१२ जुलै, २०१७
Scott Adams — on Tucker Carlson's show last night — makes the argument that the Russia story is good for Trump.
Adams loves to say what's counterintuitive to everybody else and to say it with a delightful combination of straight-faced confidence and distanced bemusement.
Meanwhile, Tucker excels at doing his Tucker Face while the other person is talking. That's often quite funny.
These 2 guys work well together, but maybe Fox News should give Scott Adams his own show. Here, take my poll:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०९ टिप्पण्या:
One of the reason I quit National Review was the fact that they dropped Mark Steyn and John Derbyshire.
I have been a fan of Scott since his first book came out years ago.
Anyone who had been an engineer loved his stuff unless you were still an engineer, then maybe not so much.
He was working as an engineer the first few years he drew the cartoon. Finally his boss, who the pointy headed boss is modeled on, told him he would have to quit one or the other. His job or the cartoon.
The rest is history, But Mark Steyn is a serious commentator which Adams really isn't.
Adams is very funny and perceptive. He's like George Lakoff - with a sense of humor.
Good or bad, it keeps the spotlight on Trump. That's how Hillary thought she would beat him. Trump also draws all the attention away from other R's too, just like the primary. Hard to remember who else on the R side matters.
Ha. Tucker Face.
I'm hooked on his periscopes - and have thought you would do well in that medium as well, since you are so practiced in engaging your commenters, and it's his responding to comments/questions that makes them such fun viewing.
I think the biggest problem with "Tucker Face" is that unlike many other shows of this ilk, he always appears in that second window beside his interviewee. Most other shows will cut to full-frame on the guest or interviewee, but Carlson likes to always be kept on screen. When someone interesting is talking, he has to look engaged, and react somewhat to what they are saying. But he over-reacts and it comes off as "Tucker Face".
I like the faces Tucker makes-- reminds me of a monkey in a zoo.
Steyn first, please.
Adams is a bullshitter, in the technical sense of the term. Typically, the epithet is used to vilify people who speak untruth and don't care, but of course it can equally well refer to people who occasionally speak truth but don't care about truthiness.
The Fox audience isn't Adams's.
Scott Adams has been 100% internet empowered. Will having a Fox News show spoil him? And he would need a blonde wig and a boob job to compete with the others. A lack of those assets has held Tucker back.
It's good for Trump because it moves the media into the batshit crazy region for people to notice.
Remember the plan is not to stop the media but decouple them from public debate. Make them the soap opera entertainment choice that they've always been, but with that title now.
Adams can't carry a show by himself. I've seen a couple of his videos, and he's not good on camera. His mediums are the comic strip and the blog.
He'd be good on a panel tho. Maybe something like the conservative version of The View -- get five Trump fans in a studio, and let them bang around their ideas.
"I'm hooked on his periscopes - and have thought you would do well in that medium as well, since you are so practiced in engaging your commenters, and it's his responding to comments/questions that makes them such fun viewing."
I've considered doing it. But I think it's very hard to do it and also blog. Notice that he's been doing it INSTEAD OF blogging. He puts his ideas there instead of writing them out.
I think writing is better if you've got the momentum to do it. He used to put energy into his blog, and then he switched to transforming that material into a book. He's admitted that doing the book made him less able to blog and that the Periscope gives him an easier substitute.
That's one reason I don't write a book. I love doing the blog, and I think writing a book would play havoc with the energy.
The hosts there are no good either, but Adams would be ungood in not having the necessary smooth glibness to fill every gap.
Althouse is historically no good in solo vlogs. She comes off as scatterbrained, where in writing it's just associations to mull over.
Hosts are no good, meaning I can't watch them for more than 10 seconds.
Tastes, or tolerance for empty pap as the case may be, may vary.
"Scott Adams has been 100% internet empowered. Will having a Fox News show spoil him? And he would need a blonde wig and a boob job to compete with the others. A lack of those assets has held Tucker back."
I find it hard to watch those shows that have over-done women on them. I get completely distracted thinking about all the crazy eye makeup and wiggery. I wish they'd cut it out.
Another reason for me not to do Periscopes. I don't want everyone inspecting the details of my face. Adams has very little vanity about his face. I like that, but I don't think I want to use my face so intimately.
Well, I just had my formerly-a-Democrat wife rant at me this morning. If Democrats want to win her back into the fold harassing Trump over nothing burgers like Don Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer ain't the way to go about it. I think if our local RINO Congress critter Barbara Comstock were to knock on our door this morning she'd get an earful from a voter that Barbara might not want to hear (but needs to hear unless she's planning to end her political with a concession speech in November 2018).
Turning soft Trump voters into hard core defenders is ... unwise.
"Althouse is historically no good in solo vlogs. She comes off as scatterbrained, where in writing it's just associations to mull over."
Thanks a lot.
I like the naturalistic thinking-out-loud approach, giving the sense of intimacy and access to another person's mind, but people are used to the arrogant expert presentation and may not get what I do. It's up to the viewer to do the interpreting, and that is almost inevitably highly gendered.
Adams looks a lot like me, and I sure don't want to see myself on television.
Think of the amount of powder on that pate.
Steyn should do a weekly show to husband his resources.
I get completely distracted thinking about all the crazy eye makeup and wiggery. I wish they'd cut it out.
Me too. I find myself thinking about how they take the women's hair and pull it all forward in front of their shoulders in an attempt to make it look like they have a much fuller head of hair. Sort of like parting it in the back of the head and fluffing it up in front of the shoulders.
I always think about how ridiculous they must look from behind.
I think writing a book would play havoc with the energy.
Writing books is fun until you get to the editing and corrections part. Then it is a slog.
The typos are enough to drive you crazy,
No. He's occasionally got great things to say -- but that doesn't necessarily translate into an hour of such things on a regularly scheduled program. And I think he does better with a good interviewer to talk to.
But Tucker Carlson should definitely have him back periodically, when he's got interesting things to say.
I like the naturalistic thinking-out-loud approach, giving the sense of intimacy and access to another person's mind, but people are used to the arrogant expert presentation and may not get what I do. It's up to the viewer to do the interpreting, and that is almost inevitably highly gendered.
You must have driven half your students crazy. Good. And not just because Too Many Lawyers.
Thanks a lot.
I like the naturalistic thinking-out-loud approach, giving the sense of intimacy and access to another person's mind, but people are used to the arrogant expert presentation and may not get what I do. It's up to the viewer to do the interpreting, and that is almost inevitably highly gendered.
Hey, it's a good criticism. It won't work except to reenforce the women are scatterbrained stereotype. No doubt women prefer it the mode but there you are.
If there's no text to go over, associations don't work, unless you're a comedienne working a particular one for a punchline.
The left are certain that it is illegal for Hillary Clinton to lose. It is illegal to search for her corruption and her secret money-whore deals.
Dirt on Hillary Clinton WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
The Stalinsts have spoken.
I have Adams on Twitter and he does coffee with Adams just about every day. I have difficulty listening to him. He has a halting style of speech that just doesn't work for me.
I like him in small doses, but he would be awful with his own show.
Comedy Central should give Scott Adams his own show. But if it is as good as Scott Adams' personal videos on YouTube, I expect it'll last about two weeks.
"Adams has very little vanity about his face. I like that, but I don't think I want to use my face so intimately."
Then do it Dave Ruben style, from a chair or sofa a good distance away from the camera.
I think Adams spent considerable time and money to figure out the best sound system for his home studio, but did no work on lighting, unfortunately. Good lighting would help a lot.
There seems to be something wrong on the (facing us) right side of Scott Adams' face. It almost looks like he had a minor stroke.
That said, his rapport with Tucker Carlson was very good. The zombie lawyer and British publicist cracks were funny. I can imagine Scott Adams being engaging with his own show. Maybe I'm just seeing things.
@rh: "Hey, it's a good criticism. It won't work except to reenforce the women are scatterbrained stereotype." Careful now.
"I like the naturalistic thinking-out-loud approach, giving the sense of intimacy and access to another person's mind, but people are used to the arrogant expert presentation and may not get what I do." Not the only alternatives, I would think, but "arrogant expert presentations" can give perfectly good access to another person's mind, depending on the mind. Of course, some pain-avoiders might want to stay clear of certain senses of intimacy, a tendency almost inevitably highly gendered.
I think when women talk scatterbrained they usually take turns, so it's not open loop scatterbrained.
Bill Nye had interesting things to say, and while they were valid, it wasn't a basis for any real talk or decision making. He had a niche. He should have stuck to it.
Same with Adams: he has a niche, is good at it, and grabs attention for those moments, but no one is basing any viewpoints on what he says. He should stick with what he does, or risk becoming the useless kook that Nye has become.
Prof A: "That's one reason I don't write a book. I love doing the blog, and I think writing a book would play havoc with the energy."
I am of your vintage (born early 50's). I think you could write a terrific book or six. Probably the rantings/comments in your blog threads would provide you with an embarrassment of good material. As a child of the media that dominated until the 90's and indeed the 00's, I want to see ink on paper, or at least a "larger work" structured to develop ideas over dozens of "pages."
There are a lot of us out here. Eventually the market will shift to pure sugar, 140-character ego-jabs; but I think you could do well with a real book. Please?
Did Tucker ask Adams about his contention that Comey was an honorable man trying to do the right thing?
I figured not.
Adams is a bullshit artist, and he recognizes that a lot of his backstory cannot be confirmed. He writes brilliant cartoons, but we forget a lot of Dilbert was created by his co-workers. He came up with a way to deconstruct humor, but we forget that his attempt to make it work with another cartoonist (who set his strip at a gym) failed. He's also had a couple of failures with his restaurants.
He can be a good bullshit artist, and he certainly was ahead of everyone about Trump, I'll grant him that. But if you throw enough bullshit out, eventually you'll get recognition for being right that one time, and everyone forgets the times you faceplanted, like his all-in defense of Comey.
If Scott Adams is right, and that all this is good for Trump, people ought to turn right back around and re-examine Scott Adams based on Scott Adams' own explicitly-expressed preferences.
Scott Adams doesn't care about, or for, most of the Trump Administration's hardest-edged policy positions. (Maybe Trump doesn't either; that is a distinct possibility.)
But it is a whole lot easier to sit back and enjoy the Trump Show when you are an independently wealthy divorced guy whose main pleasure is in opining about stuff through the national media. And when that stuff isn't any difficult technical policy issues, but rather is simply about messaging and communication and feelings.
What is good for "Trump," in the mind of Scott Admas (and what may be good for Scott Adams) is sure as hell not good for health care reform, or tax reform, or federal judicial nominations. And I'd be the first to concede to Scott Adams that I understand if he doesn't give a rip about any of that, and doesn't much share Congressional Republican aims on any of it.
Remember Goffman's lecture on lectures
"It is in this sense that every lecturer, merely by presuming to lecture before an audience, is a functionary of the cognitive establishment, actively supporting the same position : I repeat, that there is a structure to the world, that this structure can be perceived and reported, and therefore, that speaking before an audience and listening to a speaker are reasonable things to be doing, and incidentally, of course, that the auspices of the occasion had warrant for making the whole thing possible. Even when the speaker is tacitly claiming that only his academic discipline, his methodology, or his access to the data can produce a valid picture, the tacit claim behind this tacit claim is that valid pictures are possible."
Scatterbrained won't fit that expectation.
The other genre available is comedienne.
Otherwise it falls into just weird.
Adams has developed the oldest craft in human society, which is starting to teach an audience starting from where their belief system has already become entrenched. That is a nearly impossible task that can only be done at special moments where their attention is on alert.
Lawyers call that the Opening Statement's first impression
Scott is a Teachable Moment guru. And he has been amazed at watching Trump's Master Skills at this craft.
I get completely distracted thinking about all the crazy eye makeup and wiggery. I wish they'd cut it out.
I hear you. When I first saw Kimberley Guilfoyle, whom I adore, I wondered if she were transgendered because her make-up and hair was so over the top. She's toned it down considerably. I myself am now experimenting with geisha lips.
The medium makes a huge difference. I eagerly read everything Bob Wright wrote, but one view of Blogging Heads turned me off of him in any media forever.
Fox's Degan McDowell said she pushed back fat to the front to get more noticeable boobs.
When you add up all the moments of insight from Scott Adams or Ann or Meade or commenters or Tucker Carlson and all the other moments - or rather when they all add up inside you - then you change from the person dominated by media propaganda and repetition into another kind of person. You have a kind of deflector field around you all the time - you hear something and you wonder what this one, that one, the other one, thinks instead of sinking immediately into OMIGODOMIGODOMIGOD as the media lords wish.
But I wonder of anyone knows where all this is going well enough to write a book, a long organized argument about it all. For instance, who is Donald Trump, why did he come forward when he did, why does the left accept hating the workers, what will that do to them, what part did Hillary and Bill Clinton play in this transition to hating America, workers, white men, is the "global elite" just a group totally corrupted by Chinese and Russian money, what will happen when the birth crash really affects society.
I see Donald Trump amid a storm of vilification moving forward toward goals he doesn't seem to have supported ten years ago, like prolife, like a conservative Supreme Court, like better trade deals, like a concern for the heartland. Why did this man who was already wealthy go into politics? Why did he decide to make America great again even in the face of extraordinary opposition? Would anyone else have lasted a day? We are living all this yet the biggest questions don't seem to have answers.
PS: My insight on Russia and Trump: It's not the crime, it's the coverage.
Thanks for that reply - I see what you mean about diversion of energy - and I'd hate for you to slow down on blogging.
Scott is a Teachable Moment guru. And he has been amazed at watching Trump's Master Skills at this craft.
I agree and I agree with Chuck on this one. Adams has built a career on pointing out absurdities in work life.
I don't think he sees his role and trying to solve problems.
Congress should be doing that and they seem stuck on donor wish lists.
A year ago I used the analogy of someone willing to pull the cord to stop that train. That's Trump.
The vilification that has followed is a combination of those firmly attached to the federal teat and those who think they are above all this nastiness that goes on in politics.
If we blow his chance, the game is over. Probably a violent revolution.
Ritmo accused me of wanting one a couple of years ago. No, that was just a prediction.
Trump has interrupted that course but we could still rejoin it.
All of this -- all the opining, all of the posturing, all of the theorizing, all of the facts as we popularly understand them now -- becomes irrelevant the moment that Robert Mueller decides how to proceed and what, if any, federal charges might be filed, right? Mueller is really all that matters, right?
Option I didn't think of when I wrote the poll: No, Adams needs to put his energy into his comic strip and his quirky blog/Periscope/book-writing. A regular show would diminish him. He'd be in a corporate grip. Oh, he might emerge from it with some great material for Dilbert and the blog and a book. But he needs his independence to make the magic happen.
One of the things Adams talks about in his book is how a Dale Carnegie (if I recall the details correctly) course early on changed his life by helping him convert nervous energy and fear of failure into fuel. He has so reframed this in his own mind that the potential epic humiliation of a failed TV show might just very well be as irresistible to him as any "unlimited power source" MacGuffin in a movie.
'She comes off as scatterbrained"
I couldn't imagine!
"I hear you. When I first saw Kimberley Guilfoyle, whom I adore, I wondered if she were transgendered because her make-up and hair was so over the top. She's toned it down considerably. I myself am now experimenting with geisha lips."
She is exactly the person I had in mind when I wrote what I did. I happened to watch a little of her show last night, and I actually failed to listen to her because I felt compelled to talk about how she looked. The men don't have an exaggerated appearance, so there's a weird "Déjeuner sur l'herbe" effect that is more interesting that whatever they may be talking about.
Chuck said...
all the opining, all of the posturing, all of the theorizing, all of the facts as we popularly understand them now -- becomes irrelevant the moment that Robert Mueller decides how to proceed
This was true the moment Mueller was appointed. A normal political enterprise might have survived a special counsel, but Trump's operation is no normal political operation.
I have lost interest in the whole affair. It has become a dull and predictable tragifarce. Trump, at all cost, had to avoid a special counsel. A goal that would have only required a modicum of self discipline was thus was completely unattainable.
Nothing I think matters, right?
7/12/17, 11:18 AM
FIFY.
I greatly respect and love reading Mark Steyn, and a few years ago looked forward to listening when I heard he would be guest-hosting for Rush.
I could only listen for a few minutes. The accent and speaking style was so irritating I couldn't stand it.
I assume it's just something cross-wired in only my brain.
I've collected all the Steyn hostings of Rush and play random ones on weekends during Rush's time.
There are 113 of them at the moment.
I thought Adams' made a very perceptive point about the credibility of the man trying to set up the meeting: It was highly unlikely that Trump, Jr. believed the publicist when he claimed that the information on Hillary was coming from the Russian government. Publicists engage in puffery all the time. It's what they do and anyone who has dealt with them knows to take what they say with a truck load of salt.
Steyn's departure from NR predated Trump, right? No causal relation involving NR's "Against Trump" stance, right?
And in fact, it wasn't the Michael Mann defamation case where Steyn and NR are linked in solidarity over the defense of that action, right?
It was something else, and Steyn (whom I like a lot, although a bit less for his pro-Trump fanaticism) has rather forthrightly mentioned "mutual" unhappiness, right?
DKWalser said...
I thought Adams' made a very perceptive point about the credibility of the man trying to set up the meeting: It was highly unlikely that Trump, Jr. believed the publicist when he claimed that the information on Hillary was coming from the Russian government. Publicists engage in puffery all the time. It's what they do and anyone who has dealt with them knows to take what they say with a truck load of salt.
It was a meeting where Don Jr. was excited enough to grab Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, and include them.
And then -- this hasn't been explored adequately yet -- somebody said something to Presumptive Nominee Trump and he Tweeted about the Russians that very same afternoon.
We might know more if Hannity had done a good, hard interview with Jr. Of course, he didn't.
While I think he could do a good show if he wanted, he's much better staying on the internet where he has total freedom. My understanding is he's gearing up to do a podcast where he'll have guests. That'll probably be much better than whatever he'd be allowed to do with a cable news time slot.
It was something else, and Steyn (whom I like a lot, although a bit less for his pro-Trump fanaticism) has rather forthrightly mentioned "mutual" unhappiness, right?
I assume you are puffing your chest out as you type this. RIGHT ????
Mark Steyn was probably being sent to Coventry because his humor and willingness to tackle sensitive subjects got NR into the lawsuit.
The same occurred with Derbyshire.
Lowry is a pussy. I understand why you prefer him to Steyn and Trump.
All of this crap turned me from a 'hold my nose, this will be over in four years' Trump voter to an admirer of him.
It was a meeting where Don Jr. was excited enough to grab Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, and include them.
And then -- this hasn't been explored adequately yet -- somebody said something to Presumptive Nominee Trump and he Tweeted about the Russians that very same afternoon.
So?! Don Jr. thought something useful might come from the meeting. He probably hoped that it produced some damning evidence of Hillary's criminality.
But it is highly unlikely that Jr. thought the Russian government was offering to help Trump defeat Hillary (which is what the publicist hinted at). How do we know this? Because Jr. asked the Russian lawyer if she had any evidence of the Russian government's helping to fund Clinton's campaign. Evidently, Trump's campaign thought Hillary was colluding with the Russians and they were looking for proof!
"...No! Adams is awful — a ridiculously conceited and often absurdly wrong bullshitter...."
He was right about Donald Trump being elected president when almost no one else was, and he was right long before anyone else was.
"...I find it hard to watch those shows that have over-done women on them..."
Cut the cord in 2000, but I'd sign back up for cable if it meant seeing Ann Althouse in a short skirt, makeup and heels. But that's just me.
> And he would need a blonde wig and a boob job to compete with the others.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1993-04-02
Michael K said...
...
Mark Steyn was probably being sent to Coventry because his humor and willingness to tackle sensitive subjects got NR into the lawsuit.
...
By Mark Steyn's own account, the lawsuit wasn't it. So your "probably" is worse than meaningless.
The same occurred with Derbyshire.
No; with John Derbyshire he wrote something that was unedited by NR, for a non-NR publication, as a "National Review columnist." And it was kind of racist. Some people thought that it was wildly and inexcusably racist. That, however, is not what Rich Lowry said. Now reasonable people can debate the racist part, and in fact NR was willing to do so, on its own pages. And they simply decided to part ways with Derbyshire.
Lowry is a pussy. I understand why you prefer him to Steyn and Trump.
And you have a very nice day as well.
What happened to Derbyshire, by the way? It is hard to think of something important he has written since departing NR.
Chuck, Adams got election 2016 right. You were utterly wrong about everything. And everyone here remembers that.
I am waiting for you to join fellow life-long Republican and Trump hater Morning Joe and jump ship. At least, Joe admits he's on the other side.
And yes, Lowry is a complete pussy.
Steyn is one of the sharpest, funniest commentators out there.
Tucker Face is really a variant of Chris Matthews Face, except Tingles Matthews adds a rude and impatient "yeah, yeah" every few seconds.
"Lowry is a complete pussy."
The ayes have it!
A lack of those assets has held Tucker back.
He has the highest ratings on Fox in prime time. Then you add the 11 pm audience and he's by far the biggest on cable news.
"She is exactly the person I had in mind when I wrote what I did. I happened to watch a little of her show last night, and I actually failed to listen to her because I felt compelled to talk about how she looked. The men don't have an exaggerated appearance, so there's a weird "Déjeuner sur l'herbe" effect that is more interesting that whatever they may be talking about."
I understand Fox's reasoning behind the blondes and the good looking women. I often mention to my wife when I see an 'everyday' person on a tv show or in a movie, instead of Hollywood beautiful. This goes for both men and women.
There are some days when they are over the top at Fox, with 'boobs on parade' (Guilfoyle) or the Dana Perino types who prattle on about this or that. As a red blooded male, they're nice to look at, but from time to time I wonder whether I like what they say or how they look while they're saying it. How differently might I react to their words if I merely heard a voice on the radio or was reading text on a page?
@rh (and Goffman?): ""Even when the speaker is tacitly claiming that only his academic discipline, his methodology, or his access to the data can produce a valid picture, the tacit claim behind this tacit claim is that valid pictures are possible." Scatterbrained won't fit that expectation." Except that, in the Althousian variation on Goffman, scatterbrained "naturalism" rests on the tacit (now explicit) claim that it provides a more valid picture of another mind.
All of this crap turned me from a 'hold my nose, this will be over in four years' Trump voter to an admirer of him.
I'm there now, too, except I was sick and didn't vote at all.
The media was flabbergasted that people stood in the rain for Nixon's funeral procession.
I just saw Derbyshire's name today at unza.com
LLR: "It was a meeting where Don Jr. was excited enough to grab Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, and include them."
Gee, back to mindreading.
It's amazing how our LLR saves his mindreading conjecture for republicans only.
You'd think it might be fun once in awhile to cross it up and do some dem mindreading, instead of just calling them brilliant.
But I guess you'd be wrong.
Derbyshire has been regularly publishing on Taki.
So a rather different venue than NRO.
There is more than one conservative media sphere.
Taki, Unz, arguably Instapundit sometimes, Freerepublic, etc. lie outside the NRO/Spectator/WSJ axis.
Any one who watched "Tennison" on PBS, did you notice the lead and her bf were the only two good looking actors on the show? No wonder they hooked up. Her white blond hair and black eyebrows were weird, though.
Scott Adams — on Tucker Carlson's show last night — makes the argument that the Russia story is good for Trump.
A strict diet of nothing burgers (easy on the dirt) would definitely help America's sugar daddy fit into his golf slacks a little better.
I bet that I haven't been back to NRO five times since they dumped Steyn. Anyone got a number at the NSA where I can call and check?
Antiphone once showed a little wit and insight, but a steady stream of dirtburger comments makes me wonder if it wasn't just blind luck
It was a meeting where Don Jr. was excited enough to grab Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, and include them.
Once Jared was told by his legal team that he had to disclose the meeting and miniDonald didn't (security clearance disclosure) he leaked the emails out of gratitude.
but a steady stream of dirtburger comments makes me wonder
Sorry, that's just my microbiome talking.
Seems like just a couple months ago that the press was bragging about their access to leaks from the NSA and revelling in the true patriotism of the Patriot Act, now nobody cares where they came from and unsupported speculation is the order of the day.
I think Fox gets a raw deal on the "bimbos" allegation. There isn't a network on television that doesn't go out of its way to hire pretty newsbabes. They all do it. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC. If somebody is giving CNN a pass because of Barbara Starr, or MSNBC a pass for Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, that's nonsense.
I have no doubt but that Ainsley Earhardt at FNC has her job because she is a very pretty blonde. I also have no doubt but that Joy Reid at MSNBC has her job because she's a black liberal.
If I have to watch a dumb person shill for Trump on Fox, I'd much rather it be Martha MacCallum, than Brian Kilmeade or Steev Doocy. At least with a pretty lady, one of my senses isn't being insulted.
"And it was kind of racist. Some people thought that it was wildly and inexcusably racist."
You are obviously a member of that group.
Do you know what it was ?
Do you know Derb's children are Eurasian ?
Here, I'll help you out.
“Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,” Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: “Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk,” Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
That was the "Talk" black patents have with their children about how policemen kill blacks and so forth.
So, Derbyshire had a talk with his teenaged kids.
“It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)
(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.
(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship.
And so forth.
The part you don't like is probably this:
These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.
(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us.
I'd say after Obama the percent is more than 5.
You are welcome to read the rest if your racism past can stand it.
You have a nice day, too.
Doocy rulz, he almost makes me want cable.
Michael K said...
"And it was kind of racist. Some people thought that it was wildly and inexcusably racist."
You are obviously a member of that group.
No; in fact I have made no judgment about Derbyshire or that column. I said nothing about it, apart from what "some people" think. That is all that I said. It is not only NOT "obvious" where I stand, even I don't know where I stand on it.
I might side with Derbyshire; I don't know. What I do know is that I don't go around making reckless dumbass allegations like you do.
I don't go around making reckless dumbass allegations like you do.
And it was kind of racist.
OK, "Kind of racist."
Some people are immune to irony and immune to parody.
Isn't the last item in the Poll -- that Adams is "a ridiculously conceited and often absurdly wrong bullshitter" -- the job description for a cable news talking head?
Derbyshire does a weekly Radio Derb on friday/saturday at vdare.com.
It's very pleasant to listen to, a winsome voice of doom, though since Trump he's been Trump-critical a lot.
I have over 500 of them on the HD.
$ cd /cygdrive/g/derb
$ ls|wc
596 596 11302
Roughly 596 of them.
Radio Derb would be a good model for an Althouse vlog, as far as format goes.
LLR: "If I have to watch a dumb person shill for Trump on Fox, I'd much rather it be Martha MacCallum, than Brian Kilmeade or Steev Doocy. At least with a pretty lady, one of my senses isn't being insulted."
So, to sum up LLR views on female media personalities:
Martha McCallum = "dumb"
Rachel Maddow = "brilliant"
'nuff said.
I just read your Derb link, Michael K.
I'd only read excerpts at the time it came out.
It's shocking to see so many of our assumptions/experiences/vague ideas spelled out "in black and white" at one time, so I can see why NRO freaked. Too forthright and not much charity or common feeling.
In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
Well, maybe not.
""...No! Adams is awful — a ridiculously conceited and often absurdly wrong bullshitter...." He was right about Donald Trump being elected president when almost no one else was, and he was right long before anyone else was."
He won big on that, but was it because he actually figured it out, when others couldn't, or was it because he saw that the long-shot bet was the most interesting one to make, giving him many amusing blog posts? It was a bonus when he also happened to win, and since he won against the odds, he won big. What comparable value was there for him in making the same predictions as everyone else and winning virtually nothing?
Why does Rush think he can't say "pussy"? As in pussy hat. He says vagina hat.
Which is even wrong. The hat is modelled on cat ears, not genitals.
A genital pussy hat would be a garrison cap.
Althouse: "He won big on that, but was it because he actually figured it out, when others couldn't, or was it because he saw that the long-shot bet was the most interesting one to make, giving him many amusing blog posts? It was a bonus when he also happened to win, and since he won against the odds, he won big. What comparable value was there for him in making the same predictions as everyone else and winning virtually nothing?"
This is fairly common complaint: that a media personality will simply espouse alternate/controversial/"against the grain" view to generate buzz and attention.
This can be tested over time by identifying whether or not this is a consistent tactic on the part of the commentator and, if so, was the commentator right more often than not?
If so, it would indicate our commentator is the one closer to reality, unless you want to attribute all success to luck.
What other "controversial" stands has Adams taken in the last year or so and was he proven correct?
It's funny. No matter what the poll I find after voting that I'm with the majority. And I had always believed I marched to a different drummer. Here, it's the same ol' drummer. But that's OK. Before discovering this blog, I also believed I was a radical fringe-y. One often feels that way being a Conservative in Western WA.
The women on CNBC have the best hair! Bare legs under glass tables seems to be another Fox trademark. Detracts (distracts?) from its credibility. Ridiculous really. And then they have that jerk/twerp straight out of Hollywood casting, what's his name?
Adams wasn't trying to avoid pain, and he took and is taking some risk in losing eyes on Dilbert, too (not that he needs the money).
Writing is slower than speaking. Listening is slower than reading.
Writing and reading require focus. Listening (and speaking, somewhat) can be background processes. Consider walking down the sidewalk having a conversation, versus walking down the sidewalk reading your cellphone. (Or writing on it!)
A blog is one writer spending a lot of time so that a number of readers can spend less time, and all of them consider the effort worthy of focus. Respectful.
A vlog is one speaker spending a little time so that a number of listeners have to spend a lot of time, and nobody thinks the effort is worthy of concentration. Disrespectful.
So blogs are far better than vlogs.
Unless the vlogger is smokin'.
(I am not Laslo.)
Tucker's "I'm perplexed by what you're saying" face -- honestly, I can't stand it.
@Wildswan 1057 Great observation. There is a lot more going on than we are conscious of. One seriously has to wonder what Trump was thinking when he decided to run for the presidency. He had a great life going and I don't think he's stupid enough not to realize the hell he would be put through by the establishment politicians and press whether he won or not. Trump represents such a major shift from the long, long line of "pro" politicians that it is almost impossible to forecast where everything will be at the end of his terms. Even at my lowest moments I have the feeling that Trump is, in many ways, a force of nature that will not be stopped. Slowed maybe, but not stopped.
And, all the while, Hillary is not president.
I'm going to point out here that Trump's Gallup dailies have been climbing the last week. 37% support on the 5th, then 37%, 38%, 39%, 39%, 40%, and finally 40% yesterday. There's certainly no evidence that the Jr. thing has hurt him.
"He writes brilliant cartoons, but we forget a lot of Dilbert was created by his co-workers."
Nonsense. The artist creates from the raw materials at hand. If his coworkers were also cartoonists, or creative artists of any kind, and he stole their ideas, that would be one thing, but if they were just ordinary, slightly quirky office workers, and he framed and exaggerated their traits, as is almost certainly the case, the brilliant humor of Dilbert would have had no other outlet for public consumption than through Scott Adams, a very funny, witty man and a true artist.
Khesanh ponders: One seriously has to wonder what Trump was thinking when he decided to run for the presidency.
I think he knew it would be a yuuuge sacrifice for him and his family but believed that our country is worth it. Seriously.
Wilbur said...
"I greatly respect and love reading Mark Steyn, and a few years ago looked forward to listening when I heard he would be guest-hosting for Rush.
I could only listen for a few minutes. The accent and speaking style was so irritating I couldn't stand it.
I assume it's just something cross-wired in only my brain."
I'm with you there. he and m
Mark Levin. Voices made for print.
AA's comment about a female television person's make-up contrasted with her male colleagues' lack thereof including a reference to Le déjeuner sur l'herbe puzzled me, because I knew I should know that title but couldn't think why so I went to look; oh, of course... Manet. Anyway, there is here an interesting survey of attitudes to the painting &c.
"The artist creates from the raw materials at hand."
Adams readily admitted that his coworkers gave him ideas for strips.
Hell, I could have given him ideas from my days as an engineer.
'Adams is a bs'er'
Yeah; and his 'crazy' predictions tend to be proven right...
A little something chuck can read when he is feeling racist.
The anti-cop Left has no explanation for the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers last year. It turns its eyes away from the growing animosity and resistance that officers now encounter when they try to investigate suspicious behavior on the street. And most important, the anti-cop Left ignores the truth: we are not living through an epidemic of racially biased police killings of black males. In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings, it favors blacks against whites, as four studies found last year. The widely held impression that blacks make up the majority of people killed by the police is entirely a media creation.
I like to think I have a pretty good sense of humor. I laugh readily at things I think are funny. The video Adams pointed to is certainly funny, but not knowing it was supposed to be a spoof, I would have taken it as funny in a perverse way. There's nothing about it that is more over the top than what I read leftists saying every day. It's tough to satirize the unsatirizable.
Give them both a show, but only if they promise to feud like Jack Benny and Fred Allen.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा