1. If anyone cared, this would do in Rachel Maddow. The fact that so many of my otherwise intelligent and reasonable liberal friends insist that Rachel Maddow is God’d gift to journalism was a mystery to me when she first brought her perpetual smirk to MSNBC. It perplexed me greatly as she so obviously hyped and twisted her commentary, and once she became the #1 Russia-Trump conspiracy theorist on TV, I admit that I have lost the edge of respect for anyone who still watches her. Rachel Maddow bottomed out, I’d say, yesterday, when she was saying this last week:
“It’s hard to believe that they’d leave the newly appointed Attorney General William Barr to himself to personally pick through the [Mueller] report to try to figure out which mentions in this 400-page report might pertain to an open case”They wouldn’t leave that to Barr to do that. Mueller would have done that!
Mueller’s team would have done that as part of producing anything that they handed over outside their own offices. They’ve done that with every other document they have produced in the course of this investigation. You’d assume they’d be able to do that for this document too. But William Barr says, [exaggerated sigh] it’s taking him a really long time because he’s having to do all that himself.”
While was saying that it was suspicious that Barr wouldn’t seek Mueller’s assistance with the redactions, the chyron underneath her read,
“Barr: Special Counsel Is Assisting with Redactions”
Unlike the much-mocked Fox News gaffe, in which the talking heads were correctly reciting the story while the chyron said that Trump was pulling aid from “three Mexican countries“, this time the chyron was right, and the talking head was wrong. It might just be me, but I’d rather the actual reporters to be telling the truth, and graphics be messed up.
2. Well, that’s one more old white guy who won’t be President. This morning I heard Howard Schultz, the Starbucks CEO purporting to be running for President as an Independent, say that he absolutely believed that controlling illegal immigration at the border was essential, but that he believed that the issue of illegal immigration was more than just law but “humanity,” and that immigration was what made America great. Huh. So that’s what an independent is, is it: A candidate that advocates all sides of a controversial issue simultaneously?
As if that wasn’t enough, Schultz, whom I had never heard speak before, has all the charisma of Steve Forbes.
3. What this struggling, racially divided city needs is a corrupt African American mayor! Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh, whose self-dealing prompted Gov. Larry Hogan to call for criminal investigation,, announced Monday that she will take an indefinite leave of absence because of her, ah, cough, cough, (eye roll) health. She had been revealed to have negotiated a no-bid deal with the University of Maryland Medical System to purchase self-published books she had authored featuring a young girl named Healthy Holly, aimed at promoting exercise and good diet. Under the deal with the medical system, UMMS, which included Pugh on its board, paid the mayor $500,000 for copies of the books, $100,000 in each of five transactions in 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2018, buying 20,000 copies at $5 per book. to be fair, she wasn’t the only crook on the board: nine members of the 30-person UMMS board had contracts or other business deals with the medical system.
The Democratic mayor’s office issued a statement yesterday:
“With the mayor’s health deteriorating, she feels as though she is unable to fulfill her obligations as mayor of Baltimore city.To that end, Mayor Pugh will be taking an indefinite leave of absence to recuperate from this serious illness.”
The statement did not address the scandal over the books, which I’m sure had nothing to do with the mayor’s decision. By not resigning but only going on “indefinite leave,” Pugh gets to keep receiving her salary.
4. Even New York Times features are fake news now. In a piece headlined, “‘Fosse/Verdon’ Has Magic to Do. And Undo,” the New York Times explains that finally, the true story of how iconic Broadway choreographer Bob Fosse abused everyone in his life and himself:
“[Verdon’s] inclusion…suggests a narrative informed by the #MeToo movement, a way to reframe the myth of the lone male auteur, of the man who behaves badly, but still, my God, those steps. If “Fosse/Verdon” succeeds, it could inform how we now tell stories about men like Fosse. Assuming we should tell these stories at all. Because if Fosse was a great man, he wasn’t necessarily a good one. He had genius, he had charm, but coercion and scapegoating colored his rehearsals, and he rarely met a chorus girl he didn’t try to bed. (Would he take no for answer? More or less. But his seductions often constituted an ugly abuse of power.)”
Hmmmm...that story sounds like one I saw in a movie once. What was it? It’s right in the tip of my tongue–oh yeah! The movie was called “All That Jazz,” which won four Oscars in 1980 while also being nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, and it was written and directed by Fosse himself as a brutal, self-damning indictment of his miserable conduct. Wouldn’t you think that a puff piece about a new series covering exactly the same ground with exactly the same intention might mention, for those not up on their theater history, that this has been done before, and not only that, that the film was an all-time classic that had the added authority of being made by the very man it was eviscerating? Even more bizarre is the fact that the Times piece refers to the film once without saying what it was, and in another place, includes the sentence, ” [Fosse’s} addictions — pills, sex, all that jazz — were legion.”
What is this, a game? Blue’s Clues?The idea is to mislead readers into thinking the series covers new ground when it isn’t, but to leave little hints for those in the know?
5. Signature significance:
Anyone who thinks this is a cogent, logical or coherent argument is incapable of critical thought. The Congresswoman’s response to the widespread mockery her nonsense received? This:
“GOP taking every tweet so earnestly, making my point for me. It’s not an argument against the price of a croissant – it’s about the value of human worth. But I guess that idea is foreign to them since their policies treat people as disposable anyway.”
No, the issue is that it’s unethical for any elected officials, House members of Congress members, to issue stupid tweets that cause the public to think they are being governed by the brain-damaged.