TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2025
...of our failing nation: We awoke today to what we'd call a stumblebum conversation.
It occurred in the first half hour of this morning's Morning Joe. At issue was the FBI background check—or the lack of same—which has been conducted—or possibly not—on the poverty-stricken Pete Hegseth.
(To appreciate the depth of Hegseth's impoverishment, see yesterday afternoon's report.)
How thorough was the FBI's alleged background check? Possibly not that thorough! The conversation to which we refer turned on this news report in the New York Times:
Democrats Say F.B.I. Did Not Interview Critical Witnesses About Pete Hegseth
Senate Democrats on Monday said that an F.B.I. background check on Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, omitted key details on major allegations against him, in part because it did not include interviews with critical witnesses.
One missed opportunity came when the bureau did not interview one of Mr. Hegseth’s ex-wives before its findings were presented to senators last week, according to people familiar with the bureau’s investigation.
The clamor comes on the eve of Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing...
“There are significant gaps and inadequacies in the report, including the failure to interview some of the key potential witnesses with personal knowledge of improprieties or abuse,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the committee, said in an interview.
NBC News has posted a similar report. To read that report (no paywall), you can just click here.
Should the FBI have interviewed Hegseth's (two) ex-wives? More to the point, who sets the parameters for such a background check? Who decides what issues the FBI will pursue in producing some such report?
During this morning's first half hour, Joe and Mika spoke with NBC's Ali Vitali about these important questions. Most charitably put, Vitali was completely unable to explain the basics of this matter.
A stumblebum conversation ensued, of a familiar type. NBC's Ken Dilanian arrived on the scene in the program's second half hour, providing much needed clarification.
Early in the 7 o'clock hour, NBC's David Rohde (currently, NBC News) seemed to make the basic facts even a bit more clear.
During the program's first half hour, Vitali seemed to have no ability to explain the basics of the matter under review. Viewers forced to watch as Mika said somethign very much like this:
"A background check isn't a background check unless it's a background check."
So true! But why had the FBI proceeded in the way it did? What are the basic facts concerning the way these background checks get conducted?
Vitali didn't seem to know. Neither did Joe or Mika. This produced a stumblebum convo involving three vastly-paid media figures. "Democracy dies" in such ways.
In such ways, the American discourse continues to burn to the ground. With apologies for the repetition, we thought again of Camus' fictional Oran—a city which was (metaphorically) burning down in the pages of The Plague:
CAMUS: [O]ur townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions.
Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and thought that everything still was possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible. They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague, which rules out any future, cancels journeys, silences the exchange of views. They fancied themselves free, and no one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences.
The citizens of Oran were ordinary people; they weren't a collection of intellectual or moral Einsteins. The same is true of us the American people—and that's nowhere more true than when our nation's failing discourse is massacred by the flyweights.
As we noted yesterday, David Wallace-Wells is (almost surely) no sane person's idea of a flyweight. He has written extensively on climate change. At this link from NYU, you can see his lengthy colloquy with Professor Michael Mann about this major topic.
Wallace-Wells is no sane person's flyweight. That doesn't mean that every assessment he offers is automatically right.
We say that because he offered a fairly substantial list of assessments in Saturday's lengthy opinion column for the New York Times. Below, you see the passage in which an array of assessments appeared:
You Don’t Get Disasters Like the Palisades Fire Without Human Failure
[...]
“The city burning is Los Angeles’s deepest image of itself,” Joan Didion wrote way back in the 1960s. And on X and Truth Social and, indeed, Fox News, they were playing the hits, too—the fires were not the result of climate change or an extraordinary wind event meeting an extraordinary drought but the responsibility of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and the city’s fire chief, until this point anonymous nationally, who had the audacity to be a woman.
It was a remarkable reversal, conservatives demagoguing California fire disaster, but after the conspiratorial deluge of Hurricane Helene, it need not have been surprising. Had the Los Angeles Fire Department’s budget really been cut? The fire hydrants were dry primarily because of the demand from the fires themselves, it turned out. There had been no political showdown about a fish called a smelt, and the California supply of water did not hang on its fate...
And so on from there. Remarkably, Wallace-Wells was willing to say the name of a major news org; he said the name "Fox News." He seemed to say that that major news org has been demagoguing the fires.
More on that below.
Along the way, he offered, or seemed to offer, a set of assessments about the Los Angeles fires. Based on one of the links he offered, he seemed to say or suggest that the Los Angeles Fire Department’s budget actually hadn't been cut in a way which was being alleged on the "cable news" channel in question.
That may be a valid assessment, or then again possibly not. On the same day that Wallace-Wells' column appeared, this news report in that same New York Times seemed to suggest that the fire department's budget had been cut in recent years:
"A memo sent to city leaders in December by Chief Crowley complained that recent budget cuts had 'severely limited the department’s capacity to prepare for, train for, and respond to large-scale emergencies, including wildfires.' ”
Meanwhile, this report in the Los Angeles Times seemed to bring in "the eternal note of sadness." You can read the report without a paywall, but the headline may say it all:
Did Mayor Karen Bass really cut the fire department budget? The answer gets tricky
Inevitably, questions like these do become quite "tricky"—too trickly to be settled within our hapless discourse. It's at that point that this nation's endless supply of flyweights arrive on the scene, perhaps a bit like "the rich" in Hemingway's memoir, A Moveable Feast.
Wallace-Wells is no one's flyweight! That said, his experience with climate issues doesn't necessarily mean that his assessments about budget issues will always be correct.
Was the fire department's budget cut? If so, did some such cut have any effect on what has happened in Los Angeles in the course of the past week?
We can't answer those questions, or a hundred others like it. Just as it ever was, our nation's flyweights are eager to pretend that they can.
Full disclosure! An intelligent discourse is a basic part of our nation's infrastructure. When the flyweights come buzzing around, they quickly undermine this basic part of our nation's foundation.
They chew away at that crucial part of our infrastructure. For that reason, it's well past time to start saying their names. We undertook that arduous process in several reports last week.
Good lord! In a very unusual gesture, Wallace-Wells specifically named Fox News as one of the homes of the flyweights—as one of the places where misinformation eats away at the nation's foundation.
In our view, MSNBC has been bad enough in recent years—but the Fox News Channel, as currently operated, is a termite aimed at the architecture of a badly faltering nation.
We need to start saying the names of the flyweights this channel employs. Last Thursday afternoon, five of those names were these. They proceeded to produce an astounding pseudo-discussion:
Panelists on The Five, 1/9/25:
"Kennedy": Former VJ, MTV
Jessica Tarlov: Co-host and designated punching bag, The Five
Jesse Watters: "Silly boy" host of the most-watched show in "cable news"
Dana Perino: Ought to be ashamed of herself
Greg Gutfeld: Sixty-year-old broken toy, apparently beyond all repair
We badly need to start saying their names. Also, we need to start reporting what these flyweights do.
Wallace-Wells was willing to name Fox News. We need to start saying the names of that corporation's legion of tools. We need to report their destructive conduct.
It's too late for the Palisades. By now, it may be too late to save the nation's discourse.
At this point, naming the flyweights and reporting their conduct may be like aiming a squirt gun at a raging hillside fire. But there's nothing else to do, and major news orgs like the New York Times (and MSNBC!) have long been averting their gaze from the attacks of the flyweights.
The high and mighty New York Times needs to get off its ascot. It needs to say the names of these tools. It needs to report what they do.
Tomorrow: What some of the flyweights have said
A flyweight is a boxer of fifty-one kilograms or less.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to have billionaires and a homeless problem in the same nation, without putting in the effort to get both.
ReplyDeleteThe homeless problem will be magnified by the destruction of some many housing units in this fire. Already hotels as far away as Palm Springs and Orange County are full and people have gone to stay with relatives. Where will they live in the time it will take to rebuild the destroyed homes? Who will those fleeing the fire displace and how will temporary housing prices be affected. When they go up, lower income people will find them unaffordable even if there are vacancies.
Delete
ReplyDeleteYou can't be chief firefighter or run the water utility unless you're an idiot-dyke.
That's in the constitution. End of story. Move along, nothing to see here.
Trump has demonstrated that qualifications are unnecessary even for high-level jobs with a great deal of responsibility. Who are we to contradict him?
Delete“ too trickly to be settled within our hapless discourse.”
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, our discourse consists of accurate, balanced news reports from major news organizations like the LA Times. On the other hand, you have Fox News following the Republican playbook, which is, not to perhaps hold individual people or decisions accountable, but to blame the Democratic Party for all problems. This type of propaganda works when viewers and consumers of news do not wish to inform themselves or are unable to.
I wouldn’t call that “hapless”. It’s shameful.
On the one hand, our discourse consists of accurate, balanced news reports from major news organizations like the Fox News. On the other hand, you have LA Times following the Democrat playbook, which is, not to perhaps hold individual people or decisions accountable, but to blame the Republican Party for all problems. This type of propaganda works when viewers and consumers of news do not wish to inform themselves or are unable to.
DeleteYes, you could play this game if there were not an existing reality consisting of facts and truth that is used to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying or spreading misinformation, disinformation and fake videos (such as of the Hollywood sign burning). Informing oneself means finding the facts, not consulting one's preferred propaganda source. Objective studies have shown that Fox has less truth than centrist and leftist publications. Both sides are not spreading garbage equally, as @1:18 implies, but Fox is much worse than the center and left sources.
DeleteLA Times is owned by a conservative, it does not follow the "Democrat playbook" that is hilariously misinformed.
DeleteAnn Telnaes’ recent courageous decision shows you what happens when you name names. And the names weren’t Perino or Gutfeld.
ReplyDeleteHegseth is going to be confirmed.
ReplyDeleteThe whole world is watching LA burn to the ground.
ReplyDeleteWeak protests of "misinformation" have no effect, because everyone is seeing the catastrophic outcomes of Democrat leadership.
Just like Hurricane Helene, which did much more damage, shows the incompetence of Republican leadership, right?
DeleteThe Soros-bot at 11:53, got the wrong inputs, again.
Delete@11:53 is not a "Soros-bot" in the sense that he or she is not a Democrat, not a liberal, and believes things that are incompatible with the kinds of organizations and political candidates that Soros funds.
DeleteWhat's the purpose of a background check? Sixty years ago my wife had one before she was allowed to work in a nuclear weapons research lab. They wanted to be sure she was loyal to the country and wouldn't divulge secrets to our enemy. That was important.
ReplyDeleteToday's Democrats seem to the think that the purpose of a background check is to learn embarrassing things about Republicans. That's politics.
It's ok, Dickhead in Cal, the FBI (deep state) has got your back on this.
DeleteKeep in mind that Dickhead in Cal spent the better part of a quarter century peeping under Hillary Clinton's skirt looking for embarrassing things to hurt her political career with.
DeleteDavid is not an actuary and his wife that worked at a "nuclear weapons research lab" (this is hilarious because this is not how our labs work) is completely imaginary.
DeleteDavid is a lonely guy desperate for attention, that wants to stifle good faith, informed discourse; by responding one is only perpetuating his pernicious agenda, it is better to ignore folks like David, studies show troll behavior is diminished by ignoring trolls.
I still love David, but he really is a bad person.
DeleteI'm curious if the Dementia Joe administration did a background check of the luggage-stealing pervert freak they hired for nuclear waste disposal.
DeleteThey did and as soon as they saw the images of him in pink dresses and high heels, they stamped his file APPROVED.
DeleteHe was recommended by Hunter, so no background check was necessary.
Delete@1:01 Lawrence Livermore Lab, then called Lawrence Radiation Laboratory.
Delete@12:41 - yes the opposing party looked for embarrassing things. That’s appropriate. But it’s not appropriate for the FBI.
DeleteYes it is appropriate for the FBI. Foreign intelligence services can use embarrassing information for blackmail.
DeleteI too can name national labs, I have even done grant work at LLNL. I don't recall running into your wife, but tell us her full name and I can check.
DeleteYou googling/copying/pasting gives you no credibility, I agree with 1:01, you are just making stuff up in a sad attempt to feel relevant.
Meet Mrs Skurnick:
Deletehttps://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/3336464
Doctor.
DeleteTrolls who deny that David is who he says he is just aren’t cognitive.
DeleteBwahahahahahaha David is back to the Skurnick lie.
DeleteShaming David over his lies about his personal life seems a little cruel. Obviously the guy is troubled, we all already know his stories are all fake, cut the poor loser some slack.
Delete"One common strategy for dealing with online trolls is to ignore them. This approach, known as "don't feed the trolls," is based on the idea that trolls seek attention and reactions. By withholding these, the troll may lose interest and stop their disruptive behavior. However, ignoring trolls is not always effective." Wikipedia
DeleteWhen trolls get out of control, it is better to report them to the platform, or even the police depending on the content. Somerby can moderate his blog, like Kevin Drum does, but he chooses not to. Ultimately, the trolling is Somerby's responsibility and it appears he condones them because he has never done anything about them. Most of the trolls here are right wing, so you can draw your own conclusions about whether he tolerates the trolls because they support his own purposes here, or is just lazy.
It would be embarrassing to be outed as a spy, but it would also be embarrassing to find that Hegseth is opposed to women in the military because he is a white supremacist who believes women belong only in the home, having babies, and not working anywhere. As such, he might then be a poor appointment because he would discriminate against the 18% of the military that is female, deny future opportunities to women in the military (including well-earned promotions), and fail to represent and protect the 50% of our nation's population that is female. For example, Hegseth failed to meet with the two women on the committee now interviewing him, even though they served themselves in the military and thus have both knowledge and interest in his suitability, not just a seat at the table and a vote in the senate. He thereby dissed them and the rest of us who are women.
DeleteBut David thinks investigating his sexual abuse accusations would be just embarrassing, not criminal behavior and not a sign of his inability to make decisions affecting the ENTIRE populace. For example, can anyone imagine that a sexual abuser would pursue the complaints of female soldiers about rape and sexual harrassment, including by officers? Would he proscribe rape as an act of war for his own troops, or let the guys do what they want in the field?
This matters and is not just what Somerby used to call "panty-sniffing," demonstrating his own lack of interest in stopping male abuse of women.
Drum's readers and readers of this blog make the mistake of trying to create a political identity out of media consumption habits. Because a successful consumer has passed the research stage and enjoys the commodity, so too the political consumer once selecting their guru or ideal stops thinking. What results is people who can only dare each other to think as punishment. If you want to avoid trolling bait then ask people to think for reasons other than hating them.
DeleteDon't kid yourself. Davi in Cal is no troll looking for attention. He's the genuine Republican voter who cares about nothing other than bigotry and white supremacy. If he was just trolling for attention, he would call us Soros-bots, instead of blaming black people for all of his problems.
DeleteNone of this excuses David for lying about his background and personal circumstances.
Delete
DeleteHow do you manage to own so many of them, David? What's the secret?
Why can’t you understand that the real David Skurnick, retired actuary, is a reactionary, a supporter of Israel’s crimes, a Fox viewer, and a commenter on this blog?
DeleteSomerby's stumblebum essay today starts with a repetition of two paragraphs from Camus about the plague in Oran, which has absolutely nothing to do with Morning Joe or Segseth or anything else being discussed. He appears to know that, since he apologizes for the repetition, but why does he do it? Does he have a mandatory word count, or is he being paid by the word. It is filler and nothing else, but toward what end? No one is impressed that Somerby can copy meaningless paragraphs from an irrelevant book, most likely by copying and pasting.
ReplyDeleteThen he uses the word flyweight and stumblebum to complain because the regular staff of Morning Joe are not experts on FBI interview and background check procedures. That is why they have guests on such shows. Stumblebum is slang for an inept boxer, but flyweight is not. It merely refers to a weight class. Boxers and wrestlers fight in classes because size matters to the outcome, not just skill. If you keep the size constant, then skill determines the outcome. So size has nothing to do with boxing skill because it is controlled (held constant) in boxing matches. Somerby's sudden use of the term flyweight is also meaningless and irrelevant. Small people can be as skilled as big ones, opinions at small news sources can be as good as at the big ones, and the amount of money someone is paid is related to their popularity (how many people are drawn to watch them) but not necessarily their skill at reporting. Somerby is on the wrong track with that word. Stumblebum that he is, as a blogger.
"Was the fire department's budget cut? If so, did some such cut have any effect on what has happened in Los Angeles in the course of the past week?
ReplyDeleteWe can't answer those questions, or a hundred others like it. Just as it ever was, our nation's flyweights are eager to pretend that they can."
At the point when the LA City budget was under condition, the city was negotiating a new contract with firefighters. The money needed for firefighting was indeterminate without knowing what the new contract would contain. Money was removed from the city budget and a short time later, after the firefighters' contract was finalized, it was added back in via a separate, independent budget resolution. That resolution increased the resources substantially, so no, the firefighting budget was not reduced. The statement by the Fire Chief, taken out of context and provided without its time frame, was part of the lobbying to encourage the city to negotiate a higher amount during the ongoing discussion over the new fightfighters contract. People who are familiar with how unions and the city work will recognize that. Using the statement out of that context is propagandizing done by the right to imply that the City of Los Angeles (with its Democratic mayor) shortchanged the firefighters and handicapped their efforts to fight these current fires, when the opposite is true -- they had a large budget increase to work with.
It is despicable that the right manipulates info in order to malign hard-working public servants in the middle of a natural disaster like this.
Somerby says there is no way to know whether the firefighters had an increase or a decrease in their budget, year over year. That is a complete lie. All he has to do is investigate -- the same as several sources have already done. Then he will have facts about budget and union contract negotiations and the timing of the restoration of funds for firefighting to work with and he himself might have told his readers the truth, instead of spreading his hands wide and saying "What me worry?" as he has been doing lately. The truth is out there.
typo: under condition should be "under consideration"
DeleteThe budget was not cut (and even if it was cut, a 2% cut has next to zero impact), full funding for the department was provided through a separate fund while the budget was hashed out. Crowley is trying to cover her ass, she should be fired for caring more about her personal circumstances and ambitions than the residents of LA.
ReplyDeleteLA City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, who prepares the city budget, said "the department’s budget is expected to grow by more than 7% this year", adding that "the department faced no financial constraints on the number of firefighters who responded to the blazes, or how long they worked".
There also was no issue with the water supply.
The main issue with the LA fires - and their impact are being completely overblown by corporate media/Republicans in a nefarious attempt to grab more power by weaponizing a tragedy, per usual - is climate change causing historic levels of wind.
There has been a suggestion that the increased wind speed in Pacific Palisades occurred because the fire started in an area where the wind swept it down a canyon that had amplified that wind speed. Wind speed interacted with geography. Had the fire started in a slightly different place, it might have been more possible to stop its spread to so many houses and businesses.
ReplyDeleteI've also been reading that the winds are picking up again today. Firefighters are worried that if the fire crests a ridge today, it will sweep downhill into the Valley and burn homes on the hillside there, gaining speed that will make it more difficult to slow down or stop.
ReplyDeleteIncompetent idiot-Democrat freaks blaming the wind is a good comedy.
Yes, but what happened to racism? What's happening? Doesn't racism deserve to be blamed for idiot-Democrat freaks fuck-ups? And what about Trump? Putin? Come on, freaks, get your act together.
No one likes trolls like you, and your mother dresses you funny.
DeleteEugenics is practiced by both parties, through segregation policies, medical decisions etc. Whichever one has the microphone at the moment cares more about you.
DeleteDemocrat's saying Bernie was too Jewish to win was a hilarious self-own, although truly tragic.
DeleteNihilism is ugly.
DeleteRight-wingers chanting "Jews will never replace us" at a Unite the Right March are still laughing.
DeleteBernie was unable to win the nomination via the primary process. Not enough voters supported him. The Democratic party does not choose who can be on primary ballots. I don't support Bernie because of his attitudes toward women and his refusal to support civil rights. He believes fighting a class war is more important than identity politics whereas I believe both should occur. He also accepted donations from Russia and the NRA in the 2016 primaries. I think he should have refused both.
DeleteMaligning Democrats who dislike Bernie for being anti-semitic ignores that there are real differences among Democrats, including over progressive issues, that have nothing to do with him being Jewish or not.
You stopped one Jew, they want to stop many. You get one less racism point.
DeleteHe had his Jewish hands in bad money!
DeleteBernie Bros alienated Hillary supporters by breaking into her files at the DNC and repeating right wing lies about Hillary that they must have known were untrue. There was very little space between what Trump's campaign said about Hillary and what Bernie's campaign said about her. Doing anything to win is not a principled position and I don't vote for any presidential candidate who abandons what is right in order to defeat an opponent. Bernie's half-hearted support of Hillary and his failure to mobilize his own voters to support her helped put Trump in office in 2016. So, there are plenty of reasons to be against Bernie besides his religion (which is largely irrelevant to those who are non-religious on the left).
DeleteNo, Bernie is older than Biden.
DeletePlease stop saying anti-semitic things here. If you keep this up, I will report you to blogspot for writing hate comments.
Hillary didn't have any of her prison slaves to defend her?
DeleteYour amygdala is working overtime trying to comprehend that your idea of normativity in politics is based on spoonfed hysteria bait from the two party system, which is why unprompted you said, you hated the oldness of someone.
DeleteRatfucking a closely watched election then blaming the country for years of electoral learned helplessness is the reason y'all sound like whiny brats, and lost calling yourself brats.
DeleteThere was a serious cult of hatred against Bernie where people called him things like "neoliberal" and said he pointed too much, that they wanted to spit on him, that they hated all the old Jewish men, it was a very strange kind of post-liberal attempt at normalizing racist discourse to protect Hillary fan's feelings from her racism.
DeleteThere was a very amaterish attempt at writing a "triggers, feelings and spaces" type rhetoric against the Bernie campaign which reflects the gutted electoral strategy for what it is, an appeal to self-victimization obsessions, projections.
DeleteThe way I see it, Biden kind of accommodated the uprising within the party from the Bernie side, but they were doing so in a "keep your enemies closer." And so they were not able to effectively build power after that. You are already on guard for enemies so much that you can't build coalitions.
DeleteThe working class donations to elections goes into a huge pit of permanent, career politicians whether they win or lose.
DeleteAn organization that protects an elite will be resistant to pass batons.
DeleteIt was just assumed, as a matter of spectacle, that the Clinton dynasty was to continue, with a new chapter, and the script was fine working with a villain.
DeleteFirst, 8 years is not a dynasty. It is the usual two terms most presidents serve. Second, Hillary was unusual because she was a first lady running for president, but she also acquired the experience and qualifications to run, in her own right. That isn't any kind of dynasty either, since no other first lady before or since has done that. People assumed she would win because she was the most qualified candidate and had the support of all reasonable people opposed to Trump. She would have won, had the election not been manipulated in illegal ways. If there were an actual dynasty involved, she would have won because of dynastic support. That she didn't suggests this idea of dynasty is fiction.
DeleteThere is a very weird troll operating here today.
DeleteWhy isn't Somerby naming the names of some other flyweights? For example, Hegseth's name should be named.
ReplyDelete"Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) literally yelled at defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth as he dodged questions about his fiscal leadership at several veterans organizations.
"Mr. Hegseth, this hearing is about whether you are qualified to be secretary of defense," Duckworth explained during Tuesday's Senate confirmation hearing. "And any sense that the Department of Defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who is wholly unprepared for the job puts America at risk."
"With that in mind, Mr. Hegseth, I want you to try to explain to the American people this committee who have to vote for you, and to our troops who are deployed around the world, why you are qualified to lead the Department of Defense," she continued. "We already know that you so badly mangled a budget that after you left, they had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what went wrong."
TV increases the value of being smart and decreases the value of experience. We saw this with Vance and now are seeing it with Hegseth. Both do not have appropriate experience. But, being extremely smart, they handle interviews and questionings particularly well. So TV strengthens their candidacy.
ReplyDeleteOnly Republicans think Hegseth is doing well. Democrats think he is displaying his own ignorance, lack of qualifications, and being a smart-ass, which is a negative trait in a public servant. The public watching TV will not be voting for Hegseth -- the senators will be. When Hegseth disrespects a Democratic senator, he is disrespecting the senate itself. That may not be going over well with some of the Republican senators because of his disregard for the confirmation process (lying, refusing to answer direct questions).
DeleteThe more TV I watch the smarter people on it seem to me isnt the brag you think it is homie dawg.
DeleteHegseth is also a liar, under oath in front of his confirmation hearing committee:
ReplyDelete"Reed also noted Hegseth "disparaged the Geneva Convention and the rules of war."
"You've made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a JAG officer," Reed said. JAG, in this case, refers to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the legal branch of the military. Hegseth attacked the officer as a "jagoff," and Reed asked him to explain what that meant.
The slang term "jagoff" is a derogatory term with sexual connotations that generally means someone is inept or stupid.
Hegseth refused to explain it, saying, "The men and women watching understand."
Reed pressed him, saying that committee members may not know what it means.
Hegseth went on to make up his own definition, falsely claiming it was someone who "would be a jag officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters, their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines."
Arrogance is not a qualification for any job. Sneering at official procedures and rules, such as the Geneva Conventions, and the seriousness of the Senate's duty to confirm appointees, as his answer does, indicates an inappropriate attitude toward authority that someone in the military should not be displaying, if only because it sets a bad example for our troops. His unwillingness to treat ALL senators with respect is obvious in this exchange.
If lying under oath in front of a confirmation hearing was disqualifying, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts would be picking fruit, instead of sitting on the Supreme Court.
DeleteIt should be disqualifying if senators voted their conscience and on principle instead of along partisan lines.
DeleteDespite the testimony of Anita Hill and the 18 other female employees who were not allowed to support her testimony, Clarence Hill was confirmed when he shouldn't have been. Bros before hos prevailed.
Cope.
DeleteTurns-out Somerby couldn't figure out any other reason to vote for Trump, besides bigotry, either.
ReplyDeleteBetter for Somerby to give up and move on, rather than admit the Left has been correct about the Right all along.
It took Somerby only two months to realize his quest was futile.
DeleteThe media still thinks there is something there, despite 8 years of failure to find it.
"“I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I’m redeemed by my lord and savior Jesus.”
ReplyDelete— Defense Secretary-designate Pete Hegseth, quoted by the New York Times, falling back on religious claims of redemption rather than offering substantive denials to past bad behavior."
Being pardoned by Jesus is not a qualification for Secretary of Defense.
ReplyDeleteMy supply of delicious word-salads is endless.
Somerby is an ass. I sniff my fingers. My finger smells funny.
I am Corby.
I've yet to read or hear anyone explain why Hesgeth would make a good Secretary of Defense.
ReplyDelete"That is a smear campaign based on anonymous sources" isn't a qualification.
Hesgeth is well qualified, because he wants US bases to be named after Confederate generals.
DeleteI agree with you Quaker. Hegseth is bright, well-educated, patriotic and brave. He's good-looking and speaks very well, as one would expect from a TV performer. He has military experience, but not at a high executive level. However, nothing in his background shows that he's qualified to run the entire military.
Delete