Was that a smart thing for Chris Hayes to do?

MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2013

We’re going to say that it wasn’t: Two weeks back, Chris Hayes did a segment on All In that carried a written warning:

“The following is a satirization of recent news analysis.”

Dating back to Jon Stewart’s hour of advice to Rachel Maddow in 2010, we’re largely opposed to actual journalists performing satirizations. We stand with Stewart’s apparent message to Maddow that night—her job as an actual journalist is more important than that.

That said, the New York Times’ David Carr wrote an interesting column last week about Hayes’ satirization segment. But first, let’s enjoy Carr’s portrait of what cable news is now like:
CARR (8/5/13): [The segment] was both striking and very much of a piece with the universe it was parodying. Is “Fox and Friends” real? Does Chris Matthews really feel all shout-y and frantic about every little wobble in the political debate? Can Mr. O’Reilly really be as deeply offended by almost everything he sees, or Rachel Maddow as surprised as she acts about things that aren’t that surprising? At some point, we all know that Anderson Cooper’s bottomless pit of empathy and umbrage is running on empty.
Carr skipped Hayes’ persona, which has earned him a nickname—The Puppy. By the way, with respect to O’Reilly, we can answer Carr’s question:

Yes.

Back to the satirization at issue: Here’s how Carr described the segment at the start of his piece:
CARR: On Tuesday night on MSNBC’s “All In,” Chris Hayes had a very direct conversation about race with the Gawker writer Cord Jefferson. Prompted by a news report of a group of young people in Huntington Beach, Calif., who looted and vandalized property, the pair lamented the lack of community leadership and suggested that acting out in that manner was a learned behavior.

It was a joke. Actually, there were two beats to the joke. The young people they were talking about were white. And the whole discussion was a put-on, a satire meant to show how lame the hoary race tropes of cable news have become.

As a comedy bit, it was very well done. Both men were straight-faced and earnest. Mr. Hayes, tapping his inner Bill O’Reilly, did a fine job of bloviating his way through an introduction heavy with outrage: “The story of the white criminal culture is not a story the mainstream media will tell you. But once you scratch the surface, these stories are everywhere you look.”

Mr. Jefferson, whose post on Gawker prompted the TV bit, was the designated finger-wagging scold (a black man taking measure of white pathology). “These young people are learning this kind of behavior in lacrosse camps,” he said. “They’re learning this kind of behavior at college spring break. They’re learning this kind of behavior at Ivy League fraternities where drug use and binge drinking are normalized behavior.”
To watch the full segment, click here.

We saw the segment in question that night. Was it funny? In our view, not that much, but opinions will differ. In our view, the main problem was the fact that the segment appeared on a cable program that is supposed to be news.

Presumably, the segment was meant to “satirize” O’Reilly’s commentaries on problems afflicting the black community, commentaries which had been drawing a lot of attention. Was something wrong with O’Reilly’s presentations? If so, it might be the job of a news/opinion/analysis program to explain what that was.

This past weekend, Don Lemon continued his discussion of such topics on CNN. Lemon has invited a wide array of guests to take part in this ongoing discussion. This weekend, “anti-racism educator” Tim Wise joined Lemon on the air for an extended discussion. Wise has been a guest on Lemon's program many times.

Because the subject is so important, so are Lemon’s discussions with Wise and others. Here’s the problem with the Hayes segment: At best, it was a comedy segment. But a comedy segment doesn’t explain what is wrong with the conduct or views being satirized.

There’s a reason why crime in the black community—in Chicago or Baltimore, let us say—gets discussed more often than “a handful of individuals trashing outhouses and a bike store after a surfing contest,” the video the Hayes show played behind its comedy segment.

What makes urban crime an actual problem—an actual problem that gets discussed? Good decent young people lose their lives when other young people lose their way in the turmoil of our urban environments! In Chicago, Hadiya Pendleton lost her life this year. In Baltimore, Diamond Williams lost hers. These were beautiful young people who had done everything right every day of their lives. It’s great that Hayes sees this as funny stuff, but it pretty much isn’t.

In our view, The Puppy ought to get off his blanket and explain what O’Reilly has said that is wrong. Our recollection of his own channel’s conduct this year is a bit unflattering:

When Pendleton was killed in Chicago shortly after Inaugural Day, the incident got a lot of national coverage. But Darling Rachel ran and his behind the white kids who died in Newtown; she let Pendleton get thrown down the stairs. The white victims mattered to Rachel that month, as of course they should have. The black victim in Chicago did not.

And yes, this is very much the way white hosts on that channel tend to treat issues of race. Except when they are reading from mandated tribal scripts, it’s plain that they really don’t care.

(No one cares about everything.)

Those shootings provided the perfect chance to say the following: Hadiya Pendleton was from Newtown too—and the Newtown kids were from Chicago! Rachel didn’t have it in her to include the darker sib.

Neither did anyone else on that rattletrap, self-impressed channel.

Now, The Puppy is joking and pushing his glasses back over the humor of surfing riots. Elsewhere, people are actually talking about possible causes of urban violence because it is an actual problem—because actual people, very good people, just keep losing their lives as other young people lose their way in life.

Hayes got busy faking his facts about the death of Trayvon Martin. Williams and Pendleton got thrown away—and The Puppy was soon on the TV machine laughing about O’Reilly.

What did O’Reilly say that is wrong? Hayes ought to apologize for thinking this is a joke, and then he ought to answer that question. He ought to talk it over with Lemon, and with other people whose basic instincts may not be his own—whose talking points aren’t being dictated by the need to pleasure a tribe, thus building an audience and helping him reap those huge paydays.

Surfing riots aren’t much of a problem. That may explain why they don’t get discussed.

O’Reilly is discussing an actual problem. What has he said about that problem that is wrong? Now that Hayes has had his good solid fun, maybe he can drop the satirizations and give his viewer an answer.

Given the way his channel works, it might be better if he doesn't try.

There are always professors like this: There is always some professor somewhere who can’t wait to react like this:
CARR: The segment on “All In” began with a written warning—“the following is a satirization of recent news analysis”—and ended with a return to preachiness, with Mr. Hayes wagging a finger, this time he meant it, and suggesting that viewers needed to see that coverage of black America was just as silly.

But it was still a bit of a moment. Instead of waiting for Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert to clip and annotate cable vapidity, MSNBC was temporarily acting as a kind of self-cleaning oven, parodying the excesses of cable from a very near distance.

“I think it was sort of brilliant,” said Jeffrey P. Jones, the director of the Peabody Awards at the University of Georgia, and the author of “Entertaining Politics.” “What they did has been done before in all kinds of ways, but the context, of putting the satire right into a cable news show, makes it very powerful.”
The segment was “very powerful” in what way? Until someone explains what’s actually wrong with the statements others are making, everyone gets to diddle himself and author his own understanding.

Is cable coverage of black America “just as silly” as Hayes’ segment about that surfing riot? Yes, it is—if Williams and Pendleton are just chew toys The Puppy can throw away.

133 comments:

  1. Black people are statistically over five times more likely to be murdered than white people. The problem is so extreme that the total number of black people murdered in 2011 exceeded the number of whites even though blacks make up only thirteen percent of the population. Yet every time a white politician, especially a conservative one, brings up the subject of urban crime liberals start yelling about "dog whistles" and start accusing them of racism.

    In the meantime, black people continue to die.

    But don't worry, white liberals. You can feel real good about how you're fighting racism. Black lives are, if you really think about it, just symbols and the pain and suffering caused by the ongoing carnage is just so much applesauce compared to the more important matter of maintaining your wonderfully high self esteem.

    Glad to see you've got your priorities straight.

    PS: That George Zimmerman! What an asshole!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Facts about overwhelmingly disproportionate criminal acts committed by and against blacks is a fact that must be disappeared, much like the fact of the brutal beating of George Zimmerman. They are irrelevant to the real issue at hand, which isn't race but how good I can feel about myself while discussing race.

      Delete
    2. The overwhelming facts are that crime has been dropping dramatically for some time now and that crime is overwhelmingly intra-racial. They have not been disappeared at all. In fact the FBI routinely reports those facts.

      Delete
  2. Don't you see the connection between the previous stories about improving services provided by community schools and the problem of young people losing their way in life and committing murders of other innocent young people? The common thread is how we, as a society, can help young people get back on a better path in life, before they damage themselves and others in ways that can't be fixed. Arguing about racism, whether from the right or the left, prevents people from jointly addressing this question, with the resources of the black community and the larger resources of the mainstream, largely white society.

    We aren't going to make progress until we stop dividing the world up into black and white problems so that people in their respective communities can pretend the problems of others don't exist -- or aren't sufficiently important to discuss in place like the NY Times.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think some liberals confuse political correctness with truth. The high black crime rate isn't PC to mention, so for these liberals it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DAinCA,

      Not like you, who confuses white supremacist web sites with the truth. So much better.

      You think "some liberals" confuse PC with truth? Which ones? Let's have a few names. 'Cause I think you're confusing prejudice with thinking. By the way, here's what the Liberal-in-Chief had to say after the Zimmerman verdict

      <quote>
      Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.
      </quote>

      Delete
    2. Obama said, "I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else."

      "Probably"? "Statistically more likely"?

      Those weasel words make Obama's comment such an under-statement that it's almost a lie. From figures I've seen, a black man is around ten times more likely to be shot by another black person, rather than by a white person. What Mr. Obama should be doing is making speech after speech about the scourge of black on black crime and also finding ways to reduce that problem. Instead, he vaguely alludes to it in passing, while instead focusing on an atypical killing of a black by a non-black -- a killing that wasn't even a murder.

      Delete
    3. DAinCA,

      Wow! You're really so much more up on those statistics about black people than Obama. Seems that you should be President, and he shouldn't even be black.

      I'm sorry that the President made comments that you found inapt. It's not like he was commenting on some "atypical" news story or anything. But perhaps you should drop a line to whitehouse.gov. Be sure to include some links to instructive web sites.

      Delete
    4. David in Cal, I'm not sure from the president's quote what he means by "a peer" but if you find a precise data source for homicides broken out for the race of the perpetrator or the justified actor and the race of the victim and for that source to have the most relevancy to the Martin/Zimmerman matter it would have to include a specific data set for killed by stranger homicides.

      I'd be interested to know what those numbers are, just not interested enough to track them down myself.

      Delete
  4. For me, living in a low income white rural area, analysis like O’Reilly’s gets on my nerves, simply because he never looks at "problems in the white community" and there are plenty of problems in the low income white community, particularly regarding young men, violence, substance abuse and general recklessness and hopelessness.
    Also, as an aside, I never bought the premise of the O'Reilly "conversation" that Trayvon Martin was somehow a symbol of "problems in the black community." I think commentators misread both his specific social/class situation and his teenage clique. Martin wouldn't be in the tough guy clique here. He wore the wrong clothes for that. He would be in a different group altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  5. White liberals spend months promoting an incident having nothing to do with race as having everything to do with race, then cry foul when it leads to an obvious national discussion about crime in black communities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 6:08P,

      So for you, the Martin killing has no racial component. (Let me guess. You're white and middle class.) OK, let's suppose that race played no part in Zimmerman's thinking. After all, we have no reliable evidence that it did. So an armed Hispanic with no clue as to handle himself with a handgun gets into a fight with a black kid, panics, and shoots the kid dead. A jury refuses to find any criminal liability, and we're assuming we can come to no reliable conclusions about racial prejudice.

      Why is this tragedy a lead-in to a discussion about crime in black communities?

      Delete
    2. A Hispanic got into a fight with a black kid? I don't think so. The evidence shows it more likely that a black kid picked a fight with a Hispanic. And, the only one who indicated in any way that race might be a factor was the black kid, when he referred to the Hispanic kid a "cracker."

      Delete
    3. Actually, the Trayvon Martin killing likely did have a racial component. Martin's friend testified that Trayvon used the "C-word" to refer to George Zimmerman before beating the shit out of him MMA style.

      Delete
    4. Darn it, David beat me to the rhetorical punch while I was composing...

      Nevertheless, Mr. Cal, in the future please do not write out that offensive racial slur. It is demeaning to the caucasian race.

      Delete
    5. "Why is this tragedy a lead-in to a discussion about crime in black communities?"

      Because of misplaced outrage by the race hustlers and their supporters in the wake of the verdict.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 8:35P,

      Ooh! Misplaced outrage by race hustlers! Here's your opportunity to cue DAinCA to talk about the inner thoughts and motivations of black people. Should be another teachable moment for all of us.

      If you want to declaim about people who exploit the racial divide in incidents like the killing of Martin, that's fine. But what does that have to with crime in black communities again?

      This argumentation thing: you're doing it wrong.

      Delete
    7. The Trayvon Martin incident has illustrated in stark relief an uncomfortable but important truth: that black americans are dramatically more prone to engage in violence than americans of other ethnicities. If George Zimmerman did make a mistake that night, it was in being insufficiently fearful of the violent tendencies of the typical young black male.

      Delete
    8. majneb,

      LOL! Your deluded paranoia is amusing. Poor Bob, TDH has been inundated by you loons.

      Delete
    9. The Trayvon Martin incident has illustrated in stark relief an uncomfortable but important truth: that some Americans are dramatically more prone to engage their prejudices than other Americans. If George Zimmerman did make a mistake that night, it was in deciding to be armed without the slightest care, let alone training to deal with an altercation. This in spite of the fact that there's not the slightest evidence that Martin had "violent tendencies" or that he failed to act within the scope of Florida law.

      As always the disclaimer that there's equally no evidence that Zimmerman didn't act within that scope. But that often happens when the shooter kills the only rebuttal witness to his own story.

      Delete
    10. " But what does that have to with crime in black communities again?"

      We are having a frank discussion on race now. We need to have this discussion because in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict we have learned from the outraged that various groups view the verdict differently, and in part to understand why, we have to have a frank discussion about race. That includes a full and complete discussion, we should want no less. Disproportionate crime in the black community would seem at least at first glance about race. Ergo, it is part of the discussion now.

      Delete
    11. "The Trayvon Martin incident has illustrated in stark relief an uncomfortable but important truth: that some Americans are dramatically more prone to engage their prejudices than other Americans."

      And according to the evidence, which party that fateful night was the one who engaged his prejudices? (Hint -- the one that actually used racial slurs before engaging in a beatdown.)

      As I said previously, George's problem that night was that he wasn't prejudiced enough. Had he been more fearful of an unknown young black male, he would have stayed in his car, and the entire tragedy would have been avoided.

      Delete
    12. majneb,

      For the benighted there's never enough prejudice, is there?

      Delete
    13. Disproportionate crime in the black community would seem at least at first glance about race.

      You need new glances. This is about the racial politics of a particular killing. Unless you think Martin wasn't so much a 17-year old kid as a symbol for all that's wrong with "the black community."

      Delete
    14. Trayvon led to discussions about crime in the black community because eventually the truth did come out that he was responsible for his own death, and excuses needed to be made.

      Also the uncomfortable question came up of why every cable news blowhard knew Trayvon's name but not the name of a single one of the 54 shot in Chicago over Memorial Day weekend.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous @ 11:51P,

      Perhaps in the parallel universe in which you live, "the truth" came out that Martin was responsible for his own death. In the world in which the actual trial took place, nothing of the sort happened.

      Of course, in your parallel universe, cable news blowhards are supposed to know the names of all the people who are shot to death, not just the ones involved in a sensational case.

      And, of course, 54 people weren't shot in Chicago over Memorial Day. News reports say that 54 people were murdered in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial (6/10 - 7/13), but when you're making shit up, details like this don't matter, do they?

      Delete
    16. " This is about the racial politics of a particular killing. "

      Oh no it is not, not anymore. Not after thousands of Treyvon tee shirts are printed ahead of the verdict without a peep about all the other victims, now we see no one really cared about them or Treyvon. Now we are having a much more general discussion about race, and that means the roles of Sharpton, the press, the celebrities, etc. are part of that, and how much they would really like to participate in that discussion is part of that. It **never** about "the racial politics of a particular killing", and you'll need to figure that out.

      Delete
    17. And, of course, 54 people weren't shot in Chicago over Memorial Day. News reports say that 54 people were murdered in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial (6/10 - 7/13), but when you're making shit up, details like this don't matter, do they?

      I said 54 shot over Memorial Day weekend and I was correct. "Of course." You're wrong, as usual. Change your name to Deadwrong.

      Fifty-four people were shot in Chicago between Friday night and Monday morning. Ten of the victims were killed, including two boys, between 16 and 20, who were found lying face down, naked, on the South Side early Monday morning. [Sun-Times]

      http://gawker.com/5569299/chicagos-weekend-shooting-tally-10-dead-44-injured

      Delete
    18. But when you're making shit up, details like this don't matter, right deadrat?

      Delete
    19. Anonymous @ 6:02A,

      Please forgive me if I don't take instructions on what I need to figure out from ignoramuses like you.

      Let me rephrase. The people who are upset about Martin's death have expressed their anger and their wish to talk about what they see as the racism, personal and institutional, surrounding the killing of the victim and the trial of the shooter. In other words, the racial politics of this particular killing. Deflectors like you don' t want to talk about those things, so you want to make it about how bad Negroes are in general for their criminal behavior, how bad particular Negroes like Al Sharpton are for their public behavior, and how liberals or the press or celebrities or whoever don't care about all the other victims of gun violence. Which is pretty much why there isn't anything we can call a discussion.

      What Trayvon Martin apparel has to do with this escapes me. Your tactics, not so much.

      Delete
    20. Some of us don't like open and shut cases of self-defense that have nothing to do with race promoted as symbols of racism in an effort to deflect attention from a brutal attack by a violent black youth who caused his own death.

      Delete
    21. Anonymous @ 1:58,

      And what an appropriate nym!

      Some of us don't like people who can't see beyond their own prejudices in their own constricted world. Some of us especially don't like people who make up stories based on no evidence.

      So I guess we're even, eh?

      Delete
    22. Some of us understand the difference between not giving credence to a point of view because of our own prejudices and not giving credence to a point of view because it's batshit crazy. Others say nothing is batshit crazy, it's all a matter of perspective.

      Delete
    23. "Please forgive me if I don't take instructions on what I need to figure out from ignoramuses like you."

      You need to get out from under that millstone.

      "The people who are upset about Martin's death have expressed their anger and their wish to talk about what they see as the racism, personal and institutional, surrounding the killing of the victim and the trial of the shooter. In other words, the racial politics of this particular killing."

      You claim to be interested in having that discussion exclusively which is fine so you should butt out of more general discussions on race. Let those who actually feel this way start by making a cogent argument about how race was related to the particular killing. That is the starting point for them. If they were to do that I might actually want to discuss further.

      But some of them including you don't do that. They instead, for example, point to the slaying of Emmett Till as being somehow related to the "particular killing" currently being discussed. You'll have to explain why this "different particular killing" that happened almost 60 years ago has anything to do with this "particular killing" whose trial concluded this year.

      And frankly when you do this it makes it look as if your interest is **not** a discussion about "the racial politics of a particular killing", but more about a history of racial injustice in general or some other comparitively sale topic.

      Now if you don't have an interest in participating in a more general discussion of race then don't you be telling the rest of us what the discussion is about. If you can't figure out about how the dynamics of a discussion on an internet blog site work, that's another millstone around your neck that you need to do something about.

      Delete
    24. Anonymous @ 3:01P,

      Not having to take instructions from ignoramuses is a freeing experience. For instance, ignoring your command to butt out of "more general discussions on race," which I'm guessing you have almost sometimes. Let's call it never. I'm not sure where millstones come in.

      The incident in the news is the Zimmerman trial; the blog entry is about the Zimmerman trial; some of your fellow citizens are irate about the Zimmerman trial. You're obviously free to talk about race "in general," just as I'm free to point out the deflection involved.

      Angry people sometimes don't make cogent arguments. People angry about racial issues rarely do, and loftily assigning them "the starting point" is unlikely to change that. Although I'm sure everyone interested in the issue has no greater wish than that you "might actually want to discuss [things] further." Can you feel the eager anticipation? I know I can.

      If there's to be a discussion, then it's important to insist on the facts, which brings us to Emmett Till. Now, I'm only going to say this once, but I'll type as slowly as I can so you can follow. Sound out the big words if you have to. If you get stuck, seek out one of those Reading-Is-Fundamental kids to help you. Ready? The discussion you butted into was about a beating, in particular Zimmerman's, whom majneb described as "getting the shit beaten out of him." This is one of those topics about which we know the facts, and those facts show the description to be manifestly untrue. Emmett Till gives the context in which people whose experiences may differ from yours and majneb's judge what it means to have the shit beaten out of you.

      If you need it spelled out for you, then Till was murdered; Martin was not. Till was killed because he was black. There's no evidence that race was the reason that Martin was killed, and substantial evidence that wasn't the reason.

      And frankly it's hard to imagine something I care less about than what you think things look as if. Unless it's your pretentious judgments about the "dynamics of a discussion on an internet blog."



      Delete
    25. deadrat, the only way what happened to Zimmerman doesn't qualify as having the shit beat out of him is in the literal sense. If we're putting that aside, what "getting the shit beat out of" means is largely a matter of opinion but a broken nose, punches, and head injuries suffices to most people. You act like not there is some discrete point at which we can say someone got the shit beaten out of him and that you are the arbiter of where that point is located on the spectrum of beatings. You act like cultural differences in whether the shit was beaten out of someone somehow mean that the worse beating is the example that stands as the true definition of the phrase.

      I can't believe you are arguing this point but it is entertaining.

      Delete
    26. "ignoring your command to butt out of "more general discussions on race," "

      It was a suggestion. You can do an awful lot here that I might not like, but you can go ahead if you like and do it. **shrug**

      "You're obviously free to talk about race "in general," just as I'm free to point out the deflection involved."

      A general discussion of race wasn't my own original idea, this came up from politicians, media, celebrities etc. in the wake of the verdict. Are they all "deflecting"?

      "Angry people sometimes don't make cogent arguments."

      Agreed.

      "People angry about racial issues rarely do, and loftily assigning them "the starting point" is unlikely to change that."

      Agreed, although I don't think there is anything lofty about trying to ground the conversation in reason. Reason has a linear structure to it by and large, as you know.

      "If there's to be a discussion, then it's important to insist on the facts,"

      Agreed.

      "which brings us to Emmett Till."

      **Groan**

      "The discussion you butted into was about a beating, in particular Zimmerman's, whom majneb described as "getting the shit beaten out of him." "

      I haven't been talking to majneb and I am not sure I would agree with his characterization. I was talking to **you** about whether or not **today** the discussioan is as narrow as " This is about the racial politics of a particular killing." as you claimed.

      "This is one of those topics about which we know the facts, and those facts show the description to be manifestly untrue."

      Actually we don't know all the facts as to what happened, who the physical aggressor was, whether Zimmerman had fear for his life etc.

      "Emmett Till gives the context in which people whose experiences may differ from yours "

      Ah, so when the facts are known but leave holes, or where the facts are not known or agreed upon, we are to rely on historic events to fill in the gaps? Is that what you are saying when you refer to poor young Mister Till who died 60 years ago?

      Are you agreeing with, apologizing for, or showing grudging understanding for this misuse of reason concerning a recent "particular killing"? If it's the last item I can agree with you.

      "Till was murdered; Martin was not. Till was killed because he was black."

      Agreed.

      "There's no evidence that race was the reason that Martin was killed, and substantial evidence that wasn't the reason."

      Agreed.

      "And frankly it's hard to imagine something I care less about than what you think things look as if."

      Whoa. You might indeed have a better command of English grammar than I do but I think your participle is dangling. Or something. But I might just be an ignoramus like that other guy you were talking to. :-)

      Delete
    27. Anonymous @ 8:23P

      I'm not the arbiter of the beating spectrum,and this has nothing to do with "cultural differences," whatever that means; the injuries tell the story. What is the point of pretending that Zimmerman walked away with more than minor injuries sustained in a fistfight? He didn't require hospitalization; he didn't even require stitches. Players end up with worse in basketball games. Do you think this undermines Zimmerman's legal position in using lethal force to defend himself? Do you think a more serious description of the beating lends credence to the claim that Martin was a thug?

      And believe it or not, my whole life online is dedicated to your entertainment.

      Delete
    28. Anonymous @ 8:35P

      Well, sorry. I mistook your verb voice for the imperative. As long as you were only suggesting things. So much better.

      To answer your question **today** I don't see much discussion at all. Just two camps talking past each other.

      It's actually somewhat surprising that we're in such violent agreement. The antecedent of "those topics" is the severity of Zimmerman's beating. You're right. We don't know who the instigator of the fight was. We don't even know if there was one. We don't know whether Zimmerman feared for his life. We don't know how the two came face to face.

      When facts are unknown, people fill the gaps with pleasing narrative. It's the lesson of TDH, that they'll actually invent opportunities to spin those narratives. That's why it's important to try to agree on what we actually know. No, we can't rely on historic events to fill the gaps. That's the basis behind the law's refusal to admit prior bad acts into evidence. But at least we can use historic events to understand the narrative of those with whom we disagree. There's little chance of separating everybody's narrative from fact otherwise. And it certainly doesn't help to spout counter-narrative.

      Whoa. An emoticon. Isn't that one of those things that the kids all use on the intertubes? I'm far too old for those. So are you saying you're an ignoramus or not? And don't tell me to find a kid to clue me in. The only time I see them is when they're texting while driving.

      There's no participle in the sentence beginning "And frankly," so perforce there's no dangling participle. I was being too clever by half in replicating your wording. Put the words as if in scare quotes or substitute the word like.

      Delete
    29. "It's actually somewhat surprising that we're in such violent agreement."

      I'll gladly accept understanding where agreement isn't possible, which is why I don't like to be the first to engage in name calling. It's off putting.

      "The antecedent of "those topics" is the severity of Zimmerman's beating."

      My first post was 'Anonymous August 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM' reponding to a post of yours that seems much more general.

      "But at least we can use historic events to understand the narrative of those with whom we disagree."

      Like I said above I value understanding. But then we are trying to move forward, and understanding only takes us a step or two..

      So what we have here now was Sharpton opening the gate for the teeshirt vendors to make the tees that the celebrites wear, and NBC editing the dispatch tape etc., all getting out one narrative which doesn't seem at all related to historic events. This then invited the counter narrative and it's all here in one stinking heap. And we talk about it, and it's nice if during the discussion people use Critical Thinking Skills. Instead these skills often prove to be absent or worse, concealed. This leads to charges of racism by some when uncomfortable facts are brought up, and all manner of other unproductive effort. And there are people doing this who are smart enough to know better, in which case their actions are evil.

      "An emoticon. Isn't that one of those things that the kids all use on the intertubes? I'm far too old for those."

      No we used them years ago on the USENETs back before AOL screwed that up. We also loathed the Spelling and Grammar Police in that format, talk about diversion from topic, that's one of the worst kind.

      "So are you saying you're an ignoramus or not?"

      I've grown wise enough to know I don't know everything.

      Delete
    30. … I don't like to be the first to engage in name calling. It's off putting.

      <quote>
      Yeah, I've had complaints about it, but it keeps getting worse.
      </quote>

      We also loathed the Spelling and Grammar Police in that format, talk about diversion from topic, that's one of the worst kind.

      That's a run-on sentence.

      And there are people doing this who are smart enough to know better, in which case their actions are evil.

      Judgmental much? At least you didn't like the Grammar Police.

      Delete
    31. "That's a run-on sentence."

      It was at least that.

      "Judgmental much?"

      I think it is often very good to be judgmental. Good judgment is an outward expression of wisdom IMO. I will suspend judgment on something if I feel I don't have enough information, experience wisdom etc.

      To the point being discussed, and using Rachel Madow as an example: In my judgment I think Madow is obviously intelligent and smart, and has demonstrated ability at times with critical thinking skills. But when she conceals these skills, and in addition commits lies of omission, cherry picks data, etc. in what I think is an effort to press forward an agenda or false narrative, she is not only playing her audience for fools but is committing acts of evil. I understand that there are degrees of evil but millions listen to Madow.

      OTOH, Sharpton and Schultz by comparison don't seem have the chops and don't strike me as particularly smart. So I doubt I could say that they are evil or as evil as Madow. I’m suspending judgment.

      Delete
    32. "I think Madow is obviously intelligent and smart, and has demonstrated ability at times with critical thinking skills."

      I have to add the a couple years ago, on more than one occasion, Madow took special time to school her audience in one or more classic logical fallacies, "Appeal to Authority" etc. so as to make sure that her audience understood the fallacy that she was going to skillfully use in an argument against someone or something.

      And then on it was to the next segment or show where she would ironically conceal her ability with those skills, substituting her snarky style etc. to make her points.

      I've cut way back on watching Madow but Hannity is no better so at least I got the Phillies. Oh they suck this year too.

      Delete
  6. People who are afraid to voice the obvious are not free. And in a country where the truth cannot be spoken there is no reality. That is what PC has wrought. But liberal talking heads like Chris Hayes have to resort to satire because the facts do not line up with their cherished ideological holdings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every society has truths that cannot be spoken. I am struck by the wide disparity in consensus beliefs between black and white responders to polls, but I am equally struck by the wide disparity between conservative and liberal responders on the same polls. I suspect that there are topics that would produce similarly wide disparities between men and women or between old and young responders. We do not have to agree on the same reality in order to offer each other respect and a willingness to work together toward common goals. When one group describes another group's values using terms like PC, I doubt whether there is respect. I am most troubled by the willingness of conservatives to undermine the interests of our nation as a whole in order to achieve their own limited political aims -- most recently by enforcing gridlock on congress so that no problems of any kind can be addressed. We have stopped defining national interests as personal interests and stopped seeing common cause. That, to me, is the most serious problem facing our nation today and it has nothing to do with PC or questions such as whether O'Reilly understands the problems of minority youth better than Chris Hayes.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 7:06P,

      Oh, please. More people are unable to face the obvious in this country that are afraid to voice it. That is what ignorance has wrought..

      Delete
  7. DAinCA,

    You're talking past the close. You had me at "I don't think."

    There's absolutely no evidence as to who started the fight. At some point, the two stood face to face, but the only person who might know what actually started the fight is Zimmerman, and he's not saying. At least not under oath.

    It's fair to say that the 17-year old Martin was a kid. Zimmerman, not so much. He was 28 at the time

    majneb,

    Zimmerman didn't get "the shit beaten out of him." He sustained a broken nose and a scalp laceration that didn't require stitches. The witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman couldn't even testify to any blows actually landing, let alone any MMA style fighting. I'm not a fan, but I think this requires actually hitting your opponent, a lot.

    This isn't to say that Zimmerman wasn't entitled to use lethal force to defend himself. Florida law allows that if he wasn't the aggressor and he feared for his life.

    This isn't to say that the law precluded either Zimmerman or Martin from starting the fight. Florida law allows anyone to defend himself if threatened, even if he's reasonably mistaken about the threat.

    Is it just too damned much to ask you to stick to the facts? TDH might say you've both got careers ahead of you in journalism.

    PS

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha. "Cracker" is demeaning to the Caucasian race. 'Cause the whole thing is just too funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cracker is a derogatory term. That it doesn't offend you changes nothing. Other offensive terms referring to white people include honky, trailer trash, redneck and whitey. Then there are a bunch of derogatory terms for specific European immigrant, Hispanic and Asian groups from different countries of origin. It is no more OK to use these terms than to use derogatory terms for African Americans. That our society tends to tolerate them more doesn't make it OK -- it means there is a racial/ethnic double standard. Unless it is your intention to deliberately hurt other people, you should stop using them. Laughing at the sensitivities of other groups is similarly hostile, whether you think David in CA deserves it or not, because other people read this blog besides him.

      Delete
    2. You left out "dirthead."

      Delete
    3. deadrat --

      I invite you to undergo exactly what George Zimmerman did at the hands of Trayvon before you again state that he didn't get the shit beat out of him. I imagine it might be one of, if not the most, terrifying moments of your life.

      Delete
    4. majned,

      Speak for yourself drama queen! though I guess that's to be expected from strange folks who are trying to equate Cracker with the N word or the real C word. Anyway, Zimmerman had superficial injuries that were treated at the scene and didn't require any further treatment. He knew the police were on their way and several residents had called 911 as well.

      Delete
    5. New logic -- unless you checked yourself into a hospital, you didn't get the shit beaten out of you.

      Also, not only do you dish out the racial slurs, but homophobic ones as well ("drama queen"). Just like your idol Trayvon!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 7:34P,

      Just in case you're not using the second person indeterminate, please understand that I don't choose to be lectured on linguistic proprieties by ignoramuses like yourself. I hope that's OK with you.

      The discussion isn't about derogatory terms for various European ethnic groups, Hispanics, Asians, or other denigrated minorities. It's about the word "cracker" as applied to white people. Whatever sting that term has is more than compensated for by the fact that we own everything.

      Laughing at the faux agony of those who've thrown themselves on the racial fainting couch is kinda my thing. My intention is to ridicule cluelessness, to which pinpricks DAinCA seems immune.

      I agree that there's a "racial/ethnic" double standard. Maybe you ought to think about that some more from the comfort of the couch. Just a suggestion

      Delete
    7. You're silly.

      The logic is that if Zimmerman had the shit beat out of him as you claim, he would've either had or sought further medical treatment. Neither happened. His injuries were minor, were treated at the scene and didn't require any further treatment. Period. Sorry if the reality hurts your feelings.

      Delete
    8. The above is for majneb.

      Delete
    9. Your logic boils down to: all those who have the shit beaten out of them and who are then treated soon after by paramedics also seek further medical treatment. This is a completely unsupportable premise.

      The fact is, by any reasonable person standard, Mr. Zimmerman got the shit beaten out of him, and if it was your father, mother, brother, son, wife, daughter, or friend that suffered the same fate, you would not hesitate to agree. You disagree merely because Zimmerman is someone you don't like, and so he "deserves whatever he got."

      Delete
    10. majneb,

      No, that's not my logic. That's the facts. Zimmerman was treated at the scene and declined further treatment then and didn't seek further treatment later. His vitals were normal at the scene and his minor injuries were treated there. Again, period. His injuries didn't match his or your drama queening about "having the shit beat out of him."

      You are exaggerating for effect and adding silly dramatic qualifiers "reasonable person standard, father, mother, sister, brother, wife, daughter, friend, great uncle, 3rd cousin,..." because your point doesn't stand on its own or match the facts. Sorry.

      Delete
    11. Perhaps at this point we'll have to simply "agree to disagree" regarding what constitutes getting the shit beat out of oneself. I claim that a broken nose, bloody face and lip, and multiple bloody wounds on the back of one's head satisfies that criteria. You do not. Fair enough. Perhaps you have traveled in much rougher circles than I. So long as you are being sincere, and you apply your standard in an evenhanded manner depending on the victim, then you are certainly entitled to that standard.

      Delete
    12. majneb,

      I, for one, am gratified that you extend the entitlement of a differing opinion to those who can think clearly. Let's stick to the facts. Zimmerman had a broken nose, which injury tends to get blood on the injured person's face. He had one slight laceration on the back of his head. He lost a fistfight. Only in the world of a drama queen does this amount to "getting the shit beat out of" him.

      This is not to say that Zimmerman was not justified under Florida law in using lethal force to defend himself. As long as he was not the aggressor and was in reasonable fear for his life or serious injury. The law even contemplates that one may be reasonably and mistakenly in fear for one's life. In other states, commensurate force is the rule.

      Delete
    13. I've come to the conclusion that most any white person, including me, born before, say, 1962 and raised in any part of the U.S. with a population of five percent or more of blacks has a different understanding of the significance of the "N" word than do whites born after, say, 1975. That's progress I guess.

      Delete
    14. majneb

      It's the extent of the injuries that determine whether you lost a simple fistfight or whether you got the shit beaten out of you.

      "Drama queen" is not a homophobic insult.

      Nobody on this commentary has "dished out" a racial insult, including "cracker," to anyone else on or off this commentary.,

      Nobody on this commentary has idolized Martin, although you're the only one who seems to have been on a first-name basis with him.

      Everything clear now?

      Delete
    15. Deadrat doesn't think we should be confident in speculating blows were landed. This is where I stop respecting his opinions as credible.

      Delete
    16. I admire manjeb's patience in schooling these lunkheads. Would it help them to know the top forensics path said paramedics were negligent in not insisting Zimmerman be taken to the ER?

      Delete
    17. deadrat, I think the entire gay and feminist community would disagree with you that the moniker "drama queen" is not a homophobic, and at the very least a sexist, slur. Further, the average (non-radical left wing) white person correctly understands that the "C-word" is a racial slur. Is it as hurtful to a white person as the "N-word" is to a black person? That's debatable, but irrelevant.

      Also, I believe that, although even one hard blow to the head is way too much, Zimmerman had at least four, and possibly more headwounds.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous @ 12:08A

      That Zimmerman sustained blows is not speculation. His injuries speak for themselves. We don't know when those blows landed. At the start of the fight? When Martin was straddling him? You can't seem to read my comments for comprehension, which is where I stop respecting your own.

      Anonymous @ 12:14A

      Paramedics do not get to "insist" that competent people go to the hospital when they don't want to go. It might have been wise for Zimmerman to have gone to get himself checked for brain injury, as even seemingly insignificant blows to the head can result in fatal bleeding. Nevertheless, that's not in fact what happened to Zimmerman, whose injuries turn out to have been minor, and not the result of having the shit beaten out of him.

      [Insert here the traditional disclaimer that Florida law may allow the use of lethal force in self-defense even when the defender did not have the shit beaten out of him.]

      You have mistaken majneb's stubborn ignorance for patience.

      Delete
    19. majneb,

      Please forgive me if I doubt you have your finger on the pulse of any of, let alone the entire, gay and feminist community. A drama queen is anyone of either sex or either orientation who is addicted to the inappropriately dramatic. Someone like you, for instance. And I have no idea of either your sex or your sexual orientation.

      Photographs introduced at trial show two minor lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head. "four, and possibly more" makes you a drama queen. See how that works?


      Delete
    20. Like I said, even one head laceration is way too much, but go on -- judge for yourselves what is "minor" and what qualifies as getting the shit beat out of you:

      http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image-zimmerman1.jpg

      Delete
    21. Further, deadrat, I heartily encourage you to test your theory in an argument with a gay person or a feminist by calling them a "drama queen."

      Delete
    22. majneb,

      This isn't a question of how many wounds is "too much," but of whether the wounds qualify as "getting the shit beaten out of you." You made me look at your jpg. What's your point? There's blood? I'm not saying that Z couldn't have feared for his life if after the fact, his injuries weren't close to life-threatening. I'm objecting to your inapt drama.

      Speaking of which, you've read my comments here, even if not always for comprehension, I'm assuming at least for style. How likely to do you think I am to refrain from calling a drama queen a drama queen? I can find no support for your contention either in the dictionaries that I own or from the ones I consult online. "Drama queen" has more in common with "beauty queen" (as in pageant winner) than with "old queen" (as in an effeminate male homosexual).

      Delete
    23. majneb,

      Different communities have different narratives based on the pictures by which they define subjective terms. You've given us yours. Others would say that wasn't much a beating at all, but this is:

      http://jetcityorange.com/emmett-till/index-2.html

      Delete
    24. majneb,

      LOL! I see you've expanded your crazy claim that drama queen is homophobic insult (not) to try and make it an insult against feminists as well. Hilarious! Though that's not as bad as trying to pretend that cracker is the same as the n-word or trying to replace the real c-word with it.

      Delete
    25. deadrat --

      A phrase like "getting the shit beaten out of you" is, of course, subjective to a certain degree. You and others have called me a "drama queen" for applying that standard to George Zimmerman's injuries. I find that baffling, as I am confident that most reasonable, non-ideologically driven people would tend to agree with me, and that a majority, if not all, of the jury thought so.

      I don't think it requires being brutally beaten to death, Emmett Till style, to the point that your face is literally unrecognizable, to qualify. If that is truly your standard, then you have obviously traveled in some very rough circles in life.

      Finally, for those who disagree that "drama queen" is a homophobic and sexist insult, I once again invite you to test your convictions. Go to any feminist or gay rights advocacy website that allows comments. Disagree with the poster or blogger and say they are being a "drama queen." Observe what follows.

      Delete
    26. Majneb,

      Test my convictions? Drama queen. Lol. Why would I need to go to a website when I've done it in person to straight and gay men and women and nothing happened? Silly person.

      Delete
    27. I hope none of these tough guys have a daughter who shows up with a broken nose and lacerated head because they would tell her she didn't take "much of a beating at all" and should stop being a drama queen. Because they're tough y'know?

      Delete
    28. Look at you. See how much you have to imagine just to have even a basic whine. That should tell you something.

      Delete
    29. majneb,

      And here you illustrate the problem. You're confident about so many things in your head that don't obtain. You know that a majority of people agree with you, or at least a majority of reasonable people. You understand what the jury thought. You think the insult "cracker" is so explosive that you have to abbreviate it. You're sure of your own slang definitions.

      In short, you'e the poster child for Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

      Of course there's a continuum of physical assault. At one end is say, a shove that leaves no marks, and at the other end is Emmett Till. Somewhere in between is the minimum for "getting the shit beaten out of you," and I'll concede that that point is subjective. You're baffled that minor injuries requiring no more than limited first aid don't qualify. I'm guessing that's because you live mostly in the world of your own opinion.

      Both sides have narratives they love and cling to, partly because crucial information is missing from the account. That's why it's important to keep straight the facts that we do know. And one fact that we do know is that Martin punched Zimmerman resulting in no more than minor injuries. This does not mean that Zimmerman could not have reasonably feared for his life. This does not mean that Zimmerman could not legally justify the use of lethal force in self defense. It does not mean that had the struggle continued, Zimmerman could not have sustained more serious injuries. It just means that we know to a medical certainty that his injuries were minor.

      Delete
    30. deadrat,

      Sometimes, after everything else, simple common sense obtains.

      Delete
    31. majneb,

      I'm looking forward to the day when you obtain some.

      Delete
  8. Google "Chris Hayes" and "the puppy". Zilch.

    Another Lorddowdinpantz I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it isn't on the internet (accessed using Google, and probably only on the first page of the returned results) it doesn't exist in the world -- right?

      Delete
    2. Right, troll.

      Delete
  9. Is this a satire post from TDH? I think Hayes is a bit of a lightweight and Maddow can be tiresome with the snark and the way she drags out her obvious points but, TDH badly misses the mark here.

    Putting aside the fact that O'Reilly's comments have been discussed directly several times on other MSNBC shows most notably Sharpton's and O'Donnell's shows, it took me all of a few minutes of searching to find out the following:

    1. On 7/23, Hayes directly criticized O'Reilly's remarks in a segment called "White Noise" which was before the satirical one TDH is complaining about.

    2. On April 10th or 13th, Maddow did her usual long intro segment which, included a specific reference to Hadiya Pendleton's death including the First Lady's remark and connected it to an ad created by the gun control advocacy group which she then mentioned was either was started by some Newtown families or inspired by the tragedy. I don't remember which.

    Overall, the crime debate is bizarre considering that crime has been plummeting over at least the past decade and a half across by the board and in almost, if not all, categories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Overall, the crime debate is bizarre considering that crime has been plummeting over at least the past decade and a half across by the board and in almost, if not all, categories. "

      True, but it's still grossly and disproportionately high in the black community.

      Delete
    2. Oh please stop with the lys...lol. Like you really care. What's the matter? Don't like crime dropping? The fact is that most black communities are much safer now than they have been in decades. Sorry if that hurts your narrative.

      Delete
    3. Btw, no comment about my comment on TDH's post? I guess Bob missed those shows or doesn't pay his analysts enough.

      Delete
    4. "The fact is that most black communities are much safer now than they have been in decades. Sorry if that hurts your narrative. "

      The prevailing narrative hurt by actual crime statistics is that the biggest thing young black men have to fear is non blacks shooting them just for being black and carrying Skittles.

      On the general downward trend in crime I'm all happy about it.

      Delete
    5. Is it actually true that "most black communities are much safer now than they have been in decades?" It's generally accepted that the overall crime rate is way down, but has it come down as sharply when black americans alone are considered? If true, that would be a welcome sign of progress.

      Delete
    6. First anon, nice try at deflection. Your prevailing narrative doesn't exist. Fail.

      majneb, look it up and let go of the weasel wording "as sharply". It's down drastically overall. For example, a black male was 2.5 x more likely to be killed in the 70s than now.

      Delete
    7. "Your prevailing narrative doesn't exist. Fail."

      LOL!

      Here:

      "Trayvon could have been my son -- and that scares the hell out of me. If, during this 16-month ordeal, that thought never crossed your mind, then you have no idea what it is like to be the parent of a young, black male in America."

      -LZ Granderson CNN contributor

      "One of the questions I've seen on social media is, 'What do I tell my black children?"

      -Thema Bryant-Davis CNN contributor


      "Trayvon got the death penalty for buying Skittles in a hoodie."

      -Jeffrey Toobin CNN contributor


      "Apparently walking while black is a crime punishable by death. "

      -Gabrielle Union actress

      ""There's a Trayvon in every town. That's why the Department of Justice has a role to play, to look at this pattern, because equal protection under the law remains elusive."

      -Jesse Jackson

      "Message has been sent to black boys and their families that they prob should be worried about their child"

      -Rachel Madow

      "The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation."

      From the NAACP petition signed by over a million

      Delete
    8. Hahaha! You think those selective quotes are proof for your bogus "biggest thing...blah blah blah" narrative? Hahahaha...wow. More fail.

      Delete
    9. Crime (mostly fraud) is grossly and disproportionately high on Wall Street.

      FIFY

      Delete
    10. Nicely done 10:53

      Delete
    11. "You think those selective quotes are proof for your bogus "biggest thing...blah blah blah" narrative?"

      It was obvious to me from the beginning, I didn't need any proof. I wouldn't call the NAACP petiton signed by a million "selective" either. And yes, as proof it's sufficient, especially in the absence of any counter.

      Delete
    12. "You think those selective quotes are proof for your bogus "biggest thing...blah blah blah" narrative?"

      And I suppose this means you believe in that other narrative, the one where young black men are their own worst enemy.

      Delete
    13. Are you still at it? Those quotes in no way prove your bs narrative you claim exists " that the biggest thing young black men have to fear is non blacks shooting them just for being black and carrying skittles."

      You're exaggerating the outrage over a specific incident to create your nonsense.

      You ran away from the actual criticism of Bob's post then you tried to deflect away from the reality of crime dropping and now you're off on a race baiting tangent.

      Again, more fail. Too bad.

      Delete
    14. "You're exaggerating the outrage over a specific incident to create your nonsense."

      No one has the ability to exaggerate something that was at such a high level that there was no more room to go by exaggeration or any other means.

      " deflect away from the reality of crime dropping "

      So what if crime is dropping overall? It is still disproportionately high in the black community. That fact is part of the general frank and open discussion we are having about race. Some of us anyway.

      "more fail"

      No one says that any more.

      Delete
    15. C'mon, you're just babbling now. So what if crime is dropping overall!? That pretty much says it all. You don't really care about crime because if you did you couldn't ignore the reality of the plummeting rate even in the black community.

      You're not having a frank discussion about race. You are using disproportionately to race bait in a discussion about crime rates.

      Sad.

      Delete
    16. " a discussion about crime rates. "

      Where everything is A-OK in the black community?

      **shrug**

      Delete
  10. "When Pendleton was killed in Chicago shortly after Inaugural Day, the incident got a lot of national coverage. But Darling Rachel ran and his behind the white kids who died in Newtown; she let Pendleton get thrown down the stairs. The white victims mattered to Rachel that month, as of course they should have. The black victim in Chicago did not. "

    I don't really buy this either. The narrative around Newtown was about guns. The narrative around Chicago violence can also be around guns. That's a perfectly legitimate way to look at it. You're objecting because Maddow doesn't frame it in black-white terms, but she doesn't have to do that. She could approach it as a common denominator of gun violence, which is what she does. That doesn't mean she's throwing anyone anywhere. In fact, I could level the same charge at you and O'Reilly. I could say you're focusing on "problems in the black community" in the Zimmerman case because you're avoiding the gun violence issue.
    There was a strong undercurrent of gun rights in Zimmerman, as far as who lined up where. Gun owners and weapons enthusiasts were much more likely to line up with Zimmerman. Ignoring that is a dodge. In fact, that's what SYG is ALL ABOUT, it's a law promoted by the NRA (and, as we learned, despite denials on this site, this case WAS about SYG).
    "Bob Somerby and Bill O'Reilly ignore the gun violence issue to shift the focus to the vague 'problems in the black community'. Why don't Bob Somerby and Bill O'Reilly care about gun violence in Chicago and Newtown?" How do you respond to that accusation? It's as valid as the one you're making here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Bob's just taking a whack at two of his favorite targets. His criticism of Hayes is disingenuous and simply wrong as I pointed out above. MSNBC has been all over O'Reilly's remarks in general and Hayes did a segment about them before the satirical one that TDH complained about.

      The Maddow stuff is a bit more pernicious. Not only is it a framing issue and, as you mentioned, her framing is perfectly valid. TDH actually says, as you quoted, that she cared about the white victims in Newtown but not the black victim in Chicago. That's a pretty outrageous assertion.

      Delete
  11. Poo Poo Platter (Bullroar Bob Serves Antoher Load)

    Bob Somerby has earned a nickname - Bullroar Bob, in honor of his displaying the outrage of "O'Reilly" and the attempted cuteness of Maddow all while ignoring the fact he himself does exactly that which he criticizes.

    "The white victims mattered to Rachel that month, as of course they should have. The black victim in Chicago did not."

    Actually Rachel covered the death of Hadiya Pendleton twice. Somerby only once. Rachel discussed it again in the context of the State of the Union address, allowing Bob to mention it a second time, but this time to attack Maddow for mentioning Ted Nugent in the same segment.

    I don't like Rachel much, mostly for the same reason she is dismissed by Bob. But if the level of sanctimony was as well remunerated as hosting a cable news show, Bob would make more than she does.

    BTW, when Bob first covered the death of Pendleton, a week before Maddow did, his post drew only one comment.
    Look what any mention of race will do for him now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did anyone else notice how this post simply overlooked the biggest criminal element demonstrated on the Chris Hayes show? Wall Street crime! Notice how that segment, featured prominently on MSNBC is a forbidden topic on this white blog.

    Now, Somerby is limiting himself to the humor of surfing riots. Elsewhere, people are actually talking about possible causes of econoimic devastation because it is an actual problem—because actual people, very good people, just keep losing their jobs, homes, and savings....their way in life. There is no way this problem can be accounted for other than problems caused by white people.

    Somerby got busy faking his facts about the coverage by the Puppy and Maddow.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What did O’Reilly say that is wrong? Hayes ought to apologize for thinking this is a joke, and then he ought to answer that question. He ought to talk it over with Lemon, and with other people whose basic instincts may not be his own—whose talking points aren’t being dictated by the need to pleasure a tribe, thus building an audience and helping him reap those huge paydays."

    What did Hayes say that was wrong? Aside from the satire, how was anything Hayes said a bit less factual than O'Reilly? He didn't mention all those damn unmarried white women that are birthing babies these days, but it is approaching 40% last time I looked.

    And "talk it over with Lemon'??? Cracker, please. As if Lemon ain't making big bucks and trying to get an audience just like Hayes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honest question - do you mean that 40% of white babies are born to unmarried women or that 40%of white women are unmarried and birthing babies? Theres a difference!

      The black rate is about 75% of babies born to unmarried women and its probably worse than just near double the white rate because the males have children by many women. Trayvon Martin's father had children by several women. Its just not the same thing with the whites, though its surely not good either.

      Delete
  14. Lets be honest: There might be one person here who would walk in a black neighborhood after dark. There are many who would not walk in a black neighborhood at high noon. Black neighborhoods are generally dangerous and if something happens to you, the police will ask what you were doing there, like it was your fault.

    Zimmerman should have gotten medical attention and according to the defense doctor specialist, the police should have insisted on bringing him to a medical facility for examination as he had head injuries. That doctor said that if Zimmerman had died, the Sanford police would be sued by the family and the family would win. The doctor said it happens often in prisons and the prisons always lose the lawsuits.

    I kept waiting for someone to be allowed to ask a black person on TV why Zimmerman was obligated to allow Martin to kill him or turn him into a vegetable. The racism from elite blacks on TV was just plain murderous. They wanted Zimmerman to be the one who was dead. Thankfully, Zimmerman had a gun and was able to save his life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets [sic] be honest: when somebody prefaces a statement with those words, it's a sure sign that mendacity will follow.

      Zimmerman should have gotten medical attention in an abundance of caution because in rare instances, blows to the skull that don't seem serious may be fatal. The police do not have the authority to demand that competent adults undergo medical treatment. "That" doctor isn't a lawyer, and it's a good bet that Zimmerman's insistence on not seeking medical attention would have negated any liability that the Sanford Police Department might have had. "That" doctor doesn't know any more about prisons than he does about liability law. Prisons are state institutions, and for the most part, their personnel have qualified immunity from law suits. Far from the prisons "always" losing such suits, I'll bet "that" doctor can't name a single instance when a prison lost a suit over an issue that didn't amount to a violation of civil rights.

      The racism of "elite blacks" was "just plain murderous." And yet no white people were harmed, let alone killed as a result of their TV appearances. Go figure.

      It's hard to judge whether Zimmerman's life was ever in danger. Judging form his actual injuries, the answer is no. "Thankfully" for him, Florida is not a commensurate violence state, and Florida law allowed him to use lethal force even if his life was not in jeopardy. Also "thankfully" for him, Florida law will likely protect him from civil liability, enough though he chose to arm himself in public apparently without the requisite training for or even the contemplation of what he might do in a physical altercation.

      Delete
    2. deadrat,
      Honest question: why, in your mind, was Zimmerman obligated to let Martin kill him or turn him into a vegetable?

      There is no question that someone who jumps you, straddles you, and beats your head on the ground intends to do you "great bodily harm," the standard in the law that justifies shooting him.

      Evidence at trial proved that Martin stalked Zimmerman for a full 4 minutes, so I hope you won't tell me that Zimmerman was obligated to let Martin kill him because Zimmerman got out of the car.

      The black elites on TV really were awful on this case. They are marinated in racial grievance and its poisonous and ignorant. What kind of people could talk about Emmet Till for almost 60 years like its a great outrage when you think of all thats happened in between? The Vietnam War killed 58,000 Americans and 2-3 million Vietnamese. Lord, how many horrible murders of whites at the hands of blacks have happened in the last 60 years. 75% of violent crime in NYC is done by blacks, who are about 25% of the population.

      Delete
    3. The defense doctors point was that the police should have been very forceful with Zimmerman that he had to get medical attention BECAUSE he had head injuries. IOW, head injuries are special. Remember the actress who had a head injury from skiing and didn't get immediate medical attention and died?


      Delete
    4. The assumption is that someone has to sustain an impact to the head that provides deadrat evidence of a certain level of force. Never mind that forceful blows often show NO evidence on the surface, that relatively mild blows can cause fatal or other permanent internal injury depending on NUMEROUS factors, that we still don't know whether Zimmerman sustained any such injury because he was not examined and it can resolve itself if you're lucky.

      Deadrat considers the outcome and his form of logic leads him to conclude there was never a potential for a long term consequence. If the same injury, in another person, ended up killing that person, Deadrat would finally recognize that it was not sane to argue that individual never had the "shit beat out of him."

      Delete
    5. Honest answer: your "honest" question is very dumb. Under Florida law, nobody is obligated to let anyone kill or maim him. That's not the question. Florida law requires that a person who is in a fight, no matter who started it, is obligated to return only force for force in self-defense unless and until that person fears for his very life or of grave bodily harm. At that point, an aggressor must make every reasonable attempt to flee or give up in good faith before he employs deadly force. Anyone else may proceed directly to use lethal force.

      Their is no evidence whatsoever that Martin "stalked" Zimmerman for any length of time. If you're using "stalk" in the sense that the Florida statutes do, then the term doesn't apply because stalking requires a pattern of behavior, which doesn't arise from a single incident. If you're using the word in its vernacular sense as in a predator tracking down its prey for the kill, that requires intent and premeditation, for which there is no evidence.

      "Stalking" is merely your narrative. At some point the two came face to face. There's little doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin because we have his own statements to that effect. Martin may have backtracked to follow Zimmerman, but for that we have only the hearsay testimony of Jeantel, Martin's phone buddy. In any case following someone in a public place isn't illegal. Confronting somebody in a public place isn't illegal either, as long as threats aren't employed. Even questioning someone in a public place isn't illegal. Of course, there's no obligation to answer the questioner.

      What kind of person uses the term "black elites" to contemn African Americans who appear on TV? Are they "elite" because they appeared on TV and spoke standard English? Are they somehow inauthentic and can't represent a broad section of black Americans?

      I give up. How many "horrible" murders of whites "at the hands of blacks" have happened in the last 60 years? When you get me a number, then you can tell me how that's relevant. I'm not black and elite, so I can only guess that the kind of people who talk about Emmett Till are the kind who take care to spell his name correctly. Perhaps their experience in life differs from yours, and perhaps they trace that difference to events like Till's murder, a throwback in 1955 to what I've called the Golden Age of Lynching (ca 1870 - ca 1940), a campaign to supplant the law with a celebration of torture and murder to terrorize the black population into accepting a repressive society that hard to contemplate today.

      Would you tell American families of the Vietnam war dead to get over their grief because 58K was nothing compared to the Armenian Genocide of 2M or more, which was nothing compared to the Holocaust of 6M, which was in turn nothing compared to Stalin's predations of 10M or more? What kind of calculus is that?

      None of this is to say that the sweet voice of reason prevails with your opponents on the issue. I used to comment on two blogs, but I'm now down to this one because the moderator of the other tossed me for saying that calling Martin's death a lynching is both factually wrong and rhetorically unwise. To be fair, my ejection might have had something to do with my inimitable style.

      You and that moderator may be sitting on opposite sides of the field, but make no mistake: you're playing the same game.

      Delete
    6. Was that moderator Jeralyn Merritt?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @ 1:30P, another one of the can't-read-for-comprehension brigade. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Sound out the big words if you have to. You'll find that I said "even seemingly insignificant blows to the head can result in fatal bleeding."

      And yeah, we really do know that Zimmerman didn't sustain "any such injury," 'cause he's just fine, at least physically.

      I didn't say there was never a potential for "long term consequence." That's just something you made up to support your narrative. In fact I said the opposite.

      We're not talking about "another person" who ended up dead from what seemed like a minor injury. We're talking about George Zimmerman on a particular night when he actually sustained minor injuries. It's certainly possible that on another night, he might have sustained fatal injuries. But that didn't happen, now did it?

      Delete
    8. madProphet,

      Merritt of TalkLeft? No. I won't mention the blog because I'm embarrassed for them.

      Delete
  15. It's hard to judge whether Zimmerman's life was ever in danger. Judging form his actual injuries, the answer is no.

    You somehow arrive at "no" by judging "actual injuries"? Are you aware Zimmerman had a gun during this fight? Are you aware someone was beating Zimmerman who had already broken his bones and lacerated his head? Comments like yours are so outside the realm of reason you have to be a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is good to know that Somerby's posts on race are still attracting intelligent comments. This is my favorite:

    "Evidence at trial proved that Martin stalked Zimmerman for a full 4 minutes"

    Jeez.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous @ 1:34P,

    It's far easier to judge someone a troll than deal with the content of his arguments, isn't it?

    Of course, I'm judging whether Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening by looking at his "actual injuries." Yes, I'm aware that someone, Martin, in fact, broke Zimmerman's nose. That was most likely a break in cartilage, so that's probably no bones and certainly not multiple bones. Yes, I'm aware that Zimmerman sustained two scalp lacerations, none of which required so much as a stitch.

    Yes, I'm aware that Zimmerman had a gun during the fight. The person whose life was actually in danger was Martin. We know that because Zimmerman shot Martin in the heart. There's no evidence that Martin was even aware before or during the fight that Zimmerman was armed. Maybe he never realized it.

    None of this is to say that Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear for his life or that Florida law precluded his legal use of lethal force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No you weren't judging whether his injuries were life threatening, you were declaring that his life was not threatened at the time he shot. Not sure you understand the difference.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 8:12P,

      Let me be explicit then. Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening, and there's absolutely no evidence that his life was ever in danger. Judging by results -- he's fine and Martin's dead -- there was only one person in mortal danger that night. Why are these things even in dispute?

      Let me repeat myself. During the fight, it's entirely possible that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life or of grave injury. Because Martin bashed his skull on the sidewalk and he feared serious cranial bleeding, or because Martin had the upper hand in the fight, or because they were struggling for Zimmerman's gun. In that case Florida law would have granted Zimmerman the legal right to defend himself with lethal force, even if it turned out he was reasonably mistaken about the danger.

      Now. What is it that you don't understand about this?

      Delete
  18. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  19. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete
  20. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  21. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete