TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2025
...we'll do for the president's groaners: Our recent reference to sacred Melville pleased a certain Tonight show comedian of the Leno era. With that fact in mind:
In this morning's report, we started to create a taxonomy of ridiculous public misstatements by the sitting president. As the leading authority on the topic reminds us, sacred Melville also labored in this general field:
Cetology of Moby-Dick
The cetology in Herman Melville's 1851 novel, Moby-Dick, is a running theme that appears most importantly in Ishmael's zoological classification of whales in Chapter 32, "Cetology." The purpose of that chapter, the narrator says, is "to attend to a matter almost indispensable to a thorough appreciative understanding of the more special leviathanic revelations and allusions of all sorts which are to follow." Further descriptions of whales and their anatomy occur in seventeen other chapters, including "The Sperm Whale's Head—Contrasted View" (Chapter 74) and "The Right Whale's Head—Contrasted View" (Chapter 75).
Although writing a work of fiction, Melville included extensive material that presents the properties of whales in a seemingly scientific form. Many of the observations are taken from Melville's reading in whaling sources in addition to his own experiences in whaling in the 1840s. They include descriptions of a range of species in the infraorder of Cetacea. The detailed descriptions are a digression from the storyline, but critics argue that their objectivity and encyclopedic form balance the spiritual elements of the novel and ground its cosmic speculations. Although Melville "keenly parodies nonsense statistics, rigid hierarchies, and the arbitrarily definitive taxonomies characteristic of antebellum natural science," Melville also "showed the elasticity of cataloguing: how it could be used as a literary device, stylistic trait, and even function as an argument . . . the list is offered as vehicle of thought and argumentation, and for its ability to plainly display information in a systematic and exhaustive manner."
And so on from there. But let the word go forth to the nations:
If Melville "keenly parodied nonsense statistics, rigid hierarchies, and the arbitrarily definitive taxonomies characteristic of [his era's] natural science," he might have found himself hot to trot with respect to the dying national discourse of the present day.
He offered taxonomies of the whale. This morning, we started to compile a taxonomy of the leviathanic public misstatements made by the sitting president.
We called attention to three such monsters from the shallows and the sandbars. Let us start to count the ways:
Varieties of clownish misstatement by the sitting president:
Statements or claims which are "glaringly false"
In this morning's report, we quoted an obvious example of this type of howler. The statement in question was quoted by the New York Times, then dismissed as "glaringly false."Go ahead! Go back and check it out.
Statements or claims which are unsupported by any attempt at evidence
In groaners of this familiar type, the sitting president makes a poisonous claim which could be true, at least in theory, while offering no evidence in support of his poisonous statement. We offered an ongoing example is this morning's report.
Many of the sitting president's most frequently recited groaners are memorized, shopworn claims of this maddening type.
Statements or claims which are so imprecise that it's unclear what's being alleged
"The Russia, Russia, Russia hoax was a terrible made-up fictional thing," the sitting president recently said. But then, when has he ever gargled or even brushed his teeth without emitting this shopworn cri de coeur.This is a favorite memorized chestnut among all those who perform on Fox News Channel programs. But what exactly is being denounced as "a hoax?"
The president, and the performers on Fox, never quite remember to say. It sounds like they are making a claim, but the claim is really a pseudo-claim. No one knows what the president means, most likely including him.
Our taxonomy of groaning misstatements will start with those varieties. Misstatements aren't all made alike, although they're all equally harmful.
We leave you today with a question:
Fourteen years into this mess, why haven't you seen any professors or journalists creating a taxonomy of the various ways this man misleads the public?
On this campus, we've suggested a possible reason for the president's endless misstatements. We ask this about those other parties:
What's supposed to be wrong with them?
I have seen the second category of misstatement called out on many occasions, typically in the form, "Trump claimed without evidence..."
ReplyDeleteThe first category of "glaringly false" statements runs the risk of violating Our Gracious Host's strictures regarding the "L word." If a news reporter declares that a Trump statement is glaringly wrong, she approaches the dangerous line of saying the man has knowingly sought to mislead. I leave it to the reader to review Our Host's previous comments.
The final category is quite hard to pin down, but I think it's one the mainstream press would do well do examine. Way back when Trump was accused of colluding or coordinating with Russia during the 2016 campaign, the issues were widely explored and discussed, albeit not to the satisfaction of all. When clear, definitive, smoking gun evidence of overt acts by Trump didn't appear, Trump set about denouncing the entire episode as a hoax, a claim he repeated again and again and again until his endless references became a form of shorthand that needed no additional explanation.
Media figures once discussed the facts. Trump persisted long after, all the while uttering new, equally incorrect and misleading statements. How many times can the press be expected to debunk Trump's claims about the supposed "hoax"? To do so would gift him the power to keep the press stuck debating ancient issues to the exclusion of covering current news.
The Russiagate hoax is a description of accusations that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government, none of which were ever proven.
ReplyDeleteGet back to us when Donald J Chickenshit testifies under oath and faces a jury.
DeleteWhy?
DeleteThis is untrue. For example, there is proof of the collusion with Russia by Tenet Media, influencing prospective voters on Trump's behalf.
Deletehttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/well-known-right-wing-influencers-duped-to-work-for-covert-russian-operation-u-s-prosecutors-say
And there is this:
"While Julian Assange and WikiLeaks published emails hacked from the DNC and Clinton campaign in 2016, which U.S. intelligence says came from Russia, Assange denied direct Russian involvement as a source, claiming journalistic practice and rejecting offers to publicize Russian government hacks, though his links to Russian state media (like RT) and seeming pro-Russian focus raised concerns, with his lawyer later alleging a Trump pardon offer for denying Russia's role, a claim the White House denied. "
Saying that this stuff was never proven supports Trump's position without acknowledging that there was evidence supporting the accusations, whether it led to prosecutions or not.
A hoax involves an intent to deceive; to count as a hoax there would have to have been no basis for Mueller's investigation.
DeleteIf there was hoax afoot, why did a Republican AG appoint Mueller as Special Counsel?
Why???
DeleteBecause you'd have to be a fucking moron to watch Donald J Chickenshit obstruct the investigation from start to finish, note that Mueller issued an entire 2nd Volume painstakingly documenting multiple counts of criminal obstruction, see all that and are still able to mumble like a fucking idiot
none of which were ever proven.
Are you proud of being such a fucking lickspittle idiot serving the interests of a walking talking crime spree inhabiting the highest office of our country?
Trump *always* sides with Putin.
DeleteI'm just telling the truth.
DeleteNone of the accusations that the Trump campaign was colluding or conspiring with Russia were ever proven. Mueller didn't give any opinion about whether or not Trump obstructed justice. He never called it multiple counts of "criminal" obstruction. No serious person would ever call it that. That is just something you made up.
I'm proud to be telling the truth and not making shit up.
That second volume is Mueller's opinion. He didn't have to issue it, but he did.
DeleteTrump would sell out Barron if Putin told him to.
DeleteBarron is Melania’s son, says Trump, implying Barron is not his.
Delete"None of the accusations that the Trump campaign was colluding or conspiring with Russia were ever proven."
DeleteTrue. But that's not the same thing as saying the Russia investigation was a hoax.
Background:
ReplyDeleteA Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-century-thirteen-ways-looking-disinformation
The author argues that the Trump–Russia investigation (“Russiagate”) functioned less as a legitimate national-security inquiry and more as a political project that unified major power centers: Democratic Party leadership, intelligence/security agencies, the media, and tech companies against Donald Trump. According to this view, the investigation became a mechanism not only to weaken Trump politically but also to pull tech platforms into a broader surveillance-and-censorship alliance under the banner of fighting “disinformation.”
It doesn't seem like tech companies are against Trump now.
Delete5:44,
DeleteThe entities and agencies named in that cite didn't need the Russia investigation to align against Trump. Trump's actions and personality took care of that all by themselves.
And if the investigation was a "mechanism to weaken Trump politically", why was Mueller 's team so scrupulous in not leaking, and why was the final report's discussion of Trump's potential illegalities so carefully worded?
Deletehttps://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
This is a TIME Magazine article describing what it calls a behind-the-scenes, cross-ideological “shadow campaign” that aimed to prevent a 2020 election breakdown and ensure the results would be accepted. Biden’s victory, wrote Ball, was the result of a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes” that drew together “a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election” in an “extraordinary shadow effort.” Among the many accomplishments of the heroic conspirators, Ball notes, they “successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.” The "coalition" openly admits it changed rules, pressured institutions, coordinated narratives, and influenced information flows.
Is fighting disinformation and smears supposed to be bad?
DeleteCan you not think of any reasons why it would be?
Delete'Biden’s victory, wrote Ball, was the result of a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes”'.
DeleteNo. That's not what Ball wrote.
The intent of the "conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes", in Ball's article, was to "keep the peace and oppose Trump's assault on democracy", not to result in Biden's victory, as you so dishonestly put it.
In fact you omitted that when Ball describes the purpose of the "vast, cross-partisan campaign", she says it was dedicated "not to winning the vote but ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted." Scary stuff.
As for the rest, am I supposed to be alarmed at pressure campaigns to take a harder line against 'disinformation'? Or strategies to fight 'viral smears'?
Ball's article moves us further away from, not closer to, the notion of a 'rigged election'.
Can you really not think of any reasons why you should be alarmed by pressure campaigns to crack down on “disinformation” or to fight “viral smears”?
DeleteMelville had no intent to deceive readers. It is unclear whether he was being satirical in Moby Dick, with his descriptions of whaling, which I have always found fascinating. Some readers do not enjoy the kind of detail that was common realist writing, but what might be satirical today was not obviously so in Melville's time. Tolstoy is similar, as are other American writers who loved details, such as Sister Carrie by Dreiser.
ReplyDeleteSomerby has not achieved anything approaching a taxonomy, perhaps because he is being satirical himself. I prefer to call it being obnoxious. Taxonomies need to include all cases in a classification system (as Quaker notes). But Somerby's serious errors of understanding what Trump is saying and why, prevent him from being objective or accurate in categorizing Trump's statements. A man who won't admit that Trump lies just can't do the task Somerby has assigned himself. Trump and Somerby have too much in common for Somerby to analyze Trump well.
"Trump and Somerby have too much in common for Somerby to analyze Trump well."
DeleteWhat evidence is there to support this unlikely statement?
I comment here daily about the similarities between Trump and Somerby. For one thing, both think in a stream-of-consciousness free association style that grabs whatever occurs to them next. Their associations often have nothing to do with the topic or its context but fastens on a single word or thought that is opaque to others and never clearly explained. Somerby often grabs a quote because of a single word in it. So does Trump, who shifts topics fluidly without explain enough to let anyone else follow. What does Hannibal Lecter have to do with immigrants, or sharks with magnets getting wet? Somerby does the same. Today it is Melville and whales linked to Trump in some way Somerby never states. Yesterday it was squalor, again without explanation for why squalor is like anything to do with red or blue politics, other than the word has a vaguely negative tone. Somerby is not a clear thinker and neither is Trump.
DeleteBoth Somerby and Trump have gotten worse over time. Both are largely incoherent a lot of the time. Both are extremely repetitive with themes that are represented by a catchword that substitutes for a collection of ideas never explained.
Neither Somerby nor Trump can be corrected over matters of fact or interpretation. Trump is stubborn and ignores counter arguments and facts. Same with Somerby. I've never seen him acknowledge an error or self-correct or give a retraction. He did change the day he got wrong (calling Friday "Monday") but with no acknowledgement or update.
Both Somerby and Trump are narcissistic in their writing style. Somerby uses a false editorial "we" while Trump pretends to be King. Trump takes credit for things he hasn't done. Somerby pretends to have analysts on a campus. Perhaps Somerby is satirical in this, but it gets old, while Trump is oblivious. Somerby used to claim his Howler got results by accepting credit for things he obviously didn't influence.
Somerby and Trump both use doom and gloom and extreme events to evoke fear in readers. Trumps says peaceful neighborhoods are full of crime whereas Somerby says democracy cannot survive because humans are warlike and not built for peace, because a bunch of bad traits are bred in the bone.
Somerby makes up experts (future anthropologists in caves, Gene Brabender) to support his sillier statements. Trump just states them as facts without attribution to any source. The result is the same.
There's more but I'm getting tired of repeating things I've said before, with evidence and quotes from Somerby's daily writing. More obviously, Somerby and Trump are about the same age, in poor health, uninterested in discussing politics, hold vindictive grudges, dislike women, are on the narcissistic side and are too lazy to deal with facts and incapable of thinking deeply.
Today it is Melville and whales linked to Trump in some way Somerby never states.
Delete"He (Melville) offered taxonomies of the whale. This morning, we started to compile a taxonomy of the leviathanic public misstatements made by the sitting president."
So that's the link you say Bob never states. It's right there in his post; took me 20 seconds to find it. You may not think it's valid or too whimsical an approach for him to take, but you're dead wrong to say he never stated it.
In what way are Trump's misstatements like a whale? That's what is missing. He hasn't stated that.
DeleteThe idea that Melville is being satirical comes from one guy writing in 2020, not from Wikipedia much less from any major literary critic or biographer of Melville. I doubt it is true. The author (Melville) says it is needed to understand the whaling references that come later in the book. What is the point of an extended metaphor if no one outside of New England knows anything about whales or whaling?
ReplyDeleteSomerby, of course, does not appreciate this because he never concerns himself with the larger context of anything, doesn't understand that a satisfying metaphor must map cleanly onto the phenomenon being described, at least in all major points, not just in terms of one feature, much less a single word. Somerby never bothers to use metaphors well. One similarity is not enough. So Somerby wouldn't recognize that the care Melville exerts in making sure all readers will understand the main metaphor of his book is part of what makes Melville a great writer.
Incompetence is Job 1 at the White House:
ReplyDelete“There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs,” Trump said during a meeting in Florida with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “So we hit all the boats and now we hit the area and that is no longer around.”
He added: “I know exactly who it was, but I don’t want to say who it was. But you know it was along the shore.”
His comments irked the CIA.
“There was near-universal dismay among former intelligence officials that President Trump chose to disclose what almost certainly was intelligence community covert action,” Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA operations officer, told the Journal.
Polymeropoulos said such operations generally allow for plausible deniability, with the overarching threat that further action could come.
Trump’s decision to use the CIA for the strike could be due in part to resistance from Congress over whether he needs lawmakers' sign-off to conduct military operations against Venezuela, Geoff Ramsey, who follows Venezuela at the Atlantic Council, told the outlet.” [Rawstory]