But you left out the profound, EXTREMELY VALID resentment every conservative shares regarding the improper handling and securing of email communications by female presidential candidates. Surely you did not deliberately mean to omit a condemnation of behavior that posed the gravest of threats to our democracy.
Oh, if only the "I was just planning to write my memoirs!" excuse had been available, but it would take six more years of research by experts in the field of excuse-making to develop that one.
Although I must admit I would get great pleasure out of watching the usual suspects try to pitch that notion. A few of them may discover they still possess some residual shame.
About two weeks ago, Trump was talking about one of the 10,000 ways he was being treated "unfairly." I forget which one. But for a second he paused, and you could see the thought balloon appear over his head, reading "TELL THE NEXT LIE." He said, "I'm writing a book about it." The idea that Trump, who never reads, could write anything longer than his name, is science fiction. But for some reason no one pointed that out at the time.
It was the first time I'd heard him emit that particular lie. What next? "I'm writing an opera about it," perhaps.
TBF, it's more likely Libretto by Donald Trump's Ghostwriter, Score by Metallica, Warren Zevon, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sly and the Family Stone, The Smiths, and Whoever Else Kid Rock Samples the Bulk of His Songs From.
Up here in the Adirondacks we're countin' the Trump '24 bumper stickers and flags(!) not just to document the comparative political identities of the locals but also to see of which biker bar to steer clear...because in this little town-ish outpost there is precious little in the form of other accommodations and/or services...even the kayak launch sites are abandoned due to the drought.
So I'll reconnoiter the bar and maybe steal some peanuts to keep us going til we drag ourselves back to what we laughingly refer to as civilization.
Yeah. If only I could get it to deliver a pizza...
On a slightly more destructive but not painful note, was riding my bicycle deep in the woods today when I snapped the frame's down tube straight thru. Performed a managed deceleration and dismounted with aplomb. Then used a couple toe straps to bind it together-ish for the remainder of the ride back to town. It was noodly but coulda been worse...
I’m trying to understand the purpose of these poorly argued right wing op-eds in the NYT. Do the editors want to expose the tired both-sideism of a Rich Lowry? Or are they hoping this will convince their readers that Democrats are as bad as Republicans? The comments show no one is fooled by Lowry’s sophistry; the refutations of his argument are detailed and thorough. Whatever the editors’ intention, Mr. Tingle Down My Leg has another reason to believe they’ll buy any stupid crap in their quest to seem balanced.
Yeah, it was starbursts, but Roy’s turn of phrase is more accurate. I mean, I don’t think of fruit flavored candy when I look at my pin-ups of Caribou Barbie.
I noticed the comments as well. If even the Very Sensible Centrists see through it, what purpose does this serve? It’s like the editors are on autopilot while the republic burns.
One thing about the Times' editors: They think (probably correctly) that they're set for life no matter how this turns out. Surely the rampaging mobs won't penetrate as far as the upper west side of Manhattan, so they're free to treat this all as simply One More Source of Content.
This. Or, to put it in Mad Magazine-like "N.Y. Times Mottoes We'd Like to See" terms: "The New York Times. As Republicans Attempt to Destroy American Democracy, We Won't Do Anything to Help Stop It. But We'll Cover It."
Some journalists think that this is exactly what they should do, to avoid biassing the facts they report by involvement. As a sometime-scientist, I can sympathise, as nothing tilts human observation as well as wanting one thing to happen rather than another, and few things create that desire so well as having worked toward that end—e.g., making people sacrifice a lot for something and they're likely to believe that it must have been worth it.
In less dangerous times, and in less dangerous matters, this probably should be the ideal, but now and in this cleaving to it were doubly blind.
Agree. And that's entirely appropriate for journalists. (And scientists.) But we're talking here about running Rich Lowry's "Oh yeah? Well what about Monica Lewinsky?" op-ed. Not every opinion, or lame both-sides-ist column, is worth running in the NY Times. If the premise of your opinion is false, your opinion is irrelevant. And the opinion-page editor should decline to run it.
Of course this has nothing to do with helping defend American democracy. But, having fumbled coverage of Trump's mendacity for the first 3 years of his administration, the Times is now fumbling the rise of fascism in the GOP--of which, Lowry's op-ed is a typical example.
I have said and still believe that the Times disease is a belief that as the "paper of record" they should play that double-blind role no matter what -- even though, as the paper's recently re-exhumed gentle coverage of 30s Hitler shows, there ain't no such thing.
I'm trying to figure out the scientific equivalent of this sort of thing, it's like some ignoramus blunders into your lab, smashing all the glassware, angrily demanding this his crackpot "theories" be given equal weight with the carefully arrived-at results of real scientists who have been working patiently for years. Nobody needs to stretch objectivity that far, I think.
"stretch objectivity that far" = YES. Exactly. Also, "I thought you libs believed in free speech!" We do. We also believe in editing the fucking op-ed page to keep it free of specious crap.
"Tingle Down My Leg" is exactly what a Times editor feels when he publishes shit like this. "Oooh, I've been a NAUGHTY boy! I deserve to be CANCELLED!"
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
The NYT Editorial Board basically agrees with Lowry that Trump should not be charged with any crimes. They've published several other op eds with the same premise.
"Now, now, let's not get so worked up about things, the last time I checked, the ferry to Martha's Vineyard was still running" has a long and honored tradition at the Times.
I think they're tremendously proud of their decision to print this crap, and they get prouder and prouder the more people like you and me criticize them. It's a gesture in the direction of open-mindedness and fair play, made by people for whom gestures are all that matter, because nothing important is ever at stake.
That's why it's so great that I get to read the Edroso version, no clicks given to those click-hungry fuckers at the Times, plus it's way more honest in saying what Lowry actually thinks.
I didn't read Lowry's piece in the Times so I'm grateful (🙏🏻) that Roy reprinted it today.
But seriously... I'd love to know how this came to be published by the Times -- not the "reason" for public consumption but the rationale(s) that led to its publication. I mean, I get the idea of exposing a variety of opinions and all this but even given that, the Lowry piece seemed let's say questionable.
History-wise, though, an influential, or at least armed and violent anarchism is baked into the nation's founding. Starts with a commercial elite that wants no gummint inference in their efforts to accumulate wealth so you get the Articles of Confederation which is so weak that it doesn't create enough of a central state to pay off Revolutionary War debts to creditors. So that's corrected by the Constitution which still provides minimal central government but at least the war creditors can get paid (troops not so much for reasons I'm too tired to go into; see, too, Shay's Rebellion).
But the tell is in the nation's name, United States -- states like mini-nations that want their independence including from a central government. You know, emphasis on "States", with "United" being ignored as best as possible and soon after the Constitution gets passed and a central government formed, we get the Whiskey Rebellion.
In other words, such violent tendencies as referenced in Roy's post today have, like, an excess of actual heritage and stuff.
And for those who've bothered to read this rant, two treats.
The search warrant application and affidavit for that lawless FBI Deep State raid of Trump's home, redacted:
Yeah, I skipped right over it when I saw Lowry's name. I'm glad I can get the gist of it from Roy without giving the Times the clicks they so obviously and desperately want.
Based on their output, I can divine the process the Times follows. Here is an opinion on a current event of historical significance. The author is the publisher of an influential conservative journal, whose views represent a significant number of citizens, intellectuals, politicians, and policy makers. Therefore, we must publish it.
Note the lack of an editorial step. A review of the self-contadicting, ahistorical, mendacious bullshit content might generate a discussion on rights and responsibilities, and that could lead to some very uncomfortable encounters at Martha's Vineyard and a stern talking-to from the publisher. That wouldn't do.
No, that would be the reasoning provided to the public.
The mystery to me is whether anyone saw the piece as idiotic bullshit and seeing it as that made what case for publishing?
Of course they’d play the alternative perspective bullshit but I wonder if there wasn’t more because the piece is that stupid. I mean, if they want conservative stupidity, they have Douthat, Brooks and Stephen’s for that.
I don’t know. Is mystery. Like why the MSM ignores what did and did not lead up to the FBI raid of Mar-A-Lago and instead work to puff up Donnie’s meritless case.
Man, the older one gets, the fewer things make sense — unless it’s dementia coming…
The headline of op ed is easy to answer: Yes, I can imagine what it would look like if the FBI investigated a Democrat. In fact, I don’t have imagine it, I only have to cast my memory back to 2016. Even more recently, former Dem Rep TJ Cox was indicted on several counts of fraud. AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TOOK TO THE STREETS!!! Right? Didn’t they?
I remember how after 9-11, one of the first Bush-Cheney responses was to get a bunch of lawyers together to come up with a justification for torture.
Do they talk about this shit at the meetings of the local Republican klaverns?
" Okay, Tim's going to have the schedule for everyone working the booth at the County Fair this year and Betty, you're going to talk to John down at the Derby Diner about having our Fall prayer breakfast there again this year. You tell him to make sure he's got plenty of that sausage gravy ready! Ray is going to go ahead and order the commemorative bricks for the sidewalk at the Veterans Park downtown and John , you were going to call all the elementary school teachers and threaten to rape and kill their children. I think that's it for this month's meeting. There's Kool-Aid and cupcakes in the kitchen! everybody!
Look, when a guy's simultaneously the target of an election-fixing investigation in Georgia, a tax-fraud case in New York and an espionage case on Florida, there's just GOT to be a conspiracy against him, right? Are we really supposed to believe that ONE MAN could be engaged in such a wide range of criminal activities, all at the same time? Unpossible!
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
On the other hand... Jamelle Bouie reminds us that, back in the 1870's, the Times editors were firmly on the side of "I'm sure if we just overlook Klan terrorism and let rampaging White mobs have their way, things will eventually settle down and everything will be OK."
> rioters who destroyed all American cities with a population of 500,000
…, yet that is where you godless, grooming, hook-nosed elitists continue exclusively to live! Yes, you live in places THAT DO NOT EXIST, either Satanic magic is at work (many savage shaman were CROSS-DRESSERS) or you are not real people…but the latter was obvious all along, anyway, and we'll get to dispelling the ILLUSION that you live, by-and-by.
Fair enough, but I meant it in the usual sense: transvestism, with or without gender-noncomformance, is up there in the Shaman Toolkit with hallucinogenic plants and fungi.
"by Susan Collins"
A dead Democrat is a Democrat who has learned his lesson.
Add "wring my hands" to "purse my lips" and you've got it.
Another banger, Roy.
But you left out the profound, EXTREMELY VALID resentment every conservative shares regarding the improper handling and securing of email communications by female presidential candidates. Surely you did not deliberately mean to omit a condemnation of behavior that posed the gravest of threats to our democracy.
Oh, if only the "I was just planning to write my memoirs!" excuse had been available, but it would take six more years of research by experts in the field of excuse-making to develop that one.
With a Sharpie.
Although I must admit I would get great pleasure out of watching the usual suspects try to pitch that notion. A few of them may discover they still possess some residual shame.
About two weeks ago, Trump was talking about one of the 10,000 ways he was being treated "unfairly." I forget which one. But for a second he paused, and you could see the thought balloon appear over his head, reading "TELL THE NEXT LIE." He said, "I'm writing a book about it." The idea that Trump, who never reads, could write anything longer than his name, is science fiction. But for some reason no one pointed that out at the time.
It was the first time I'd heard him emit that particular lie. What next? "I'm writing an opera about it," perhaps.
Libretto by Donald J. Trump, score by Kid Rock. Epic!
TBF, it's more likely Libretto by Donald Trump's Ghostwriter, Score by Metallica, Warren Zevon, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sly and the Family Stone, The Smiths, and Whoever Else Kid Rock Samples the Bulk of His Songs From.
There are already written books supposedly authored by Donald Trump
scarily accurate right-wing-think.
Up here in the Adirondacks we're countin' the Trump '24 bumper stickers and flags(!) not just to document the comparative political identities of the locals but also to see of which biker bar to steer clear...because in this little town-ish outpost there is precious little in the form of other accommodations and/or services...even the kayak launch sites are abandoned due to the drought.
So I'll reconnoiter the bar and maybe steal some peanuts to keep us going til we drag ourselves back to what we laughingly refer to as civilization.
At least we got 5g...
Glad to hear Biden's Rural Broadband initiative is going to something other than faster delivery of Plandemic videos to the gun-fondlers.
Yeah. If only I could get it to deliver a pizza...
On a slightly more destructive but not painful note, was riding my bicycle deep in the woods today when I snapped the frame's down tube straight thru. Performed a managed deceleration and dismounted with aplomb. Then used a couple toe straps to bind it together-ish for the remainder of the ride back to town. It was noodly but coulda been worse...
I’m trying to understand the purpose of these poorly argued right wing op-eds in the NYT. Do the editors want to expose the tired both-sideism of a Rich Lowry? Or are they hoping this will convince their readers that Democrats are as bad as Republicans? The comments show no one is fooled by Lowry’s sophistry; the refutations of his argument are detailed and thorough. Whatever the editors’ intention, Mr. Tingle Down My Leg has another reason to believe they’ll buy any stupid crap in their quest to seem balanced.
"Mr. Trickle Down My Leg"?
I believe it was "little starbursts" but same thing, really.
Yeah, it was starbursts, but Roy’s turn of phrase is more accurate. I mean, I don’t think of fruit flavored candy when I look at my pin-ups of Caribou Barbie.
The "trickle down" theory validated at last!
I noticed the comments as well. If even the Very Sensible Centrists see through it, what purpose does this serve? It’s like the editors are on autopilot while the republic burns.
One thing about the Times' editors: They think (probably correctly) that they're set for life no matter how this turns out. Surely the rampaging mobs won't penetrate as far as the upper west side of Manhattan, so they're free to treat this all as simply One More Source of Content.
This. Or, to put it in Mad Magazine-like "N.Y. Times Mottoes We'd Like to See" terms: "The New York Times. As Republicans Attempt to Destroy American Democracy, We Won't Do Anything to Help Stop It. But We'll Cover It."
Some journalists think that this is exactly what they should do, to avoid biassing the facts they report by involvement. As a sometime-scientist, I can sympathise, as nothing tilts human observation as well as wanting one thing to happen rather than another, and few things create that desire so well as having worked toward that end—e.g., making people sacrifice a lot for something and they're likely to believe that it must have been worth it.
In less dangerous times, and in less dangerous matters, this probably should be the ideal, but now and in this cleaving to it were doubly blind.
Agree. And that's entirely appropriate for journalists. (And scientists.) But we're talking here about running Rich Lowry's "Oh yeah? Well what about Monica Lewinsky?" op-ed. Not every opinion, or lame both-sides-ist column, is worth running in the NY Times. If the premise of your opinion is false, your opinion is irrelevant. And the opinion-page editor should decline to run it.
Of course this has nothing to do with helping defend American democracy. But, having fumbled coverage of Trump's mendacity for the first 3 years of his administration, the Times is now fumbling the rise of fascism in the GOP--of which, Lowry's op-ed is a typical example.
I have said and still believe that the Times disease is a belief that as the "paper of record" they should play that double-blind role no matter what -- even though, as the paper's recently re-exhumed gentle coverage of 30s Hitler shows, there ain't no such thing.
They’re still fumbling much more than they’re not. And the rest of the MSM is likely worse,
I'm trying to figure out the scientific equivalent of this sort of thing, it's like some ignoramus blunders into your lab, smashing all the glassware, angrily demanding this his crackpot "theories" be given equal weight with the carefully arrived-at results of real scientists who have been working patiently for years. Nobody needs to stretch objectivity that far, I think.
"stretch objectivity that far" = YES. Exactly. Also, "I thought you libs believed in free speech!" We do. We also believe in editing the fucking op-ed page to keep it free of specious crap.
"Tingle Down My Leg" is exactly what a Times editor feels when he publishes shit like this. "Oooh, I've been a NAUGHTY boy! I deserve to be CANCELLED!"
The NYT Editorial Board basically agrees with Lowry that Trump should not be charged with any crimes. They've published several other op eds with the same premise.
"Now, now, let's not get so worked up about things, the last time I checked, the ferry to Martha's Vineyard was still running" has a long and honored tradition at the Times.
Ah, so they ran the Lowry piece so their editorials would look better in comparison.
I think they're tremendously proud of their decision to print this crap, and they get prouder and prouder the more people like you and me criticize them. It's a gesture in the direction of open-mindedness and fair play, made by people for whom gestures are all that matter, because nothing important is ever at stake.
Clicks? Views? Engagement?
That's why it's so great that I get to read the Edroso version, no clicks given to those click-hungry fuckers at the Times, plus it's way more honest in saying what Lowry actually thinks.
The tired both-sideism is their own as well...
I didn't read Lowry's piece in the Times so I'm grateful (🙏🏻) that Roy reprinted it today.
But seriously... I'd love to know how this came to be published by the Times -- not the "reason" for public consumption but the rationale(s) that led to its publication. I mean, I get the idea of exposing a variety of opinions and all this but even given that, the Lowry piece seemed let's say questionable.
History-wise, though, an influential, or at least armed and violent anarchism is baked into the nation's founding. Starts with a commercial elite that wants no gummint inference in their efforts to accumulate wealth so you get the Articles of Confederation which is so weak that it doesn't create enough of a central state to pay off Revolutionary War debts to creditors. So that's corrected by the Constitution which still provides minimal central government but at least the war creditors can get paid (troops not so much for reasons I'm too tired to go into; see, too, Shay's Rebellion).
But the tell is in the nation's name, United States -- states like mini-nations that want their independence including from a central government. You know, emphasis on "States", with "United" being ignored as best as possible and soon after the Constitution gets passed and a central government formed, we get the Whiskey Rebellion.
In other words, such violent tendencies as referenced in Roy's post today have, like, an excess of actual heritage and stuff.
And for those who've bothered to read this rant, two treats.
The search warrant application and affidavit for that lawless FBI Deep State raid of Trump's home, redacted:
https://scontent-lga3-2.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/300264499_628143325551610_492056857910277885_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_e35_s750x750_sh0.08&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=110&_nc_ohc=Gx08KpKVkVIAX9eZzkL&edm=ALQROFkBAAAA&ccb=7-5&ig_cache_key=MjkxMDE1MDAwNjU1MzU3NDc3OQ%3D%3D.2-ccb7-5&oh=00_AT_heZ85HL-rL8idgAp4s8_aHthttlZqB_bxoDnHzNjU2A&oe=630B3D50&_nc_sid=30a2ef
And not speaking of Tucker Carlson, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU83uKgW610
Yeah, I skipped right over it when I saw Lowry's name. I'm glad I can get the gist of it from Roy without giving the Times the clicks they so obviously and desperately want.
Based on their output, I can divine the process the Times follows. Here is an opinion on a current event of historical significance. The author is the publisher of an influential conservative journal, whose views represent a significant number of citizens, intellectuals, politicians, and policy makers. Therefore, we must publish it.
Note the lack of an editorial step. A review of the self-contadicting, ahistorical, mendacious bullshit content might generate a discussion on rights and responsibilities, and that could lead to some very uncomfortable encounters at Martha's Vineyard and a stern talking-to from the publisher. That wouldn't do.
No, that would be the reasoning provided to the public.
The mystery to me is whether anyone saw the piece as idiotic bullshit and seeing it as that made what case for publishing?
Of course they’d play the alternative perspective bullshit but I wonder if there wasn’t more because the piece is that stupid. I mean, if they want conservative stupidity, they have Douthat, Brooks and Stephen’s for that.
I don’t know. Is mystery. Like why the MSM ignores what did and did not lead up to the FBI raid of Mar-A-Lago and instead work to puff up Donnie’s meritless case.
Man, the older one gets, the fewer things make sense — unless it’s dementia coming…
Was going to post slightly droll response about dementia. Controlled myself. Was hard.
Then I forgot about it.
Yeah I always knew the Flaming Flounders spelled "Untied" wrong.
The headline of op ed is easy to answer: Yes, I can imagine what it would look like if the FBI investigated a Democrat. In fact, I don’t have imagine it, I only have to cast my memory back to 2016. Even more recently, former Dem Rep TJ Cox was indicted on several counts of fraud. AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TOOK TO THE STREETS!!! Right? Didn’t they?
Well, they would have if the
lamestream media had reported it.
I'm old enough to remember the John Edwards Riots of 2011.
and the William Jefferson freezer riots of 2009
Snuffy Smith erasure in the first paragraph!
Strong stuff. Nicely done.
I remember how after 9-11, one of the first Bush-Cheney responses was to get a bunch of lawyers together to come up with a justification for torture.
Do they talk about this shit at the meetings of the local Republican klaverns?
" Okay, Tim's going to have the schedule for everyone working the booth at the County Fair this year and Betty, you're going to talk to John down at the Derby Diner about having our Fall prayer breakfast there again this year. You tell him to make sure he's got plenty of that sausage gravy ready! Ray is going to go ahead and order the commemorative bricks for the sidewalk at the Veterans Park downtown and John , you were going to call all the elementary school teachers and threaten to rape and kill their children. I think that's it for this month's meeting. There's Kool-Aid and cupcakes in the kitchen! everybody!
Look, when a guy's simultaneously the target of an election-fixing investigation in Georgia, a tax-fraud case in New York and an espionage case on Florida, there's just GOT to be a conspiracy against him, right? Are we really supposed to believe that ONE MAN could be engaged in such a wide range of criminal activities, all at the same time? Unpossible!
On the other hand... Jamelle Bouie reminds us that, back in the 1870's, the Times editors were firmly on the side of "I'm sure if we just overlook Klan terrorism and let rampaging White mobs have their way, things will eventually settle down and everything will be OK."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-indictment.html
Eventually being OK only took 80 years and lasted like 40 years, but in the long view they were correct
Shorter GOP: "Now look what you MADE us do!"
"Illuminatus!" reference, or just astute?
In the case of the GOP, maybe Illuminotus is a more accurate spelling.
I see now what you lit up there.
Illuminatus! ref, of course fnord 😁
> rioters who destroyed all American cities with a population of 500,000
…, yet that is where you godless, grooming, hook-nosed elitists continue exclusively to live! Yes, you live in places THAT DO NOT EXIST, either Satanic magic is at work (many savage shaman were CROSS-DRESSERS) or you are not real people…but the latter was obvious all along, anyway, and we'll get to dispelling the ILLUSION that you live, by-and-by.
Yes, it enrages them that I continue to exist, calmly sippin' my latte even though the rioters burned down the Starbucks YEARS ago.
Luckily no city has a population of exactly 500,000
Just wait.
"many savage shaman were CROSS-DRESSERS"
Dressin' crosses since god was a pup!
Fair enough, but I meant it in the usual sense: transvestism, with or without gender-noncomformance, is up there in the Shaman Toolkit with hallucinogenic plants and fungi.
How did you get your hands on his first draft?
"the rioters who destroyed all American cities with a population of 500,000 or more"
I guess destroying cities and their evil inhabitants is a pleasure reserved for Republicans?
cough*NewOrleans*cough