Does Howard Stern now believe he holds a podium at some intellectually high university & that all the people who listened & laughed at his radio shows are no longer acceptable except to be scraped off the bottom of his shoes? Does he hope that the people he used to malign will now enshrine his words because he has cast his former listeners into the pit of deplorables? I remember that he interviewed Trump on one of his radio shows & they laughed together. Et tu Brutus.
It took Howard decades to get accepted into the gilded liberal elite and to get to sit at the cool kids' table—for most of his career he was just a weird nerd who played "Fartman", did juvenile jokes about lesbians, and surrounded himself w a cast of sycophantic mutants.
There's no way he's giving up invitations to fancy DNC fundraisers in the Hamptons and invites to famous actors' mansions in Cali, which signal that finally he's been recognized as an official American aristocrat and legitimate member of the cultural/media upper crust. If he has to go back on everything he ever did or was and has to shit all over his most loyal fans, it's a small price to pay. He has the desperate zeal of a convert.
He’s kidding himself. They still call him Fartman bro d his back. He may earn elite money, but his rise is based on work that stinks & the elites will always know it.
Gold medal for awful -- that fawning USA Today article on Emhoff, which boldly quotes Democratic campaign workers/consultants and supporters about how wonderful he is; frames him glowingly throughout to signal support, not neutral reporting; was apparently written to express the reporter's value system, and filters them through Emhoff for credibility while advancing the Harris campaign; and cringely tells readers that men can still like sports and support their wives, while presenting Emhoff as a "guy's guy."
Silver medal -- The Pelosi quote, but also the question that led to it. Semafor's Kadia Goba tees up an answer for Pelosi about the lack of an open primary: "Did you change your mind because you saw all the excitement around Kamala Harris?" Earlier in the interview, around the 39-minute mark, Goba asks this winner: "Why is California producing such dynamic political people?" Is there any wonder why our media deserves our scorn and passionate disdain?
Bronze medal -- That absurd, tortured question by the NYT reporter to J.D. Vance: "What's something you're willing not to say to make a point?" I had to read that a couple of times to understand it; kudos to Vance for being to HEAR it and make sense of it and its editorializing.
"Why is California producing such dynamic political people?"
God, we Dirt People really are ruled by Cloud People.
In their definition of political leadership, what's important is CASH, PR, donors, media mentions, being telegenic and having all the right and proper beliefs and connections; but nowhere in the equation must we ever mention facts, consequences, REALITY.
The super-cool rich kids that rule Cali must never be asked about the disasters of their homeless policies, their postnational commitment to open borders or their postrational commitment to Gender Theory and inflicting it on kids of every age, and never mind them ever once mentioning our highest sales taxes, highest gas and heating oil costs, our highest cost of living and the impossibility of a middle-class family ever owning a home here.
There is always an inevitable separation bw ruled and rulers, rich and poor etc, but the digital age has made this a chasm. Our media and political class inhabit a virtual world where nothing matters but clicks, likes, and polishing each other's hologram. Assuming reality inevitably has to return one day, they will be completely shocked and unprepared.
I just checked which presidents came from California. I thought only Reagan but he was born in Illinois, that leaves Richard Nixon. Of course the contest is a bit unfair since Ohio (7 presidents) has been a state longer than California. But I think being from California, especially the way it is now, is more of a handicap than an advantage in national politics.
maybe, maybe not...but if you need to raise a few hundred million dollars in a few weeks or need someone to spend $400 million on "election fortification", being a Cali pol and knowing almost every tech oligarch sure doesn't hurt.
I'm really confused about Harris' stance on guns, she allegedly even owns a handgun. Seems that when she goes off-script she's actually not against gun ownership, or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" situations?
Just more evidence that she believes in nothing and will simply say whatever her handlers tell her she should say to improve her political prospects.
For years she's talked about gun bans and decried gun violence. And now she's suddenly telling people she's a gun owner who'd pull the trigger if someone were to break into her home.
The two clips seem more like one of those typical semantics games to me. You can own a gun but not an "assault weapon" or "weapons of war" (what other type of weapon would a well regulated militia require?). You can have freedom of speech but misinformation/hate-speech isn't speech. Take that a bit further and you can just say "I'm for human rights but those aren't humans". Academics and especially lawyers love playing those word games.
It's not a contradiction to them, although contradictions are also part of their repertoire.
Oh yes, the Atlantic is the worst magazine in America except for the fact that it completely supports and echos the species of human that isn't emotionally or psychologically well but apparently gets to dominate the rest of us.
Brian Stelter might be given an award some day, but only if he first kills Chris Wallace. Chris is his only competition for Stupidest Move of the Decade.
Does Howard Stern now believe he holds a podium at some intellectually high university & that all the people who listened & laughed at his radio shows are no longer acceptable except to be scraped off the bottom of his shoes? Does he hope that the people he used to malign will now enshrine his words because he has cast his former listeners into the pit of deplorables? I remember that he interviewed Trump on one of his radio shows & they laughed together. Et tu Brutus.
It took Howard decades to get accepted into the gilded liberal elite and to get to sit at the cool kids' table—for most of his career he was just a weird nerd who played "Fartman", did juvenile jokes about lesbians, and surrounded himself w a cast of sycophantic mutants.
There's no way he's giving up invitations to fancy DNC fundraisers in the Hamptons and invites to famous actors' mansions in Cali, which signal that finally he's been recognized as an official American aristocrat and legitimate member of the cultural/media upper crust. If he has to go back on everything he ever did or was and has to shit all over his most loyal fans, it's a small price to pay. He has the desperate zeal of a convert.
He’s kidding himself. They still call him Fartman bro d his back. He may earn elite money, but his rise is based on work that stinks & the elites will always know it.
I think it's just symptoms of menopause. Or just jealousy, while Trump became president Stern pretty much faded into obscurity.
After COVID, Stern went into his bunker for 2 years or more. He’s gone from paranoid to delusional it seems.
Gold medal for awful -- that fawning USA Today article on Emhoff, which boldly quotes Democratic campaign workers/consultants and supporters about how wonderful he is; frames him glowingly throughout to signal support, not neutral reporting; was apparently written to express the reporter's value system, and filters them through Emhoff for credibility while advancing the Harris campaign; and cringely tells readers that men can still like sports and support their wives, while presenting Emhoff as a "guy's guy."
Silver medal -- The Pelosi quote, but also the question that led to it. Semafor's Kadia Goba tees up an answer for Pelosi about the lack of an open primary: "Did you change your mind because you saw all the excitement around Kamala Harris?" Earlier in the interview, around the 39-minute mark, Goba asks this winner: "Why is California producing such dynamic political people?" Is there any wonder why our media deserves our scorn and passionate disdain?
Bronze medal -- That absurd, tortured question by the NYT reporter to J.D. Vance: "What's something you're willing not to say to make a point?" I had to read that a couple of times to understand it; kudos to Vance for being to HEAR it and make sense of it and its editorializing.
"Why is California producing such dynamic political people?"
God, we Dirt People really are ruled by Cloud People.
In their definition of political leadership, what's important is CASH, PR, donors, media mentions, being telegenic and having all the right and proper beliefs and connections; but nowhere in the equation must we ever mention facts, consequences, REALITY.
The super-cool rich kids that rule Cali must never be asked about the disasters of their homeless policies, their postnational commitment to open borders or their postrational commitment to Gender Theory and inflicting it on kids of every age, and never mind them ever once mentioning our highest sales taxes, highest gas and heating oil costs, our highest cost of living and the impossibility of a middle-class family ever owning a home here.
There is always an inevitable separation bw ruled and rulers, rich and poor etc, but the digital age has made this a chasm. Our media and political class inhabit a virtual world where nothing matters but clicks, likes, and polishing each other's hologram. Assuming reality inevitably has to return one day, they will be completely shocked and unprepared.
I just checked which presidents came from California. I thought only Reagan but he was born in Illinois, that leaves Richard Nixon. Of course the contest is a bit unfair since Ohio (7 presidents) has been a state longer than California. But I think being from California, especially the way it is now, is more of a handicap than an advantage in national politics.
maybe, maybe not...but if you need to raise a few hundred million dollars in a few weeks or need someone to spend $400 million on "election fortification", being a Cali pol and knowing almost every tech oligarch sure doesn't hurt.
I'm really confused about Harris' stance on guns, she allegedly even owns a handgun. Seems that when she goes off-script she's actually not against gun ownership, or is this one of those "rules for thee but not for me" situations?
Just more evidence that she believes in nothing and will simply say whatever her handlers tell her she should say to improve her political prospects.
For years she's talked about gun bans and decried gun violence. And now she's suddenly telling people she's a gun owner who'd pull the trigger if someone were to break into her home.
https://substack.com/@euphoricrecall/note/c-69027750?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=7x9qm
The two clips seem more like one of those typical semantics games to me. You can own a gun but not an "assault weapon" or "weapons of war" (what other type of weapon would a well regulated militia require?). You can have freedom of speech but misinformation/hate-speech isn't speech. Take that a bit further and you can just say "I'm for human rights but those aren't humans". Academics and especially lawyers love playing those word games.
It's not a contradiction to them, although contradictions are also part of their repertoire.
A leftist publication demanding intellectual rigor? Kudos to Current Affairs.
"We don't know that noone has tried to kill Kamala Harris in the last couple months"....hahahaha, too good, along with the Babylon Bee thing!
Oh yes, the Atlantic is the worst magazine in America except for the fact that it completely supports and echos the species of human that isn't emotionally or psychologically well but apparently gets to dominate the rest of us.
Brian Stelter might be given an award some day, but only if he first kills Chris Wallace. Chris is his only competition for Stupidest Move of the Decade.
That was an excellent compilation! Thanks!