SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 2026
Everything claimed all at once: Within our broken American discourse, do the most basic facts ever get established—the most basic facts about the most high-profile events?
Do basic facts ever get established, or do we instead agree to live in a Babel—a Babel which is built upon the widespread repetition of competing storylines? Do we live inside a Babel where pretty much everything is being claimed all at once?
So it was, just yesterday, when Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown staged an extended interview with Tricia McLaughlin, the principal spokesperson for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. Nine days after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, this exchange occurred:
BLITZER (1/16/26): When [Secretary Noem] called this 37-year-old mother of three who was driving that car a domestic terrorist, that really was outrageous.MCLAUGHLIN: We said it was an act of domestic terrorism. In no way is that outrageous...She had been stalking and harassing law enforcement throughout the morning, and then she went on to use her car as a deadly weapon. That's not—BLITZER: She was driving by after dropping off her little 6-year-old boy at school.MCLAUGHLIN: She was not—that's just simply not true.
Nine days later, CNN viewers got to see the ongoing state of play. A pair of competing claims were given voice—competing claims about an extremely high-profile event.
McLaughlin said that Good had been interacting with ICE personnel at other locations during the course of the morning. Blitzer seemed to say that McLaughlin's claim wasn't true—that Good had simply been driving by the site of the fatal event after dropping her child off at school.
Nine days after the fact, neither party offered evidence in support of his or her claim. As is the remarkable norm, each participant simply gave voice to a tribal storyline.
Abruptly, we leave you with this query: Which of those statements is true?
Also this: For the full CNN transcript, you can just click here.
For a fuller report at Mediaite (with videotape), you can just click this.
Warning! Some Blue readers may be inclined to avoid the simple point we're making:
Ten days after this cataclysmic event, competing storylines are still alive and well, with no resolution in site.
We regard McLaughlin as highly unreliable—as strongly inclined to engage in tribal hyperbole. That said, Blitzer presented no more evidence in support of his claim than McLaughlin did on behalf of hers.
Given what eventually happened that morning, they were debating a secondary point in that exchange. But regarding that highly specific point, which of their stories is true?
We Blues hear one thing, Reds hear something different. Do elementary facts play a role in our world at this point, or is it Storyline all the way down?
ReplyDeleteWell, one thing is quite clear: the untimely departed retarded cat-lady wasn't "driving by" when it happen. The car was stationary.
Which makes it 100% clear that "Wolf" Blitzer was lying. And that McLaughlin was telling the truth what she said "She was not—that's just simply not true."
Sadly, you're also lying when you say "competing storylines are still alive and well, with no resolution in site." No, she was not "driving by". And that's a fact.
Sadly Bob is right. Both storylines are still alive, even though there are no facts supporting "just driving by" Our media is so biased and unprofessional that a liberal slant doesn't need facts in in order to persist.
Delete
DeleteWell, with all the videos around, if the "she was just driving by" narrative is still "alive", it can only circulate among the 'walking dead'.
d in c - Noem called her a "domestic terrorist." Noem is a cabinet member. isn't that type of language coming from someone in her position inexcusable?
DeleteThe anon trumpbot can't opine about this without calling the woman who was shot to death a "retarded cat lady." He's right, her car was stopped partially blocking the road. There have to be more details about where she was coming from. Maybe she did drop her kids off at school. I'd prefer facts to hyper-partisan tribal narratives from either side.
DeleteDidn't the previous administration all but accuse parents speaking out at a school board of terrorism?
Ain't no death penalty in MN since 1911. And since when is it legal to kill someone for being a nuisance. Look at how far the goalposts get moved, and stop the bullcrap.
DeleteGo away DIC tdoll.
DeleteShe's certainly domestic. Was she a terrorist? By a stretch maybe.
Delete3. The practice of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
She was certainly coercing government to accept to political demands. Driving a car into someone is violence. More relevant, the group that she's a part of is committing violence.
"Didn't the previous administration all but accuse parents speaking out at a school board of terrorism?"
DeleteNo.
'Driving a car into someone is violence."
DeleteRight, except that she didn't drive a car into anyone. How many times do you have to be told?
While you're being incredibly dishonest, David, you still miss the mark. ICE are not civilians.
DeleteNow, because of your intellectual impairment, which I will explain later, you're not able to grasp the obvious: she did not drive her car into anyone. The inability to see what's right in front of one's eyes may seem surprising, but, as mentioned above, our analysts will attempt to shed some light on this condition.
Good was in fact driving by after dropping her kid off at school nearby. Good did not drive her vehicle into anyone, she was not blocking the road, she had noticed some ICE protestors and pulled over and joined their whistling with her honking. The videos show that 12 vehicles passed her with no issue, she was waving the ICE officers on when they got all up in their emotions and decided to attack her instead of just driving on.
DeleteThe reason why Blitzer did not offer evidence in that moment is because this has already been well established, so in that moment of calling out admin officials for pushing a false narrative, it would be silly to relitigate what is already established. Bob's post today is just silly nonsense.
What is interesting is how Republicans are doubling down and trying to bothsides in this specific case where there is video to demonstrate that what they are pushing is misleading and misinformation.
Republicans are really stepping in it with this case: ICE approval has swung from +16 to -16, and a plurality of Americans now support abolishment of ICE.
That they can not see how they are bringing on their own destruction is sad, considering their history of supporting immigrants - Reagan signed the largest amnesty in U.S. history, Reagan's support for amnesty reflected a belief in America's tradition of welcoming immigrants, contrasting with contemporary Republican's brutal and cruel views on immigration policy.
Didn't the previous administration all but accuse parents speaking out at a school board of terrorism?
DeleteNo, fuckface. Threatening school board members and their children with physical harm actually is domestic terrorism, but Crazytowne USA took a hissy fit that the government dared to extend protection to them, so fuck off.
Right, except that she didn't drive a car into anyone. How many times do you have to be told?
DeleteHaving you learned yet, facts don't matter to Dickhead in Cal, he has his narrative to propogate.
"Driving by" is misleading; better "she went there..." But that is a venial sin. Calling the dead woman a "Terrorist" is a mortal sin. A problem with "both sides-ism".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's a good summary.
DeleteBob is spot on today.
DeleteIt seems highly probable from the video available that Good had had a prior encounter with ICE that morning, because Good's wife says something like (as Ross is filming the car with his phone) 'our license plate hasn't changed since this morning.'
So they clearly weren't just driving by, and I've never had any idea what the relevance was of 'she had just dropped her kids off at school.'
Bob is not spot on.
DeleteGood's wife was referring to how ICE is known to change their license plates to remain anonymous, not to an earlier encounter. That quote is not even what she said - Good's wife: "We don't change our plates every morning, just so you know, it'll be the same plate when you come back to us later."
That strongly suggests they had not had a previous encounter, and that Good and her wife expected to leave the scene peacefully, but that ICE was welcome to try to investigate them later and they would cooperate.
Those who attempt to assassinate government officials for reasons related to their official duties are often called "terrorists".
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't understand why Democrats are unhappy when their operatives are called "terrorists". Historically, there were popular movements that espoused terrorism. John Brown abolitionist movement, for example.
can't fix stupid.
DeleteRenee Good is the latter day John Brown. Interesting. Now, from my admittedly limited knowledge of Brown, he did not terrorize civilian population. By that measure, he was not so much a terrorist but more a revolutionary. He fought against the state and its support of slavery. So, in a Venn diagram, there could be a very small intersection with the anti-ICE movement.
DeleteTerrorists, as we commonly use the term today, attack non-military targets, e.g. blow up busses, buildings, etc., where primary targets would be civilian.
It is possible that in not too distant future, there will be armed resistance to ICE. They still won't be terrorists, as ICE are not civilians.
Of course, none of that applies to Good who did not attack or even remotely endanger anyone's life. This is more comparable to what happened at Kent State. However, Good's murder was even more egregious.
Good as an assassin is idiotic. Sounds like fly-eater fantasy to me.
Delete
Delete"where primary targets would be civilian"
You may want to read something about "propaganda by the deed", Soros-monkey. Good old time-tested kind of terrorist actions.
IIya, thanks, I’m saving this one for the next reference of J6ers being terrorists.
DeleteGood did nothing to justify shooting her, whether she was observing and document or protesting ICE actions, following them around, blowing a whistle, or turning her car around in the middle of a street. None of that justifies killing her. Nor does it mitigate it.
DeleteSomerby's insistence that Blitzer must present "evidence" in the middle of an interview, especially regarding a topic that was perhaps unanticipated (because interviews wander), is unreasonable. Even if Blitzer had video to hand, how would he get it cued up in order to show the DHS spokesperson?
And if Somerby recognizes that these govt publicity people tell lies, why must he also doubt Blitzer, whose job is not report facts? Somerby's extreme skepticism, even in situations where there is no reason to expect lying, is frustrating because it leaves everyone with no ability to draw any conclusions from anything. That is the essence of nihilism and it does not serve anyone well to be constantly doubting everything. That leads to paralysis.
So why does Somerby tell us that we can't trust Blitzer? Because his job is to muddy the water and further misinformation, not to add clarity to any discussion. Again, he concludes that we live in Babel and cannot think anything because facts don't exist any more, because some people with a vested interest in lying tell blatant lies.
In an election, there are no perfect candidates so we must choose the person who comes closest to our criteria and vote for them. We cannot sit out elections without allowing the worse candidates to win. With truth, we may not know the whole truth with perfect accuracy (which Somerby always demands), but we can get closer to the truth by believing those who are most reliable under the circumstances. That's what it means to believe Blitzer instead of a DHS shill.
It is almost as if, when Somerby was forced to attend college, he said vindictively "I'll choose the most useless major and use it against the pursuit of knowledge, to argue that truth does not exist and no one can ever communicate because nihilism was propounded by some asshole Greek and now those who would destroy democracy are using it against everyday people."
If Somerby doesn't know what is wrong with his semantic game-playing then he is mentally ill.
Nihilism definition: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless"
In philosophy: "extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence"
I believe that Somerby gains a sense of superiority when he destroys the meanings of things that are important to others, especially liberals. We care about Renee Good being shot, so Somerby has to show that no one can know for sure what really happened to her, and if they do know, they can't talk about it to convince others of what happened. Where is the joy in that, other than the kind of vengeance Trump himself thrives on when he punishes a long-standing enemy?
I wish we were allowed to shoot trolls for no reason. Their kind of terrorism is destructive to democracy but we must tolerate it because even trolls have first ammendment rights, even illegal trolls funded by Russia.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/live/BD5JC1tIh3Y?si=YL5qORLwOXtTdffx
ReplyDeleteOn their Youtube show this morning, HCR and Joanne Freeman make a point I wish Somerby would sit with: the colonists didn’t respond to George III by trying to pin down the “correct” diagnosis or psychological profile. They responded by tracing the logic of constitutional violations and naming the emerging structure of tyranny.
Focusing on the ruler’s mental state can become a way of dismissing (or softening) the actual abuses: it turns systemic corruption into a personality story.
That’s why I keep pushing back on the diagnosis fixation around Trump. Even if the impairment/decline questions are interesting, they’re not the main event. The main event is corruption, criminality, and an increasingly lawless system, staffed by people who will do the dirty work whether Trump “knows” or not.
And on the media point: Richardson/Freeman basically describe why democratized media is a net gain. In the 1770s, Boston couldn’t easily convince other towns what was happening because communication was slow and bottlenecked. Today, ordinary people can witness, share, and organize fast. Yes, it’s messy and yes, bots/trolls exploit it, but the alternative is returning to a world where a small set of elites gets to decide what’s “real.” If we’re trying to resist the structure and spirit of tyranny, distributed communication is part of the antidote, not the disease.
Agree, thank you!
DeleteHear, hear!
Delete
ReplyDeleteWhoa, Corby's AI access is back. I think I prefer the "Fuck off trannytroll" version; less scrolling.
Who asked you to scroll?
Delete