medical history. One question was "what gender was assigned to me at birth" as if being assigned a gender was like being assigned a name by my parents.

    39. Anonymouse 11:04pm, I replied to mh’s post in which he mentioned another commenter’s reference to mutilation and castration.

      I see you haven’t caught up to the fact that we’ve moved from such surgeries never occurring on minors to the government saying that they rarely occur and do so on a case-case basis under the aegis of trained medical professionals who are regulated and monitored by government agencies, both state and local.

      Hello, Gov DeSantis.

    40. AC/MA, what’s particular puzzling is the argument that gender isn’t based upon anatomy, but it is important that we affirm gender based anatomical distinctions via medical interventions.

      Therefore you get brilliant pronouncements such as there is no difference between breast augmentation and breast removal. No difference between cross dressing and therapy to suppress your hormones.

      This is plain old gender dysphoria disorder and we ought to treat it if asked or allow adults to go with it.

      What we should not do is to demand that the whole world play along.

    41. Homosexuality isn’t a disorder, but it is a condition caused by childhood factors.

      An example of how people are browbeaten over these things is how gays are labeled transphobic when they say they are not attracted to transgender males or females.


    42. "Homosexuality isn’t a disorder"

      It was. And now it isn't. And so it might become a disorder again tomorrow.

      It's nothing but a political decision of the academic establishment.


  2. tl;dr
    "They unloose the crazy claims which crazy people believe to be true."

    Oh noes!

    Don't tell us, dear Bob, that they believe in wimmin trapped inside men's bodies!
    In The Commander being a foreign agent!
    In riots being insurgencies!
    In fetuses 10 seconds before they're born being clumps of cells!
    In all the pale-skinned people being responsible for something a few other pale-skinned people might've done 200 years ago!

    Meh. That would be laughable, dear Bob. Please tell us it ain't so!

    1. Mao,
      Do you get bonuses from your establishment elite bosses when they get tax breaks from Republicans?

    2. oh oh, don't look now, but "Mao's" hero Putin is blaming the Nordstream sabotage on the U.K., not the U.S., contradicting "Mao's" other hero, Tucker. "Torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fooooool . . . " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9obFnIzGEs

  3. "We'll only say that a glance at this professor's writings left the analysts wringing their hands and tearing wildly at their hair. "

    Somerby quotes Frum and writes several paragraphs himself, all without telling us what Sweet was supposed to have done, what the controversy was about, and why he issued an apology. Lots of disapproval from Somerby over a controversy among historians without Somerby saying anything at all about the heart of the matter -- what the historians were concerned about. Just the conclusion that academia has done something wrong -- what, exactly, Somerby never says.

    David Frum is a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a Republican. Today, Somerby approves of his article in Atlantic, although he will not tell us what Frum said. Only that Somerby himself agrees with knocking historians because they had some undescribed dispute over an essay whose author later apologized.

    1. Agreed. At the very least, Somerby could give us an example -- ideally the one he finds most egregious.

    2. He did the same thing with Bacon's column:

      "In our view, Bacon showed very poor journalistic judgment—showed substantially limited human discernment—at various points in this heartfelt piece.

      Inevitably, no editor at the Washington Post seemed to spot these problems."

      But he fails to provide a single example or provide any idea as to what his beef is with the piece.

    3. I assumed Sweet must have said something about equal justice for black people, to get the Bob Somerby's of the world all worked up like this.

    4. Bacon's column and the resulting letter are behind a paywall. Somerby only says he objects to the headline (which Bacon may or may not have written) and that Bacon lacks discernment. Discernment is a new word for Somerby, meaning judgment. Bacon has written an opinion piece but Somerby talks about journalistic judgment -- is the author of an opinion piece really a journalist? And what does journalistic judgment have to do with white people in the Republican party? What about Bacon's political discernment? Was that OK?

      This is a stupid game that Somerby is now playing. It enables him to apply negative labels and a tone of complaint to anyone he pleases, without having to discuss or provide evidence to support his labels. It is lazy too, but maybe that is all Somerby is capable of doing these days. Even so, it isn't fair to the folks he has been maligning. If Somerby cannot do better than this, it may be time for him to hang up his spurs.

    5. Ah, here is the reason why Somerby is maligning Bacon, aside from the fact that he is black:

      "Perry Bacon Jr. is a Washington Post columnist. He focuses on two major themes: the growing radicalism of the Republican Party and the right; and the efforts, mostly on the left and among Democrats, to create a more just, equitable society. Before joining The Post in May 2021, Perry had stints as a government and elections writer for Time magazine, The Post's politics desk, theGrio and FiveThirtyEight. He has also been been an on-air analyst at MSNBC and a fellow at New America. "

    6. "It is lazy too..."
      Yet, some people still deny Bob is a Conservative.

    7. Frum's article is also behind an Atlantic paywall. As near as I can tell, Sweet implicitly denied minorities a seat at the history table and some of them objected to that, as they should. History should include all of the previously neglected groups, including women, minorities, social history not simply economic and political history, and so on. This is a very old complaint, going back to the 1960s when there were complaints about revisionist histories of the civil war and more minority historians were hired at major universities. If Sweet neglected all of that, he deserves criticism for not recognizing changes in his own field. But this isn't a Democrat/Republican thing, so it is unclear why Somerby is dragging politics into a professional dispute, other than mh's comment about academic freedom, which Democrats support and Republicans do not (as part of their general attack on academia).

    8. I think it is more accurate to say Bob is a right winger.

  4. "Within our own infallible tribe, we've long tended to rise in protest when publications like the Times report the views of such monsters and freaks."

    Somerby can quote no Democrat who has objected to the NY Times reporting on Republican opinions. Democrats have objected to the frequent visits to rural towns to interview Trump voters, as if these people were typical of some trend. We have asked why the NY Times does not send reporters into the Bronx to interview Biden voters in equal proportion.

    Today, Somerby uses a pretext to quote a PA mayor who switched from being Democratic to Republican over a span of 20 years (hardly an unusual occurrence), and who is now blaming Democrats for the same things that all Republicans blame them for, again hardly unusual.

    Somerby thinks there is a lesson there for Democrats to learn. Presumably, he wants us to stop calling anyone racist, sexist or homophobic, in other words, to abandon support for civil rights. That isn't going to happen because that is a key Democratic value and essential to our current coalition of base voters. Further, suporting civil rights is the right thing to do.

    What kind of person says he would vote for Fetterman while daily publishing right-wing perspectives in his blog and chiding Democrats for being Democrats? A Republican in sheep's clothing.

    1. No one believes Democrats care about civil rights, especially as they openly argue in favor of discriminating against Asians.

    2. Asians voted for Biden 63% to 31% for Trump.

    3. It is Somerby's characterization that increasing access for underrepresented minorities will disadvantage Asian students at NYC's elite science high schools. Democrats have been advocating broader admission criteria, less emphasis on testing, and perhaps a lottery to make access more fair to all. Some Asian parents have complained, but note that no Democrats have called for limiting Asians, only for increasing access for all groups.

    4. People often vote against their own interest in one area if they perceive a benefit in another area.

    5. 11:39,
      We have an entire political party made up of voters who can live with a rigged economy for the rich and corporations, as long as there are groups of people getting kicked in the teeth harder than them.

    6. As Somerby demonstrates day after day, it is the kicking that matters, not the teeth. He has given up explaining why he is kicking good decent people all the time.

    7. A good number of poor voters resist being bribed into supporting a million killings of young people a year.

    8. 2;27,
      Is that the reason the NRA went bankrupt? I thought it was because the higher-ups embezzled the dues suckers pay.

    9. Paul Pelosi could have made short work of his attacker if he would have had an effective means of self defense. Democrats would deny it to him and us.

    10. He is 82. Be realistic.

    11. Anonymous 4:45pm, and at 2am was alone in a large house which evidently has no alarm system.

    12. Who leaves their alarm on when at home? No one I know. A politician should have a reasonable right to assume they will not be attacked in their own kitchen.

    13. Anonymouse 8:28pm, believe it or not some people do have their alarm system on when actually home…even in the morning hours of 2 a.m.

      Who knew?!

      Your latter complaint is one for all the liberals governing San Fran.

    14. Pelosi wasn’t attacked by the liberals governing San Francisco.

    15. San Franciscans are increasingly attacked by all sorts of people in that city.

      They don’t seem to a have a right to safety either.

    16. That isn’t why Pelosi was attacked and you know it.

    17. I do know Pelosi was not randomly attacked.

      What I don’t know for certain is why he was attacked and the particulars of how a person of his import was in the situation where he wasn’t safe in his home.

    18. What I don’t know for certain is why he was attacked..

      Keep working on that, Cec. I'm sure it will come to you eventually. Check with Infowars, they might have some thoughts on the matter.

    19. Anonymouse 6:49pm, no, zi don’t that I’ll do what both you and Info Wars do - which is to immediately jump to politically expedient conclusions before an investigation.

  5. About Justin Taylor, that Carbondale Mayor (who may or may not have changed his party affiliation -- in this article he says yes, but in the NY Times, he claims to nominally still be a Democrat, because who would care if he were just another Republican?)

    "Rather, soon after announcing his support of President Trump in June, 2020, Taylor became a sought after and frequent guest on national radio and television political talk shows, including conservative commentator Steve Bannon’s nationally syndicated radio program, “War Room: Pandemic,’’ and has also been interviewed by a host of major statewide and national newspapers, including the widely circulated The National Pulse."

    So, we hear that he was not just a Trump supporter but also a party operative, with perhaps wider ambitions.

    Taylor says: "“So I’m confident,” Taylor continued, “that voters of Carbondale will vote for the president in such overwhelming numbers that it might well be the margin that turns the battleground state of Pennsylvania in the president’s favor. Which is why many Pennsylvanians now say ‘the road to the White House runs through Carbondale.”

    The article continues: "That last claim might seem hyperbolic, until you take a careful look at the recent political history of Carbondale. While the party voter registration of Carbondale’s approximately 8,500 mainly working-class Catholic citizenry currently favors Democrats by about a 2-1 margin, that number declined from a 4-1 Democratic party advantage just a decade ago. And, even more notably, Trump in 2016 won the city over Hillary Clinton by a 2,132- 1961 count, a small but not insignificant amount in a state which the president won by only 41,000 votes."

    Given the red tribe support for Trump in his small city, it seems likely the mayor saw political expediency in getting ahead of trends important to his own reelection as mayor. He was first elected at age 25 and has never held any other job than mayor. With 4 kids to support who would want to start a new career path at his advanced age of 45, and given that Trump is no longer president, he has a lot at state in getting reelected in his conservative town.

    Is Somerby really such a moron that he doesn't understand why Justin Taylor is complaining about Fetterman?

    And shame on the NY Times for buying his Democrat turned Trump supporter schtick! This is not some randomly selected small town mayor, but part of the Trump machine, being given high visibility by an unwary NY Times writer. Or perhaps the Times is still happy to boost Republican shills wherever they find them.

    1. Forgot the link:


      From The Queens Village Republican Club, Inc., America's Oldest Republican Club Organized in 1875


      October 29, 2020

    2. Not surprised, but thank you for the research.

  6. Somerby is labeling people goblins in honor of the holiday, but he is still not explaining why anyone has earned such vilification. It is enough to call them out, without providing any evidence, once again.

    And what happened to the discussion of focus groups promised days ago? Where is the explanation of why Professor Johnson (no first name given, but perhaps people of former slave heritage don't deserve first names, since any names they received in the past were bestowed by their owners?) deserved to be put down last week.

    And what have those poor goblins done to deserve Somerby's rancor? As usual, he doesn't say, except mumble mumble mumble racist mumble sexist, and former Democrats don't like being called racist mumble mumble. Duh! That's why they're former, like this Carbondale clown who hitched his wagon to Trump's star and is now orbiting outer space.

  7. "That said, many former Democrats will be voting for Candidate Oz—and in our view, Taylor's observations are well worth considering on this most frightening day of them all."

    Taylor's observations made me wonder what racist thing he said or did to make all those Democrats pile on him. Actually, Taylor strikes me as a politician who tested which way the wind was blowing in his town and supported Trump opportunistically, as so many Republicans appear to have done.

    Why does Somerby not grasp that social ostracism over racist behavior is one of the tools for encouraging people to change. Unfortunately, instead of becoming more good and decent, they changed to hanging around with other racists who would reinforce their right to behave badly toward others (as Trump has done) and tell them they are still good and decent despite hurting others.

    Does Somerby think Democrats are like Republicans, willing to sell out important values to get votes or TV time or campaign contributions or one's name in print "Justin Taylor FORMER Democrat (except it isn't clear whether he actually switched parties). There's guy with integrity -- NOT.

    1. I wonder how many doctors are voting for Oz. Not many, I'd wager.

  8. Frum’s article is a defense of academic freedom.

    I imagine Somerby liked it because he thinks it dovetails with his own criticisms of liberals, where he can find nothing wrong with all those Republican anti-CRT bills, and asserts that Republicans have a point when they set about mandating their ideas via legislation.

    But this is not Frum’s or Sweet’s position.

    They do fault people who are presumably progressive in the particular debate over Sweet’s essay. However, their position is not that the Republicans are therefore justified in passing all those anti-woke bills. Quite the contrary. Their position is that academic freedom at colleges and universities should be preserved.

    And that is a position that Somerby has never defended.

  9. The police say that the man arrested for attacking Paul Pelosi had a list of other political targets. Do you suppose he got those names off Grindr?

  10. Bezos gets a lot of criticism from liberal blogs, such as “lawyers guns and money.”

    But it isn’t because there are articles about alternatives to the Thanksgiving meal in the Washington Post.

    It’s because Bezos is rabidly anti-union, and has tried to prevent Amazon workers from unionizing. Being pro-union has been a core principle of Democratic politics for a long time.

    Does Bezos’ stance affect the reporting about unions in the Post? That might be a fruitful question for a media critic to ask.

    But Somerby never writes about workers and workers’ unions.

  11. “no one can address this state of affairs but our own blue tribe, and our own blue tribe is disastrously short of human discernment too.”

    Somerby claimed he would vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what (such as Fetterman).

    But he never says why.

    On the other hand, he constantly tells his readers that Democrats/liberals/progressives (the right wing makes no distinction among those groups by the way) do nothing but play the “race card” and hate the white working class.

    That is, coincidentally, what right wingers hear every day from Fox and other right wing media outlets. There may even be a kernel of truth to some of their complaints, and it is a perception that, rightly or wrongly, does pose a problem for Democrats. But where will right wingers ever hear a counter argument? Certainly not at TDH, who, despite saying “no one can address this state of affairs but our own blue tribe” can muster no defense or justification for voting for Democrats.

  12. This is what Tucker Carlson said about Fetterman:

    “they [the Democrats] can even run mentally defective candidates who can barely speak. And not only expect them to "win," but expect you to accept the outcome no matter how transparently absurd it is.”


    He simply calls Fetterman “mentally defective.”

    I wondered if Somerby would like to expound upon how it isn’t “ableist” to suggest that a stroke victim is “mentally defective”, full stop.

    1. Then what happened?

    2. 3:36: why would Tucker Carlson know the answer to this?

    3. Because he is not a neurosurgeon or therapist specializing in speech therapy after a stroke.

    4. What happened post ponderance though?

  13. Not my choice of words but accurate in the strict sense.

    1. If Fetterman functioned during the debate (even if he was occasionally hard to understand), then he was not strictly speaking mentally defective. We do not have a standard for what constitutes unflawed or perfect communication. The goal of communication is to communicate, and if he did that, then he was not defective, given the lack of a standard for how people are supposed to speak, especially after a stroke inducing aphasia.

      defective definition: imperfect or flawed

    2. We have standards for the classification of brain disorders and we have standards as to what constitutes skillful or artful communication and have the same for poor communication.

      The loss of ability to understand or express speech, caused by brain damage.

      It’s up to the people in PA to decide about Fetterman. What’s amazing is that one journalist, who accurately described Fetterman’s condition, was almost tarred and feathered, by some reporters who were well aware of Fetterman’s aphasia.

      She was ignored by other colleagues who should have come to her defense.

      The media utterly abandoned its responsibility to inform the public.

      Put a fork in journalism. It’s done.


    3. Fetterman was more or less stochastic during the debate.

    4. @cecelia:
      “aphasia in and of itself does not mean that someone has cognitive problems outside of language. “


      Do you delight in being a dickhead, or is it just part of your tribal thinking?

    5. Fetterman was obviously speaking and hearing during the debate. That means he didn't have a complete inability to use language. The question then becomes the degree of impairment or difficulty.

      You leave out the part where speech processing is recoverable after a stroke, which is certainly true in Fetterman's case, as attested by his doctor who wrote a letter assessing his ability to do the job of holding office and signed him off as competent.

      There are more serious strokes than what Fetterman suffered, and there are also people who do not get prompt treatment (the faster the more functioning is recoverable). Knowing someone who cannot speak at all gives a misleading picture of Fetterman's abilities. That's why it was very important for him to debate Oz -- so that people could see that he was functional, as he was.

      Trump is more impaired cognitively, by any reasonable standard, than Fetterman. It is time for Republicans to stop preying on the ignorance of the general public about strokes and acknowledge what we all plainly saw. Fetterman was able to debate and gave answers to questions, often more coherently than Trump does these days.

    6. Fetterman looks like he smells bad.

    7. Anonymouse 8pm, I never stated anything otherwise.

      In fact, I said it is up to the voters of PA to decide the significance of Fetterman’s impairment.

      My beef was that the media around Fetterman knew that he has this impairment and didnt report it and even denied it and castigated a journo who did tell the story.

      For all the cussing, condemning, and hollering anonymices have sent my way today, after they have added or subtracted from my posts, I’m thinking aphasia may be contagious.

      You catch it from watching MSNBCNN.

    8. Cecelia, my original post at 2:55 pm took Carlson to task for declaring that Fetterman was mentally deficient. This is what 3:36 was responding to. It had nothing to do with whether Fetterman had aphasia. You are the one trying to change the subject, dumbass.

    9. Why did you declare that?

    10. Fetterman's stroke has been widely reported since it happened. Those attacked in the media were rightfully criticized for their misinformation on the issue.

      Republicans in Congress that have suffered strokes or similar medical issues - not so much coverage, and no accompanying outrage from Dems.

      Dems get mad about right wing corruption and oppression, not bodily malfunctions.

      Right wing rage (that isn't projection) is performative all the way down.

    11. whatever cognitive issues Fetterman may or may not have, he is clearly able to understand issues and take a stance on them. and this is all that's needed to save the country from an extremist cult that it destroying it. of course, if he smells bad, then Oz should be voted in. duh

    12. Democrats are not that great either. They are also corrupt and oppressive. Enough with the false dichotomies. Get real!!

    13. mh, I didn’t address my posts to you. My post directly followed and addressed a silly point by Anonymouse 6:23pm and answered a post made by Anonymouse 8pm.

      You’re getting more ridiculous and worked up on this board by the day. It’s not good for you.

    14. Anonymouse 9:26pm, no Dems don’t only get mad at right wing corruption, they get mad at journos reporting what they see and then having it illustrated on tv.

      They get mad at Somerby when he makes it clear that he’s such a party man that he’d vote on a Dem over a Republican as long as the Dem could put breath on a mirror.

      Why was Bob bashed anyway? Because he didn’t simultaneously knock Republicans.

      For goodness sakes, Anonymices get defensive and argue that there’s no standard for perfect speech in the context of a politician grappling with aphasia. They parse the definition of defective.

      You can’t get more neurotic than an anonymouse. They’re not regular liberals or anything else.

    15. Why is that point important or notable?

    16. mh, of course it’s ok if I post another comment as late or as early as I wish. You don’t have to read it or to reply. .

      Aphasia is a sign of cognitive impairment.

      In Fetterman’s case, his brain is not processing speech. He hears speech in the way he hears someone speaking a foreign language he doesn’t speak or as just noise.

      Will he recover or improve? I pray so. Is he incapable of functioning as a senator? It’s going to be difficult, but that’s up to his constituents to decide.

      As it stood, our media didn’t want those voters to have that info. The media thought it was their job to shield Fetterman from a public they don’t trust.

      Pennsylvanians should be more concerned about that dynamic than about Tucker.

    17. I will repost, Cecelia.

      “aphasia in and of itself does not mean that someone has cognitive problems outside of language. “


    18. mh, aphasia is a cognitive deficit associated with language.

      I didn’t catch that you were saying that it’s not a global cognitive impairment.

      That’s correct. It’s not.

  14. Musk has largely been presented in the
    press as a free speech absolutist, so
    he won praise from suspiciously
    gullible folk like Bill Maher. I must
    admit, I didn’t know he was enough
    of a creep to post that kind of crap.

    On the abuses of the Clinton/Gore
    era, Bob is among the ones who stood
    down, waved the white flag, and
    gave the abusers everythIng they

  15. Does anyone really believe there are
    many Obama/Trump voters? It’s
    possible their are a few, but Republicans
    tend to always claim they voted
    for the Dem last time. Bob even,
    at least once, pointed this out!!!

    1. No, and it is a critical point you make.

    2. Of course they are real. Think about it. They are people that felt marginalized that voted for candidates that presented themselves as outside the system and able to come in and change the status quo. Change and hope and Make America Great again are sisters.

  16. Kanye West has admitted publicly that he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. And yet it isn’t clear that that caused him to say what he did. Blow spent the bulk of his editorial showing Kanye’s consistent anti-black ideology over the years, thus asserting that that is Kanye’s real self.

    Here’s a view by some professionals at least, who affirm Blow’s view about mental illness:

    “Almost all of the mental health professionals who spoke to Gizmodo about Ye’s behavior stated that mental illness does not induce racism, antisemitism, or any other type of hatred.“


    Additionally, this statement was made about Kanye:

    “Ye has always courted controversy and tried to get a rise out of everyone.”

    It’s also ironic that Kanye himself said this: “ITS CHEAP AND DISMISSIVE TO SAY I’M OFF MY MEDS ANYTIME I SPEAK UP”
    (From a deleted tweet).

    1. Why did you think that point you made about Tucker Carlson earlier was important or notable or even interesting?

  17. they [the Democrats] can even run mentally defective candidates who can barely speak. And not only expect them to "win," but expect you to accept the outcome no matter how transparently absurd it is.

    So well-said and true, it's worth repeating.

  18. Yes you are absolutely right! Elon Musk is a billionaire freak. If I get a chance to meet him, I will definitely recommend him to buy the entireDJI Agras T40 drone company. Because this is one of the best sprayer drones and after buying this company Elon Musk can earn a lot of profit.