Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! Once again, I am resolving to ding any commenter who comes here to argue that the news media is, as that damning headline and banner has the nerve to suggest by the “Support” button, “Independent Fact-based Journalism.”
The White House’s reliance on today’s pre-taped [!!!!], pitifully short (30 minutes? Seriously?) Biden interview with Democratic Party operative George Stephanopoulos to put everyone at ease is more flaming evidence that this administration is convinced that the public is too stupid to metaphorically come out of the rain. So what if Biden can get through a single, carefully planned interview with a friendly, indeed complicit, talking head? That interview last week was signature significance. A trustworthy, fit leaders doesn’t have a “bad night” like that, even once. Equating not having a “bad night” once with the significance of having one is so mild-meltingly stupid that it competes vigorously with the other ridiculous attempts to minimize the epic irresponsibility of Biden running for a second term in the White House. “So he babbled and froze and faded out and gaped like a grouper: He doesn’t always do that!” This is like arguing, “So he had a massive heart attack—he doesn’t always have heart attacks!” And the news media is actually running with this talking point like it isn’t the stupidest thing making making Kamala Harris Vice-President.
[UGH! I just saw this disgraceful “It isn’t what it is” piece. How can these hacks look themselves in the mirror?]
NOTICE of CORRECTION: For some reason, that link was mistakenly to the debate transcript. That wasn’t where it was supposed to go, though the transcript is also infuriating—check Biden’s worst answer, the one that ends with “we beat Medicare.” The transcript makes it seem like Biden’s answer was half-comprehensible, which it wasn’t. At all. But the linked article is to a Baltimore Sun column [“Biden’s debate performance a B-, not a bomb”] where the shameless tool of a gaslighter blames the whole disaster on Biden’s alleged “stutter.”
Incidentally, is anyone working today? I am, but it sure seem like I’m the only one….
Ethics Alarms 
They just chose the wrong adverbs for their headline. I’d suggest “rarely” and “usually.”
I’m only “working” today on my regular Friday tasks: Putting the finishing touches on this week’s Sunday School lesson, watering my garden and picking what’s ripe, and helping entertain (while being entertained by) my grandsons. It will be too hot and muggy to do much outside -our low this morning was 77 degrees and the forecast high is a humid 91. This afternoon I will drive the half mile to my mom’s house for a quick visit on my way into town for a session at my physical therapy clinic. After that, I’ll stop by the local dairy where I pick up our weekly supply of milk products. We’re hoping for some forecast rain this afternoon and evening, so after dinner we will likely sit on the front porch for a while and enjoy the relative cool of the evening. Another exiting Friday here in rural America!
“our low this morning was 77 degrees and the forecast high is a humid 91.”
°F and relative humidity adding up to 160 is killer, and having to fend off bloodthirsty mosquitoes, to boot? Oy!
PWS
Jack: [UGH! I just saw this disgraceful “It isn’t what it is” piece. How can these hacks look themselves in the mirror?]
I am not seeing the problem. It is just the debate transcript, no?
-Jut
Perhaps this is a clue: “Read the final, corrected transcript of the debate below:” emphasis added.
Jut: That was the wrong link (though the transcript is absurdly scrubbed). What was supposed to be linked (and now is) is this crap: “Biden’s debate performance a B-, not a bomb.”
Yes, I’m working today, in an office, instead of being home dealing with the massive quantity of medical bills piling up, the terrifying notices I receive from the IRS and Maryland and Montgomery County, my 18-year-old car falling apart (Yeah, Volvos are great, until they’re not, then they cost you your meagre life savings), working on the 2 dozen or so half-begun poems and essays sitting in my journal, finding a plumber, healing the rift between me and the rest of my family, watching the hummingbirds, fantasizing about ridding my iris garden of the rampaging overgrowth of poison ivy, and other trivial matters. Meanwhile, in the office, I have dealt with Mass intentions for 2 deceased sisters and another in thanksgiving for someone landing a new job and answered a telephone question from an altar server who lives on the spectrum. And in between I’ve been writing all this that is nothing that anyone really wants to know.
EXCEPT — I must ask this question to the people who comment on this blog and our blogmaster — What exactly are our options? I contend that voting for Trump will cause the U.S. to plunge into fascism, resulting in rebellious and/or anarchic reactions, etc. etc. etc. My son contends that he would sooner vote for a corpse than for a fascist. He has a point. But what of the corpse? And what of the feckless DNC that increasingly seems to be a party of paid losers. They’ve been sleepwalking through the elections for decades, apparently doing SOMEONE’S bidding. I held my nose and voted for Hilary, but I can’t vote for Trump, I feel stupid voting for Biden, and I can’t vote for Harris if they put her up.
What are the options? This is a serious question to this group.
“I contend that voting for Trump will cause the U.S. to plunge into fascism.”
If you contend that, then you have been brainwashed. What you have been witnessing under the Democrats is well on the way to fascism. DOJ threatening parents who dare to oppose school boards attempting to glamorize and promote transsexual fads. Government pressure on social media platforms to suppress dissent. The insane climate-change edicts. The Jan. 6 kangaroo trials, while the BLM rioting went essentially unaddressed. Using the criminal justice system to stop political opponents, mainly Trump. The completely captive news media covering Democratic scandals. Illegal use of the President’s executive order and emergency powers.
You’ve been fed the Big Lies about Trump being some kind of Monster-Hitler-Super Villain, but in his first 4 years as President, nothing suggests either that proclivity or such a threat.
He’s an asshole, and a lot of his allies and supporters are untrustworthy and extreme. (And Obama sucked up to Al Sharpton). No question, the guy is too impulsive and undisciplined to be a President anyone can feel good about, but your fear is just proof that 8 years of relentless propaganda works. Trump’s worst conduct as POTUS, by far, was his handling of his loss in the pandemic-marred election. He was right to be suspicious, within his rights and duties to mount a legal challenge, and the election WAS “rigged” against him, though saying it was actually stolen goes way, way too far on the facts. Nevertheless, what he said, thought about, and supposedly “wanted to do” doesn’t make him Darth Vader.
I wish there was another alternative, but on one side you have a deeply flawed man who still showed that his instincts are well within historical ranges for a POTUS, and on the other you have an entire party that doesn’t respect democracy, opposes personal liberties, and will do anything to hold power, after which it will abuse it.
It’s an ugly choice, but also an easy one.
Nope. 2 words — Project 2025. A vote for Trump is a vote for THAT,
What is your objection to Project 2025?
I go into detail in a good faith effort to answer your question, and your response is “Nope”? I resent that; do better, or expect to be ignored. A response that is substantive and in good faith would have to be about TRUMP, not a conservative policy group. The Heritage Foundation is not a fascist organization, and conservatives aren’t fascists. “Dismantling the administrative state” may be too extreme, but it is the opposite of fascism, and has been a conservative goal going back decades. Trump has relied on the Heritage Foundation when dealing with things he knows nothing about, like the law, but he’s no puppet of the group. Trump isn’t even really a conservative. Project 2025 isn’t Trump, and it isn’t fascist. Otherwise, good answer!
Do better.
Sorry. If you don’t believe that Trump is and will be a puppet of conservative policy groups (you yourself said that he isn’t even really a conservative) then my answers will always disappoint you, much to my dismay. He was a puppet during his administration (I’m sorry — has that word and any version of that word, e.g., administrative, become heresy?) of McConnell and his ilk. And if he relies on organizations such as Heritage because of THINGS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT (which ought to scare anyone), then he absolutely will rely on their manifesto (term used deliberately).
And specifically about P2025, their own website states “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” This includes the firing of hundreds, maybe thousands, of personnel in favor of appointed toadies, who will be expected to spew the party manifesto at every opportunity, even if there are better qualified people for the positions who don’t salute the Project 2025 flag. Hmm. Delightful. And, I’m sorry, but as a writer. I am sensitive to words and wording — their use of the term “army” leaves me somewhat concerned.
And that’s just to start.
but back to the fascism thingy…. First define fascism… Second demonstrate behavioral tendencies toward fascism… Inquiring minds want to know!
Bad start, though. McConnell? Trump has never been in thrall to McConnell; the opposite, if anything. Yes, Trump had his hack wife in his Cabinet to keep Mitch in line, but Trump is nobody’s puppet, and never has been. I wish he would listen to someone else.
“The Heritage Foundation uses the word “army” [“a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose.”]. You must agree that seeing that as fascist intent is more than a little paranoid. Presidents don’t know everything, nor are they required to. Joe Biden was once a lawyer, but his blathering about the recent SCOTUS decision was worthy of an unschooled 7-11 clerk…or Trump.
Trump is no more and no less that a CEO type, a classic one. He does as president what has been successful for him as business. No, I don’t think the CEO type is a good match for the Presidency—neither is being a general, though some of our general/Presidents managed to be quite effective, notably Ike. But the fearmongering about Trump is and has always been a cheap and nasty ploy: the claims that he was going to be Hitler started right after the 2016 election. Why would you think it has any more validity now? It has less, obviously.
I can’t stand the man; I wish almost anyone was running against Biden. But my fear of his harming democracy in any way is zero. Zero. My fear of his opposition, however, harming democracy in its desperation to stop him is in the red zone.
Chill out, my friend.
So what about Project 2025 is scary? The idea that Trump might replace an army of liberals committed to the Administrative State with an army of conservatives? At worst, it’s simply hypocritical (bureaucracy is bad unless conservatives are the bureaucrats!) and at best it’s removing unelected powermongers and putting their power back where it belongs–with an elected legislative body.
Exactly; the overblown fiction that Trump is a “fascist” flies in the face of reality. Obama greatly increased the bureaucratic state. Trump made reducing regulations a campaign issue, and somewhat succeeded (in the face of democrat and bureaucratic resistance), while Biden resumed his master’s drive to rule by state dictat.
Never mind that for years now most all of the persistent brownshirt-style activities have been by minions of the left, “Occupy”, Antifa, BLM, anti-semitic Hamasses, etc., and encouraged by their political leaders’ calls to “confront” judges and others in public, and to dox and deplatform those with whom they disagree.
But yeah, Trump is the fascist.
https://johnkassnews.com/what-would-we-do-without-democrats/
I would suggest that you don’t know what fascism is. Fascism, or corporatism, is a system of socialism where the government implements their policies through the control of corporations. Corporatist governments try to minimize small businesses and promote large conglomerates because they are easier to control. A corporatist government would use and emergency to shut down and destroy small businesses while promoting competing large corporations to supplant them. Think about what happened during COVID-19 when small businesses were shuttered, but large corporations allowed to stay open (small hardware stores bad, Lowes and Home Depot good). Think about California that decided that family lawn services were too dangerous because people who live in the same house would be traveling together in the same vehicle, but big lawn companies, where unrelated people traveled together to work on a crew was fine. Think about the fact that Christian churches were specifically targeted for shutdown. In Nevada, a church tried to get around the ban by renting space in a casino. The court ruled that the space cold be used for x amount of people for non-religious activity, but not x amount of people in a Christian church service. The great Ruth Bader Ginsberg voted in favor of that measure. Corporatists hate all sources of power independent of the government and Christian churches are the worst at that. Think about the pressure the government has placed on all tech companies to censor speech. Only one tech oligarch refused and only one tech oligarch has 50+ government agencies suing him. That is how corporatism works. Who implemented these policies? It wasn’t Trump. It was the Democratic Party and the bureaucracy. If you support them, you support fascism.
So, stop this nonsense that Trump is a fascist. There is no evidence and all the people saying it are Democrats. The key tenet of Democrats is “Always accuse you opponents of what YOU are actually doing”.
I would suggest that you don’t know what fascism is.
My diagnosis as well.
Paid Democratic Party Operative Alert! Talking point broadcaster. Do not engage! You’d be better spending your time trying to convince your cat of something.
Untrue, and Jack knows it.
You mean you’ve voluntarily reduced yourself to a parody … without compensation? For free?
Ouch..
jvb
I do, but I have to admit, it took me a while. My fault. I’m tired. I have a cold, I need more sleep, I’m jetlagged, I used to stutter, and am having a bad day….
Nononono. I know who this is, and it is far from a talking point mouthpiece, but a longtime EA commenter under a new screen name.
“a longtime EA commenter under a new screen name.”
Gadzooks! The plot thickens….I have an idea who it is.
PWS
The Encyclopedia Britannica:
There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment. Some find fascism deeply irrational, whereas others are impressed with the rationality with which it served the material interests of its supporters. Similarly, some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others emphasize the rational ways in which these demonologies were used to perpetuate professional or class advantages. Finally, whereas some consider fascism to be motivated primarily by its aspirations—by a desire for cultural “regeneration” and the creation of a “new man”—others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on its fear of communist revolution and even of left-centrist electoral victories.
Then the term is basically useless, since it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Or at most it means “politician I don’t like.”
On the other hand, if that’s all it means, then I have no objection to it being used as a description of Trump….Is “fascist” like “racist” now? Maybe.
I was trying to summarize the definition that Gentile gave. Gentile was Mussolini’s man to try to popularize this new government/economic system. Gentile didn’t like fascism, he preferred corporatism because he thought it was more descriptive. FDR loved it and sent his top people to study under Mussolini. The NRA was heavily influenced by Mussolini’s teachings.
I’m working, but in a different way. I’m prepping for our 20th anniversary trip which will be exploring Civil War battlefields next week. I’m greatly looking forward to it; however, packing, holding mail, notifying financial providers that I will be traveling and not to decline me at a gas station, getting laundry caught up, etc, is somewhat taxing.
I’m rather tired of the media making this about Donald Trump. Let’s just pretend that the President’s opponent is a fit 40-year old man who is as nice as Fred Rogers and doesn’t know what Twitter/X is. In that situation, is President Biden’s health a concern or not?
Have a wonderful trip. I wish that, when I was younger, I had been able to do some of that. I am frequently in awe of the men on both sides who fought those battles.
Reading accounts of how the two armies interacted I think gives you a glimpse into why we were able to come together afterwards as a nation without a perpetual rebellion simmering under the surface. Of course Lincoln, Lee, Grant had major roles in shaping evens to make that happen.
Whenever I hear the national anthem, my thoughts usually turn to what it must have been like in the battle that night. One of many inspirational episodes in our history.
Which battlefields?
I have a few thoughts on Trump v. United States.
Core presidential powers (signing, vetoing, pardoning, commutating, nominating, firing) are absolutely outside the control of Congress.
As such, arguing that a President’s pardon is obstruction of justice, or signing legislation later found unconstitutional is conspiracy against rights, is foreclosed by Trump v. United States. And this is right.
But what about other official acts, which are presumptively covered by immunity. What sort of test should courts use to determine if the alleged act overcomes this presumption?
I believe the proper test is the one enumerated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). In Harlow, immunity applies unless the alleged conduct violates “clearly established” law id. at 818. The lower courts did not decide what kind of test to use, and it was proper for SCOTUS to vacate and remand so the lower courts will have a chance to decide what test is appropriate.
As such, to quote an example posted by this Reason.com commenter (verbatim, including misspellings) , an argument that the President ordering “the Army to round up Gazan girls and confine them in rape camps like the ones that existed in the Yugoslave Civil War” violates the law of war would pass the Harlow test, because setting up rape camps does violate clearly established laws of war.
https://reason.com/2024/07/03/bidens-litany-of-excuses/?comments=true#comment-10626630
However, an argument that arming an allied state makes the President complicit in any war crimes committed by that allied state is in no way clearly established, and fails the Harlow test. And this is important. I am sure there is a Hamasshole fanboi serving as a prosecutor somewhere who would charge FJB for complicity in genocide.
Ordering a law enforcement investigation does not violate clearly established law, while ordering perjury or forgery most certainly does.
To get off this Trump Derangement Train, I would like to reevaluate the Claudine Gay at Harvard incident. There was a lot to that and I think the most far-reaching points were lost in the Anti-Semitism/ Racial discrimination/ DEI aspect of it.
When I look at the incident, I see it as a case of academic theft far worse than plagiarism. In plagiarism, a person uses the words of another person as their own. Although Claudine Gay did this, I believe her academic crime was far worse. She and the academic community conspired to steal the academic legacy of Carol Swain.
You will have to forgive me because the racial-studies field is not my field, so what I have pieced together comes from things other people have said. However, even Carol Swain’s enemies acknowledge her contributions to the field, so I think her supporters are probably not overestimating her importance that much.
Carol Swain published several books including Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration, and Be the People: A Call to Reclaim America’s Faith and Promise. She also edited Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism. I am assuming there are a lot of academic papers that came from this material as well. As her career progressed, Swain went from a typical liberal to a moderate conservative. She became more critical of the country’s racial and social policies and saw them as detrimental to black Americans. This resulted in calls for her ouster as a racist by students in 2015 and the pressure forced her out of academia in 2017.
For the leftist academia, so far so good. However, much of her field cited her research. Well, since she is now an apostate, everything Carol Swain did is not verboten. So, how do you use the essential parts of Carol Swain without citing Carol Swain? In academica, ideas have to have a source. Either they are your original idea or you cite the person who came up with the idea you are using. Carol Swain’s work was the foundation of a lot of academic ideas, you can’t just pull that foundation away without replacing it. Enter Claudine Gay. Claudine Gay was a black student with the right background. She went to the right elite private schools and was surrounded by the ruling class elites most of her life. She might not have been the best type of student, but she was the right type of student. Her dissertation plagiarized much of Swain’s early work (the stuff the racial-studies people still want to cite). Her papers plagiarized the same works. Why and How?
Well, it isn’t like Carol Swain was unknown. Her faculty adviser had to be completely aware that these were Carol Swain’s ideas and words. The faculty on the dissertation committee and the peer-review groups definitely knew of Carol Swain and her work. It is implausible that they didn’t recognize it. I am proposing that this was on purpose. By letting or encouraging Claudine Gay to plagiarize Carol Swain, academia found a way to use Carol Swains intellectual work without citing Carol Swain, they could now cite Claudine Gay! So they stole Carol Swain’s academic career and transferred it to Claudine Gay, avoiding the embarrassment of having a foundation poured by an apostate.
You might wonder how I came to this interpretation of the incident. Well, I watched some Eric Weinstein videos where he talks about how Harvard works. One of the ideas he put forth is that Harvard determines who gets credit for discoveries. Then he talked about what Harvard did to him. In a nutshell, he discovered something that was too important to attribute to someone like him. So, they exiled him from Harvard (like they did Barack Obama, Sr.) and gave the discovery to someone more ‘worthy’ of the honor. His wife was likewise washed out of Harvard because her work would have exposed how the CPI has been rigged to save the government a lot of money. With those ideas in mind, I saw the Claudine Gay incident in a different light.
What do you think about my interpretation? What does this mean for academia? How many other cases of this are there?
1. Spot on.
2. It means its is fatally corrupt, and Harvard is the fish head rotting down to the body.
3. Too many to count.
Thank you. When I see things like this and no one else is saying it, I wonder if I am reading too much into it. I also wonder if it is just my pessimism and frustration of dealing with academia today. I wonder if I am just becoming a crotchety old coot at this point or if things really are this bad.
OK, I could be becoming a crotchety old coot and things could ALSO be this bad.
Nice work, Michael. Well researched. Thanks. I need to look up this Carol Swain woman.
I also like the term “academica.” Makes it sound like a corrupt foreign country, a Caribbean banana republic.
That was a typo, but I like it.
Ah! That’s who she is. Remarkable. Pulled herself up by her bootstraps. Can’t have that.
Yes, that is why people like Claudine Gay get to be president of Harvard and a bunch of wealthy leftist children get to push Carol Swain out of her job. Caludine Gay is ‘Carol Swain we have at home’.
The Left wing establishment is in full panic mode. AND PANICKING CREATURES DON’T THINK CLEARLY. (H/T Michael West)
Former Mayor Dave Cieslewicz (or to quote a local firebrand raconteur, former Mayor BikeShorts) throws away the cheatin’ amoral, fascist mask in his current Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos blog post NEXT when he responds to Rep. Jim Clyburn’s suggestion that Lefty could craft a “mini-primary” system which “is fair to everybody.”
Quoth he: YIKES AT_THIS_POINT_I_DON’T_CARE_IF_THER_SYSTEM_IS_FAIR (bolds/caps/italics mine)
Please feel free to visit and weigh in…
PWS
This guy’s slip is seriously showing here:
“Most importantly for a Democratic Party whose elites are obsessed with race and gender, identity should be ignored unless it plays a role in winning and losing. If being a Black woman makes it easier to win, great, nominate the Black woman. If it hurts more than it helps then don’t nominate her.”
The new governing model of the Dems appears to be “government by cabal.” “Who are these guys?”
This guy is also hilariously spouting the new Dem talking point that “the party has a deep bench.” And then he leads with a photo of Pistol Pete Buttigieg. Hah!
This guy’ response to Senator Snort, er, Senator Clyburn reminds me of my favorite big law firm cartoon: A middle-aged, go-getter partner is sitting behind his desk talking to an associate or younger partner who’s sitting across the desk from him in a client chair. The junior guy is goggle-eyed as the more senior guy says to him, “Is it right? Is it fair? Get a grip, Hopkins, this is a law firm!”
By the way, I think what Clyburn is saying is code for, “You honkies sure as hell better nominate Kamala.”
Honestly, if I was a Democrat, I’d be on board with a Democrat president and Republican Vice-President. As for him openly advocating “meetings behind closed doors”, I can see his point that the reason the Dems are in this position right now is precisely because there are no smart power-brokers at the wheel. Heck, during Trump’s first run for president, I recall our host saying the Republicans should’ve done a better job to make sure he never got the nomination.
I don’t begrudge the Democrats for wanting to win elections. I don’t expect Biden, Harris, and the heads of the mainstream media will go on TV wearing sackcloth and ashes saying “We made this mess ourselves, and have lost our way. Not only will we not run Biden for a second term, we will not run ANY presidential candidate this term. We will sit out this presidential election and use the time to reflect and counsel with each other on how we have gone astray.”
I totally agree that Biden shouldn’t run again, and at this point I don’t trust whoever they might replace him with to not be beholden to the radical progressive agenda, but to stop Biden from running, and get someone who actually has a chance of winning may require some machine-style politics.
Well, I can see why he might want a Republican as VP, but Condaleeza Rice? Give me a break. If you’re going to get someone solely because she’s a woman and black, heck why not pick Candace Owens? Besides which, I thought he already discarded the identity politics mold.
On the other hand, it’s his fantasy, I guess he gets to fantasize to his heart’s content. Not much of a basis in reality to this column, in my opinion.
To Cieslewicz’s credit, and to my eternal shock, my comment actually made it out of moderation.
PWS
For something a little different: A fictional ethics question (paraphrased from a novel):
In a feudal sort of society, a worker is murdered, and with his last breath, says that three of his coworkers attacked him. He has four coworkers, all of whom claim to be the innocent one, of course, and no amount of investigation is able to establish the truth. The king suggests that they all should be hanged, as letting three murderers loose in society is ultimately worse than allowing the death of one innocent.
Would this be the right or wrong ethical decision? Would it be unknowable? What would be some alternatives?
It depends on the ethics of your society. In Post-Enlightenment Western European society, we have decided that is it unethical to knowingly punish an innocent person like that. I am sure there are many societies on earth where the opposite is true.
For older societies, it would depend on the class of the person. In Celtic societies, a person’s class dictated their weregeld. The weregeld was the amount of money their family was to be paid if they were accidentally killed. It also determined how valuable your testimony was in court. They used to add up the weregeld of the witnesses and the side with a larger amount won. A royal official of Alfred the Great was abusing the people. He thought he was unassailable because he was noble (750 hide weregeld) and his weregeld was doubled because he was a king’s official. Well, a bunch of common people (20 hides each) showed up and overwhelmed his weregeld in court and got him hanged. Using the weregeld concept, the dying man’s (20 hides) testimony would be overruled by the 4 suspects’ testimony (4×20 hides), so no one would be hanged.
OK, I guess if all 4 of them testified that the other 3 did it, the result for each on would be 3 testimonies for guild and 1 against. The weregeld analysis would result in all 4 found guilty.
https://x.com/chuckrossdc/status/1810734415821295917