"A bullet couldn't stop Trump. A virus just stopped Biden. The nominees of this party getting their butts kissed. Biden getting his butt kicked by his own party."

WOW! Van Jones just spoke the truth for the first time:

“A bullet couldn't stop Trump. A virus just stopped Biden.”

“The Democrats are coming apart. The Republicans are coming together. pic.twitter.com/qJ4WGtjQ7Z

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 18, 2024

"One of the sad facts about anti-Black racism is that Black people ourselves are not immune to its pernicious effects."

Writes Van Jones in "The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism" (CNN).

Society’s message that Black people are inferior, unworthy and dangerous is pervasive. Over many decades, numerous experiments have shown that these ideas can infiltrate Black minds as well as White. Self-hatred is a real thing. That’s why a Black store owner might regard customers of his same race with suspicion, while treating his White patrons with deference. 

Black people can harbor anti-Black sentiments and can act on those feelings in harmful ways. Black cops are often socialized in police departments that view certain neighborhoods as war zones. In those departments, few officers get disciplined for dishing out “street justice” in certain precincts — often populated by Black, brown or low-income people — where there is a tacit understanding that the “rulebook” simply doesn’t apply.... 

Back in 1989, the rap group NWA highlighted the problem in a classic hip-hop anthem, in which Ice Cube rapped: “But don’t let it be a Black and White (cop)/ Coz they’ll slam ya/ Down to the street top/ Black police showing out for the White cop.”...

Some people are over-reacting to this column and seem as if they were hoping that because the 5 police officers who killed Tyre Nichols are black, we can proceed directly to color-blindness. Too soon! Too easy! Let's look straightforwardly at reality and not coddle ourselves.

"Biden continually interrupts Ryan in a way I find incredibly annoying."

I'm rereading my live-blogging of the October 11, 2012 debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. It's making me view Trump's debate behavior in a different way. I hated the way Biden treated the very polite, earnest Midwesterner Ryan. Excerpts (with timestamps omitted):

Biden is being rude, laughing and mouthing words.... Biden mutters an interruption. When Biden is given a turn, he calls what Ryan said "malarky."... Ryan is speaking earnestly... and Biden is chuckling toothily, his body shaking like Santa Claus.... When Ryan speaks, Biden is laughing clownishly again. It looks just awful... Biden is acting as though he cannot physically tolerate Ryan having a turn to speak!... Biden continually interrupts Ryan in a way I find incredibly annoying.... While Ryan is talking... Biden sighs long and loud... Biden interrupts. Ryan says: "Mr. Vice President, I know you're under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think everyone will be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other." I love the politeness of "if we don't keep" — we — when Biden has been an interruption machine and Ryan has barely interrupted and only occasionally has talked over to keep from losing his turn. The moderator, Martha Raddatz has done nothing at all to control Biden.... The stress level is rising. Biden is so angry. Why is he yelling? Ryan needs nerves of steel not to lose his cool. I'm impressed that Ryan, when he gets his turn, is able to speak in an even, natural voice. It's hard to concentrate on the policy itself, because the emotional static is so strong... That debate was so annoying! Some of the CNN commentators are talking about how Biden did what he came to do, to fire up the Democrats. "This was not for the independents," says Van Jones. Okay, well, but independents were watching, and Biden was horribly rude. He created this disturbing atmosphere of anxiety.

Debating Trump, Biden got a big serving of what he dished out 8 years ago. Ryan did a fantastic job of maintaining his cool, staying substantive, and going high when Biden went low. And then he lost the election. I'm sure Biden would have been willing to do what he did in 2012 and be completely rude and irritating as hell once again, but he's 8 years older, and, more importantly, Donald Trump is not Paul Ryan. Trump is Trump, and Trump saw the ultra-polished and polite Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan go down to defeat.

"It’s not the racist person in the KKK that we have to worry about. It’s the white, liberal Hillary Clinton supporter walking her dog in Central Park."

Said Van Jones on CNN — noticed because "Van Jones" is trending on Twitter:

Y’all — Van Jones just said on CNN that it’s the White, liberal HRC supporters we have to look out for, and I-

pic.twitter.com/py3QPnzHXY

— Jackson (@Jacksonlzz) May 29, 2020

A "fake news" conundrum.

Click to tighten the focus and enlarge:



I'd say the real victim here is Van Jones.

The real winner: Donald Trump (because he's got his haters carrying his message about low black unemployment).

Word that does not appear on the front-page at CNN right now: Russia.

The narrative has changed. Click to enlarge:



I do see — look closely — "Van Jones: O'Keefe video is a hoax." The video is the one where we hear Van Jones say "That Russia thing is just a big nothing-burger." But the teaser on the front page doesn't give us a clue that the video had to do with Russia, and even when you click through, there's no mention of the substance of what we hear Jones say in the video, just the assertion: "CNN's Van Jones says the ambush video of him done by notorious provocateur James O'Keefe is a hoax."

And how is the video a hoax? I think Jones is misusing the word, because he does not deny that he is the man in the video or that there's some context that would change the meaning of his statement. He indicates that he could have said other things, but not that he did actually on that occasion say more and O'Keefe had it edited out.

ADDED: I'm just noticing that among the things CNN is trying to tease us with this morning is: "Prostitutes: Senate health care bill will devastate us." Prostitutes!

ALSO: The Washington Post also has a front page that doesn't mention Russia but does — amazing! — have sex workers. Click to enlarge:



You see the sex workers story: "Everything you were afraid to ask about phone sex workers — in one class-action lawsuit."

Is there some JournoList-like back channel where they're brainstorming about how to titillate people if you can't talk about Russia and coming up with PROSTITUTES!

The new Project Veritas video: Van Jones saying "That Russia thing is just a big nothing-burger."

What Obama the ex-President should be doing: a "poverty tour."

Here's Van Jones, responding to the question whether Obama's taking $400,000 to speak to Wall Street people is "distasteful."



Text:

JONES: It's not distasteful. You think that he started off talking to those kids in Chicago and we need a Bobby Kennedy in this country and I hope that he will do a tour, go to Appalachia, go to Native American reservations where they are shoving these pipelines down their throats and they don't have a clean running water. Go to south central. Go to the Arizona border where you have a lot of poverty. If he would do a poverty tour first -- listen, he should not be the first president that has to be broke. Listen, every other president went out there and gave big speeches. Don't hold him to a double standard -- don't double standard him. But I'd tell you what, from a moral point of view it would be great for him to do a --

The interviewer, Jake Tapper injects that Obama got a $60 million book deal and "I mean, he's not broke." Jones acknowledges the fact but shies away from criticism of Obama for what he is doing. Jones wants to talk about what he isn't doing:

JONES: Clearly if I were -- if I were -- if I had the opportunity he has I would do a big poverty tour for six months. Everywhere I go it's poverty, addiction and high death rates from West Virginia to south central. If he would do that, then go ahead and do a big speech later.

It's so much easier to see what is happening and to spend all your time talking about that. How big is our failure to see what is not happening?

"Trump may have just signed a death warrant for our planet..."

Writes Van Jones, referring to Trump's executive order directed at ending Obama's Clean Power Plan which was aimed at slowing the changing of Earth's climate.

I love the intellectual honesty displayed in the qualification that completes Jones's dire statement — "at least, for a planet that is liveable for humans."

Perhaps Jones, like me remembers, George Carlin on the ridiculousness of the human notion Save the Earth (NSFW):



"The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!"

Will you still love Trump tomorrow?

I listened to the big speech last night and some of the CNN commentary that followed it — including the strangely ecstatic Van Jones...



And I listened to that crabby former governor grousing from a diner in the hinterlands. I was listening from further into the hinterlands than he was talking from, but I — like my fellow hinterlanders as I imagine them — was yelling "Who the hell are you?" at the TV screen.

And I'm scanning the headlines this morning. Here's how the NYT — of late so hostile to Trump — presents it:



Hopeful? Vision? He didn't just get hopeful or vision. He got hopeful and vision. Well, maybe this is a setup for a later takedown: 

He was so good that one time. All that promise. Crushed. What happened to the man who stirred our hearts? I thought it might be love. I thought we could be so happy together. But it was just a one night stand. He lied to me.

Maybe Van Jones got the same memo. If this is political theater, let's be sharp figuring out who's faking it. I think they're all faking it, and everybody wants something.

As for Carryn Owens, I don't think anyone short of Renee Maria Falconetti in "The Passion of Joan of Arc" can fake emotion like that. But she participated in theater and chose to do it. She put herself in a position where millions would look at her face as the President of the United States bathed her in words about her dead beloved. Real emotion poured forth with melodrama beyond anything I have ever seen on television. It was real emotion appropriated for a political purpose, but there is no necessary connection between the meaning of that emotion for her and the political meaning that found its way into the mind of the people.

Ah, but the ecstasy! It penetrated deep. Grabbed our pussy. What a night! Many words were spoken. Was this a lasting treasure or just a moment's pleasure?



Will you still love Trump tomorrow?

Stories that begin "Trump Won Because" and name some specific thing can't be right.

Here's an example, from Reason.com, which might make some good points, but it's just annoyingly overstated: "Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash/What every liberal who didn't see this coming needs to understand."

And over in the sidebar, I see: "Trump Didn't Win Because He's Trump. He Won Because Clinton Is Clinton/While many will call this a mandate for Donald Trump, it's better read as an anti-mandate for Hillary Clinton."

Other "Trump won because" headlines I'm seeing:

"Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook" — New York Magazine.

"Trump won because college-educated Americans are out of touch" — a professor published in The Washington Post.

"Trump Won Because Democratic Party Failed Working People" — according to Bernie Sanders.

"Trump Won Because Of An ‘Under-Educated Electorate’" — according to Wendy Davis.

"Dear America, This Is Important -- Trump Did Not Win Because of Racism" — David French at The National Review contradicting Van Jones on CNN.

"Donald Trump won because he listened to the people" — a columnist at MarketWatch.

"Trump won because voters believed the system was corrupt. They were right" — a columnist at the UK Telegraph.

"Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally/Democracy is supposed to enact the will of the people. But what if the people have no clue what they’re doing?" — Foreign Policy.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded media environment....

Attention #Crossfire fans: @newtgingrich & @vanjones68 host a fiery debate TONIGHT at 6:30pET. See you there! pic.twitter.com/WYyoS5zmbU
— Crossfire (@Crossfire) May 1, 2014

My post title alludes to the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. line: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

CNN is shouting fiery -fire in the hope of inciting a stampede toward the obviously tedious TV show. It's surely a false shout, but no one believes it. So there's no stampede toward the non-fire.

Here's the Wikipedia article "Shouting fire in a crowded theater." Excerpt:

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, in Harlem in 1884, and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead.

And here's Christopher Hitchens on shouting fire in a crowded theater. 

The word "crossfire," of course, refers to gunfire, and it's interesting that CNN is reviving the old show title, given the hoopla over the use of a metaphorical target in something Sarah-Palin-related around the time of the Tucson massacre, after which we were all admonished to speak to one another with civility. But apparently, there are times when we must cast civility aside and snipe at one another, like when ratings are low.

And, by the way, just yesterday, Rush Limbaugh was going on about how mainstream news executives care more about being hip and cool than they care about ratings.  I don't know what CNN is doing with Van Jones and Newt Gingrich and the revival of "Crossfire." It's hardly hip, and it's not believable that anyone will watch. Maybe they think it will generate short clips that social media will pick up and share.

"I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn't lose the black vote."

Van Jones laughs, riffing on the "come out" language in the question: "Do you think President Obama would lose some of the black vote if in fact he did come out in support of gay marriage."

Let's analyze why Van Jones thinks that's so funny. The foundation of the joke is the assumption that black people have negative feelings toward gay people. It works as funny because only because we're expected not to take this negativity seriously — either because black bigotry doesn't matter — or is fair retribution for America's racism — or because gay people don't matter... or all three. Throw in the breezy assumption that black people, looking at Obama, will not in any way engage with the actual political issues. Jones portrays black people as emotional, simple-minded, and all alike.

It's a big stew of racial stereotypes from the lawyer/civil rights activist who was chosen by President Obama as the first Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Are we supposed to laugh?

"I’m tired of being accused of being anti-American... They call it class warfare... if anything, it’s warfare against people who have no class..."

Says Van Jones, "the former Obama Administration green czar who resigned in controversy, [who] appears on the fast track to a political comeback — emerging as a star at this weekend’s California Democratic convention and lauded by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a 'leader of the future.'"

[Jones] argued that under-30 voters critical to Democratic successes in 2012 will find appealing “the idea that the people that already climbed that ladder (of success) will give something back.”...

Jones apologized for some of his actions, including signing a petition for 911Truth.org which appeared to suggest the Bush Administration “may indeed deliberately have allowed 9/11 to happen.”

"We're the people! They're not!"

There's some grotesque exploitation of children in political advertising, but this is the worst I've seen.

"Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the *fear* that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her."

Notes Howard Kurtz:

As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tried to pressure her into resigning, Sherrod says Deputy Under Secretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say "do it, because you're going to be on 'Glenn Beck' tonight." And for all the focus on Fox, much of the mainstream media ran with a fragmentary story that painted an obscure 62-year-old Georgian as an unrepentant racist....

The administration's concern about Beck stems in part from his campaign last year that prompted the resignation of White House environmental official Van Jones over divisive remarks -- a controversy that some news organizations acknowledged they were too slow to cover. Ironically, Beck defended Sherrod on Tuesday, saying that "context matters" and he would have objected if someone had shown a video of him at an AA meeting saying he used to pass out from drinking but omitting the part where he says he found Jesus and gave up alcohol.

"Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks: mobilizing people to dig up dirt, trumpeting it on talk radio and television, prompting Congress to weigh in and demanding action from the Obama administration."

The NYT puts the ACORN story in context:

Conservative advocates and broadcasters were gleeful about the success of the tactics in exposing Acorn workers... 

The Acorn controversy came a week after the resignation of Van Jones, a White House environmental official attacked by conservatives, led by Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel, for once signing a petition suggesting that Bush administration officials might have deliberately permitted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

There was more than that to the Van Jones story!

Even before Mr. Jones stepped down, Mr. Beck had sent a message to supporters on Twitter urging them to “find everything you can” on three other Obama appointees.

Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks: mobilizing people to dig up dirt, trumpeting it on talk radio and television, prompting Congress to weigh in and demanding action from the Obama administration.

Conservatives came up with that? It's almost as if they could come up with a list of tricky rules for advancing their cause, something like pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

"In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned..."

"... as the White House’s environmental jobs 'czar' on Saturday."

That's the first paragraph of the NYT story on the Van Jones resignation — which is also its first story about Jones. The site's "Caucus" blog did take notice of the controversy — and the issue of the NYT's failure to write about it — yesterday:

Keeping up with Jones: Republicans are accusing one of Mr. Obama’s top advisers of being a communist and calling for his resignation....

Mr. Jones was caught on tape using an unprintable word to describe Republicans and allowed his name to be put on a letter requesting an investigation of whether the Bush administration allowed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to happen as a pretext for war....

Conservatives are abuzz over the mainstream media’s oversight of the story. According to the Washington Examiner, as of 11:30 a.m. Friday, none of the major news outlets, including The Times, had mentioned the controversy.

Whether the Bush administration allowed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to happen as a pretext for war? The petition — read it — "calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." (Boldface added.)

The Caucus toned down what the petition said and did not link to it. There's a big difference between "allowed" — which might mean only the administration was not sufficiently vigilant — and "deliberately allowed" — which accuses the administration of knowing and letting it happen. The petition is asserting that there is reason to think the Bush administration wanted the attacks to occur so it could lead us into war. The innocuous paraphrase in the Caucus prevents us from feeling outraged at the document Jones "allowed his name to be put on." There's that word "allowed" again! How passive and unknowing was he? He signed it! Let's speak English and quit pussyfooting. The Caucus wanted to frame this as a story of bad old Republicans causing trouble.

Now, back to today's article on the resignation:

Controversy over Mr. Jones’s past comments and affiliations has slowly escalated over several weeks, erupting on Friday with calls for his resignation.

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

Not just knowingly, but deliberately. Please quote to the petition. And link to it.

Mr. Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement prompted recent accusations by conservative critics that he associated with Communists. The group, according to a post-mortem written by some of its founders, was an anti-capitalist, antiwar organization committed to achieving “solidarity among all oppressed peoples” with “direct militant action.”

Republican blogs and conservative talk show hosts, notably Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel, seized upon Mr. Jones’s statements and associations.

"Involvement," "statements," "associations" — what did Jones do exactly? The NYT should serve its readers by putting us in a position to think about the trustworthiness of the Obama administration and its selection of "czars." This isn't just another occasion to note that "Republican blogs" and "conservative talk show hosts" attack the administration. It's interesting that the opposition won a "victory," but more important than the endless partisan battles is the question whether we can trust the administration.

Mr. Jones apologized on Wednesday...

“I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past,” Mr. Jones said in a statement announcing his resignation that was released early Sunday morning....

Does that mean the NYT will not go into the matter of what Jones did and said and what the Obama administration knew about it? He's gone now. Go back to looking away, like good little Obamites.

"If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

Van Jones is sorry if you were offended.

AND: What if we're still offended?

Van Jones.

Here's a post where you can talk about White House Green Jobs Czar Van Jones.