The pond was greatly heartened by the chants of "Vladimir Putin is a dickhead" as a way of ushering in the new year.
Of course the sociopathic terrorist leader of a terror state can't be undone by names - sticks and stones are required - and the language is mild up against what a Tamworth person might use - but still a deviant chant while under fire says a lot about the human spirit. (DB)
Meanwhile, the pond continues to ignore the siren song of herpetological studies, and has roamed in its reading.
The pond once attempted lists looking back, but it requires too much effort, so why not turn to others?
Usually Politico would be well down the pond's list, but the pond was delighted to see that David Brooks had made it onto Zack Stanton's listicle Oops! The Worst Political Predictions of 2022.
Many moons ago the pond used to experiment by taking a look at Brooks' scribbles for the both siderist rag, but settled for his outings on the PBS News Hour, where his simpering, smug, smirk seemed to ask "how did I get to the position where anybody might think I had an expert insight to offer on anything?"
Take it away smug simperer ...
“The Jan. 6 committee has already blown it”
PREDICTED BY: DAVID BROOKS, JUNE 8
“What is the Jan. 6 committee for?” Brooks asked in his June 8 New York Times column, offering two possibilities based on recent reports: That Democrats hoped to refocus their midterm message, and that committee members aimed to discredit Trump.
“No offense, but these goals are pathetic,” Brooks wrote. “Using the events of Jan. 6 as campaign fodder is small-minded and likely to be ineffective. … [W]e need a committee that will be focused not on the specific actions of this or that individual but on the broad social conditions that threaten to bring American democracy to its knees.”
The relative small-mindedness is a question for someone else. But let’s address Brooks’ other predictions.
Whether or not the hearings finally convinced the public at large about Trump’s culpability is, in some ways, the wrong question. You don’t need to convince the entire public to meaningfully alter the outcome of elections.
Centering the committee’s conversation around the threats to democracy kept the issue in the news and helped frame the midterm debate as, in some cases, a choice between Trumpian election deniers and Democratic nominees who would support democracy. The approach paid a clear dividend. Democratic voters were more likely to turn out and vote in an election that historical patterns suggested would otherwise be punishing for Biden’s party. And independent and suburban swing voters were turned off by election denialism, largely rejecting Trumpian Republican candidates who doubted the 2020 results.
It also turned the election from a simple referendum on Biden’s performance into one where Trump was on the ballot (metaphorically, if not literally). “Nationally, almost as many voters said they cast their votes to oppose Trump — 28% — as those who said they did so to oppose President Joe Biden — 32% — according to Edison Research’s exit poll,” Bloomberg noted in late November. It was effective as a political strategy.
It’s also clear that the committee’s efforts have helped erode Trump’s standing. The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote on Dec. 19, “Mr. Trump is significantly diminished, … partly a function of his own missteps and miscalculations in recent months. But it is also a product of the voluminous evidence assembled by the House committee and its ability to tell the story of his efforts to overturn the election in a compelling and accessible way.”
Beyond the crass calculus of partisan politics, there’s the idea of oversight itself. Our understanding of the events of Jan. 6 is undeniably more thorough and fully realized as a result of the televised committee hearings. We saw previously unseen footage. We heard unvarnished accounts from those around Trump demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that he knew he actually lost the election and tried to overturn it anyway. We heard testimony about the pardons requested by Trump’s congressional allies who sought to reverse the results of the election. We got a riveting account of Trump’s mental state, his alleged altercations with Secret Service agents and his desire to have officials stop the use of metal detectors on Trump supporters at the Ellipse — even after being presented with evidence that some of his backers were armed.
Go ahead, quibble with their findings. Argue that they’re wrongheaded. But given everything, it’s simply not credible to argue that the committee “blew it,” as Brooks predicted before its summer hearings began.
PREDICTED BY: DAVID BROOKS, JUNE 8
“What is the Jan. 6 committee for?” Brooks asked in his June 8 New York Times column, offering two possibilities based on recent reports: That Democrats hoped to refocus their midterm message, and that committee members aimed to discredit Trump.
“No offense, but these goals are pathetic,” Brooks wrote. “Using the events of Jan. 6 as campaign fodder is small-minded and likely to be ineffective. … [W]e need a committee that will be focused not on the specific actions of this or that individual but on the broad social conditions that threaten to bring American democracy to its knees.”
The relative small-mindedness is a question for someone else. But let’s address Brooks’ other predictions.
Whether or not the hearings finally convinced the public at large about Trump’s culpability is, in some ways, the wrong question. You don’t need to convince the entire public to meaningfully alter the outcome of elections.
Centering the committee’s conversation around the threats to democracy kept the issue in the news and helped frame the midterm debate as, in some cases, a choice between Trumpian election deniers and Democratic nominees who would support democracy. The approach paid a clear dividend. Democratic voters were more likely to turn out and vote in an election that historical patterns suggested would otherwise be punishing for Biden’s party. And independent and suburban swing voters were turned off by election denialism, largely rejecting Trumpian Republican candidates who doubted the 2020 results.
It also turned the election from a simple referendum on Biden’s performance into one where Trump was on the ballot (metaphorically, if not literally). “Nationally, almost as many voters said they cast their votes to oppose Trump — 28% — as those who said they did so to oppose President Joe Biden — 32% — according to Edison Research’s exit poll,” Bloomberg noted in late November. It was effective as a political strategy.
It’s also clear that the committee’s efforts have helped erode Trump’s standing. The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote on Dec. 19, “Mr. Trump is significantly diminished, … partly a function of his own missteps and miscalculations in recent months. But it is also a product of the voluminous evidence assembled by the House committee and its ability to tell the story of his efforts to overturn the election in a compelling and accessible way.”
Beyond the crass calculus of partisan politics, there’s the idea of oversight itself. Our understanding of the events of Jan. 6 is undeniably more thorough and fully realized as a result of the televised committee hearings. We saw previously unseen footage. We heard unvarnished accounts from those around Trump demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that he knew he actually lost the election and tried to overturn it anyway. We heard testimony about the pardons requested by Trump’s congressional allies who sought to reverse the results of the election. We got a riveting account of Trump’s mental state, his alleged altercations with Secret Service agents and his desire to have officials stop the use of metal detectors on Trump supporters at the Ellipse — even after being presented with evidence that some of his backers were armed.
Go ahead, quibble with their findings. Argue that they’re wrongheaded. But given everything, it’s simply not credible to argue that the committee “blew it,” as Brooks predicted before its summer hearings began.
Well yes, but that's why the pond stopped reading his both siderist blather - there are good people on both sides - long ago ...
The pond also enjoyed Arwa Hahdawi's piece for the Graudian.
She covered the usual - the deplorable theocracies in Iran and Afghanistan included and their latest set of outrages - but with her listicle aslo including this bit of republican snidery ...
8 Prince Andrew settled a Jeffrey Epstein-related sexual assault case in the US
But let’s not talk about that, eh? The fact that the Duke of York paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault isn’t the real scandal here. The fact that one of the most senior members of the royal family was palling around with Epstein isn’t the real scandal here. The real scandal, as we well know, is Meghan Markle’s very existence!
Two mentions of a Markle in a pear tree in the holyday season!
Meanwhile, away from the bilious, baleful reptilian influence, the pond can indulge in climate science porn.
Having driven through the area a number of times - there's something about desert landscapes that exercise the pond's imagination - The Arizona Republic did an interesting report How Colorado River cities are preparing for shortages with conservation and alternate sources. (Outside the paywall at time of writing).
It's too long to quote in detail, but it encapsulates the madness of trying to do an American lifestyle in the desert, but for anyone interested The New Yorker did a companion piece,The Water Wranglers of the West Are Struggling to Save the Colorado River (possibly outside the paywall though the pond can never tell).
Of course just at the moment San Francisco has been caught out by a huge deluge, but how pleasing to be able to mention climate science and its consequences without a disapproving reptile glare ...
Then there was the stark evidence of the deeply corrupt ways of the US Supreme Court in the NY Times, a both siderist paper the pond routinely ignores and which might require a paywall breaker for some...
The Supreme Court Historical Society has raised more than $23 million in the last two decades, much of it from lawyers, corporations and special interests.
It reminded the pond of another headline in WaPo...
John Roberts' yearly report on the state of the court was an excruciating example of how it's not just ostriches that exploit the head in sand meme ... and in turn that led the pond to a Politico profile, How Justice Kagan lost her battle as a consensus builder.
The Supreme Court is now in the hands of right/far right ratbags and Roberts an impotent irrelevance ... with Ginni telling porkies even as she 'regrets' her texts, or at least regrets getting caught.
Lastly it would be remiss of the pond not to note the charlatan, but this wrinkle seemed to have escaped the attention it deserves ...
Two Weiners comparing dicks ...
And speaking of that happy medium, and dickheads in Teslas and Mercs, here was a headline to savour ...
He's still got a shitload of money, but the Telsa cultists are currently going through a reality check about their straw dog god ...
And as the pond has avoided mentioning the orange clown show and his tragic NY party, why not drag in a late reference to Nicholas Confessore's The invention of Elise Stefanik?
Sure, it's in the NY Times, but that link is to the Yahoo!news version, and it's symbolic in that it shows the way so many Americans, out of greed, ambition and an absolute lack of ethical standards, embraced the big lie, swallowed the red pill and went down the rabbit hole with Elise ...
And in all this, nothing about the local scene? Nope, when on holydays, it's time to avoid all the domestic fluff-gathering and navel gazing, except perhaps by way of a cartoon.
And so to a few cartoons, and this seems to have been the last infallible Pope before the pond took off ... it's a little old, but that portrait of the mutton Dutton never tires ...
It's always the details ...
And the immortal Rowe had a few celebrating the sociopathic terrorist ...
The pond will get back to its herpetological studies in due course, but how pleasing it is for the moment to join Tootle off the tracks, and roam wild and free in the meadows, among the flowers ... free of a fear of an imminent reptile attack ...
Arwa Hadawi: "The real scandal, as we well know, is Meghan Markle’s very existence!" Not to mention Doria Ragland too, of course.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a fascinating comparison, isn't it: Meghan versus Elise
Welcome back.
ReplyDelete"Two Weiners comparing dicks ..." - as good as Pope & Rowe!
ReplyDeleteA worthy addition to your famed loonpond DP, may be savng such quotes for an end of year post(traumatic) post of "Things I never imagned I'd imagne" or "Truth s always stranger than fiction". The kids at school do it.
Now resume holiday program - Tootle off the tracks, and roam wild and free in the meadows, among the flowers. Supurb. Thanks.