PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: The famous professor spouted and fumed!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2023

He was troubled by one key word: It's hardly surprising to see that people have been emotional, disturbed, upset—to see that many people have been "passionate"—in the aftermath of the slaughter conducted by Hamas on October 7.

It would be odd if people weren't emotional, disturbed, upset in the wake of such a mass slaughter. That said:

When we humans are upset, we may not function in thoroughly constructive ways. In a widely cited set of lines, Yeats offered a famous account of what can happen at times of vast upheaval:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

As we noted yesterday, we thought of those famous lines as we watched yesterday's Morning Joe. There's been a great deal of intensity on that show in the weeks since October 7. 

Along the way, there has also been a very large sifting of facts. Basic information may be sifted, even picked and chosen and suppressed, at times of such high passion.

Last week, we discussed a bit of intensity to which we were exposed on the red tribe "cable news" program, Fox & Friends Weekend. All last week, we discussed some of the passionate intensity which was performed on that program on Sunday morning, November 5.

The intensity led to an astonishing claim or suggestion. We refer to the claim or suggestion that Barack Obama needs a sign—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."

The person who made that claim or that suggestion almost surely isn't "the worst," though she performed a good impression of same on that astonishing program. For better or worse, passionate intensity isn't restricted to "the worst" at times of great upheaval. This brings us to something Professor Dershowitz said last Friday morning on the Fox Business Channel.

Like Batya Ungar-Sargon, Professor Dershowitz almost surely isn't "the worst." That said, he was full of passion, and full of intensity, in the appearance in question.

Last Friday, he spoke with Matia Bartiromo on her program, Mornings with Maria. As we noted on Saturday, a headline on a Fox News report captured his remarks as shown:

Alan Dershowitz calls out Obama's 'deep hatred of Israel': 'He should be ashamed'

If you'd been watching Fox & Friends Weekend, you'd been told that Obama needed that sign in his yard. Now, you were told that Obama had displayed a "deep hatred of Israel" in a recent set remarks.

Does Barack Obama need a sign in his yard—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews?" Passionate intensity can lead us humans to make such astonishing comments.

Concerning Professor Dershowitz, he was also passionate when he spoke with Bartiromo. Below, you see the way the interview began:

BARTIROMO: (11/10/23): I want to get you to tell me more about what exactly Obama said that was—he did have moral equivalency between, you know, the terrorists of Hamas and Israel!

DERSHOWITZ: Well first, he said that the occupation is unbearable. He just lied through his teeth.

There is no occupation of Gaza. In 2005, and if life is unbearable in Gaza, it's because Hamas has been in control—the kleptocracy. People have stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian aid for their own bank accts in Qatar.

As far as the occupation of the West Bank, he's been to Ramallah. He knows Ramallah—there's no occupation. It's a beautiful city, as nice as Jerusalem, except a lot safer, because there's no terrorism.

And to compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it's just obscene and despicable. And what it does is it lends support to those students, basically, who are saying, "Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad. It was in response to the occupation.’"

Although he said that the attacks by Hamas are not justifiable, he made them justifiable, because if life really is unbearable, as it's not, then you can do anything you want to make it bearable.

To watch the full tape, click here.

The interview continued from there. The professor was full of intensity on this particular morning.

Below, we'll note the professor's instant objection to Obama's use of one particular word. Already, though, he had said that Obama was "lying through his teeth" in his recent remarks about this deeply important matter. He had also said that Obama's remarks had been "obscene and despicable."

The passionate professor was full of intensity on this particular morning. "You are so spot on," Bartiromo inevitably said at this point, going on to say that Obama's remarks had been "absolutely disgusting."

Full disclosure! At this point, we haven't even reached the comments which were featured in the headline sitting atop that Fox Business news report. We refer to the comments which were quoted at the start of Kristen Altus' report:

ALTUS (11/10/23): Expressing outrage over former President Barack Obama’s call for an end to Israeli "occupation," Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz expanded on why he’s never talking to the Democratic president again.

"I think he always had a deep hatred of Israel in his heart. He hid it very well. He called me to the Oval Office and he said to me, 'Alan, you've known me for a long time. You know I have Israel's back.' I didn't realize he meant to paint a target on it," Dershowitz said Friday on "Mornings with Maria."

"He's never been supportive of Israel. And finally, his true feelings have come out now that he's no longer president and doesn't have to be elected," the professor continued. "He has contributed enormously to the problem because he is respected among young people. And if he says the occupation is unbearable and that anything can be done to stop it, he is encouraging people to engage in their antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American attitudes. He should be ashamed of himself. He should apologize, but he won't."

So began the news report, focusing on a key word. 

"Obama had always had a deep hatred of Israel in his heart," the passionate professor had said. The passionate fellow had also said that Obama had skillfully hidden his deep hatred—had done so until now.

Also this! In the current instance, Obama had been encouraging people to engage in antisemitic attitudes! Or at least, so the passionate professor had said. 

Obama should apologize, the professor had said. But, of course, he won't.

This is the sort of thing you hear if you watch Fox News / Fox Business programs. Barack Obama needs a sign which says, Kill the Jews. He's always had a deep hatred of Israel. Also, he was lying through his teeth in his recent comments.

In this case, the passionate professor spouted and fumed about Obama's alleged deep hatred. Repeatedly, caution and logic were thrown to the winds—and then too, there was that key word.

Right out of the gate, the passionate fellow had gone there. Obama had said "the occupation is unbearable," but no occupation exists!

According to the Harvard professor, it was that despicable choice of words which showed that Obama had been lying through his teeth! According to a wide array of disconsolate experts, this is the way we humans are frequently inclined to behave when things begin falling apart.

The Harvard professor spouted and fumed. Logic died a thousand deaths as he spouted and fumed for his compliant corporate host.

But what about that troubling word—the word which showed that Obama was lying? Tomorrow, we'll take a look at that key word and at one other—"blockade."

We'll try to perform a very rare function. Even as the center fails to hold., we'll try to let some tiny bits of information sneak out.

Tomorrow: Occupation, blockade

By the way: What had Obama actually said? To read his remarks, click here.


104 comments:

  1. With so much happening in the news, Somerby returns to this dumb stuff! Dershowitz is another old man with declining cognition. Who cares what he says? Somerby blames his statements on passionate intensity but that isn't the cause. There is no good reason to listen to Dershowitz even in a calm and measured state. Passion isn't bad -- stupidity and dishonesty are bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Dershowitz is a famous lawyer. Without a doubt his legal analyses deserve attention.

      He's also a Zionist. All the words he was uttering in that interview, all that word-salad amounts to him confessing of being a Zionist. So what. So, some people are. The trick is to avoid triggering them.

      Delete
    2. What made Dershowitz famous? He defended obviously guilty bad guys: neo-Nazis in Skokie, OJ, Harvey Weinstein, Trump. He is Jewish and supports Israel, but to be an actual Zionist, wouldn't someone have to have moved to Israel and settled there? He is now an old man and his so-called legal analysis means very little beyond being a paid Trump supporter. He is retired from Harvard and has made ridiculously claims about presidential powers while defending Trump that place him crosswise with other legal scholars. I don't see any reason why his "legal analyses" deserve attention these days.

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/dershowitz-says-his-impeachment-argument-was-misinterpreted

      Delete
    3. Zionism no longer exists. It was a movement that led to the establishment of Israel out of the Palestinian Mandate in 1948 (under the Aegis of the United Nations), but now Israel is just another country. If it were not under constant attack by neighboring Arab nations and terrorists, it would be no different than its neighbors. It is the ongoing animosity of the Arabs (supported by Muslim nations such as Iran, and by Russia) that makes Israel the focus on world attention. But supporting Israel over Palestinian claims and Arab hostility has nothing to do with Zionism. Zionism ended wih the formation of Israel. Today it is a loaded propagandistic term used by pro-Palestinians to refer to people hostile to Palestinian claims. It is meant to remind people that Jews stole Palestinian land (land that was lost after a series of unsuccessful wars to eradicate Israel).

      Delete
    4. "but to be an actual Zionist, wouldn't someone have to have moved to Israel and settled there?"

      No, of course not. In fact, I believe it's relatively common for a diaspora (of any ethnic group) to produce the most rabid ethno-nationalists.

      "I don't see any reason why his "legal analyses" deserve attention these days."

      Well, you don't seem to dispute his past qualifications. Why would they become less impressive now?

      Delete
    5. What is impressive about defending some of the worst miscreants on our planet?

      Delete
    6. Are you a small child, 11:50 AM?

      Delete
    7. Seriously, "If it doesn't fit you must acquit" is not the pinnacle of legal analysis.

      Delete
    8. It wasn't meant to be the pinnacle of legal analysis. It was, quite obviously, a strategy to implant doubt in the jurors' minds. A winning strategy.

      I don't why I'm responding. Putting myself back on ignore.

      Delete
    9. OK, I’ll ignore you.

      Delete
  2. Today there was an interesting article about Willa Cather (author of My Antonia, a book Somerby has often quoted here) describing a new biography of her life. The review says:

    "From there, it’s on to the town of Red Cloud and through her first years as a wildly talented college student, “acting and dressing more like a boy than a girl, cropping her hair short, going to class in starched white shirts and suspenders, and affecting a low voice,” at the then new University of Nebraska in Lincoln."

    Thereafter she met her great love, Isabelle McClung, moved in with her and began teaching high school and writing fiction.

    I wonder if Somerby realized that those scenes of passionate intensity written about Antonia most likely arose from Cather's intense feelings about her own love, Isobelle. I wonder if Somerby appreciated the luck of the high school students exposed to such a wildly talent teacher in their daily classes while Cather worked on the novels that made her famous? These are the experiences Moms4Liberty have been working so hard to deny today's students.

    At least Somerby has enough life in him to resonate with the passionate intensity of Cather and Yeats, if not understand what their words are about. Yeats cheered the coming of fascism in Europe. Cather led the kind of lifestyle Trump followers condemn. Somerby thinks that passionate intensity is bad, center-destroying, to be lamented, while failing to realize that his literary heroes are complicated people, more complex than the simplistic solutions he himself advocates. Trump says we are all vermin to be eradicated. We should fear his return to office but Somerby is too busy complaining about lame attacks on Obama -- a man who is uninvolved in today's crisis, a past president who is not the statesman Jimmy Carter was or the humanitarian the Clintons are, but a guy who occasionally says something people can argue over. What a waste of time and talent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Somerby thinks that passionate intensity is bad"

      The Second Coming says the “the worst” are full of passionate intensity, while “the best” lack all conviction, leading one to conclude the poet would like to see more passionate intensity from the best.

      So no, neither Somerby nor Yeats is against passionate intensity per se.

      Delete
    2. Somerby says that passionate intensity leads to the sifting of words that he thinks is bad, exemplified by his example of Dershowitz. Yeats says the passionate intensity is why the center cannot hold. No one has explained why the center must hold or why it holding is a good thing -- that seems to be assumed. Yeats preferred fascism because it represented order. Somerby has previously decried the polarization that has eliminated the US center on many occasions. Yeats is all about avoiding passionate intensity represented by earlier Irish nationalism and his ownthe upheaval in Ireland prior to Independence and Yeats represented the fatigue with battle following WWI.

      If you read this as Somerby NOT opposed to passionate intensity, you are ignoring a lot of what Somerby has been saying, today and previously. Yes, Somerby says it is natural to feel passionate intensity, but he says it leads to the words he does not approve of.

      Delete
    3. Somerby provides no examples of the best lacking conviction. If the worst are those calling Obama names over his balance, who are the best?

      Delete
    4. @11:31 11:42 beat me to it. I will add:

      Nowhere does Somerby say that what we need is more passionate intensity. He associates it with negative qualities: ‘emotional, disturbed, upset—to see that many people have been "passionate"’.

      He described both Ungar-Sargon and Dershowitz as passionate and intense, if not the “worst”, as he attempts to show how unfair their characterizations of Obama were.

      You might also think about what Yeats meant by “the centre.” Do you think he felt that the centre could be characterized or maintained by passionate intensity, or does passionate intensity tend to disturb the center? Yeats also does not urge the “best” to gain passionate intensity; he says they lack “conviction”.

      Delete
    5. There is an element of the fools game in this. Who gets to decide who the “best” and “worst” are?

      Delete
    6. I decide. I am Corby.

      Delete
    7. But are you passionate?

      Delete
    8. MH, you are just nitpicking, a habit of yours. If the center doesn't hold, then there is chaos, civil war. Yeats' well-known poem, and specifically those lines, speak a truth ("a" truth not "the" truth, there's a difference not all appreciate).

      Delete
    9. AC, it is integral to the poem, Yeats’ notion of the “center.” It’s also not nitpicking to suggest that Yeats did not urge more passionate intensity on the world, even in the “best.” Would the best and the worst contending in passionate intensity help the center hold, in Yeats’ view, do you think? The “center” is by definition a place of balance, of equilibrium that is upset by passionate intensity. And in my above remark, I noted that Somerby is not urging more passionate intensity on the world, contrary to what Hector postulated. It seems pretty clear that Somerby wants more information, more dispassionate discourse, rather than more emotion, ie passionate intensity.

      Delete
    10. “No one has explained why the center must hold or why it holding is a good thing”

      The poem, in the very next line, explains that if the centre cannot hold, “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

      "Who gets to decide who the “best” and “worst” are?"

      Neither Somerby not the poem are positing a person or entity who gets to decide such a question.

      'Yeats also does not urge the “best” to gain passionate intensity; he says they lack “conviction”'

      True. But I would argue argue that the more strongly held convictions imply a level of passion or intensity by the holder.

      "Yes, Somerby says it is natural to feel passionate intensity, but he says it leads to the words he does not approve of."

      Precisely. Which is why we need to be vigilant in not allowing our passionate intensity to infect the reasonableness with which we speak.

      Delete
    11. Should be 'Neither Somerby nor the poem'

      Delete
    12. I agree with Hector 1:31 but would not equate reasonableness with conviction.

      conviction definition: a firmly held belief or opinion

      You can have a firmly held belief without it being reasonable or true. Belief in ghosts is an example. Yeats was a firm believer in the paranormal and occult, things that most people do not believe in these days, especially those with some science education. Maybe he would consider others sharing his belief to be "the best"?

      What is Obama's conviction about Gaza/Israel?

      I think the center did not hold in Nazi Germany, nor in Russia during its revolution or under Stalin, nor did our center hold under Trump's presidency. I consider that not due to lack of conviction among the voters, who went overwhelmingly for Hillary, but due to meddling that produced an unrepresentative electoral college victory for Trump (and his Russian friends). If I were arguing that the center must hold, I would be supporting Biden because he was the clear choice of the large majority of those voting in 2020.

      Is this what Somerby means? Who knows? He doesn't say. It is still possible he may come forward with a No Labels or centrist third party pitch, since they are trying to portray themselves as the American center, but I don't them in that role and I hope Somerby has better sense than that.

      Delete
    13. There is no “centre”, it’s a myth, but, ironically, what Yeats was referring to as the center - a small elite hoarding power and wealth - is what leads to chaos.

      Anarchy, in the political sense, is reaching a condition where a formal state is no longer needed, ie the absence of chaos.

      Yeats was a whining, fascist-endorsing moron, now weaponized in order to manufacture ignorance.

      Delete
  3. Alan Dershowitz has always been a reliable conduit of truth. Just ask his matronly masseuse on Epstein's island.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I keep posting a similar notion, yet it keeps getting deleted.

      Delete
  4. Bob is horrified that an anonymous person called an ex-President antisemitic, and a famous law professor said this ex-President should be ashamed of his deep hatred of Israel. But these criticisms are mild compared to the criticism leveled at our most recent Republican ex-President.

    BTW note that Dershowitz made the same point that I did in a comment yesterday. Obama not only said Gaza was occupied, but that the Palestinians; lives are miserable because of this occupation. This latter point is a lie. And, it's a malicious lie that justifies hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But these criticisms are mild compared to the criticism leveled at our most recent Republican ex-President."
      You mean that he's a good businessman? It's uncalled for. That's for sure.

      Delete
    2. Better than the blood libel, it's the occupation libel.

      Delete
    3. Here is what Trump is planning to do if elected again:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/us/politics/trump-plans-2025.html

      Delete
    4. Strange complaint. Those executive branch departments already are under the direct control of the President. Many recent Presidents abdicated their their responsibility. They allowed some of these departments to waste taxpayer money and to perform unnecessary tasks. I don't know that a President Trump will be able to successfully reform these agencies, but he is right to make this effort.

      Delete
    5. Stranger than people wanting women to be second-class citizens calling themselves "pro-life"?

      Delete
    6. David, no, the departments mentioned are not under the President's direct control. Trump does not wish to control them to save money or eliminate waste, but to prevent them from doing things he dislikes or to use them to pursue his enemies.

      Delete
    7. "the criticism leveled at our most recent Republican ex-President."
      Were you referring to self-admitted sexual predator and two-time Republican Party Presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, when you wrote that?

      Delete
  5. "But these criticisms are mild compared to the criticism leveled at our most recent Republican ex-President."

    This fact might tell us something about those doing the criticizing or he who is being criticized.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why would a woman wear suspenders?

    What was the ceremony of innocence?

    What German word was translated as "vermin"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk
      November 14, 2023 at 10:15 am EST By Taegan Goddard

      Michael Tomasky: “We’ve all often wondered whether Donald Trump understands the historical import of what comes out of his mouth. He’s so ill-informed, so proudly ignorant, that it’s easy to think that when he hurls a historical insult, he just doesn’t know.”

      “I feel pretty safe in saying that we can now stop giving him the benefit of that particular doubt. His use—twice; once on social media and then repeated in a speech—of the word ‘vermin’ to describe his political enemies cannot be an accident. That’s an unusual word choice. It’s not a smear that one just grabs out of the air. And it appears in history chiefly in one context, and one context only.”

      Delete
    2. 12:04:
      You wear suspenders to keep your pants from falling down.

      Did you know that it was actually illegal at one time in many places in the US for women to wear pants publicly? It was considered unladylike and subversive.

      “Germany is urged to get rid of its “Jewish vermin”, in an election article published in the “Hamburg Beobachter,” Nazi organ, by Wilhelm Kube, leader of the Nazi fraction of the Prussian Diet, which was dissolved last week.”

      https://www.jta.org/archive/nazi-leader-would-rid-germany-of-jewish-vermin

      “Der Pestträger muß ausgemerzt werden”

      (Pestträger means “carrier of bubonic plague”: “The carriers of bubonic plague must be eradicated” is what Kube’s title meant.)

      A ceremony is a set of actions and/or words carried out in a ritualistic fashion. Baptism is one such ceremony. You might imagine what Yeats meant. Many people saw WWI as the end of innocence, of humanity, of the world, of Europe, or at least the end of any notion of ceremonially professing its innocence anymore.

      Delete
    3. Illustrating my point. @12:40 thinks it is OK to call ex-President a Nazi, but it's not OK to call ex-President Obama and anitisemite.

      Notice how ridiculous this "proof" is. A single word, "vermin" is wholly inadequate to deduce that someone is a Nazi. Does that word prove Trump wants to be a dictator? Does it prove that Trump wants to kill all Jews? Of course not.

      Delete
    4. Don't panic, Michael Tomasky, not all is lost. There are still plenty of tricks in your masters' book.

      Delete
    5. David, Trump is calling liberals vermin. He’s talking about eradicating liberals. Please get your facts and your quotes straight.

      Delete
    6. Vermin make adorable pets. So affectionate.

      Delete
    7. David, I've been calling Trump a fascist long before he deliberately chose to make that vile statement a couple days ago. A single word? Fuck you.

      Delete
    8. mh are you afraid Trump is a Nazi? Or what are you afraid of?

      Delete
    9. Is "fascist" a bad word? But not as bad as "vermin", right?

      Delete
    10. 1:21, 1:28, …Fascist describes a political view. Trump is a fascist. He is using Nazi terminology. He has just declared his intentions to eliminate his political opposition, or any opposition to himself personally. He and his associates are taking steps to enact this threat. He has the full backing of right wing media and the Republican Party. He has already shown a willingness to use illegal and corrupt means to try to stay in power, and to use his office to enrich himself and his family. I believe it merits more than a blase response. And I believe accurately describing Trump’s plans and temperament isn’t in the same universe as calling millions of Americans “vermin” that your party apparatus is taking steps to eliminate.

      Delete
    11. Comment at 1:34 was mine. And “your party apparatus” was supposed to be “his party apparatus”

      Delete
    12. Is calling Trump a fascist not politically correct enough for the Right?

      Delete
    13. Your political enemies are "fascists", and their political enemies are "vermin", is that it?

      Delete
    14. No, you dumb fuck troll boy.

      Delete
    15. 1:34, thank you for answering the ignorant troll @1:28.

      Delete
    16. mh - - you are afraid Trump will overthrow our current government and replace it with a fascist regime? You are afraid Trump has plans to eradicate all liberals? Really?

      Delete
    17. Mh and his antifa comrades are happy to dish it out, but they can't take it.

      Delete
    18. "You are afraid Trump has plans to eradicate all liberals? Really?"

      Not all liberals, just his most prominent political enemies. After all, what does one do with vermin other than eradicate them?

      Delete
    19. The Right thinks all liberals are Antifa (most likely due to liberals disdain for fascism). That's why the fascists (Right-wingers) want to exterminate them.

      Delete
    20. Snowflakes* on the Right, are always getting upset if you don't use politically correct terminology.

      *every Right-wing accusation is a confession.

      Delete
    21. @1:56 PM
      So far it's him who's being eradicated.

      It would be interesting to see the reversal. Precedents have been created

      Delete
    22. David is a pestträger. Cecelia is a pestträgerin. There’s nothing wrong with saying something like this. It’s worthy of the leading presidential candidate of a major party. It’s normal political discourse.

      Delete
    23. 2:14,
      Do you expect the Supreme Court to uphold the new precedent that rich people can be tried and convicted for their crimes?
      I wouldn't bank on it.

      Delete
    24. Rich people have been tried and convicted for their crimes for years. The new precedent is that they can be tried and convicted for their crimes, even if their victims aren't rich.

      Delete
    25. @2:29 PM
      "It’s worthy of the leading presidential candidate of a major party."

      It's worthy - and expected - of a populist presidential candidate.

      See, for example Duterte, recent president of the Philippines. Or Berlusconi.

      Delete
    26. "Precedents have been created"

      Gosh, that's kind of ill-defined and creepy at the same time. What did you mean by this, MAGAmouse?

      Delete
    27. Hector, I think he means, to quote the Great Orange Abomination, "the genie has been let out of the box".

      LOL

      Delete
    28. mh - what are you afraid of? Trump said vermin and some Nazis said vermin. While lecturing others to get their facts straight you said "Trump is talking about eradicating liberals."

      Is that a fact to you? "Trump is talking about eradicating liberals."?

      What are you afraid of exactly?

      Do you think, based off of using that word and the "plans" that have been published Trump poses a threat of eradicating liberals? That he poses a threat of eliminating his political opposition and creating a fascist state?

      Are you afraid that really may happen? If not, what ARE you afraid of??

      Delete
    29. That he poses a threat of eliminating his political opposition and creating a fascist state?

      Yes yes yes! Does that answer your question?

      Delete
    30. 3:27 troll boy, he came very close to stealing an election already and has turned this country inside out for the past 3 years dealing with the fallout. Do you really want to see what he has planned for an encore? Fuckface.

      Delete
    31. Before the last election, I was afriad that the rational people on my local school board would be replaced by MAGA freaks who want to ban books and censor textbooks but wouldn't pay attention to the details of running the district. There were several extremists running, but fortunately, they didn't win. That's because this is a democracy and we have the chance to decide who will be on such boards. If Trump gets his way, MAGA loyalists will be appointed to positions where they run schools into the ground while looting their budgets and awarding contracts to underqualified cronies, while kids are denied a solid education. The Dept of Education would be eliminated so there would be no oversight, standards, help for disabled kids or other functions provided by the federal government while the local kooks ran roughshod over existing systems. That's what happens when right wingers get in. That's what has happened in DeSantis's government in Florida already.

      Delete
    32. How did he come close to stealing an election? What do you mean by that? What is close to you? How exactly would he have stolen it?

      How would he eliminate his political opposition? What would the fascist state look like? How would he achieve a fascist state? How would he take over the Army? Would the CIA and FBI lose their power? How?

      Delete
    33. Don't panic yet, antifas. Mh, Hector, Fuckface, calm down, take an antidepressant. A lot can happen in a year.

      Delete
    34. How would Trump take control of local school boards? How would that work in practice?

      Delete
    35. Maybe Trump's political opposition is inventing a false existential threat about Trump to beat him politically by making people afraid he will change the country into a fascist state.

      Maybe these thought leaders are vastly overstating the threat as a political tactic, knowing they are down in the polls and would lose the election if it were held today.

      Delete

    36. And maybe, just maybe, a patriotic citizen should take Letitia James into custody next time he happens to run into her. Just sayin'.

      Delete
    37. "knowing they are down in the polls and would lose the election if it were held today."

      Just remember: No matter how far down in the polls we are, we'll steal the next one, too. Right?

      Delete
    38. The people who are afraid liberals will be eliminated and the US will turn into a fascist state and that Trump came "very close" to stealing an election maybe need to think things through a little bit.

      Because those are all vast overstatements. Kind of laughable overstatements. In any stretch, they are dumb overstatements that make liberals look bad. That is why I am against making them.

      Delete
    39. @4:12 PM
      "We"? Have you been stealing you mummy's cigarettes again, Hector? Bad, bad boy Hector.

      Delete
    40. 3:53, I don't know why the orange abomination keeps threatening to do it then. you might want to tell him to shut the fuck up, ok, shit for brains?

      Delete
    41. He hasn't threatened to eliminate liberals or turn the US into a fascist state. Those are dumb overstatements.

      Delete
    42. Right, he hasn't actually said he will turn the US into a fascist state. Bwahahaha. thanks, dumb fuck.

      Delete
    43. Actually, you come across as the dumb fuck. You're truly afraid that Trump could turn the US into a fascist state and eliminate liberals? That isn't very smart or logical.

      Delete
    44. “These are not the droids you are seeking…”

      Delete
    45. Dems just had a huge electoral win, achieved by motivating its voters, exposing those recent polls as inaccurate, and exposing Somerby’s main thesis as nonsense.

      Naturally, crickets from Somerby.

      Delete
    46. Trump is promising to build huge camps and deport millions of immigrants. I have a Spanish surname (common in CA). In the 1970s, the INS woke us up in the early hours, in our home in Chicago, and demanded to see proof of citizenship. It was terrifying, and we are not immigrants. I later testified about it at a congressional hearing. That is what happens in a fascist state. Everyone can expect it. It is a short step to putting you forcibly on a plane and leaving your family to figure out where you are and how to get you back. If you are involved in political work, such “mistakes” may be more likely. This is real and can easily happen in a Trump regime where everyone is crooked, from the top down.

      Delete
    47. And you are afraid of what exactly? You are afraid he will be able to actually mass deport illegal immigrants? That non illegals will be swept up in it?

      You are sincerely afraid you will forcibly be put on a plane and taken somewhere?? Really?

      Delete
    48. That doesn't sound like a realistic concern - that the next Trump Administration would forcibly put political opponents on planes.

      What's going on here is people are being scared into not voting for Donald Trump. Propagandists are overstating the threat that he poses. Which is another losing tactic I have to say.

      Delete
    49. I still don't know why a woman would wear suspenders, and I still don't know that the ceremony of innocence was.

      Delete
    50. Why would a woman have a different reason for wearing suspenders than a man, dumbass?

      Delete
    51. 5:59,
      Is your easy-going attitude based on e fact that Trump has been a complete business and political failure his entire life?
      If not, why not?

      Delete
    52. If his opponents wanted to scare Trump voters from electing him, they'd accuse of him wanting to give black people reparations for slavery.

      Delete
    53. I'm afraid Trump will enact his open immigration border policy, and lard his Cabinet with drag queens.

      Or is that what propagandists want me to think, so Republicans won't vote for him?

      Delete
  7. If everyone was able to generate $89,844 of annual income, it still wouldn't cause inflation as much as the lack of anti-trust/ anti-monopoly regulation and enforcement does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Bob has paid any attention to Fox’s masssive libel payout (one might have thought it would have been of interest to a media critic, but you know, Trump Trump Trump) he would have know that Bartaromo is a toxic fool, her employment at Fox now a real head scratcher.
    Maybe Bob still remembers Dersh ad a guy who called out Dems in Clinton time, but that guy left town a long time ago. These are rancid broadcasts Bob is pointing out, and it would be good if Dems answered these slanders. But Dems are conflicted too and rarely effectively do such things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should be “called out Republicans”

      Delete
  9. Why has Somerby stopped filtering the commercial spam out of his blog?

    ReplyDelete
  10. A Wall Street Journal op-ed notes the subtle way that Obama justifies the Hamas atrocities. It's behind a paywall, but here's an excerpt:

    Obama’s Lesson for Rashida Tlaib

    The ex-president makes Israel’s moral equivalence to Hamas socially respectable.


    It’s all wrapped in his call for an admission of “complexity.” The 44th president did declare that what Hamas did on Oct. 7 was “horrific” and unjustified. But complexity means it’s also true the “occupation” was “unbearable” for Palestinians and that “nobody’s hands are clean.”

    Get it? To look at the atrocities of Oct. 7 and conclude that Israel has the right to ensure that Hamas can never again pull off such an attack lacks nuance. Mr. Obama didn’t criticize Mr. Biden by name or say Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent. Then again, he didn’t have to. Everyone understood it for what it was: a jab at the Biden administration’s support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he takes on Hamas.

    Yet unlike Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Obama’s moral equivalence drew only scattered criticism outside a few commentators such as “Real Time” host Bill Maher.


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-lesson-for-rashida-tlaib-hamas-israel-moral-equivalence-778f2cbb?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it’s so subtle as to be invisible, as in not there.

      Delete
    2. Obama's version leaves out Iran's support and encouragement of Hamas. Acknowledging that would show how wrongheaded Obama was to give money to Iran. Of course, it would also not blame Israel. But, blaming Israel seems to be one of Obama's goals.

      Delete
    3. D in C, you're so partisan and jingoistic over this its over the top. You're obviously not the only one, and many on the other side are the same or worse. You leave all sorts of stuff too. there are two sides to the story - you ignore things on the other side. To get bent out of shape by what Obama said is over the top zealotry.

      Delete
  11. One hundred percent of inflation is profiteering.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Obamas moral equivalence" is a phrase that right wing media trolls, such as the editorial board of Murdoch's WSJ use to incite their ignorantly biased readers, but which is dishonest and baseless. At no point did Obama state an equivalency between the actions of Israel and Hamas.

    There is this thing called the internet. It contains things called facts. Obama did not "give money to Iran". Just one more example of how right wing media outlets spoonfeed their intellectually lazy audiences to rile them up, a tactic that appears to work 100% of the time. Stop spouting lies, DIC. You don't even have to elevate yourself off your easy chair to fact check this garbage. Not only did these outlets suggest that frozen Iranian money was US taxpayers', but they also exaggerated the amount. I fully expect that you will counter with some face saving attempt at redefining the word " give" here, an attempt which would be rubbish.

    The US, EU, Great Britain, UN, multiple South American countries, International Red Cross, Amnesty international, and multiple other humanitarian organizations all have declared Gaza to have been occupied by Israel prior to this war. The term in this case applies to a relationship in which one country, namely Israel, has controlled commerce in Gaza, as well as utilities, the movement of Palestinians, and air, sea, and land access. It is a bald face lie to suggest that this relationship somehow magically does not severely adversely affect the residents of Gaza and their ability to function in the economic realm. You can perhaps argue that the vice grip placed on Gaza is necessary for Israel's security, but that is not what media hound Dershowitz claimed to the Fox election denier. This is Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer, who in his prime volunteered to join the team and go to bat for OJ Simpson, thereby declaring that his need for attention superseded any sense of decency to be expected from someone possessing a moral compass.

    ReplyDelete