You may (not) be the rational animal if!

SATURDAY, JULY 13, 2013

Aristotle badly debunked once again: Long ago, a famous Greek made a false declaration.

We’ll assume he believed what he said. But here is his groaner, in standard translation:

“Man [sic] is the rational animal.”

Presumably, Aristotle believed that. Plainly, he was wrong.

Twenty-five hundred years later, is there any sign that we are “the rational animal?” As a brief weekend primer, we’ll riddle three counter-examples:

Is Piers Morgan the rational animal?

Watching Piers Morgan’s program last night, we became convinced that Morgan is the dumbest person ever to host a nightly program. (Sean Hannity isn’t dumb.)

Morgan is supremely dumb. Beyond that, he is 100 percent convinced of the righteousness of his assorted perceptions.

(As Socrates noted, that is the ultimate way to be dumb. In response, the other rational animals got mad and made him drink the hemlock.)

Morgan’s program was astounding last night. At any point, did a minute pass without some howler or groaner?

We’re actively trying to figure that out! But out of all the evening’s groaners, just consider this exchange with defense attorney Jayne Weintraub:
MORGAN (7/121/3): [Zimmerman’s] injuries are not that bad.

WEINTRAUB: They’re not that good.

MORGAN: We don't actually even know for a fact his nose was broken. He never had an X-ray—

WEINTRAUB: Piers, Piers, we know—

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: We were portrayed a picture of a guy who had to shoot Trayvon Martin because he genuinely feared that he was about to be killed himself.

WEINTRAUB: Or— No, no, that's not the law. The law is that you have to be in fear of imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

MORGAN: Right.

WEINTRAUB: You don't have to be–

MORGAN: But a bang on the nose and a few scratches on your head, does that qualify?
Note what happened in the highlighted passage:

First, Morgan misstated the most basic part of the applicable Florida law. When he was corrected by Weintraub, he quickly agreed with her correction.

This suggests that he knew all along.

You’re right! This doesn’t necessarily mean that Morgan is dumb. It may mean that he is dishonest. But however you judge that, consider this:

Fifteen months into the public discussion of this case, a multimillionaire TV star is still misstating the basic law which defines the legal case! But then, you can see pundits misstating this aspect of the self-defense law every night of the week on cable. This was the very rare instance where one of these folk got corrected.

Fifteen months later, constant misstatements of fact are made by people who seem to know better. You may not be the rational animal if you aren’t troubled by this.

Is the Washington Post’s Manuel Roig-Franza the rational animal?

Good God. On the front page of today’s Washington Post, Manuel Roig-Franza presents an overview of the trial. This is the way he starts:
ROIG-FRANZA (7/13/13): It began with fragments.

A hoodie. A neighborhood watchman. A teenage boy.
The first thing he mentions is the hoodie! Do we even have to explain how ridiculous that is?

Almost surely, we do. Almost surely, it wouldn’t make any difference, so we aren’t going to bother.

That said, this is the way a major newspaper reports this case on its front page. You may not be the rational animal if you can’t see the problem with that.

Is Josh Marshall the rational animal?

Way back when, Josh Marshall got his start as one of the web'ssmart liberals

A decade later, he has been reduced to what follows. This was his complete post:
MARSHALL (7/12/13): My Take

If you’re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you’re responsible for the outcome.

I know that sounds harsh or flippant. But I really do feel like this is what the whole case comes down to.
As you can see, Josh’s “take” is carefully reasoned, all the way through its 44 words.

Josh says he knows that sounds harsh or flippant. In truth, that isn't how it sounds.

It sounds exceptionally stupid. It sounds like Josh’s brain on witch trial! Or maybe lynch mob.

Since Marshall is actually perfectly bright, it also sounds a bit dishonest. Do you really believe that Marshall “reasons” that way?

(On the bright side, he’s done well financially.)

Always remember to question authority! Plato was wrong, oh so wrong, when we said there were absolute forms in some magical place. Or whatever it was that he said!

Aristotle was crazily wrong in his claim about us animals. Cable, the web and the Washington Post are constantly proving him wrong.

83 comments:

  1. Plato, 8

    George Zimmerman, 63 and counting.

    How will Aristotle stack up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember when Plato strapped Aristotle to the roof of his car and drove him to the cave? Aristotle loved it!

      Anybody?

      Delete
    2. But he hated trying to figure out was was going on behind him by reading shadows on a wall!

      Kinda like extracting facts of a trial by listening to snippets from our media clowns.

      But we do it anyway.

      Delete
  2. Marshall has been a navel-gazing asshole since at least 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Groundhog Day

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Constant misstatements of fact are made by people who seem to know better," but my beef, as always, is with the guy who won't stop pointing it out. Drink your hemlock, Somerby!!

      Delete
  4. I used to watch Hannity debating Alan Colmes. Even though I mostly agreed with Hannity's positions, he pissed me off by frequently using invalid arguments. If Hannity isn't dumb, then he's dishonest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's obviously, clearly dishonest and corrupt.

      Delete
  5. Josh Marshall either wishes to be a propagandist for the sake of being a propagandist or Marshall realized that being a propagandist pays. No matter, truly a horrid person as reflected by what he does.

    ReplyDelete
  6. These series of posts have been especially important and I am grateful for each.

    LTR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great snark, LTR.

      Delete
    2. Again, these posts are superb, simply superb! Each post has been excellent and sorely needed. To hell with the critics.

      LTR

      Delete
  7. Of course he doesn't reason that way and of course if it were Josh's relative or Josh in Zimmerman's place he would be more honest about where reason takes one in this case. He is a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's truly horrifying is if this case didn't suit a narrative about racial dynamics in this country would Josh Marshall want a man to go to jail with this level of reasonable doubt?

    Conversely, would Hannity or anyone else in he media give a flip?

    It's just astounding that such symbolism trumps all. That it's got to be white privilege and bias vs the dangerous street punk in everyone's mind.

    This bullshit makes us all into ambulance chasers and turns all things into a literal or analogous show trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This bullshit makes us all into ambulance chasers and turns all things into a ... show trial."

      Hyperbole aside, you're catching on.

      Delete
    2. I've been on this tear since 2006.

      Delete
  9. Has anyone changed his/her mind since this case was first reported in the national press?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right here. The first I heard was claims that the screams were an angelic boy crying for his life, accompanied by pictures of a 12 year old and a "white" man.

      Delete
    2. MSNBC's coverage was shameless, especially the night they pretended the Z case didn't exist when photos of his injuries were released that day. previously, it had been the most important issue facing America. but media coverage should not affect a verdict. Unfortunately, sometimes the law expects people to read minds, such as determining whether Z reasonably feared for his life. If man is not rational, can we expect juries to distinguish between "reasonable to reasonable people" and "reasonable to defendant"? This is a big problem in prosecuting financial crimes- the prosecution must prove "intent", and financial criminals are a clever bunch who don't staple notes about their intent to their fraudulent documents.
      And here's a great irony. Conservatives are appalled when hate crimes are prosecuted on the basis of intent, or state of mind, buy when it comes to defending Z, mind-reading is of the utmost importance!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous on 7/14/13 @ 2:37,

      So-called "hate crimes" are not prosecuted on intent; they're prosecuted on motive. Intent is what you mentally envisioned happening; motive is the reason you did it. Thus if you deliberately shoot someone because he's black, your intent is to kill or injure. Your motive could be racial animus.

      We regard intent as a crucial element of most crimes, but motive is almost never a consideration. Hate crimes are the exception. You may have your own very good reasons for breaking the law, but generally the law doesn't care why you did it. Some people, and not just conservatives, are wary of criminalizing mental convictions, no matter how odious.

      Delete
    4. deadrat: two-thirds right

      Intent (in a criminal-law context) is essentially the determination to do a criminal act without having legal justification or excuse, while as you say, motive is the inducement to commit the act. When the intent to do an act exists, motive is irrelevant. Regarding hate crimes, it's the criminal act as intended coupled with evidence of a racial motive - you have to have both.

      The bill's in the mail.

      Delete
  10. 1) Josh is smart.
    2) Josh has expressed an opinion I don't like.
    3) Josh must be pandering.

    The slide continues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah!

      Whether Josh's "take" is rational is irrelevant!

      The slide into demanding rationality is appalling, Somerby!

      Delete
    2. Somebody let the infant now known as the Usual Gang out of his or her playpen.

      Delete
  11. I didn't change my mind about guilt or innocence. I don't think Z is guilty of manslaughter, but I'm not certain. However, I changed my mind in other ways.

    I thought Z was white or at least white Hispanic. I now believe he's real Hispanic -- raised in a Spanish speaking home. And, even white< Hispanic is wrong, I now believe, because he has a certain amount of black ancestry. He doesn't look Caucasian. I was fooled, in part, by his German name.

    I once believed Zimmerman might be a racist or at least neutral. I now believe he's quite the opposite, since he was raised with blacks, voluntarily tutored black children, went out of his way to aid black neighbors, etc.

    I find the fact that Z has been nationally tarred as a racist frightening. No matter how wonderful a life you've led, the race hustlers along with the media can give you a national reputation as an abhorrent racist. This is true of organizations as well as of people. If you're rich and powerful, you might be able to undo their smears, but if you're poor or middle class, they will roll over you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe this case will help some of us progressive liberal types be a little more receptive to the conservative viewpoints like David in Ca, because on this issue he has been right on.

      Delete
    2. His name is Zimmerman, so he is obviously a Hispanic Jew. Our crackerjack media totally missed this one!

      Delete
    3. M Carpenter: you're about as liberal as Peggy Noonan is a journalist.

      Delete
    4. David in Cal, I do not know if G Zim is a racist. I do know that many Hispanics are as prone to racism vs. people of African descent as your average WASP. (And most Hispanics are of quite mixed and varied background. No news there.) So, Z's being Hispanic, even if that includes African ancestry, is no evidence for anything about his racisim, one way or t'other.

      You've started. Learn a little bit more about that huge category, "Hispanics."

      Delete
    5. "I do know that many Hispanics are as prone to racism vs. people of African descent as your average WASP."

      That is one loaded statement. And I think the author percieves themselves as someone fighting hard against all of the racists around him/her.

      Delete
  12. Well, the hoodie is important because it goes to the state's theory of the case, which is NOT that Zimmerman profiled on race but that he profiled as "criminal" and that profile drove his actions. People may speculate that one of the reasons he profiled on criminal was Martin's race, but that state's case is "profiled as criminal". They actually gave a reason for the hood being up, which is "rain".

    They get there from Zimmerman's own words, incidentally.

    I don't know; I feel as if you're objecting to anyone in media presenting this from the state's perspective, as if it's brutally biased to do that. It's equally biased to accept Zimmerman's story as fact and start there. There's a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in law, but it shouldn't limit debate outside a courtroom. That's why they sequester juries. I read a piece by a conservative yesterday where he stated "Zimmerman's screams" as fact and described Martin as a "barbarian". That's the defense case. It also smears Martin, and the facts are Martin is at a disadvantage because he can't speak in his own defense. I would actually think there would be more of an effort to lay off the deceased, in terms of "media fairness", simply for that reason. We have lots and lots of words from Zimmerman. Is that unfair? I guess so. On the other hand, he's alive, so maybe that tips the balance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually fantasy is left out as an option for jurors for moral reasons that, yes, extend to debate outside a courtroom.

      Provide evidence of your fantasies or regard yourself as the immoral person you are.

      Delete
    2. There is no reason to lay off someone who had 4 minutes to travel 60 yards but didn't, and forced another person to defend his life.

      Delete
    3. See the problem with "forced another person to defend his life" is it's the defense case.
      I was persuaded on the screaming not by the witnesses who had time to think about it, but by the extremely anguished phone call. It's akin to an "excited utterance" which is a legal term term that translates to "her first impression". IMO that's more reliable than statements that come after people apply a "filter"

      Delete
    4. I was persuaded by the eyewitness, the contemporaneous statements of witnesses and Zimmerman, neither knowing what the other said, and the fact that it was Zimmerman who took the ass kicking. That TM father said it wasn't his son is icing on the cake.

      You know...."logic"

      Delete
    5. And the fact Zimmerman gave his statements with no idea who recorded events, evincing "elation" that they might be on video, and knowing the noise brought out a dozen onlookers

      Delete
    6. "ass kicking" is the defense's interpretation.
      Again, I don't have any problem with your taking the side of the defense.
      What I object to is this ridiculous insistence that there is one side to this that is "rational" and anything else is "emotional" or "corrupt"
      Why are Zimmerman's online defense team allowed to go beyond the facts and Martin's not?

      Delete
    7. Actually Anon 4:11, Z was terrified that videos would surface and made the comment knowing it could not hurt, and might help him with the gullible like the police and you.

      And we KNOW Z feared videos because he admitting grabbing toward his gun, the act that triggered TM to hit him (according to Z), in order to make an excuse that he was "grabbing" for his cell phone. And that admission that he triggered the fight could only show desperation to create an excuse. (BTYW, the cell phone was not where Z grabbed, near the gun, but in his jacket pocket...And Z also stated he believed the police were already right near the scene, and all his yelling was to show where he was...i.e., Z admitted he did not need to call again.) LW

      Delete
    8. You better get your story straight with the rest of the lynch mob. They said he had his gun drawn already.

      Delete
    9. So what if M had 4 minutes to travel 60 yards? Z could have gotten back in his vehicle. M has as much right to check out Z as vice versa, since Z never ID'ed himself as Neighborhood Watch, and never declared he had called police.

      Delete
    10. ...and a perfectly good right to bash Z's head on the pavement too, maybe! Hoping that doesn't go wrong. Oooooopsie!

      Delete
    11. Anon@950: since you were there, thank you for clearing this up.

      Delete
  13. Marshall's phony take is despicable and par for the course

    ReplyDelete
  14. Josh Marshall has been assimilated.

    ReplyDelete
  15. More dumbaxxery. If Martin had an umbrella, wore a letter jacket (no hoodie), then Zimmerfiler would have smiled like Archie when Lionel said " Oh, Mistah Bunker, I'se studyin' to be a 'lectical enj'neer". Oh, and Z might have factored in TM's being preoccupied on his cell phone, which Z pretended to be suspicious activity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. FWIW I suspect that race did play a role in Z's conclusions that M was suspicious. So what?

    First of all, it would be reasonable. Most of the people identified as robbing the residents were young black men.

    Second of all, it doesn't matter for this case. If Z committed murder, he committed murder. If he acted in self defense, he acted in self defense.

    The enormous media focus on whether or not M was racially profiled seems unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a non-member of the media, you can't fool me. Zimmerman committed murder.

      Delete
  17. I was once a big "fan" of yours and agreed with most of what you had to say until now with your not tempered, rational posts about the George Zimmerman trial. How does it feel to have attracted so many racists left overs from from "Talk Left"? Your advocacy for Zimmerman and all of his hateful media apologists (how does it feel to align yourself with the hate mongering SOB's at Faux Noise and the Daily Caller)cannot be erased with your first rate advocacy of what is right with your past posts.

    Shame on you, Bob (the stooge of the rabid right). If this makes me a member of whatever tribe, so the hell what. I least I haven't joined the right wing chorus full of noise but devoid of consequence and full of noise and fury signifying nothing but hate-mongering and intolerance.

    You must be proud, brother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm, but it's so well-delivered that I can't quite tell for sure. Well done, sir!

      Delete
  18. I think the author is getting very persnickety about calling people "dumb", and so forth. I'm not a Piers fan, but the man did stand corrected about FL law. Maybe he omitted part of the law as rhetorical device, maybe he was just rushing, whatever. If we are giving Z the benefit of the doubt for killing someone, can't we give benefit to a guy who admits immediately he was wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not like it's ever happened with Morgan before...

      What?

      Oh.

      Delete
    2. No because he shouldn't run his fat mouth before he knows the facts.

      Delete
  19. "Maybe he omitted part of the law as rhetorical device ..." Too much rhetorical devise. How many months along are we and he still doesn't know a very basic fact. Yet he's caught up in it enough to spout off blowhard, ill-informed overpaid opinions on a major news network? I don't care how quick he covers up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. LEAVE PIERS MORGAN ALOOOOOOOOOOOONE !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Several lessons are painfully emerging from this whole sordid affair.

    1) Never trust a journalist paid more than the average public school teacher.

    2) You cannot recover from any wrong done to Al Gore or attempts to endear yourself to an audience.

    3) Dissaggreate when appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "First, Morgan misstated the most basic part of the applicable Florida law."

    Gee, Mr. Somerby. Who is less rational. Allow me to reprint the portion of Mr. Morgan's comments you highlighted.

    "We were portrayed a picture of a guy who had to shoot Trayvon Martin because....."

    Where does Morgan state he is quoting the law? He says "we were portrayed a picture of a guy...." Clearly that is what Zimmerman's defense protrayed him as.
    Nowhere does he state what the law is or is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The implication about law is right there where you stopped giving context: "...because he genuinely feared that he was about to be killed himself."

      Which is where a saner person interrupted Morgan, since that's NOT the "because" in Zimmerman's defense AT ALL. The "because" under a defense of self-defense isn't fear that you're about to be killed, it's fear of imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

      The difference is important, crucial even, under law. If it doesn't matter to *you* then just come out and say you don't care if Zimmerman feared he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm OR death.

      The bottom line though: You have no basis to question anyone's rationality if that's the way you think and argue.

      Delete
    2. Slats on the LawnJuly 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

      Anon@157:

      Thin-slicing to a degree that Somerby would envy.

      Delete
    3. Yeah Slats! Fuck the law! Fuck getting it right! Hooray for making shit up! Anything else is "thin slicing."

      Delete
  23. Bob, like most of us tend to be, I allow Aristotle to be partly wrong here. I just believe it is clear that we have another necessary dimension to us. Of course I am often arrogant enough to actually believe my own short-sighedness, but the old guy A was making an observation built on the rational and logical. I am coming to believe that those "rational, logical" ways of approaching the world's problems are 19th century bankrupt ways of collaborative problem-solving the world's difficulties. We are now emerging a global culture, I think. The world is becoming a "beehive" where any change on the periphery affects the whole hive instantaneously. Clearly, that is not a "logical" or "rational" metaphor but I think it is something that is going to be noticeably useful to the human race as time goes on.

    We are all trying to navigate the rapids of change together for the first time, and many are beginning to endeavor to help their fellow travelers as well.

    I guess I have an irrational hope that more holistic ways of seeing our situation might just get us through to a better sense of what is going on.

    I know, I know--this is off topic in one sense. Most will probably shake their heads in confused disbelief as to what I am trying to communicate here--and I really can't blame them, either!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aristotle was wrong when he said man is a rational animal.

      But it is useless to argue about Greek philosophy in our post-Freudian world.

      We have general semantics and cognitive therapy now.

      All we have to do is use them.

      Delete
  24. To actually wrestle with the topic of the trial here, I submit that it is perfectly reasonable to deny our citizens the ability to protect themselves when they are confronted by a gun-toting block watch captain who never learned to feel his underlying emotions, name them and use functional, adult ways of expressing them. Sarcasm here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zimmerman's brother is an excellent spokesman for justice. He is unapologetic to the race pimps and their angry lynch mob. He keeps bringing it back to the fact that we retain a right to self defense, even when our attacker is dark skinned. Don't attack people, don't risk getting shot. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're that simple.

      Delete
  26. Remarkable, isn't it, how Bob's exquisite, even unique, reasoning and rationality invariably discounts the black person's version of events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which black person's version of events is Somerby discounting?

      It's unfair, I know, because I ask knowing full well you can't give even a single example, much less show us it's "invariable," you sad, sad douchebag.

      Delete
    2. Since Bob refuses, could you give us facts about the black person's version of events?

      Delete
    3. Rachel Jeantel did. I imagine that Bob taught many a RJ way back when, and now he's almost the only liberal alive who cares about black children like her Didn't you know? (Except when it counts, when she's on the stand and her young black friend is dead. Or maybe I missed Bob's post about Rachel, or about Trayvon as people he recognizes.)

      I am mad at Mr. Somerby right now. (And invoking Plato and Aristotle will not help. Try some Homer or a tragedian -- or Aristophanes, for god's sake. All much wiser than those philosophers.)

      Delete
    4. mch,

      So we should go to fiction instead of philosophy for this case?

      Delete
    5. You have a very blinkered view of the categories "fiction" and "philosophy." Go take a humanities course somewhere, or try reading a book.

      Delete
    6. And, btw, is it not possible that shrewd and sympathetic reader might not sort out (I grant you, it might take more than 16 hours) what truth Ms. Jeantel's testimony might contain? I feel deeply for that young woman. (And was she not justified in trying to avoid this whole mess? Was Martin perhaps justified in trying to avoid this whole mess? This whole mess is not on your side in their world. Our world, maybe, if we have a little imagination. Oops -- imagination is fiction, not philosophy! My bad!)

      Delete
    7. "Was Martin perhaps justified in trying to avoid this whole mess?"

      Was there evidence that Martin tried "to avoid this whole mess?"

      Not much.

      Was there evidence that Martin *didn't* "try to avoid this mess," that Martin took an active role in furthering "this whole mess?"

      Why yes, yes there was some evidence of that.

      Your bad.

      Delete
  27. Confused,

    I think I know why you're living up to your name. You're watching the broadcast of a different trial. You need to watch the Zimmerman trial. In that one, there is no "black person's version of events." The black person is the dead victim, and there are no eyewitnesses other than the killer.

    TDH's point is that if you're going to discuss a trial you should be familiar with the evidence introduced and the law that governs. That doesn't mean that you have to accept the defendant's narrative, but it does mean that you can't replace the victim's missing narrative with your own. That doesn't mean that you can't find the disproportionate outcome a tragedy, but it does mean that you have to stick to the law's prescriptions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Such subtle and exquisite minds here at the Howler. Yet simple, less sophisticated folk such as myself are left wondering: had Trayvon Martin been white, would Zimmerman have pursued him in the first place? Would the tragic series of events that Zim precipitated had happened at all? And we of less penetrating and subtle minds, without benefit of a Harvard education, wonder where we'd be now if the races of the two men involved had been reversed. But this is just how we lower orders, we mere peasants, mull this, hampered by our own severe limitations of intellect, nuance, and imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Such subtle and exquisite minds here at the Howler. Yet simple, less sophisticated folk such as myself are left wondering: had Trayvon Martin been white, would Zimmerman have pursued him in the first place? Would the tragic series of events that Zim precipitated had happened at all? And we of less penetrating and subtle minds, without benefit of a Harvard education, wonder where we'd be now if the races of the two men involved had been reversed. But this is just how we lower orders, we mere peasants, mull this, hampered by our own severe limitations of intellect, nuance, and imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...because it Just Has To Be About Race for you, huh?

      You were quite right to end by admitting your (very obvious) limits.

      Delete
  30. Totally unfair portrayal of Josh Marshall on this whole case, Mr. Somerby. He hasn't been strong on it, but he has tried to be fair, and WHOLE (that is, by constantly acknowledging that he is not the source for wholeness). There is a tentativeness is all his (limited) coverage of this story that you might try emulating.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And maybe I should just say. When did Bob S discover that American journalism stinks? When his Harvard-pal Gore got gored? Gee, swift thinking. It's hardly news to anyone else with two brain cells, access to history, and a heart. And as a Harvard grad, he should have (in addition to the access) at least two brain cells (won't vouch for the heart). And maybe with a few brain cells,he should be able to figure out that playing sophomoric gotcha games with select "liberal" media, combined with "I taught black kids in Baltimore once!" games ain't enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... ain't enough"

      Your own irrelevant, fact-free posting style, though, is really where-it's-at though!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. "Select liberal media".

      The New York Times ("The Paper of Record")

      MSNBC ( "Lean Forward")

      Talking Points Memo ( a top liberal blog)

      I suppose it would have shown more perspective if Somerby had critiqued local Baltimore TV stations, The Charleston Gazette, and O'Reillysucks.com.

      Delete