FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2026
CEO enters Hall of Fame: Good God! If we survive the likely madness of the next few years, our flailing nation is going to be badly in need of healing.
In recent weeks, that had us thinking about that passage from Carl Sandburg's famous biography, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years.
It's one of our favorite passages in all of literature. It promotes a certain view of the way a nation's story should be told.
Sandburg was a poet historian. In an admiring essay in the Wall Street Journal back in 2020, Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer cited the beauty of Sandburg's prose, then brought "The People" in:
History Through a Poet’s Eyes
[...]
Sandburg’s work has long endured. It remains the most influential and popular life of Lincoln ever published, with “The Prairie Years” alone selling some 1.5 million copies. As of this Lincoln’s birthday month, “Prairie Years,” “War Years” and Sandburg’s 1954 one-volume abridgment all remain on Amazon’s current list of the 50 best-selling Lincoln books.
An explanation for their sustained appeal may lurk within the assessment that critic Mark Van Doren proffered in the Nation in 1926: “In spite of some rather obvious poetry stuck in here and there,” “Prairie Years” was “amply and profoundly beautiful.” Yet behind the Whitmanesque free-verse vernacular was evidence of deep research...
Sandburg endures not because he is cited by modern scholars, but because he continues to be read for sheer pleasure. In my own travels on the Lincoln circuit, I am often asked: “Do you like Sandburg’s books?” My affirmative answer invariably relieves questioners who find him a guilty and perhaps outdated pleasure. Such skepticism never inhibited Carl Sandburg. Writing in “The People, Yes,” he all but predicted his own durability in verse.
And so on from there. And yes—Sandburg once wrote an entire book-length poem called The People, Yes. The late James Hurt, another Lincoln specialist, took the idea a bit further:
Sandburg's Lincoln within History
[...]
Sandburg himself saw his book as an American epic as often as he thought of it as a mere biography. In a preface written for The Prairie Years but dropped before publication, he wrote, "The facts and myths of his life are to be an American possession, shared widely over the world, for thousands of years..." And in his "symphonic finish" to The War Years, Sandburg wrote, "Out of the smoke and stench, out of the music and violent dreams of the war, Lincoln stood perhaps taller than any other of the many great heroes. This was in the minds of many. None threw a longer shadow than [Lincoln]. And to him the great hero was The People. He could not say too often that he was merely their instrument."
In this and in many similar passages, the figure of Lincoln becomes merged with that of Sandburg's favorite abstraction, The People, and the book becomes a democratic epic celebrating not an individual but a collective hero.
Sandburg saw his six-volume biography as American / democratic epic. For Sandburg, as for Lincoln himself, the central player in the American story was an abstraction: The People.
It will be hard for this nation to heal under current arrangements. Under those arrangements, corporate entities deliberately pick and choose their material to appeal to the Reds or the Blues. In our view, the Fox News Channel is demonically guilty of this deliberate pursuit of tribal division, but those of us in Blue America could do better ourselves.
We'd been thinking of that passage from Sandburg, the one in which the poet biographer cites a somewhat mysterious source of "healing and strength." Because we clearly need to develop a politics of human feeling, we've always admired Sandburg's portrait of Lincoln as a man of the people, but also as a person of deep human feeling as his journey to Washington nears.
On Tuesday, we showed you the way the passage in question begins, with the president-elect riding in the caboose of a freight train as he goes to pay his last visit to his stepmother, Sarah Bush Lincoln.
Do we need to stop proselytizing, to learn how to feel? This is the passage in which Sandburg imagines a source of healing and strength:
Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years
Chapter 163
[...]
The next day Lincoln drove eight miles out to the old farm along the road over which he had hauled wood with an ox team. He came to the old log house he had cut logs for and helped smooth the chinks; from its little square windows he had seen late winter and early birds.
Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked, they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.
He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.
She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags, and cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.
The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and there would be the silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.
That's where the chapter ends.
It's true! Traditionally, we humans have sometimes held hands and talked, have talked without holding hands. We humans have listened to each other's heartbeats. Sandburg is presenting Lincoln, the moral giant, as a deeply human being.
As for the possible source of healing, Sandburg cites the sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months. What role would the silence after snowstorms play? You're asked to puzzle that out.
Will we The People find ways to heal if we survive the next two years? There's little silence and little feeling in the clatter of our public discourse as it exists today as we The People ae encouraged to split into warring camps.
And then this week, this actually happened. No, we aren't making this up:
Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott...Inducted Into Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame in Star-Studded NY Event
Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott and CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer were among the media heavyweights inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame at a star-studded ceremony in New York City Tuesday night.
Scott and Blitzer were honored at the Ziegfeld Ballroom alongside a roster of prominent television personalities and industry figures, including ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, Bravo’s Andy Cohen, and celebrity chef Bobby Flay.
Scott’s induction came just days before Fox News marks its 30th anniversary on Oct. 7. Accepting the honor, the network’s first female CEO reflected on its growth from a single cable channel into a broader media operation.
“The real recognition belongs to my entire Fox News family,” Scott said. “Next month, we will celebrate our 30th anniversary.”
For all we know, Suzanne Scott may be the world's nicest person. Unfortunately, she's also the person who puts the braindead garbage can known as the Gutfeld! program on the air each night. Also, she sends in the clowns each afternoon, asking them to destroy the nation's brain cells while touting themselves as The Five.
For that, she's been sent to the Hall of Fame! And none of the Blue American journos we're trained to trust will ever say a single word about any of this. They don't want to fight with Fox. To a man, to a woman, they boldly refuse to serve.
We expect full services to return next week. Scott to the Hall of Fame!
ReplyDeleteInteresting factoid: did you know that your idol Lincoln was the most hated president during his terms? The most hated of them all.
I was surprised to hear this at first, but then I realized: after all, he started a war that killed nearly a million Americans. He ordered scorched-earth campaigns, the most brutal total-war tactics.
It's not surprising that the ordinary folks on the ground have radically different perspectives from indoctrinated ideologs and retarded Dumbocrats...
How could a President who ended the chattel slavery of black people, possibly be the most hated President of a shit hole country?
DeleteNote the word "was" and not "is." Who do you suppose hates Lincoln now? Ask Nick Fuentes.
DeleteAlso, there are quite a few incorrect facts in this comment. The war had already started before Lincoln took office.
As to scorched-earth tactics, AI says this:
"• Field Decisions: The scorched-earth or "total war" policies—most famously Sherman's March to the Sea and the Atlanta Campaign in 1864—were conceived and executed by General William Tecumseh Sherman and General Ulysses S. Grant rather than direct, micro-managed orders from the Oval Office.
• Congressional and Legal Framework: In 1861, Congress passed the First Confiscation Act, which allowed Union forces to seize or destroy property used by the Confederate States of America military effort, setting a legal precedent for targeting infrastructure.
• Lincoln's Stance: Lincoln generally deferred controversial operational decisions in the field to his top commanders, recognizing that destroying Confederate railroads, factories, and supply lines was vital to breaking the South's capacity and will to fight. When Sherman presented the capture of Savannah, Georgia as a Christmas gift in December 1864, Lincoln expressed deep gratitude and support for the campaign's success."
Why do we have a new commenter here who is advancing neo Nazi anti-Lincoln propaganda, including lies readily contradicted by historians? Why does Somerby's blog attract ugly racist flies like this to a so-called liberal blog? Obviously, because Somerby is discussing Lincoln, quoting Sandberg. But why does Somerby tolerate this shit? For the same reasons he tolerates trolls and other right wing assholes like David in Cal, the guys who come here to say women shouldn't vote, the anti-trans commenters, and other conservative and neo-Nazi filth.
Note that this guy too spells it Dumbocrats not Trump's favored "Dumocrats". That makes him easy to identify. He might as well be using that as his nym.
DeleteHe personally ended nothing, Dumbocrat. His administration conscripted people in the North, by force, and sent them down South to kill people defending their homes there.
Compare to Haiti, where slaves revolted themselves, killed the slaveholders, and lived happily ever after. While in the US of A descendants of the former slaves are still unhappy and complaining endlessly.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves.
DeleteIf you think the slaves didn't want to be free, you are crazy.
Lincoln tried to end the war by negotiating with the secessionists, but the South fired on Ft. Sumpter so he was stuck with a fighting war and had no choice but to prosecute it and win, to preserve the union.
Go away troll.
DeleteIf proclaiming something is his greatest achievement, he could issue a million Proclamations without killing a million people, Dumbocrat.
Although, ordinary people typically don't care much for any proclamations. Unlike you retarded Dumbocrats.
As for going away, why don't you go, Dumbocrat bot?
The right hates Lincoln because he freed black people from slavery, of course, but i could also see them thinking Lincoln is a piker because he killed less people in the Civil War than than RFK, Junior will kill children this year alone.
DeleteUh, @11:23. Lincoln was a Republican. The people who hated him were Democrats.
Delete
DeleteI strongly suspect that most of the people who hated him wouldn't give a shit about Republicans and Dumbocrats.
holy shit, dickhead in cal just did it again. you're fucking a genius dickhead, yes indeed, Lincoln was a Republican, LOL, who the fuck do you think you're kidding, asshole?
DeleteRepublicans love Lincoln because he freed the slaves.
DeleteAlso, Trump has been a great friend to black people.
These statements are so true, FOX News won't report it for some reason.
If FOX News reported those two statements as truth, the Republican Party and Trump would have an approval rating from Republican voters in the single digits, for some reason.
DeleteLincoln was like Obama, bisexual.
DeleteTrump, like most Republicans, couldn't get laid in a whore house with a fistful of $100 bills.
DeleteIn the whore house workers defense, there isn't enough money in the world to fuck a Republican.
Delete
DeleteGood confession, Dumbocrat.
It's no wonder Republicans have to rape children to get any sexual gratification.
DeleteThis is fake news and was debunked the other day.
DeleteLincoln was relatively popular during his tenure.
He became even more popular over time.
The South seceded from the US and started the Civil War in order to preserve slavery.
In the US, there was a partisan realignment: the Republicans of Lincoln's time are now the Dems, and the Dems back then are now the GOP, whose platform is fundamentally racist. This is known to most secondary school students but some trolls pretend to be not aware.
After Sherman blazed thru the South he should have turned around and shot dead every treasonous Southern Officer. Double tap those who took an Oath to The United States of America. Fuck 'em.
DeleteAfter they surrendered, Sherman was glad to make peace with them.
DeleteThe simple reason Lincoln was the most hated is because he was a piece of shit weirdo Republican, just like the whole lot of them, DumBo.
DeleteFuck off about Lincoln.
DeleteSomerby was once a vocal defender of the Duke Lacrosse team in a rape complaint that turned out to be false. Today Brad Slager (the new conservative at Mediaite) revives that old situation to discuss the Cornell rape case. Somerby also defended Brock Turner in a case where he was convicted after sexually assaulting Chanel Miller who was passed out by a dumpster. Somerby blamed the alcohol policies and Miller herself, for drinking too much before a frat party where she became too drunk to give consent. I fully expect Somerby to come back and support these poor Cornell gang rapers, again on the grounds that the victim shouldn't have drunk so much.
ReplyDeleteAs in the Chanel Miller case, the right wing defenders of these hapless college boys seem to have invented details that were not in the law suit filed or the statements given by the victim. For example, Slager claims the victim gave consent to have sex with four boys, including two she says she didn't know. She does not say that in the lawsuit. Slager also complains because her name is withheld from reporting, even though her complaint is that she was subsequently described all over campus as a whore who initiated the gang rape. Those two claims are incompatible.
But I find myself wondering why conservatives always side with the men accused of taking advantage of inebriated women, despite being taught that women who cannot give consent are not sexually available. Brock Turner was convicted, given a very small sentence for which the judge was subsequently impeached by outraged voters. The Lacrosse team was found not guilty and the woman claiming to have been raped was found to be lying. But there is no doubt that this Cornell victim was gang banged and that she was too drunk (and drugged) to give consent, so what is there to defend in this case?
It would be right to challenged fraternity culture and the drinking on campuses, but that doesn't automatically lead to women being raped. Why does Somerby defend these young men and the concept that women must not engage in the same behaviors as men without expecting to be assaulted with impunity, in cases that are not prosecuted. This woman's life has been destroyed, her college career derailed, her health endangered. Because she was assaulted. Should that be the inevitable result of a night out for women, but not men?
Somerby has another opportunity to display his sexism and double standards. Slager beat him to it, including an article embellished by many added details in support of the men present, not found in the lawsuit itself. There will be a trial. But why do conservative men go out of their way to justify hurting women? The answer is obvious, but here it is again, in black and white reporting by new conservative propagandist, Brad Slager, at Somerby's favorite source, Mediaite.
Sunny Hostin, who is very liberal, and who has a background in cases like this, explained the law. If a woman voluntarily drinks or does drugs and then gives consent, there is no case against the men who had sex with her. That's why the those Cornell guys were not prosecuted.
Deletego fuck yourself, dickhead in cal. just go fuck yourself and crawl back under your rock, you racist fascist freak
DeleteIncapacitated people cannot give consent. That applies regardless of the form of the incapacitation. Some men think they should be able to have sex with children (who are unable to give consent because they have not developed the capacity for judgment of consequences). They think they can have sex with mentally ill or developmentally disabled women, who are ruled out of bounds but are inevitably the targets of some men regardless of their obvious mental problems. Some men think it is OK to have sex with women under false pretenses, lying to them, misrepresenting their marital status, giving false names. Consent in response to fraud is not OK. Some men think it is OK to have sex with women who are grieving, confused, obviously upset and in need of help and consideration not sex. There exists a subset of men who consider sexual relations a game in which their goal is to obtain sex no matter what (roofies, an expensive meal, threats, promises) while it is the woman's job to protect herself from predators and con artists. That isn't how sex works and it is why there are laws, whether they work in every circumstance or not. When men are the only ones available to enforce such laws, they can be ignored, which is why it is important to have female officers, and women as DAs and prosecutors, and on juries. To derail this kind of corrupt game-playing with sex as the goal.
DeleteMen who care about women don't behave this way.
Somerby always supports accused men, no matter what the circumstances, unless it is Biden being accused by an obviously deranged woman lacking credibility, in a Republican plot.
DeleteAll this time, Republicans have been hot for children just because children are under the age of consent.
DeleteWho knew?
Delete"Incapacitated people cannot give consent."
And yet somehow they do, all the time. And even attempt to fuck others, without worrying about their consent at all.
Mystery...
Who knew?
Delete(Narrator: Everyone).
Cornell omitted key elements of the testimony given by the victim in its report to the local authorities and Cornell is being roasted for that, irrespective of the law. Nothing can put a smile faster on a Trump supporter than the knowledge that a woman can be gang raped with no impunity, thanks to a law that favors the rapist.
Deleteyou mean gang raped with impunity
Deletesorry , yes
DeleteMore fake news.
DeleteLegally, if someone is incapacitated due to alcohol, they cannot give consent.
The sexist ghouls here, inspired by Somerby, are repugnant.
Have no fear. Tish James is on the case.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJust when you think DiChead couldn't get even more vile and disgusting, he goes and shows his ass again. Fuck wrong with you man?
DeleteAnd yet Somerby brings up the bimbo attacks on Bill Clinton frequently. Why even mention them at all if he didn't want to imply that Clinton mistreated women, a frequent talking point of the right wing?
DeleteThe main problem with trying to exonerate Somerby is that he has so often repeated the slanders without debunking them. Repeating this stuff only helps the right. It perpetuates the stereotype of Clinton as a womanizer, even repeated on late-night comedy shows, and still offered by Gutfeld, even though today's audiences barely remember who Bill Clinton was.
You will get no argument from anyone here that Clinton was wrongly accused, repeatedly, just as happened to Biden. Somerby also complained about the attacks on Gary Hart that led to him dropping out of the race, but those were true. Somerby's complaint was that the reporter in question had a beef with Hart for lying to him, so he laid in wait to trap Hart in his infidelities. As if catching someone in wrongdoing were dirty pool.
Who did Somerby defend? The lacrosse team. The kidnapping accusations publicized by Al Sharpton. The security guard who told a black student she didn't belong in her own school dorm. Men accused of child abuse by wives during divorce custody hearings (they always lie, Somerby claimed). Roy Moore. Brock Turner and the judge who gave him a light sentence, blaming the university president instead (even though the frat was off-campus and many students were of legal drinking age).
He has also declared #metoo over, although he did not have the guts to defend Bill Cosby, Louis C.K. or Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly. I believe he did defend Al Franken. He didn't defend Bernie Sanders but he did attack Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal, and it took him a while to defend Biden from sex abuse charges by a woman found to be "not credible" because she was telling falsifiable, unbelievable stories all over the place, about her own life and credentials. Perhaps the Biden accusations created a crisis of conscience for Somerby, who loves to attack women and defend men, but who disliked Biden and had a hard-on for removing him, long before 2020.
The problem with writing a blog like this is that you create a long track record of statements about various people and topics, so that patterns and consistencies emerge over time. DG is a newcomer to that history, so he tries to build a picture of Somerby's views that doesn't fit his actual words over time.
No, DG. Do not beg for quotes. Do your own searches of the archives. No one is going to play the game of producing quotes only to have you misread them or say they are insufficient.
Somerby blamed Stormy Daniels for Trump's fraud, calling her a con artist and extortionist. Somerby does not believe E. Jean Carroll and never supported her against Trump. Somerby has never mentioned Epstein and the rape accusations against Trump. And Somerby never mentions the many sexual allegations against people like Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Elon Musk (other tech bros) and many others in Trump's administration. Crickets when it comes to Trump, Epstein, and other sexual assault charges against prominent Republicans (such as Max Miller and the asshole going around saying women's shouldn't vote).
"We expect full services to return next week. Scott to the Hall of Fame!"
ReplyDeleteSomerby blames Suzanne Scott for Fox News. He should be blaming Rupert Murdoch, but a woman (in the Fox mold for female on-screen talent) makes a better scapegoat and Somerby will always attack a female journalist before he will place blame where it belongs, on guys like Roger Ailes, Murdoch, Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing noise machine.
Here’s how AI sums up Bob’s treatment of Roger Ailes. As far as I know, Ailes wasn’t a transman, but he did kinda have that flavor. BTW- you’re so obvious and lame.
Delete“The Daily Howler is one of the oldest political and media-criticism blogs on the internet. Launched in 1998 by writer and former stand-up comedian Bob Somerby, the blog primarily critiques what Somerby views as lazy, partisan, and "script-driven" coverage across both mainstream and conservative journalism.
When analyzing Roger Ailes (the late architect and CEO of Fox News), Somerby’s critiques generally center on a few specific themes:
• The Architecture of Modern Conservative Media: Somerby frequently analyzes the legacy of Roger Ailes as the man who revolutionized political "pseudo-news". He argues that Ailes understood how to use cable news to partition the American public into tailored information silos long before mainstream outlets adopted similar strategies.
• The "Mainstream Media" Script: While Somerby heavily critiques the political impact of Ailes' Fox News empire, a hallmark of The Daily Howler is pointing out how the "mainstream" press (like The New York Times or NBC) often mimics or mishandles conservative narratives rather than effectively debunking them.
• Historical Retrospectives: In his ongoing media critiques, Somerby routinely loops back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, tracing contemporary partisan polarization and media lawsuits directly back to the corporate strategies formulated under Ailes.”
The above is me. I accidentally hit the google thing.
DeleteDude, nobody cares what a man pretending to be a woman thinks.
DeleteSomerby hasn’t mentioned Ailes in decades.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:20pm, because Ailes is dead. Susan Scott just happens to hold that role now and just happens to be a chick.
DeleteOh, no mention of Lachlan MURDOCH who runs Fox Corporation?
DeleteFuck off trannysorostroll.
DeleteLimbaugh is dead too, but people still mention him when they talk about the noise machine.
DeleteAI draws heavily on Wikipedia, which has been nicer to Somerby than he deserves.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:36pm, what does that have to do with the charge that Bob only goes after the delicate female flowers of creation? He went after Ailes back in that day and Scott in this era. Saying he should be going after Rupert or Lachlan is a different argument from saying he only targets women.
DeleteSomerby did not go after Ailes.
DeleteWithout those rains, the prairie cannot bloom. Somerby and Sandburg portray them as an injury that requires healing but they are the lifeblood of plants without which there would be nothing for herds to eat, no fertile soil, just barren desert.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when poets try to write factual books without bothering to consider what may be true in the world.
Science is a bitch, to right wingers.
DeleteI am your science, cracka.
DeleteDavid, Lizzie’s dad died last August, may his memory be a blessing. The obituary, listing relatives, doesn’t mention you. Just how are you related to her?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.volkleberfuneralhome.com/m/obituaries/eugene-skurnick/Memories
I am her dad's first cousin. That obituary does not mention his late wife Blanche, because Blanche predeceased him. It was courageous for them to marry in 1965, when mixed marriages were rare. Blanche was a rare jewel. I greatly miss them both.
DeleteIt would be even more courageous to have a mixed marriage in 2026.
DeleteHi, Dickhead in Cal. Question: Did Lincoln fly the Confederate flag, you fucking racist prick?
DeleteAnonymouse 12:35pm, oh, sure.
DeleteDavid, it definitely mentions Blanche, and it says they got married in 1963.
DeleteJust to be clear now, was your father the brother of Lizzie’s grandfather Morris Skurnick?
David is not a single person, "David" comments are generated by a troll farm, nothing "David" says is accurate or genuine, he is not related in any way to Skurnick.
Deletemixed marriages were not rare in 1965.
DeleteI know some people who got mixed up in marriages back then.
DeleteBullshit they weren’t rare. Loving v Virginia wasn’t even decided until 1967
Delete@5:18, yes they were rare, around the same as in the 1950s. It wasn't until 1967 when the Supreme Court legalized mixed marriages nationwide, eliminating the bans against such marriages enacted by 17 states. The counter-culture of the late 1960s did help popularize mixed marriages and the mainstream culture embraced the concept when it discovered that ads showing a mixed marriage could appeal to both black and white markets with the same ad. Prior to that, separate ads were aimed at black and white audiences. Mixed race sitcoms started appearing too.
DeleteI was in a mixed marriage myself during that time period, in Southern California where there was more racial tolerance and less segregation (although still some) in the larger cities. As a student at UCLA, I helped build a list of unsegregated student housing vacancies (apartments adjacent to the dorms and campus) so that mixed couples and diverse students could find a place to live without a run-around from landlords.
DeleteI was in a mixed marriage with one of my fingers.
DeleteI am Corby.
Unlike Lincoln, Trump is the least popular president in history.
ReplyDeleteTrolls seem to be feeling their oats a bit today, but the writing is on the wall. Someone is funding an effort to sway voters away from Dems, but, aside from electoral politics not working that way, it is too little too late.
The extreme poetic license taken by Sandburg in the passages quoted by Somerby is nauseating. There is an actual man revealed by history, who Sandburg could have described and would have been more than hero enough for our nation to admire without his mawkish embellishments.
ReplyDelete"None threw a longer shadow than [Lincoln]. And to him the great hero was The People. He could not say too often that he was merely their instrument."
ReplyDeleteThis is called passing the buck. I think a greater hero doesn't shift responsibility for his own choices onto others, even some nebulous entity with no real embodiment, called "The People". We know now, and it was true in Lincoln's time, that the people are diverse, not one mind and one body at all, but many different individuals, including the ones who started and continued and were defeated in our Civil War. This renders Lincoln's remark pure nonsense. The same goes for Sandburg's favorite abstraction, which he imposes onto his view of Lincoln.
Our heroes need not be such grandiose figures as Sandburg created.
If Sandburg and Lincoln both believed in the people, to the point where Somerby is quoting them here about it, why doesn't Somerby believe in the people? He keeps saying that we the people were not built to succeed at democracy, that our system is failing because we the people are not up to it. Are these different people being talked about by Sandburg, Lincoln, and Somerby?
ReplyDeleteThe main person lacking faith in the people here today is Somerby.
This makes it explicit:
ReplyDelete"President Donald Trump said he feels "badly" for the men under investigation in an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity.
His comments came a day after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) signed an executive order naming state Attorney General Letitia James (D-NY) special prosecutor in the case, according to the governor's office.
Trump spoke to reporters Friday as he headed to Marine One, bound for a Republican midterm campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama." [Rawstory]
But what else would anyone expect of Trump, who doesn't know enough to feel bad for them, not badly.
What woman in her right mind would agree to be drugged and raped for four hours, including by men she did not know? And if she is not in her right mind, there can be no question of consent. Women who are that drunk and drugged cannot give consent, so it is rape by definition.
ReplyDeleteThis particular woman had bruises from being slapped on the butt repeatedly, pictures of which were taken during her doctor visit after the gang rape. In addition to psychological trauma and the humiliation of becoming known campus-wide as a whore (which is what the boys claimed she was), she had ongoing consequences. Only by reporting the rape to authorities was she able to change the narrative from slutty behavior to assault to which she never consented.
Depending on what you read, the men are still claiming she consented while she is claiming she did not consent. The law suggests that given her intoxication (10+ drinks) and the drugs forced on her (she was told it was Ketamine), periodically during the 4 hours, she could not have legally consented due to her drug-related cognitive impairment. The circulation of an email inviting men she did not know to "free sex" makes it clear she did not consent but was viewed as an opportunity to engage in sex with a woman incapable of objecting.
Incredible reporting from the NYT.
DeleteThe woman at Cornell did not consider herself a rape victim until she saw people making fun of her for being a slut.
She went to her “big sister” in her sorority and confessed that she had been a slut. Then while texting one of the men she reassured him that she enjoyed the first part of it and nothing illegal had happened.
Later, she texted him that she was traumatized. Not by the sex, but because everyone was laughing at her.
One week after her “rape,” she was mad that she got disinvited from a party at the frathouse of her “rapists”!!!!!!!
Just another young slut lying about being raped. Like lunatic source for the Rolling Stone article from about 10 years ago.
DeleteDavid, do you believe what you read in the New York Times?
DeleteThere is a lot of fake info circulating that is not in the lawsuit’s statement of facts or the police report.
DeleteNo woman wants to be gang banged and would consent to what happened, even according to the version of the young men involved. There are photos of her bruises.
Denial is a psychological defense mechanism.
DeleteThe signed statement did not claim she was drugged against her will, unconscious, or gang-raped, and that sex stopped when she asked.
Delete- Tompkins County DA
It was all so consensual that two of the frat bros were expelled from the University. Makes perfect sense that if they did nothing that wasn’t agreed upon by the victim they would have their academic records trashed by Cornell without a fuss by them and their parents. Sure, that’s how the world works.
DeleteWhat kind of man ties himself into a pretzel to justify the gang bang of a half-conscious girl by a group of privileged little pricks. To the voluminous catalog of David’s character flaws can now be added slut shamer, pervert cheerleader and staunch champion of sloppy seconds. Fuck off you demented geriatric germ.
DeleteI'm sick of these young, drug addict sluts making up claims of rape in order to get a big payout.
DeletePost drunken sex regret is not rape.
DeleteBob made a reasoning error saying Scott did not deserve some honor because of a bad show on FoxNews. People should be judged on the totality of what they accomplished, not the worst thing they did.
ReplyDeletePeople are often appropriately judged on the worst of what they have done. That is how they end up in a court of law defending themselves.
DeletePeople get judged on whatever criteria the organization presenting the award has established.
Delete