I’m catching up on this late so have the benefit of hindsight but 1) iI agree about the biggest problem with Kamala yelling at protesters was that people loved it and 2)hindsight tells us she is listening to Uncomitted movement protestors and has since signaled a meaningful and substantive shift. Wow. Exciting times for lefty newsfuckers 💙💜❤️
1. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell did a good job of ripping the media, including MSNBC, for its miserable failures during Trumpy's Mar-a-Largo verbal diarrhea, including comparing them with clips of reporters literally shouting at Biden as he was trying to answer a question.
2. Al Jazeera "doomed?" I assume you meant Al Jazeera America, not the whole network.
3. I agree with you about the disturbing response to Harris's "I'm speaking" dismissal of protesters. Leaving aside the fact that contrary to the implication, "everyone's voice matters" does not mean everyone has an equal ability to be heard, the reality is that heckling politicians is a time-honored American tradition and if she can't deal with it, she should avoid public rallies.
4. You are utterly wrong that overturning the Chevron deference is a good thing. Not only is expanding Congressional staffs to cover all the work of regulatory agencies a pipe dream so potent you don't even know you're high, it would mean that every line of the sometimes hundreds of pages of regulations on each and every legislated topic would have to be included in the original law - meaning being subject to the entire legislative process, with even more opportunities than already exist for lobbyists and campaign contribution deals to work their magic. And any need for amendment because of new information would have to go through the same money-corrupted process.
5. Finally, in the paragraph starting "In a ten-year period," I assume the phrase "scammers posing" was supposed to read "people by posing." (That is, "people" or some appropriate alternative, so no going "You're wrong! I meant to say 'consumers!'")
1. Lawrence once asked me to marry him. I still wonder what if...
2. Since I worked at AJAM, you'd think I wouldn't fuck that up. But no. Fixed. Thanks.
3. I actually think she's dealt with it fairly well, I ascribe the specifics of what she said to in-the-moment frustration. I'd be a lot more perturbed if the standing position of the ticket was that anyone protesting is by definition a Trump supporter. Which, yeah, no.
4. I agree and have said before that tossing Chevron deference is bad, so my bad if I suggested otherwise. Merely trying to suggest that maybemaybe a possible, much-needed good might emerge from it if Hill staff increase.
1) i recommend finding and watching o'donnell's show from 8/8 (IIRC) on the msnbc site or youtube or wherever it's available --i'm quite sure i've never seen anything like it on any tv news or opinion show, he absolutely eviscerated the american media...everyone connected to reporting/media anywhere needs to see it
3) i dont agree with you on how harris handled the protesters because she a) briefly met with the uncommitted movements's leaders before the rally, and herself commited to meeting with them soon, b) she may have thought the protesters were from that movement (they were not) and didnt appreciate the perceived rudeness, c) they got their point across, after a few moments of that, shut the fuck up so i can get on with my rally and d) witholding their votes from the D candidate over one issue IS voting for trump--i'll leave alone the stupidity of one-issue voting/not voting and the not-possibility of basically upending 80yrs of policy of US support for Israel overnight that too many think is possible
4) in no world or reality is the overturning of Chevron a good thing, nor will it ever be...there's not even sparkly bits--it's a direct action of creating chaos, dismantling the administrative state (they werent fucking kidding about that) and leaving the sheep to the wolves
also, i'd have married lawrence if i were you 😄...ok, three days late and two dollars short, but that's all i got...keep pluggin away 👍🏼
So the Chevron thing was a case of "Every dark cloud" and all that. Fair enough, except that in this case, rather than a lining, we have some sparkly bits that may prove to be worth something. Hope springs eternal. :-)
Great reporting as usual - and I appreciate the warts and all takes because we need those. Also, it's okay to love couches, just not to LOVE couches. That's just weird (sorry - I had to - can't get that unstuck in my head as the greatest xweet of all time).
As a parent, a woman, and someone who has been talked over or interrupted while speaking when it's my turn, I fully support Madam VP's response. I also support the protesters and their right to protest.
It may look like the crowd response to the protest was "stanning" (or whatever the f else it gets called now), but may I offer another perspective? Some of the reports of attendance at Kamala's rallies show it to be 70% women. I see it less as unthinking support of a candidate, than thinking support in that they are energized by her candidacy, see her as someone that will move us forward rather than backward, and came there to hear her speak.
She met with those in a movement concerned with the genocide in Gaza. Honestly - she's perfectly right in invoking the orange goon's name. Instead of trying to work with her, they're protesting her and encouraging others to not push her to their point of view, but to not vote for her and her party at all. The end result of that is the orange goon winning. And how well will things be for our fellow humans in Gaza then?
The current admin may not be doing what they want, but they're trying to do something. That's a hell of a lot more than the what they would get from the GOP. Everything is relevant, and what the other candidate would do/not do for their cause is definitely relevant.
I was there. She didn't lose her composure. She remained composed. Your other points about Democrats eating it up, etc, and why that may be bad remain, but ... she didn't lose her composure at all.
I nearly said lost her cool, but having watched it, that certainly wasn't the case. I wasn't suggesting SHE lost her composure, just making the analogy to how parents (e.g., me) sometimes lose their composure, but I can see I left too much ambiguity there. Thanks for flagging that. And, yeah, in isolation I thought she handled it fine, admirably even! It's the up-eating of a smackdown (one that even SHE seemed ambivalent about at times) that concerned me. Anyway, more importantly, thanks and how cool that you got to be there!
A little *nuance* regarding Kamala and the Gaza protestors.
From the Guardian (the only mainstream rag covering these campaigns even remotely honorably) …
“After a series of hugely energetic rallies this week Kamala Harris seemed to hit her first bump on the road in Michigan on Wednesday, when protesters heckled her by chanting “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide, we won’t vote for genocide.”
Harris paused her speech and the broader crowd tried to out-chant the protesters by shouting, “Kamala! Kamala!”. But Harris said repeatedly, “It’s all good.” As the crowd died down, Harris seemed to look in the direction of the protesters, and said, “I’m here because we believe in democracy. Everyone’s voice matters. But I am speaking now.”
When they continued to chant, she stopped again, and said, “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”
…
Before the rally, Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz met briefly with leaders from the Uncommitted movement. The protesters at the rally were not from Uncommitted, organisers told the Guardian.”
In this context, I think the protesters' timing and message was really tone deaf. It doesn't come across as an effort to persuade, and that's the reason for her comment about them apparently wanting Donald Trump to win. Have a more positive persuasive message about what you want (e.g., peace, an end to supplying arms to Israel, etc.), and don't deliver your message while the candidate is making her stump speech.
By not selecting Shapiro as her running mate, Harris has some freedom of movement on the issue of Israel and the Palestinian territories. There is an opportunity to be had in terms of persuading her to realign her policies, but this was not the way to go about it.
I say it was not the way to go about it, not because she won't be persuaded. I think she'll give the issue a lot of thought regardless. But, if she doesn't win, then the cause is really lost.
I think I linked to that account? In any case I meant to, so thanks for flagging it. And I fully intended to include her meeting with the Uncommitted leaders. And then forgot. So double-thanks for flagging.
Chevron Doctrine overturned: Mapping the deadly cost of Supreme Court Justices’ power grab. See how lives are endangered when experts at agencies such as the FDA are overruled by MAGA activists justices.
I’m catching up on this late so have the benefit of hindsight but 1) iI agree about the biggest problem with Kamala yelling at protesters was that people loved it and 2)hindsight tells us she is listening to Uncomitted movement protestors and has since signaled a meaningful and substantive shift. Wow. Exciting times for lefty newsfuckers 💙💜❤️
UMMM....Cori Bush represents Missouri--not Minnesota.
Fixed! Thanks! For whatever reason my brain can’t handle the A-state abbreviations or M-states. I should stick to Rhode Island.
Couple of, well, five things:
1. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell did a good job of ripping the media, including MSNBC, for its miserable failures during Trumpy's Mar-a-Largo verbal diarrhea, including comparing them with clips of reporters literally shouting at Biden as he was trying to answer a question.
2. Al Jazeera "doomed?" I assume you meant Al Jazeera America, not the whole network.
3. I agree with you about the disturbing response to Harris's "I'm speaking" dismissal of protesters. Leaving aside the fact that contrary to the implication, "everyone's voice matters" does not mean everyone has an equal ability to be heard, the reality is that heckling politicians is a time-honored American tradition and if she can't deal with it, she should avoid public rallies.
4. You are utterly wrong that overturning the Chevron deference is a good thing. Not only is expanding Congressional staffs to cover all the work of regulatory agencies a pipe dream so potent you don't even know you're high, it would mean that every line of the sometimes hundreds of pages of regulations on each and every legislated topic would have to be included in the original law - meaning being subject to the entire legislative process, with even more opportunities than already exist for lobbyists and campaign contribution deals to work their magic. And any need for amendment because of new information would have to go through the same money-corrupted process.
5. Finally, in the paragraph starting "In a ten-year period," I assume the phrase "scammers posing" was supposed to read "people by posing." (That is, "people" or some appropriate alternative, so no going "You're wrong! I meant to say 'consumers!'")
1. Lawrence once asked me to marry him. I still wonder what if...
2. Since I worked at AJAM, you'd think I wouldn't fuck that up. But no. Fixed. Thanks.
3. I actually think she's dealt with it fairly well, I ascribe the specifics of what she said to in-the-moment frustration. I'd be a lot more perturbed if the standing position of the ticket was that anyone protesting is by definition a Trump supporter. Which, yeah, no.
4. I agree and have said before that tossing Chevron deference is bad, so my bad if I suggested otherwise. Merely trying to suggest that maybemaybe a possible, much-needed good might emerge from it if Hill staff increase.
5. That's TWO edits I owe you. Thanks!
1) i recommend finding and watching o'donnell's show from 8/8 (IIRC) on the msnbc site or youtube or wherever it's available --i'm quite sure i've never seen anything like it on any tv news or opinion show, he absolutely eviscerated the american media...everyone connected to reporting/media anywhere needs to see it
3) i dont agree with you on how harris handled the protesters because she a) briefly met with the uncommitted movements's leaders before the rally, and herself commited to meeting with them soon, b) she may have thought the protesters were from that movement (they were not) and didnt appreciate the perceived rudeness, c) they got their point across, after a few moments of that, shut the fuck up so i can get on with my rally and d) witholding their votes from the D candidate over one issue IS voting for trump--i'll leave alone the stupidity of one-issue voting/not voting and the not-possibility of basically upending 80yrs of policy of US support for Israel overnight that too many think is possible
4) in no world or reality is the overturning of Chevron a good thing, nor will it ever be...there's not even sparkly bits--it's a direct action of creating chaos, dismantling the administrative state (they werent fucking kidding about that) and leaving the sheep to the wolves
also, i'd have married lawrence if i were you 😄...ok, three days late and two dollars short, but that's all i got...keep pluggin away 👍🏼
1) Thanks!
3) I'm not sure we disagree, but we can agree to disagree on whether we agree.
4) Agree to agree.
It was gonna be a three-way, and I was already married. Otherwise, who knows...?!? Thanks!
So the Chevron thing was a case of "Every dark cloud" and all that. Fair enough, except that in this case, rather than a lining, we have some sparkly bits that may prove to be worth something. Hope springs eternal. :-)
That's my jam.
Thank you, excellent analysis/journalism happening
To Kamala’s credit, she shut down “lock him up” chants. That’s the job of the courts not the politicians.
Way too long and incoherent. C-
Great reporting as usual - and I appreciate the warts and all takes because we need those. Also, it's okay to love couches, just not to LOVE couches. That's just weird (sorry - I had to - can't get that unstuck in my head as the greatest xweet of all time).
As a parent, a woman, and someone who has been talked over or interrupted while speaking when it's my turn, I fully support Madam VP's response. I also support the protesters and their right to protest.
It may look like the crowd response to the protest was "stanning" (or whatever the f else it gets called now), but may I offer another perspective? Some of the reports of attendance at Kamala's rallies show it to be 70% women. I see it less as unthinking support of a candidate, than thinking support in that they are energized by her candidacy, see her as someone that will move us forward rather than backward, and came there to hear her speak.
She met with those in a movement concerned with the genocide in Gaza. Honestly - she's perfectly right in invoking the orange goon's name. Instead of trying to work with her, they're protesting her and encouraging others to not push her to their point of view, but to not vote for her and her party at all. The end result of that is the orange goon winning. And how well will things be for our fellow humans in Gaza then?
The current admin may not be doing what they want, but they're trying to do something. That's a hell of a lot more than the what they would get from the GOP. Everything is relevant, and what the other candidate would do/not do for their cause is definitely relevant.
I was there. She didn't lose her composure. She remained composed. Your other points about Democrats eating it up, etc, and why that may be bad remain, but ... she didn't lose her composure at all.
I nearly said lost her cool, but having watched it, that certainly wasn't the case. I wasn't suggesting SHE lost her composure, just making the analogy to how parents (e.g., me) sometimes lose their composure, but I can see I left too much ambiguity there. Thanks for flagging that. And, yeah, in isolation I thought she handled it fine, admirably even! It's the up-eating of a smackdown (one that even SHE seemed ambivalent about at times) that concerned me. Anyway, more importantly, thanks and how cool that you got to be there!
A little *nuance* regarding Kamala and the Gaza protestors.
From the Guardian (the only mainstream rag covering these campaigns even remotely honorably) …
“After a series of hugely energetic rallies this week Kamala Harris seemed to hit her first bump on the road in Michigan on Wednesday, when protesters heckled her by chanting “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide, we won’t vote for genocide.”
Harris paused her speech and the broader crowd tried to out-chant the protesters by shouting, “Kamala! Kamala!”. But Harris said repeatedly, “It’s all good.” As the crowd died down, Harris seemed to look in the direction of the protesters, and said, “I’m here because we believe in democracy. Everyone’s voice matters. But I am speaking now.”
When they continued to chant, she stopped again, and said, “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”
…
Before the rally, Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz met briefly with leaders from the Uncommitted movement. The protesters at the rally were not from Uncommitted, organisers told the Guardian.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/08/kamala-harris-meets-with-uncommitted-gaza-protesters-after-they-disrupt-rally-in-detroit
In this context, I think the protesters' timing and message was really tone deaf. It doesn't come across as an effort to persuade, and that's the reason for her comment about them apparently wanting Donald Trump to win. Have a more positive persuasive message about what you want (e.g., peace, an end to supplying arms to Israel, etc.), and don't deliver your message while the candidate is making her stump speech.
By not selecting Shapiro as her running mate, Harris has some freedom of movement on the issue of Israel and the Palestinian territories. There is an opportunity to be had in terms of persuading her to realign her policies, but this was not the way to go about it.
I say it was not the way to go about it, not because she won't be persuaded. I think she'll give the issue a lot of thought regardless. But, if she doesn't win, then the cause is really lost.
I think I linked to that account? In any case I meant to, so thanks for flagging it. And I fully intended to include her meeting with the Uncommitted leaders. And then forgot. So double-thanks for flagging.
YW! News can be a *team effort* right? I’m just being a loyal newsfucker strapping on my “let’s add a little context” editor’s hat 😁
Have a JOYFUL weekend!
Nuance and context good! Also joyful weekends!
Why do billionaire owned media outlets hide Trump’s dementia? Follow the money!
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/08/08/billionaire-owned-media-outlets-hide-trump-dementia-follow-the-money/
Chevron Doctrine overturned: Mapping the deadly cost of Supreme Court Justices’ power grab. See how lives are endangered when experts at agencies such as the FDA are overruled by MAGA activists justices.
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/07/01/mapping-the-deadly-cost-of-maga-supreme-court-justices-overruling-the-chevron-doctrine/