FLYWEIGHTS: "Greasy" uses too much product!

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025

The inspiring Hegseth doesn't: Full disclosure! We're so old that we can remember the murders in New Orleans.

The rampage in question took place in the early morning hours of January 1 of this very year. Fourteen days later, the murderous rampage has disappeared from our failing nation's failing discourse.  

To all intents and purposes, the murderous rampage in New Orleans has basically ceased to exist. It was a very big deal at the time. It gave way to the Los Angele fires, then to the Hegseth hearings.

That said, also this: Before the murderous rampage occurred, we had the drone attacks on New Jersey. 

Those drone attacks were extremely big on the flyweight-infested Fox News Channel for a period of roughly a week. Now, The Attacks on Exit 11 are gone, absent any attempt at explanation.

So it goes, on a day-to-day basis, within our failing discourse. So it goes in the wake of the "democratization of media," in a world where corporations sell us their imitations of "news"—where they sell us heir "news product"— on a seven day per week, 24-hour basis. 

Topics come and topics go; many are mere pseudo=topics. But on one major "cable news" channel, the flyweights hold sway. So things stood late yesterday afternoon. Indeed, let's say a few of their names:

Panelists, The Five, 1/14/25
Judge Jeanine: Resident finger-tugging loudmouth 
Jessica Tarlov: Designated punching bag
Jesse Watters: Silliest boy in "cable news"
Dana Perino: Ought to be ashamed of herself
Greg Gutfeld: Has asked three times if Hunter Biden is "banging" or "[BLEEP]ing" Jill Biden

Yesterday, at 5 p.m. Eastern, so went the flight of the flyweights, along with that one disordered.

Yesterday, it finally happened! After an array of holiday absences, the four Red American co-hosts were finally reunited, along with their Blue American punching bag. This is the standard alignment of panelists on this, the most watched program in American "cable news."

After an array of holiday vacations, the flyweights had all returned to the nest.  That said, the clown cars are general on this "cable news" channel. 

Just consider what Laura allowed.

For ourselves, we've never forgotten our evening of love right there at the D.C. Improv! By now, though, something like a quarter century has passed, and last Friday evening, there she was, welcoming Mel Gibson onto her Fox News Channel show, The Ingraham Angle.

We're so old that we can remember when Gibson seemed to be way out on the edge. Today, he's barely a part of the passing crowd. 

First, though, as a matter of fairness, let's mention this:

Judged by the basic norms of the culture, Gibson has been a major actor and a highly talented filmmaker. The leading authority on his career produces a bit of the background:

Mel Gibson

Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an American actor and filmmaker. The recipient of multiple accolades, he is known for directing historical films as well for his action hero roles, particularly his breakout role as Max Rockatansky in the first three films of the post-apocalyptic series Mad Max (1979–1985) and as Martin Riggs in the buddy cop series Lethal Weapon (1987–1998).

Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney, Australia, when he was 12 years old...Director Peter Weir cast him as one of the leads in the World War I drama Gallipoli (1981), which earned Gibson a Best Actor Award from the Australian Film Institute.

In 1995, Gibson produced, directed, and starred in the war film Braveheart for which he won the Golden Globe Award for Best Director, the Academy Award for Best Director, and the Academy Award for Best Picture. He later directed and produced The Passion of the Christ (2004), a biblical drama that was both financially successful and highly controversial. 

As of 2004, he was still "highly controversial!" Needless to say, he was born as one of us—as an East Coast Irish Catholic!

At one time, he was controversial. By now, he's been surpassed by an endless array of major players. Still and all, there he was on The Ingraham Angle last Friday night, speaking about the possible origin of the Los Angeles fires. 

What he said is a major anthropology lesson. In his conversation with Ingraham that night, he said this, in part, about the possible origin of the fires:

GIBSON (1/10/25): Well, you know. I know they were messing with the water. Letting reserves go for one reason or another. They’ve been doing that a while. California has a lot of problems that sort of baffle the mind as far as [sighs] why they do things.

And then, in the events like this, you sort of look—"Well, is it on purpose?" Which, it’s an insane thing to think. But one begins to ponder whether or not there is a purpose in mind. What could it be? You know?

Say what? One starts to ponder that? The Oscar winner continued:

GIBSON (continuing directly): What do they want? The state empty? I don’t know.

[...]

Reminds me of the old cattle barons clearing people off the land, you know.

But I don’t know. I have, you know, I can make all kinds of horrible theories up in my head, conspiracy theories and everything else. But it just seemed a little convenient that there was no water, and that the wind conditions were right and that there are people ready and willing and able to start fires.

And are they commissioned to do so, or they just acting on their own volition? I don’t know. 

But they seem pretty well equipped, some of these people that they’re catching. You know, I’ll sift through the—I’ll sift through the remains of my, of my place and see if I can find any clues for you.

Those are the things he said. 

Gibson's Malibu home had been lost in the fires. No one could blame him for being upset. But as of last Friday, the week's events had him thinking about the way the old cattle barons had succeeded in clearing people off the land. 

He knew he was voicing conspiracy theories. He said he knew that he was giving voice to "an insane thing to think."

Still, he went ahead and said what he said. As he did, he seemed to assume a welter of "facts not in evidence" concerning the week's destructive fires.

He gave voice to "an insane thing to think;" as he did, he seemed to refer to an array of "facts not in evidence." And he did so before an audience of millions, speaking in prime time on our flailing former nation's most-watched "cable news" channel!

As he did, Laura made a modest effort to steer him back to less "insane" types of expression. That said, her efforts were very minor. Basically, she let this conduct go.

You can watch the entire tape of this exchange thanks to Tommy Christopher's report for Mediaite. As you can see by clicking this, his report appears beneath this headline:

Mel Gibson Gets Conspiratorial On Fox News Over "Convenient" California Wildfire Devastation: "Were They Commissioned?"

Did "they" somehow "commission" the fires? Mel Gibson's inquiring mind apparently wanted to know.

At that site, you can watch the full exchange. You can also see a transcript of the exchange, with Ingraham's remarks included. 

We've always claimed that we could change her. In the face of imperfect health, we're no longer sure!

Gibson has always been a bit like this. Laura Ingraham isn't a flyweight, but it's her job to let such exchanges go with only the most minor attempts at pushback or clarification.

On Fox, the drones were attacking Exit 20. Now, some entity known only as "they" might have "commissioned" the fires! So it goes as millions of citizens have wild unfounded speculations shoveled into their heads. 

It's a lesson in anthropology! It's a lesson in anthropology that we humans are inclined to think and to speak that way. It's a lesson in corporate power and profit-seeking that people like Laura are willing to let such conduct go. 

Also, that people at major orgs like the New Yorek Times avert their gaze from such conduct—have been doing do for three or four decades by now.

That exchange rook place last Friday night. Late yesterday afternoon, the whole gang was together again on that same channel's gong-show spectacular, The Five.

The Five is infested by flyweights. We've decided it's time to start saying their names. We've done so above.

As you can see by clicking this, it's currently the most-watched program in "cable news." At one point during yesterday's program, the analysts screamed and ran into the yard when Judge Jeanine opened her trap and made an uber-flyweight remark.

No modern nation can expect to prosper or survive in the face of pseudo-journalism of this all-too-human type. 

Just like that, the judge in question made a soul-draining remark concerning the use of hair product. When she did, the analysts screamed and ran out into the yard.

How dumb do the flyweights know they can get, working under the cover of darkness on this imitation "news program?" Tomorrow morning, bright and early, we'll show you what this flyweight former judge said.

Flyweights to the side of us, nut cases over there! As our discourse dies beneath this assault, the finer people at the New York Times pretend this doesn't exist.

Final point:

We've said the names of a few of the flyweights. Elsewhere in our failing nation, people need to report what these flyweights do.

Tomorrow: Flyweight judge expounds

85 comments:

  1. That's "future Supreme Court Justice, Greg Gutfield", to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Somerby gives Mel Gibson a whole lot of exposure in his own essay while pondering why he appears on the Ingraham show, on Fox where the fringe lives. What is the point of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somebody’s got to put a thumb on the scale; ignorance ain’t gonna manufacture itself.

      Somerby is the man for the job.

      Delete
  3. Having an East Coast elite newspaper criticize the most watched show by Republican voters is Somerby's "sure-fire" way for Democrats to win elections.
    Stop trolling us, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 10:31am, anonymices are HERE to criticize a blog because they think little ole Bob’s temerity in criticizing both sides is a threat to electing Democrats. But Bob can’t go after a very famous individual who’s suggesting that local politicians (generally Democrats) and business people arranged the disaster?

      Delete
    2. Agree with 3:17, Bob’s stance is a ploy to cause harm to Dems and he uses his ridiculous both sides nonsense as cover.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 3:47pm, glad you thoroughly agree with my description of your nutty jihad/stance. Why do you think it’s more important for you to go after an “obscure blogger” (anonymouse label), rather than Bob going after a high-rated weeknight tv show that portrays the Bidens and Democrats in general as being perverted clowns?

      There’s a deep personal animus behind whoever enlisted you. Why have you into that boat?

      Delete
  4. I continue to object to Somerby using the word flyweight to characterize people he considers to be bad journalists. It is just a weight class. A person, even a boxer, cannot help what size his body is (beyond gaining or losing a few pounds). Why should those who fight in a lower weight class be maligned and consigned to a category of incompetents simply on the basis of body size. This is wrong. Why? Because it is muddled thinking and gives a misleading impression of how people think about those who are small compared to those who are big.

    Or maybe that is Somerby's point? Men are supposed to be big and they cannot be macho alpha males if they inhabit that smaller weight class, even when boxing? Those guys should be wearing lifts like Desantis or extra long ties like Trump, to compensate for what nature failed to endow them with.

    Can a woman be a flyweight? Trump claims he is going to outlaw women's boxing because girls shouldn't be hitting each other. A lot more women would be flyweights, because women tend to be smaller and lighter. Does that make Somerby's argument a misogynist one, in which he calls all women who are smaller, less qualified? He has singled out Ingraham, so perhaps that is his implication today. It was Hegseth's too.

    In the military, when one guy is not strong enough to carry a heavy object, another guy helps him do it. That what he-men pumped up soldiers do on the job. They help each other get the work done. There may be a rare situation in which no one is around to haul what must be hauled. That is why God gave us adrenaline. Women have it too. Remember those stories about moms lifting cars to free their trapped children? But is Hegseth saying that no one helps each other in the military? That isn't really how it works. A stretcher has two sets of handles. What cannot be lifted can often be dragged or moved with a lever or a pulley or using a tow rope attached to a vehicle. Maybe Hegseth's imagination is too limited to be Defense Secretary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cope, Corby. Sniff your fingers some more.

      Delete
    2. Hegseth got in trouble by sniffing other people's fingers.

      Delete
    3. C’mon, man. Hegseth pulled out to ejaculate after raping that woman. Sure he’s not as rich as Trump, so he wanted to avoid having to pay for an abortion, that aside, Hegseth obviously cares a lot about women.

      Delete
    4. At least the future Secretary of Defense was considerate enough to knock his victim out with a mickey before raping her so she wouldn't be conscious during the ordeal. Give him some credit.

      Delete
    5. Anon @ 10:34
      How old were you when you started learning English? Most native speakers have no trouble understanding the use of heavyweight, lightweight, and yes, even flyweight in these contexts.

      Delete
    6. 2:58 you might see it as nitpicking, but it’s mild compared to the pernicious nitpicking Somerby does to push his agenda.

      Delete
    7. If Bob using a sports metaphor is upsetting you then politics is probably not as hard as you think it is.

      Delete
  5. I’ve been waiting on you, Bob. How many Elise Stefaniks did Hegseth handle yesterday?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't need to wait for an answer that will never come. The answer is 'none.'

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 3:06pm, that’s the point. And Bob thought Stefanik gave an over-the-top performance.

      Delete
  6. If someone is a flyweight nutcase, does that mean they are less effectively nuts than a heavyweight nutcase would be?

    Somerby is playing with his shiny new toy -- the word flyweight, which doesn't mean what he wants it to and is making him sound more demented than usual.

    Jill Biden is a nice person. She would probably shake hands with Gutfeld, but she wouldn't sleep with Hunter just because Gutfeld wants to demean her by pointing out that women sleep with men and thus are dirty creatures, all whores at heart. Somerby chases this meme over and over, because Gutfeld's demeaning of Biden by making her a sexual object is right there with the way Somerby thinks about women. There is the Madonna and the rest are whores. Even that nice former teacher, Jill Biden. Never mind that Hunter is her son (by marriage) and sleeping with him would be a kind of incest. Gutfeld just wants to hurt Joe Biden's wife (why? who knows?) so he reminds us that she is female and thus available to any man, anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances. That makes Gutfeld feel tall and hairy, but why does Somerby get off on repeating this image over and over and over, every time he mentions Gutfeld? Somerby seems unable to get the idea out of his own mind, and that makes him the filthy one.

    If there is something wrong with Gutfeld, there is also something wrong with Somerby, who is obsessed with the guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 10:41am, my guess is that Bob often references Gutfeld’s “joke” involving the First Lady because it’s the quintessential smutty and vicious attack that shouldn’t fly on tv. It an example that justifies Bob’s outrage at the medium’s democrafication. But then you know all that. First Lady be damned in your book, you’re just shooting spitballs at Bob as you’re paid to do.

      Delete
    2. Yes, that's my point. Why does Somerby consider this particular joke more offensive than the many other ugly things that Gutfeld says? Is it because it is sexual in the ways I pointed out? Men always seem to return to their ability to dominate and force themselves on women, reducing them to sexual object status, regardless of who the women are as people. Jill Biden has a PhD earned at a university on her own merits. Gutfeld is a clown. So is Somerby. Neither man has any claim to her attention, but they both seem to get off on subjugating Jill Biden in fantasy. You can say that Somerby is just objecting to what Gutfeld does, but he could do that without repeating the actual slurs.

      Delete
    3. Jill is an appealing person engaged in a loving relationship with her family. That drives Republicans nuts.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 11:49am, good luck with accusing Bob of feigning concern over a creepy shot at the First Lady and over such rank media displays in general. You only do it in order to launch into specious nonsense that puts both Mrs. Biden and Gutfeld in service to no larger cause than going after Bob Somerby. You’ve certainly got your priorities in order.

      Delete
    5. Agree, people like Bob Somerby do more damage to Dems and our society, than ridiculous partisan hacks like Gutfeld.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 12:42pm, if you agreed with me you’d realize that it makes no sense for you to argue that Bob is popularizing Gutfeld when the show already beats out the other networks, especially with a young and impressionable demographic. Which is why Bob thinks that other media should be calling foul on what is foul… instead of ignoring it. You idiotically argue this nonsense even as you say that Bob’s blog is a threat to Democrats. .

      Delete
    7. Agree, Bob’s arguments make no sense, which aligns with his defenders also making no sense.

      You reproduce their gibberish well, kudos to your abilities in that area.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 3:52pm, anonymices have spent years here arguing that this is an obscure and worthless blog while simultaneously declaring it very dangerous to the cause. Why would anyone be surprised that you’d continue that proud nonsensical tradition by arguing that what Bob says about a widely viewed national political comedy show is more dangerous than the actual tv show. You are, indeed, an anonymouse.

      Delete
    9. Ironically, Cecelia does not find Gutfeld objectionable. In fact, she enjoys the salacious potty mouth humor. It’s quite rich for her to prop up Somerby’s supposed revulsion at such stuff that he regularly watches.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia is a clown. She loves Gutfield's potty-mouth, but try telling her the truth about the bigotry of Republican voters, and she's suddenly the Madonna hanging her head in shame over the rudeness of such talk.
      She can blow that nonsense out her ass.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 9:30pm, I don’t watch Gutfeld’s show. He’s very smutty and petty like most comics nowadays. It makes complete sense that Biden supporters and others would object to that sort treatment of Democrats on a nightly national tv show that nearly always wins its time slot and ALWAYS wins it with an adolescent to 30s group. But you brush that off in order to keep the focus on your villain Bob at TDH, no matter what he blogs. You're so obvious and contrived that no one can help themselves from wandering what ex-girlfriend of Bob’s has enlisted you and has been sticking pins into a Somerby doll for ten years.

      Delete
    12. Why would a liberal make Bob Somerby out to be just as bad as a Republican voter?
      Hmmmm.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 9:24am, wrong. The question is why would any honest commenter suggest that Bob’s a bigger threat to the national discourse and to the Democratic Party than is a very popular tv show that nightly launches insults-cum-salacious-accusations against their politicians?

      It makes no sense for you to blithely dismiss Bob about this cultural phenomenon and then act like he’s a dire threat to your party.

      Delete

  7. "But one begins to ponder whether or not there is a purpose in mind. What could it be? You know?"

    Remember this recent thing:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSQavcggvmg

    'em ugly dykes who are running LA now are so retarded, so angry at the whole world. They're capable of anything; anything I tell ya. Anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling women "dykes" says more about you than it does about them.

      Delete
    2. Binary gender fascism is raising its ugly head again. There are women, and then there are dykes. And then there are ugly dykes.

      Delete
    3. You forgot to mention the assholes like you who use the word dyke to describe women they don't even know, out of hate.

      Delete
    4. And you forgot to mention that you and other ugly dykes like you hate everyone and everything. Hate the whole world.

      Delete
    5. Good to know where you stand. Good luck at the pearly gates!

      Delete
    6. These are folks who get their masculinity clues from guys named Jordan and Tucker.
      LOL.

      Delete
    7. Anonymices are very offended when incompetent people who happen to be lesbians are referred to via derogatory epithets for their sexual orientation.. But they then pretend that it’s a mere ruse when Bob is offended by a guy doing that sort of thing on weeknight national tv.

      Delete

    8. 2:03 PM: "Homo/bi/trans sexuality is normal and natural"

      Everyone already knows that retarded ugly dykes are retarded. We don't need your confirmation.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 9:43pm, in the face of massive criticism, you would think that the last thing these firefighter department honchos would do is to emphasize their DEI qualifications. But no…
      Did they really think THAT would make a difference to people who watched their multimillion dollar homes burn to the ground?

      Delete
  8. Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos to sit together on the dais alongside Cabinet officials at Trump's inauguration.

    Nature is healing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two more economically anxious Republican voters you will not find.

      Delete
  9. If you think Mel Gibson's comment about the fires was conspiratorial, wait to you read the letter from "51 intelligence officials" and Hunter's laptop. 41 of them were corrupt liars and 10 were stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No overlap between those two categories?

      Delete
    2. Anon @ 11:36 has never read the letter.

      Delete
  10. While Somerby gushes over Mel Gibson, Hegseth flunked his confirmation hearing yesterday:

    "Senator Duckworth: “…you’re unqualified to do that. you can’t do the acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements. you can’t even mention that. you’ve done none of those. you talked about the Indo-Pacific a little bit, and I’m glad that you mentioned it. can you name the importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN, and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations, and how many nations re in ASEAN, by the way.”

    Hegseth: “I couldn’t tell you.”

    Senator Duckworth: “no, you couldn’t, because you couldn’t bother to—”

    Hegseth: “I know we have allies in South Korea, Japan and Australia.”

    Senator Duckworth: “none of those countries are in ASEAN. I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations.”

    -------------------------

    Why would a president-elect appoint such an unqualified person to such an important position? I don't know and Somerby apparently doesn't care. Just like Somerby never did come up with any valid reasons why someone would have voted for Trump, despite promising to do that for weeks. Why would any sane senator vote to confirm Hegseth? Do they not care about our country's defense?

    It isn't enough that the guy is a drunk and a sexual abuser, but he doesn't know enough to do the job properly. Seems to me our senate members should care about that. But the Republicans will try to shove him down our throats anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why?

      Because typical of Republicans, lacking integrity is a feature, not a bug.

      Delete
  11. Somerby might have discussed Hegseth's willingness to obey Trump's illegal orders, such as this one about using the military to shoot American citizens:

    "Senator Hirono: “in 2020, then-President Trump directed former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to shoot protestors in the legs in downtown DC — an order Secretary Esper refused to comply with. would you carry out such an order from President Trump to shoot protesters in the legs?”

    Hegseth: [dodges the question]

    Senator Hirono: “that sounds to me that you would comply with such an order. you will shoot protesters in the legs.”

    Hegseth: [silence]"

    He similarly said he would not abide by the Geneva Conventions, because other nations were involved in the treaties binding them to follow them in war. The whole point of a treaty is that others make an agreement to abide by that treaty. Trump broke all of the treaties the US was participating in, last time he became president. Putin told him to undermine NATO and he did his best to follow that order. So, he will do what Putin wants, but not what our allies worldwide have agreed to do, as a group, for the mutual benefit of everyone involved.

    This guy Hegseth will do whatever Trump wants. Trump is a nutjob, so his instructions to Hegseth may not make much sense to sane people. Hegseth is telling senators that he will follow Trump's orders anyway, not imposing any restraint on an out-of-control, bonkers president who gives him illegal orders (illegal based on our own laws).

    Instead Somerby is discussing Mel Gibson, an actor with bizarre ideas about the LA fires. Is Gibson our most pressing problem today? Does Somerby even know what is going on with congress or will he be along in a few weeks to complain about someone's coverage of the hearings? Does Somerby know about Jack Smith's report, beyond the right wing line about it? Somerby's priorities are messed up and his failure to speak truth about current events makes him an asshole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A nominee who is inattentive to ASEAN members is better than one who thinks women should be in combat roles.

      Democrats beclowned themselves throughout the hearing. Hegseth will be confirmed.

      Delete
    2. 12:18 pm:

      Questioned aggressively about his stance on women in combat by senators Tuesday, Hegseth said he supports women in the military but wants to review military standards to make sure they are not lowered to accommodate women.

      He explained the change between his previous comments and his new statements by saying that “writing a book is different than being secretary of defense.”


      Delete
    3. The implication is that Hegseth (who is perfectly ok with rape and assaulting women) would be uncomfortable with shooting Americans in the leg, but is even more uncomfortable being disloyal in any way to Trump.

      Delete
    4. 12:18,
      Hesgeth will be confirmed because he's a rapist, alcoholic, and is totally unqualified for the job.
      Someone like Mitt Romney, for instance, wouldn't have a chance of being confirmed by the Republican Senate.

      Delete
    5. Hesgeth will be confirmed, because like the President who nominated him, too many Republican Senators are also being black-mailed by Putin, who wants Hesgeth to get that position.

      Delete
  12. Gibson ignored Hanlon's razor:
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    In Gibson's defense, it's hard to believe that anyone could be stupid enough to leave a reservoir in a fire-prone area empty throughout the entire dry season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. The reservoir was being repaired.
      2. When do you think the "dry season" is? Winter is the rainy season, except it has been short of rain this year.
      3. There are other reservoirs in the same area that were not left dry.
      4. Even another full reservoir would not have enabled the fire fighters to stop the fire because it was being driven by 80-100 mph winds that made it unstoppable.
      5. Even if the reservoir were full, the planes that use reservoirs to drop water on fires could not take off because of the high winds.

      But you have the nerve to call a woman who worked her way up through the fire fighting ranks to become chief "stupid"? It seems to me that you are unqualified to evaluate other people's stupidity because you don't know enough about the fires yourself.

      Delete

    2. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

      I'm not buying it. Too convenient for those acting with malice.

      Delete
    3. Maybe they couldn't tell the difference between an empty reservoir and a full one.
      Similar to how no one can tell the difference between Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the "fine people" on the Right, who attended the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" march.

      Delete
    4. Dickhead in Cal. Is nominating Gaetz to be AG, RFK to HHS, Tulsi to DNI attributable to malice or stupidity?

      Delete
    5. That's because David doesn't care about merit or qualifications. He's just another standard-issue Right-wing bigot complaining about DEI, because he believes a black person might benefit from it.

      Delete
  13. Imagine the stupidity of forming an argument based on lies, and trying to bolster those lies by telling lies about your personal background.

    You can’t get more stupid than that.

    As Trump says “I love the poorly educated”.

    Trump also loves the pathetic lonely liars that voted for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lonely liars could vote for anyone. It takes a real bigot to vote Republican.

      Delete
    2. I’m a pathetic lonely liar, and I never vote for Republicans.

      Delete
    3. Ok so Republicans may all be pathetic lonely liars (see David, Cecelia et al), but not all pathetic lonely liars vote Republican, just the bigoted pathetic lonely liars (again, see David, Cecelia et al).

      Delete
    4. I am a bigoted pathetic lonely liar, and I never vote for Republicans.

      Delete
    5. The old man and I are delightfully lonely again. . We finally…finally… have all the visitors gone.

      Delete
    6. We're glad you and your father are enjoying some peace and quiet after the holidays, Cecelia.

      Delete
    7. I’ll tell my father that you said that. With bells on!

      Delete
    8. 2:44 Leaning into your lunacy is not the retort you think it is, but thanks for the laugh at your expense.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 4;54pm, that’s not what daddy says.

      Delete
  14. Somerby today attacks corporate media (while briefly and wrongheadedly conflating it with the democratization of media), which is a good thing, while not novel it bears repeating, if employing proper context.

    Somerby though often makes sweeping generalizations about media and its impact on Blue America that are not borne out by evidence.

    Polls indicate that a majority of voters that closely or moderately follow news media, voted for Harris.

    Corporate media is garbage, and it enjoys an outsized influence among politicians and pundits, but it has little significant influence over the electorate, and it is not significantly determinative in elections.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I voted for Trump because he was willing to demonstrate, even in front of children, how to fellate a man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump puts the “demon” in “demonstrate”.

      Delete
    2. Just suck one yourself already jeez

      Delete
  16. My advice for Republicans, hire lots of bodyguards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My advice for Republicans, cope.

      Delete
  17. As a Republican, I own lots of guns, but do not fear, I only use bullet ballots for ammo.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I’m very pleased to see Cecelia commenting again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hegseth, a noted war hawk neocon (“kill all Muslims”), is a weird choice for Trump, whose voters thought they were supporting an “anti war” president.

    Now that con has been exposed.

    Apparently Trump’s voters were unaware he had more active military deaths than Biden, and that he has ordered Netanyahu to “finish the job” with respect to the genocide in Gaza. Or were they?

    Worse, unlike Trump who leans into his corruption and criminality, Hegseth weakly tried to deny he raped that woman, until the overwhelming evidence came out.

    With bootlicking lapdogs a dime a dozen among Republicans, you’d think Trump would have a smarter play, but looks like he’s employing his 4-D dementia skills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump wants a SecDef who will put his loyalty to Trump ahead of any vow to uphold the Constitution. Hesgeth is his boy.

      Delete
    2. Everyone on the Right is a cowardice, little lick-spittle.
      They all aspire to be Kyle Rittenhouse.

      Delete