BALCONY FAILURE: The doctor was IN!


Part 5—Blow knows broken noses: If it weren’t for the bogus information, would there be any information at all?

Last night, that was the question as we watched MSNBC continue to disgrace itself in the matter of Trayvon Martin. On Lawrence O’Donnell’s disgraceful Last Word, the doctor was once again IN.

Dr. Blow was on hand last night to tell the world about broken noses. This "doctor" isn't a medical man. But such things no longer matter:
BLOW (4/5/12): That is the crucial point here. Is there a broken nose? And if George Zimmerman`s head was being smashed into the pavement, is there some evidence of a concussion?

And those things can be proven, and if he actually did receive medical care. What we know now is that the second ambulance was canceled because the person who was attending to George Zimmerman did not believe that he had sufficient enough injuries to warrant even an ambulance. [see note below]

And what we also know is that we see George Zimmerman 35 minutes after the fact. We see him not even reaching for the nose, not trying to— A broken bone is excruciating. There are a zillion nerve endings in the face. You would be in excruciating pain.

We know that that is not what we see on the tape. We know that the one witness that was interviewed on CNN, on Anderson Cooper`s show, said that the person, George Zimmerman, sprang up after the shooting, did not appear hurt. He never says that he reaches for his head. He never says that the person is holding their nose, none of that.

So what we know flies right in the face of the idea that someone has a broken bone in the face...
It’s impossible to embarrass the New York Times. For that reason, the New York Times won’t be embarrassed to see its columnist, Charles M. Blow, playing doctor on TV in this embarrassing manner.

Blow has no medical background, of course. But given the way modern "journalism" works, he plays a doctor on TV. That said, does Blow know what he's talking about when he talks about broken noses? “Signs and symptoms of a broken nose may appear immediately or may take up to three days to develop,” one on-line site explains, contradicting the good doctor’s nostrums.

This web site seems to make Blow a quack. But what would the people at that web site know? It’s run by the Mayo Clinic!

Did Zimmerman sustain a broken nose? Like you, we have no way of knowing. But on last evening’s Last Word, Charles Blow extended one of the truly great episodes of journalistic malpractice in modern post-journalist history.

How bad was O’Donnell’s program last night? Following Blow, there was the statement from Natalie Jackson, one of the Martin family’s lawyers. After Blow finished blowing his nose, Jackson interrupted with a blatant, but scripted, misstatement of fact:
JACKSON: The point is—and that’s the point that is getting lost. The point that’s getting lost is that George Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. When he got out of his car, he had a 9 millimeter, as he chased down, according to his own words, Trayvon Martin.

Trayvon Martin was where he was supposed to be. He was not committing any crime. And he ended up, after an encounter with George Zimmerman, with a bullet wound in his chest. That is for a jury.

And that is, that is why— and this case must go to a jury. You have an unarmed teenager where he was supposed to be.
As Jackson surely knows, Zimmerman was not “told to stay in his car” that night. He was out of his car, already following Martin on foot, when the police dispatcher told him, “We don’t need you to do that.”

Did Zimmerman head back to his car at that point, as he has apparently said? Like you, we don’t know. But the story works better if Jackson lies, saying he was ordered to stay in his car.

And so, she lied to you last night—unless she’s a total incompetent.

Jackson repeated one of the many false narratives which have emerged from herself and from Benjamin Crump, the other Martin family attorney. In a world driven by journalistic values, the host of this broadcast would have asked her to explain her apparent misstatement.

But the host of this program was Lawrence O’Donnell, one of the most dishonest players in the history of cable “news.” This is how O’Donnell reacted to Jackson's bogus remark:
O'DONNELL (continuing directly): Charles M. Blow and Natalie Jackson, thank you both very much for joining me tonight.
Yes, O’Donnell is dumb to the bone. But even he surely knows that Jackson’s statement was false.

By the rules of journalism, O'Donnell should have challenged his guests' misstatements last night. But on MSNBC, the death of Trayon Martin is a hit TV program. MSNBC hasn’t played by those old-world journalistic rules since its hit show began.

Nor does it plan to start. This is Network come to life, as a news channel drives a big hit.

Lawrence O’Donnell is baldly dishonest. We wouldn’t say that about Soledad O’Brien, who hosted an hour-long special about Martin's death on CNN last Friday night.

We wouldn’t say that O’Brien behaved dishonestly during this program, although that’s certainly possible. But where were her journalistic skills on this sad and revealing night?

Tomorrow: How much do mind-readers cost?


  1. “We don’t need you to do that.” can be interpreted a number of different ways but "George Zimmerman was told to stay in his car" does not strike me as being the most likely one.

    1. Yes, and it's an especially unlikely interpretation because Zimmerman was not in his car when the dispatcher said that.

    2. When the dispatcher suddenly realized that Zimmerman was chasing after Martin, he quickly asked, "are you following him"? When Zimmerman said "yes", the dispatcher immediately responded with "OK, we don't need you to do that", clearly communicating the point that they wanted him to stop following the youth. Since Zimmerman was in his car at the beginning of the 911 call, then during the call he stated that Martin was running away, I think it is a very reasonable interpretation to say that the dispatcher wanted him to stay in his car. If he had, Martin would be alive today. This isn't fucking rocket science.

    3. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 12:18 PM

      This is a red herring.

      Zimmerman arranged for the Sanford police to give a presentation about neighborhood watch to interested people in his neighborhood.

      During the power point presentation police clearly point out that neighborhood watch is not to pursue or pack weapons.

      Zimmerman knew the guidelines, he chose to ignore them.

      He should never have been out of his vehicle. Period.

    4. Zimmerman carrying the weapon he is legally permitted to carry has nothing to do with his neighborhood watch activities. I carry my gun everywhere I go.

    5. My little granddaughter has always loved adverbs. We call her "the adverb queen."

      Evidently Anon 9:14 AM is the same sort of person, which is to her/his credit. Anon's description includes the adverbs "suddenly", "quickly", "immediately", and "clearly". While these words make the narrative more lively, I'm not sure they're supported by the call recording.

    6. 9:32, George Zimmerman pursuing a person with a loaded gun has EVERYTHING to do with his Neighborhood Watch activities.

      As for "I carry my gun everywhere I go" boy, aren't you a tough guy? I often find that those who feel the need to carry guns everywhere are have other shortcomings with masculinity issues.

      You take it to church with you? To ball games? How about a bar? Nothing like a good gunfight at the Long Branch Saloon.

      To work? Your boss and your co-workers shouldn't have any problem with you packing, should they?

      How about McDonald's? You never know when someone there will shortchange you on your fries?

    7. The violent crime rate in the United States is at a 50-year low currently. Anyone who feels the need to carry a firearm everywhere is either paranoid or itching for an opportunity to use it.

    8. During the power point presentation police clearly point out that neighborhood watch is not to pursue or pack weapons.

      Zimmerman knew the guidelines, he chose to ignore them.

      He was entirely within his legal rights to "pack" his weapon and to call police while keeping track of a suspicious person, to follow that person on a public street and on sidewalks in his neighborhood, to answer that person's question with "what are you doing around here," to not be physically attacked, and to shoot his attacker in self defense when he feared serious injury or death.

  2. How prescient was Bob about this sensational story? Wasn't he just talking before this story broke about the sad habit of many, many liberals to just love to see horrible racism in others? He's better than the Mayans.

  3. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM

    Since Mr. Somerby seems to want to litigate this matter lets have at it.

    What do we know that Mr. Somerby is leaving out?

    Well, for starters two ambulances were called to the scene that night, one for Martin's body and the other for Zimmerman.

    Curiously, after examining Zimmerman the second ambulance was cancelled. A reasonable person might deduce there was no serious head trauma since, if for no other reason than to cover their own asses, protocol calls for an examination by a doctor when a person is beaten within an inch of their lives the way Zimmerman's brother claims.

    Clearly the police believed there was no serious head trauma.

    In one version of events given by Zimmerman's proxies its claimed a scuffle insued when Zimmerman reached for his phone.

    We're asked to believe that Zimmerman, given the choice between reaching for a Glock 9 and his phone, he decided his phone was the best defense against this "suspicious" person who Zimmerman claims came out of nowhere and approached him from behind. Who was he supposed to be calling since the police were clearly on their way already?

    This simply doesn't pass the smell test.

    Whether Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher or not is a red herring. We know the Sanford police gave a power point presentation which clearly stated neighborhood watch members were not to follow suspects and were not to be packing firearms. Zimmerman arranged for the police to give the presentation, he wasn't ignorant of the guidelines. He should never have gotten out of his car. Period.

    Since last August Zimmerman made 7 calls on an unlisted 911 police line. What's that about? Did Zimmerman have some kind of special relationship with the Sanford police that caused the State Attorney to drive to Sanford from the neighboring county on a Sunday night and personally over rule the lead investigator in the case.

    In any event, we do know of the 5 calls Zimmerman made since August concerning "suspicious" people (2 calls were for other matters), including the Trayvon Martin call, all 5 "suspicious" people were black.

    We're asked to believe there are no suspicious people of any other race around, not since last August anyway.

    If its true a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich as some claim there are enough questions here to see Zimmerman has his day in court.

    1. Why would Zimmerman or his proxies say he reached for anything if he had reached for his gun?

      "He should never gave gotten out of his car" is meaningless. He probably agrees now because he was concerned with stopping burglaries in his neighborhood not killing.

      Of the 8 burglaries in his neighborhood in recent months, suspects were apprehended for 4 of them and they were all black. It's very likely all or most of the suspicious people he saw would be black especially if he had the break ins in mind reported by witnesses who said the perps were black.

    2. How often would you suspect break-ins occur at 7 o'clock on a sunday evening? How many of these break-ins occurred in the early evening hours when everyone is wide awake? Do you know?

    3. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

      "Why would Zimmerman or his proxies say he reached for anything if he had reached for his gun?"

      Because it doesn't make sense that Martin, who had no record of violence and was on the phone saying he wasn't going to run away but walk fast, would suddenly ambush Zimmerman and punch him in the nose unprovoked.

      "He should never gave gotten out of his car" is meaningless."

      It shows Zimmerman was willing to disregard police guidelines, it goes to culpability.

      "It's very likely all or most of the suspicious people he saw would be black"

      This is racial profiling at its finest.

    4. Olivia Bertalan was home alone with her infant son one morning last August when a man came to her door, knocked, and rang the doorbell. She peered out a window, didn't recognize the man and called police when another man came to her back door.

      Bertalan, 21, ran upstairs and locked herself and her son in a bedroom as the second man entered her home, which was in the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated, middle-income neighborhood of 260 townhouses in Sanford, Fla., outside Orlando. Terrified, she and her son cried as the man tried to turn the knob of the door where they hid. Both men ran when police arrived, but not before stealing a laptop and digital camera.


      A group of young men had just broken into Bertalan's town house as she and her infant cowered in a locked bedroom. The intruders took a $600 camera and a laptop. After police had come and gone, the doorbell rang, and there was Zimmerman: 5 feet 9, in a shirt and tie, his body a little doughy, his demeanor gentle.

      He introduced himself and gave her phone numbers at which she could call him anytime. He gave her a heavy-duty lock to bolster the sliding-glass door that the men had forced open. He told her she could stay with his wife down the street if she ever felt scared again.

      "That first impression was really sweet," Bertalan, 21, said this week. "It really does break my heart how they're portraying him as a coldblooded murderer."

    5. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM

      "That first impression was really sweet," Bertalan, 21, said this week. "It really does break my heart how they're portraying him as a coldblooded murderer."

      Lets go for a little balance here.

      We know Zimmerman was arrested for battery on a police officer.

      We also know he was involved in claims of domestic violence police decided to not pursue.

      We also know from a fellow employee Zimmerman was fired from his "security" job for houseparties for being overzealous. His fellow employee said the last straw was Zimmerman tossing a drunk woman across a room.

      We know Zimmerman was willing to ignore police guidelines. In fact he is credited with pursuing and helping capture a suspect previous in a previous incident. He doesn't give up the chase easily.

      We know Martin had some non-violent disciplinary problems at school and can assume he had no police record since it would have been revealed by now.

      Martin was aware he was being followed and ignored advice to run and said he would walk fast instead.

      A reasonable person could come to the conclusion Zimmerman is lying through his teeth about how the confrontation occurred based on these facts.

    6. Can't wait for the story of how Zimmerman helped little old ladies cross the street when he was a Boy Scout.

      Here's a little insight I've picked up on the human condition. Individuals are seldom all-good or all-evil all the time. The worst among us is capable of good, while the best among us can do some pretty rotten things at times.

      And Olivia Belatran's pleasing story to the Zimmerman Fan Club is utterly irrelevant to the events of Feb. 26. I'm sure you can find a similar "He was such a nice young man" story about Ted Bundy.

    7. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

      Now that you mention it, women were attracted to Bundy because he was "such a nice young man" and was very intelligent too, something no one is claiming for ZImmerman.

      I don't think Zimmerman will have any better luck with that defense than Bundy did once his story is cross-examined in a court of law.

    8. The logic of the first comment relegates all black men as criminals available for hunting and shooting. To make sense of the comment you must get an appropriate percentage of the number of young black males to the crimes as a whole to evaluate the likelihood that any young black male committed a particular crime. Moreover, how do you know that the same criminal is not committing multiple crimes and crimes against black people?

      The Orlando area is large. Based on percentages there is much less than a 1% chance that any black male committed any crime. Wait, I get it, they look alike and know each other and all are a part of a big crime wave.

      The comment said that there were arrests which imply that cops are doing their jobs and they are not always getting away with it.

    9. Why are we debating the facts of this case? Is the case important? Is it a sideshow? A distraction? A "hit TV program" as Somerby says? Does this story distract us from directly living our lives in present moment awareness with those around us; from genuine activity? Are the outlets who push the story just mediating between us and commodities? Ie. are we being used?

    10. "Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated, middle-income neighborhood of 260 townhouses"

      OK, I know you've got to pack heat 24/7 to feel safe. I get it that most of the criminals are black. But tell me again, what's the point of living in a gated community if they're so fucking dangerous?

    11. real anonymous misses the point. Somerby isn't saying that Zimmerman is innocent. He is saying he doesn't know the facts sufficiently and therefore can't be sure. His criticism is that msnbc, e.g., so-called liberal spokesmen distort the facts. there is a difference. real anonymous has valid suspicions, but he/she doesn't know what happened for sure. It's at least possible that Zimmerman was attacked, that he is telling the truth, or partially telling it. It looks the authorities are investigating this and hopefully will get to the bottom of it and charge Zimmerman if it's warranted, without politics being involved one way or the other.

  4. Because it doesn't make sense that Martin, who had no record of violence and was on the phone saying he wasn't going to run away but walk fast, would suddenly ambush Zimmerman and punch him in the nose unprovoked

    His Youtube channel appears to have him refereeing fist fights at school.

    Once he got a look at Zimmerman he decided he could take him. And the toxicology reports aren't in.

    "It's very likely all or most of the suspicious people he saw would be black"

    This is racial profiling at its finest

    Profiling of young black males in that neighborhood would be perfectly justified by someone looking to catch the culprits of recent break ins.

    1. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM

      "His Youtube channel appears to have him refereeing fist fights at school."

      You have anything, like a police record like Zimmerman's, showing him prone to violence?

      17 year olds or younger often do dumb things. "Refereeing" implies both participants were willing. It doesn't imply Martin would attack anyone unprovoked.

      "Once he got a look at Zimmerman he decided he could take him."

      Only if you ignore him saying he was going to "walk fast" instead of run away as he was asked to do.

      "Profiling of young black males in that neighborhood would be perfectly justified by someone looking to catch the culprits of recent break ins."

      Sorry, racial profiling is never justified.

      Any cop will tell you that. There's even laws against it.

    2. Hey, don't you know? No white kids ever burglarize houses. That's why it's OK to profile black kids walking back from a 7-11. Obviously, they are up to no good at 7 p.m. at night.

  5. You've had a bad month, Bob.

    First you called Sandra Fluke's testimony "infantilzing" and "semi-childish".

    Then you defended Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" by saying Bill Maher and those vile hosts on MSNBC have said worse about women. (You forgot Andrew Dice Clay).

    Then you claimed that Rachel Maddow got creamed in a debate against Sen. Jim Inhofe, after she exposed that he really hadn't read his own (unquestionably ghost-written) book, and then caught him in a bald-faced lie about not even hearing the name of the author of Uganda's "Kill the Gays" legislation until that night. (After Inhofe said he was the senate's leading expert on Uganda and Africa).

    And now you take up the cause of George Zimmerman by knocking down every reporter who dares to evaluate Zimmerman's preposterous story against the evidence.

    So Bob? You ever have your nose broken? Let me tell you what it's like. The pain is indeed excruciating, AND it gets worse over the next few hours, especially if it doesn't receive immediate medical attention and a prescription painkiller, until it is throbbing.

    Here's another clue for you. It doesn't take a knockdown to break your nose. If you get hit in the schnozz hard enough to knock you off your feet (Zimmerman's story), then the lights go out and you are counting stars and Tweetie birds.

    And on top of that, you bleed profusely. Everywhere. On your shirt, your pants, the ground, and you swear it will never stop. And in your sinuses, which gives you two black eyes, as well as a horribly swollen noze, certainly within the half-hour.

    About 35 minutes into it, about the time climbed out of the patrol car in the police station as if he were arrested for vagrancy, Zimmerman sure isn't acting like a
    guy in excruciating pain is he? And we see no blood.

    Time for you to come up with a new "enhanced" version of the video showing all these things. I'm sure if you troll around the right-wing blogosphere long enough, you'll come up with one.

    Incidentally, you do realize that the two different versions of the "enhanced" blowups of the back of Zimmerman's head shows three different wounds in two different places, none of them requiring a Band-Aid, don't you?

    Thought you'd like to know that, stickler for accuracy and perfection in reporting that you are.

    1. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM

      There were two ambulances called to the scene the night of the incident.

      One for Martin's body and one for Zimmerman.

      After Zimmerman was examined and cleaned up the police determined he suffered no serious head trauma and cancelled the call for the second ambulance.

      If there were even the slightest hint of a serious injury the cops would get him to a doctor asap if only to cover their own asses.

    2. You would think so, wouldn't you? Even if he declines medical treatment, the EMTs would be in a world of trouble had they declined to take a guy with a potential head injury to an emergency room.

      And I doubt there would be any question about it if Zimmerman had told them that he had his head slammed repeatedly against a concrete sidewalk.

      Seems to me that SOP would be to check the dilation in his eyes and for slurred speech. And if he didn't check out, you take him in for treatment.

      It also seems to me that EMTs would be trained to know when a "gash" needs stitches, not to mention some sort of dressing over the wound, and would err on the side of treatment rather than sending the guy to the cop shop in the back of a cruiser.

    3. FWIW I was once punched very hard in the nose - enough so that I saw stars and heard birds and was out on my feet for at least 15 seconds. I did not bleed much and it turned out I did not have a broken nose. It hurt but was not excruciating. Last year I fell off a ladder and broke my nose and the suborbital bone in my cheek. I bled some, but not profusely and it was nowhere near as painful as the broken wrist and bruised ribs I also incurred from the fall. I never swelled up much and I did not get noticeable black eyes, which we usually associate with a broken nose. So, as long as we're talking about anecdotal evidence, I see no need to discount Zimmerman's claim to a broken nose. So, for all of you who think you can tell the truth from lies by smell tests, I suggest you rethink that. There is much that does not add up in this story, but somehow I doubt we really know enough to judge yet. Of course there is enough for fools like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly as well as Lawrence O'Donnell and Al Sharpton.

    4. Dude, if you didn't get the two black eyes, you didn't bleed much, and it didn't even hurt all that much, you didn't break your nose.

      If you are going to lie, at least try telling a good one.

    5. It also sounds like you fell face first off your ladder with no reflexive attempt to brace yourself with arms, given the claimed injuries.

      Let me give you some advice: Booze and ladders don't mix.

    6. Dudes, you are just showing your ignorance and folly by judging my story a lie. Admittedly, I did not give you the exact story of the fall, in which the ladder kicked out from under me, sliding off a roof eave and then relodging against the side of the house about 6 feet down. I broke my nose on the ladder, I broke my wrist after continuing to fall to the ground. The point of my story was that not all broken noses are alike, but you guys who play doctors and experts on the internet don't need no stinkin' facts, you can just decide I was drunk ( I wasn't) or I'm lying (I'm not). Somerby is trying to get people to avoid making shit up in their rush to judgement. This seems wise to me. You seem content to make shit up about me based on your assumptions, such as all broken noses must produce black and blue under the eyes.
      This seems unwise to me.

    7. Anonymous,

      As I have mentioned before in other threads on this site, I've had my nose broken. Twice. On neither occasion did I experience bruising. After a five or ten minutes following the second time it got whapped, blood stopped coming out of nostrils and other than a redeviated septum you'd never know I'd been injured. (The first time I got hit with, off all things, a flying roof shingle tossed at me like a Frisbee that required stitches.) In both cases the pain subsided in a few minutes and hardly remained unbearable.

      Again, this whole thing is reminding me of Duke lacrosse. I would like to remind you that rushes to judgment have not been historically kind to their participants.

      But I'm glad to see you promiscuously calling other people liars as it goes to show just how passionately sincere you are about fighting prejudice.

    8. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 5:28 PM

      " Last year I fell off a ladder and broke my nose and the suborbital bone in my cheek"

      Are you claiming the Sanford police are so incompetent they would have missed these injuries after cleaning you up?

      Are you saying they'd take you in for questioning instead of letting an ambulance take you to a hospital for treatment?

      Really, now?

    9. "If you get hit in the schnozz hard enough to knock you off your feet (Zimmerman's story), then the lights go out and you are counting stars and Tweetie birds.

      And on top of that, you bleed profusely. Everywhere. On your shirt, your pants, the ground, and you swear it will never stop. And in your sinuses, which gives you two black eyes, as well as a horribly swollen noze, certainly within the half-hour."

      Hilarious. Have you ever actually been in a fight? Be honest. I'm guessing that, like most liberals, the only fight you've experienced was on the other side of a TV screen.

    10. My experience with nosebleeds, profuse or otherwise, is that you lean forward to keep the blood from getting on your shirt. Zimmerman's story is that he was knocked on his back which means, assuming he's telling the truth, that the blood would initially be running off his face and maybe neck into the grass. The idea that he wold necessarily have blood all over his shirt is a made-up fact based on an as-yet unproven assertion.

      Why not wait for the federal investigators to do their work? You, know if Zimmerman's story should happen to pan out, you're going look like a bunch of serious a-holes.

    11. My experience with a broken nose is that I didn't really give a shit that I was bleeding all over my shirt. It hurt like hell and continued to hurt for hours.

      And KTW, I got my nose broken in a fight in high school, and I still remember it clearly to this day. Not something your forget easily.

      And what leads you to think I'm a "liberal"? Oh yeah, you've already chosen up sides and divided people into "liberals" and "conservatives" based on what YOU think.

    12. Heironymous, that this reminds you of Duke lacrosse speaks volumes about you. Others are reminded of Emmett Till.

      And you know what? This case is neither.

    13. All you anons have it figured out, never mind a trial, let's have Zimmerman lynched


  6. In a courtroom, there are four main components: the judge, the defense, the prosecution, and the jury. One would hope that those who have jobs as journalists would strive to identify with the jury. The only reason that being a one-sided advocate is acceptable is because of the structure of the court. There is a balance created by having two opposed sides.

    It seems like many of the print journalists at least try to be truth seekers, but the TV news shows seem to dive wholeheartedly into advocacy.

    1. This is because in the age of 80 gazillion cable channels, and live streaming from the Web on huge hi-def TV monitors, every channel is searching for its "niche" audience, like Rush Limbaugh and his audience of cranky retirees and the mid-day idle with screwed-up lives they need to blame on others.

    2. Those jerks on cable don't give a shit about Martin, Zimmerman or The Truth. This one's being treated with the same level of integrity as the Natalee Holloway story others like it . . . in other words, not much.

  7. Again, I fear, this is all moot. This has stopped being about what Zimmerman did to Martin, and it's all about what Somerby would LIKE to do to O"Donnell. I saw this
    coming about a year ago when the Daily Howler went nuts when Larry made a
    generic, polite welcome to the Late Tony Blankley as he welcomed him on the show( before demolishing him on the point in question). "O'Donnell Derangement Syndrome" is a terrible thing.

    1. And you hit the proverbial nail squarely on the proverbial head.

    2. "This has stopped being about what Zimmerman did to Martin."

      This blog started about, and has consistently been about, the hidden (sometimes not so well) tricks the media uses to influence consumers. Bob talks about Zimmerman only because it's the big show right now, and gives him fodder.

    3. That's the way this blog started out many, many moons ago.

      Now it is indistinguishable from hundreds of right-wing blogs crying about the liberal media conspiracy against poor George Zimmerman.

    4. Just because this blog and some right-wing blogs both might make the left wing media look like fools doesn't make them the same.

      I think there are some posters around here that can give you some lessons about false equivalencies.

    5. Then you should pay attention.

      A "false equivalency" is an attempt to excuse the behavior of one party by claiming the behavior of another is just as bad or worse.

      As a classic example from Bob Somerby, we shouldn't be too hard on ol' Rush because Bill Maher said some mean things too.

      It's still borrowing from the right-wing playbook.

    6. "A "false equivalency" is an attempt to excuse the behavior of one party by claiming the behavior of another is just as bad or worse."

      Like claiming that MSNBC's transgressions are not worth posting about because Fox News is worse?

  8. If Zimmerman was checked out by an ambulance, there will be medical reports. If he had injuries, there will be police photographs and the injuries will be referenced in the police reports.

    We won't have access to these reports and photos until trial. Until then we are all just uselessly speculating.

    Why can't anyone ever just admit that they are not informed enough to form an opinion and leave it at that?

    1. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM

      Wrong again.

      We know from fire rescue dispatch recordings the second ambulance was cancelled after Zimmerman was cleaned up.

      This is not speculation, its a fact.

      Deal with it.

    2. Good lord, this meme that "we don't know enough to form an opinion" is wearing thin.

      We got the 911 calls from Zimmerman and the neighborhood witnesses, we know what Martin was and was not doing, we got the phone records from his girlfriend, and now we got the police video which certainly doesn't show a guy who was in the fight of his life, and we also got a dead kid, we know who the guy was who shot him, and we know the gun he shot him with.

      I think I have sufficient evidence to support my opinion.

    3. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 5:12 PM

      "I think I have sufficient evidence to support my opinion."

      There are enough questions about Zimmerman's proxies accounts for a grand jury to recommend charges.

      Some might even say there are enough inconsistencies in their accounts that they were floating trial balloons to see which met the least resistance.

      I see this anonymous wants us to stop speculating while they post anything a far right fringe site can make up such as "gang tatoos" and "Trayvon ran a fight club."

      This anonymous is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed but they do provide Mr. Somerby with clicks.

    4. I think we do know enough to form an opinion, bit we sure as hell don't know enough to reach a conclusion.

    5. Agreed. At this point we should wait for a trial. Obama's statement was honorable, though it's still arguable that President should say nothing in such circumstances, even if he's asked. The Republican response was crude and obnoxious, but their Party is a putrid stink whole, same as it ever was.

  9. More red herrings.

    Injuries of a certain severity are not required to establish that it was more than reasonable for George Zimmerman to fear severe injury or death if the beating continued, and to use his gun in self defense, especially after screaming for a period of time and getting no help.

    1. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM

      How on earth did Zimmerman get his head bashed on a sidewalk within inches of his life, according to his brother, and instead of seeing a doctor be brought in for questioning?

      There are some serious holes in the accounts of Zimmerman's proxies.

    2. "If he managed to fire off a shot before his brains got beaten into mush . . . "

      You typed that and you call us "fucking idiots"???

    3. Oh, so now we got witnesses who positively identified Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman so badly that "his brains got beaten into mush."

      Stay tuned tomorrow for yet another brand-new right-wing claim.

    4. That's not what I claimed, retard. Obviously he didn't get beaten that badly -- because he fired in self-defense. If he hadn't, then he wouldn't be alive. This is the tricky thing about self-defense cases: if you defend yourself before the attacker does enough damage to seriously maim you, then you'll be accused of 'prematurely' defending yourself. This is exactly what is happening now.

      People want to argue over whether or not Zimmerman had substantial injuries when we already know, according to witnesses, that he was in a struggle and therefore endangered. If libs want to make the case against Zimmerman, there's no sense in quibbling over his injuries. You have to prove that Zimmerman instigated the initial conflict. That's going to be pretty difficult.

    5. "If he hadn't, then he wouldn't be alive."

      You typed that and you call us "fucking idiots"???

    6. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:09 PM

      "Who gives a shit if he 'only' had a lump on his head and a broken nose?"

      A jury will because its not consistent with the story of being beaten to where he was fearing for his life.

      Additionally, a self-defense defense doesn't work if you're the one who left your vehicle in pursuit of a "suspicious" person especially if you ignore police guidelines that neighborhood watch does not pursue or pack heat.

      Zimmerman left his vehicle, contrary to police guidelines for neighborhood watch packing a weapon which is also contrary to neighborhood watch guidelines, in pursuit of someone who was minding their own business.

      The end result of his reckless action was a death.

    7. lol, libs are mad! Yes, it's true, a person can die from getting their head bashed against a sidewalk, even if the other person is ONLY ARMED WITH SKITTLES AND ICED TEA! Amazing, I know!

    8. "Additionally, a self-defense defense doesn't work if you're the one who left your vehicle in pursuit of a "suspicious" person especially if you ignore police guidelines that neighborhood watch does not pursue or pack heat."

      How many times do people have to point out that he didn't 'leave his vehicle'? HE WAS RETURNING TO IT.

    9. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM

      "Yes, it's true, a person can die from getting their head bashed against a sidewalk"

      The way it looks to me is you're in more danger of getting shot while minding your own business than anything else.

    10. Yeah, Trayvon was just minding his own business when he assaulted Zimmerman. BUT BUT BUT SKITTLES AND ICED TEA!!!!

    11. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

      "Yeah, Trayvon was just minding his own business when he assaulted Zimmerman."

      Sorry, you lost all credibility with this statement:

      "Again, as Somerby pointed out before, he didn't leave his vehicle."

      Later troll...


      "According to the Sentinel, Zimmerman told police that he “had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind.”"

      Now tell me I'm a troll, faggot.

    13. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:33 PM

      You're a troll, faggot and here's what you said:

      ""Again, as Somerby pointed out before, he didn't leave his vehicle."

    14. Right. Meaning he wasn't in his vehicle in the first place, therefore he couldn't 'leave' it.

    15. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM

      "Meaning he wasn't in his vehicle in the first place"

      He was driving to the store packing a Glock 9 dummy.

      That is not in dispute.

      He was reckless when he parked and took off after Martin.

      His reckless behavior resulted in a death.

      End of story.

    16. That's the trouble with adding new details to a story with every telling. You can't keep them all straight, and you soon wind up contradicting yourself.

  10. Another black opinion leader pours gasoline on the fire.

    The idea that an innocent child like Martin could be racially profiled and become the victim of state-sanctioned killing has fair-minded people outraged.

    1. Yeah, doggone that First Amendment anyway.

    2. The First Amendment doesn't restrict one's ability to deplore a column.

      IMHO columns like this one have only bad consequences. They encourage blacks and whites to fear each other. They discourage people's respect for law and law enforcement, especially black people's. They encourage whites to think less of blacks. They may encourage immature or unbalanced blacks to riot or to attack whites. They encourage blacks to follow bad leaders, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    3. You go ahead and fear any race you want on the basis of a newspaper column.

      But don't project and say that other people are as stupid as you are.

  11. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    I doubt this is what the special prosecutor will present to a grand jury but nice try.

  12. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:15 PM

    How about a simple case of Zimmerman acting recklessly by leaving his vehicle which directly led to an unjustified homicide.

    Then we'll have the feds decide if all the "suspicious" people Zimmerman reported on his unlisted secret line to the Sanford police being black means he was profiling which is a federal crime.

  13. "acting recklessly by leaving his vehicle"

    Again, as Somerby pointed out before, he didn't leave his vehicle. He was returning to it when he confronted Trayvon.

    "means he was profiling which is a federal crime."

    LOL! Citizens can't 'racially profile' anyone -- you're legally illiterate.

  14. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM

    "Again, as Somerby pointed out before, he didn't leave his vehicle."

    Are you claiming Martin climbed into his vehicle?

    What an asshole!!!

    Go away're not worth my time.

  15. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:29 PM

    "I said that he didn't get into the vehicle..."

    Sorry troll here's what you said:

    "Again, as Somerby pointed out before, he didn't leave his vehicle."

    How the fuck do you return to your vehicle if you never left it?

    You certainly are an entertaining but very confused individual

  16. He never left it because he never got into it -- duh?

  17. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:35 PM

    "He never left it because he never got into it -- duh?"

    Yes, yes he was returning to a vehicle he never left.

    Is english your first language?

  18. Zimmerman did not have to have life threatening injuries or any injuries at all for a legal justification of self defense. Only a reasonable fear he may be injured or killed, a bar he has more than cleared many times over given a bleeding head and face witnessed at the scene.

    1. Wrong. You can't chase a guy with a gun, then claim self-defense because he kicked your ass.

      The only other people you can convince are other gun-toting pussies like yourself.

    2. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 8:30 PM

      "Blacks have a right to assault anyone who follows them."

      That makes as much sense as your claim Zimmerman was not in his vehicle when he was driving to the store.

    3. Yeah, I guess blacks do have a right to assault anyone who follows them. As long as they are fraidy little Florida pussies, and can say they feared for their lives.

      Or was the Stand Your Ground law only written for white people?

  19. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM

    "He never left it because he never got into it -- duh?"

    Yeah you notice what you think is a "suspicious" individual while driving because you never got into your vehicle.

    Enjoy the next Star Trek convention troll.

    Like I said Zimmerman parked his vehicle and started following Martin setting off the chain of events which resulted in a death.

  20. Okay, back to Dr. Blow....

    Blow complains that we don't even see Zimmerman "reaching for his nose." But if we're all talking about the same video footage, his hands were cuffed behind his back at that point. He couldn't have touched his nose.

    1. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 8:41 PM

      Yeah we know people make mistakes.

      Sometimes they make silly mistakes.

      The press is not perfect.

      I think our founders knew that yet they still considered it an important counterbalance to the government.

      Lets keep in mind its exactly because of press attention the Sanford City Council voted no confidence in the police chief.

      Its because of press attention the State Attorney stepped aside and a Special Prosecutor was appointed.

      Mr. Somerby may consider these bad things, because the reporting wasn't alway accurate, but the process is working exactly as the founders intended even if it is messy and frustrating at times.

  21. An old car accident joke: Driver A plows head-on into Driver B. A says it's B's fault, because B saw A three blocks earlier and could have turned onto another street.

    Sure, if Z had stayed in his car, probably none of this would have happened. So, what? Z had a perfect right to leave his car.

  22. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM

    "Sure, if Z had stayed in his car, probably none of this would have happened."

    Allow me to correct you.

    Its not "probably none of this would have happened" its if Zimmerman had called the cops as instructed then continued on his way to the store definitely none of this would have happened.

    Nobody, Zimmerman included, has the right to act recklessy and expect to not suffer the consequences.

    Why the hell do you think cops tell neighborhood watch not to follow people?

  23. Hey KTW, do you just hate n*****s and gays or do you have a longer list?

  24. It's really only this messy because we keep unravelling it.

    That said, if this incident was going to be swept under the carpet it only emphasises the point The Real Anonymous is making.

  25. I've got to say that KTW's satiric parody of liberal irrationality is spot-on. Makes we wish he hadn't used "fag" as an insult. There's nothing wrong with being gay. There he was being quite boorish and stupid.

    The part I've never gotten is why Zimmerman would call the police, get told not to follow Martin and then track him down and kill him. That sequence just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Putting myself in the shoes of a psycho-killer white racist, I'd kill my victim first and then call the police claiming I was attacked. And I certainly wouldn't kill him with his screams resonating throughout the neighborhood.

    Also, this guy has been acting as a security guard for years. If he's a black-hating psycho why become a killer now? Why not when he was 21? What makes this instance so special as to turn Zimmerman into a murderer?

    Imagining a motive for Martin's attacking Zimmerman, on the other hand, is not hard to fathom. I used to be a hippy and got picked up by the cops and trailed by security guards in department stores just for being a hippy. I, therefore, have some idea just how infuriating being profiled can be. And don't forget that Martin was an adolescent male and adolescent males, regardless of race, are notorious for behaving rashly.

    A lot of people seem to think that just because Martin told his friend that he was going to follow her advice and move on means that he must have done so. Based on my experience, there's no way I'd ever assume that that's true. Assuming that Treyvon could not see that Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (and if he reasonably could be expected to see that Zimmerman was packing that would put a giant hole in Zimmerman's story) it's very possible Martin decided to show Zimmerman what for so he could boast to all his friends on how he stood up to some racist a-hole.

    He then gets into a fight with Zimmerman, gets carried away with beating Zimmerman up, Zimmerman fears for his life and shoots Martin.

    I don't know that that scenario is true. It could be totally wrong. But if you look it that way at least the motive for the tragedy makes sense. More obvious sense to me anyway than Zimmerman deciding all of a sudden that it'd be a great idea to alert the cops that he's following a black kid and then, after being told to stop following him, follow him some more and then shoot the him for racist sport.

    Of course people can be really weird and irrational so maybe it did happen that way, but I remain skeptical.

  26. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 10:52 PM

    "I used to be a hippy and got picked up by the cops and trailed by security guards in department stores just for being a hippy."

    I can tell.

    Your post is long on hallucinations and short on the basic facts of the case.

    Unfortunately for you, this is not a short story writing contest.

  27. Yeah, he was a hippy so he knows exactly how blacks feel when they are profiled. Sheesh!

  28. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

    "Why not wait for the federal investigators to do their work?"

    Good lord dude!!

    You a call for patience at 05:53.

    Then at 7:03 you post your hallucinations clearly stating you don't know if they're true or not.

    Roll another one, bro!! Just like the other one!!!

  29. The Real AnonymousApril 6, 2012 at 11:13 PM

    "Yeah, he was a hippy so he knows exactly how blacks feel when they are profiled. Sheesh!"

    And here I thought the troll claiming Zimmerman never left his vehicle was going to be the high (or low) point of this thread.

    Now we have a self-confessed former hippie, not that there's anything wrong with that, buying the troll's description of a "liberal" as if asking for the wheels of justice to turn in a fair manner is a "liberal" rather than an American value.

    There's nothing worse than having to put up with a convert, is there?

  30. Not one of my critics have even attempted to show why my view of how things might have turned out is unreasonable. All you've done is hit me with a barrage of cheap and conspicuously stupid insults. This is exactly the way bigots react upon having their preconceived notions challenged.

    You have, in short, deprived me of any reason whatsoever to respect your opinions.

    For example, I was once picked up and taken to a police station for no stated reason and then let go for no stated reason. If that had happened to a black person would you not consider that a classic case of outrageous profiling? Why wouldn't a black person feel the same kind of anger I did?

    You folks aren't even attempting to reason. You're just trying to badger and insult me. How this is supposed to convince me or anyone else that you know what you're talking about is beyond me.

    Again, this is reminding me an awful lot of Duke lacrosse. This is EXACTLY the way true believers in Crystal Mangum's story behaved when confronted by skeptics. And you all know how well that turned out.

    As a liberal I am so sick and tired of other liberals like you who are the best friends conservatives ever had. You're not fighting bigots. You are bigots. You refuse to consider any scenario that fails to conform to your pre-conceived stereotypes. The complete lack of intelligence in your would-be rebuttals is all the proof required.

    You never learn.

  31. The Real AnonymousApril 7, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    "You're not fighting bigots. You are bigots. You refuse to consider any scenario that fails to conform to your pre-conceived stereotypes. The complete lack of intelligence in your would-be rebuttals is all the proof required."

    Give it a rest dude.

    First you post: "Why not wait for the federal investigators to do their work?"

    Then you post some daydream about how you could see Zimmerman's version of events based on nothing but conjecture.

    Now you're asking for rebuttals to your daydream?

    Deal with your own hypocrisy first before attempting to call out others.

    Why don't you make an argument based on the facts as we know them rather than how you wish things to be?

    You don't even seem to be aware, in a different incident, Zimmerman chased a suspect down by car.

    Luckily no one was hurt, but it was just a matter of time.

  32. What you post, Hieronymous, is just too ambiguous. You assume that both actors are human beings, like the rest of us.

    That their actions follow the general and frustratingly error-ridden patterns of humans behaving precisely like humans have always behaved.

    That you can understand both of them as imperfect assumptive vessels, judging from your own human experience.

    No, Hiero, you dare not!

    One of these actors must be prejudged and condemned - otherwise the universe makes no sense. Depending on particular bias, one must be evil; the other, of course, must be good.

    It's an age old struggle, Hiero, between good and evil. There's no middle. No gray areas. And don't you dare assume otherwise.

    Dammit, HB, this isn't about foolishness, mistakes, misapprehension, misjudgment, stupidity, and anger - this is...must be...a retelling of the story of The Passion.

  33. 107 comments, huh? Now 108.

    Guess not too many folks were driven away, eh, Headmaster? Maybe it's not such a bad thing to open a window occasionally and let in some fresh air.

    1. Why, there must be at least 10, maybe as many as 20 people commenting today!

      Call the Guinness World Records people!

    2. By the way, I count at least 28 posts -- almost exactly one-fourth the total -- occurring between two people when the Real Anonymous mopped the floor with the hapless KTW.

      Yeah, folks are coming to this blog in droves.

  34. NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape

    The Times actually gives credit to a conservative source for first pointing out the problem.

  35. Armed Neo-Nazis Now Patrolling Sanford, Say They Are "Prepared" For Post-Trayvon Martin Violence

    It's time for everyone, especially the supposedly responsible media and responsible black leaders, to be responsible, to stop fanning the flames, to undo the inaccurate reporting that encouraged the hate and suspicion. It's quite conceivable that the evidence supports Zimmerman's version -- that Martin was the aggressor and that Zimmerman has a justifiable self-defence plea. It's urgent that the the public be prepared for that possibility. I don't want to see riots and racial warfare if Zimmerman is exonerated.

    1. And it is quite conceivable that this so-called neo-Nazi group from Detroit is one publicity-seeking loudmouth and a couple of his buddies, if that. Kind of like the "New Black Panther Party" that had all kinds of white folks like you wetting their pants.

      Oh, and if charges aren't filed against Zimmerman, that doesn't mean the prosecutor and the feds investigating this case believe a word of what he's saying. It means they don't think they can beat Florida's "Kill At Will" law -- which is one of the very serious and very key issues this case raises, but this blog obviously doesn't think is all that significant.

      By the way, there has been some excellent reporting across the state of Florida about how Florida is gaining its reputation as "The Gunshine State" by being the NRA laboratory for all sorts of laws that make it easy to take your gun whereever you want and use it practically however you want, given the fact that the NRA has bought the Florida legislature lock, stock and certainly barrel.

      In addition to "Stand Your Ground," Florida also has "Take Your Gun to Work" laws, which was passed over the objection of the stat Chamber of Commerce, as well as "Docs vs. Glocks."

      But let's not discuss that. Surely, Lawrence O'Donnell said something dumb in the past week.

  36. Braintree here from a public computer.

    No, Anonymous, I am not being hypocrical. I am not saying that the scenario is right. Just that it makes more sense to me than the story I, as a good liberal, am being told I'm supposed to believe. I am perfectly willing to drop my present conception in the face of more and better evidence, especially from the federal investigation. I'm trying on other ideas to see what presently appears to work best. It's all tentative and subject to revision. Zimmerman could very well be as guilty as claimed. But he might not be and there is arguably good reason to doubt the prevailing scenario.

    What I was trying to suggest is that there's more than one way of looking at it.

    And, thank you Sherrlock for getting it.

  37. Braintree again.

    Real Anonymous, I tried finding the story about Zimmerman chasing someone with his car but had little luck. Can you provide a link? And then let's see how it relates to the Trevon Martin incident.

  38. A public computer at 1:13 a.m., and 2:36 a.m. Pacific time?

    Braintree, what country were you in when you were a hippy and the cops were so mean to you?

  39. The lynch mob likes to use phrases like "chased with a gun" because they want you to imagine that Zimmerman ran down Trayvon Martin while brandishing his gun.

    They are afraid to state the facts in the neutral terms the evidence supports. Zimmerman walked down a sidewalk the same direction he had seen Martin run.

    Carrying his concealed weapon, which Zimmerman is legally permitted to regardless of neighborhood watch rules, whether on or off neighborhood watch "duty," he lost sight of Martin and was looking for an address from the front of the row of townhomes which Martin had run between.

    Martin approached him, words were exchanged, Martin attacked him, he screamed for help, no help arrived. Fearing serious injury or death as Martin bashed his head on the sidewalk, he shot Martin in self-defense.

    Simple, straightforward self-defense. Zimmerman need not prove his injuries were severe and he need not answer to neighborhood watch guidelines.

  40. By the way, in addition to the new "Shaken Baby Syndrome" defense, Craig Sonner, one of the growing team of defense attorneys for Zimmerman, had this incredible thing to say yesterday:

    "People should stop screaming for justice and let the legal system work."

    1. They aren't using a "shaken baby syndrome" defense.

      There is no such defense, "shaken baby syndrome" is a syndrome involving death or injury from trauma to the head.

      The attorneys mentioned the syndrome since most people are aware of it, and compared the trauma to that faced by Zimmerman as he had his head pounded on the sidewalk.

      It is starting to seem that every member of the lynch mob has problems with reading comprehension and very basic logic.

    2. Oh, I get it. They aren't using it. They just referenced it.

      And please. Don't say that Zimmerman had his head pounded on the sidewalk until there is at least some evidence to support it beyond scratches on the back of his head that are visible only when you "enhance" and blow up the police video.

    3. A bloody skull = pounding

  41. "And it is quite conceivable that this so-called neo-Nazi group from Detroit is one publicity-seeking loudmouth and a couple of his buddies, if that. "

    I agree that this is quite conceivable. I certainly hope you're right, Anon.

    And, I hope that Al Sharpton's threat to escalate if Zimmerman isn't charged doesn't lead to a riot. I hope that this case didn't influence the two young black men near Sanford who dragged a middle aged white man from his vehicle and tried to beat him to death with a hammer. And, I hope that the group of teens who beat an old man and mentioned the name "Trayvon" weren't influenced by this case. I hope that we don't see other riots and murders, like the cases of Freddie's Fashion Mart and Yankel Rosenblum that were encouraged by Al Sharptonn's dishonest rhetoric.

    However, when all we can do is hope that the media's dereliction of standards won't lead to mayhem and death, something is horribly wrong. Bob Somerby deserves all the credit in the world for scrutinizing the media's performance.

    1. It's been my experience that these neo-Nazi, neo-KKK groups are often just that -- a handful on nuts who are good at getting their 15 minutes of fame.

  42. The grasping at straws phase has begun in earnest for the lynch mob.

  43. In this New York Times column, Charles Blow warns that "opinions shouldn’t get ahead of the facts," Unfortunately, the rest of the column does just that. Blow writes:

    The Martin case, on the other hand, holds the potential to be a high point. There is nobility in the advocacy for truth and justice for a dead child who would still be alive if Zimmerman had not pursued him....This is the good fight. This is about restoration of faith. Until there is a trial for George Zimmerman, the whole justice system is on trial.

    Contra Blow, based only on facts, we don't know whether there's been anything wrong or unjust about the investigation. We don't know whether or not the shooting was precipitated by Martin's unprovoked attack on Zimmerman. We don't know whether or not a trial is appropriate, given all the facts.

    Too bad Blow didn't follow his own advice.

  44. In the short time I've been coming to this blog, Somerby has demonstrated he's either a NY Times style liberal trying furiously to prove he's not, to the extent he's effectively another wingnut. Or he's a gadfly stirring the pot for personal gain and doesn't really stand for anything. Bob's just as one noted as Maureen Dowd though
    far less entertaining.

    1. The New York Times has Trayvonmania just like the rest of the media. What the hell makes you think Somerby's criticisms puts him in the NYT camp (whatever that is)?

    2. I'll vote for Door No. 2, a gadfly who really doesn't stand for anything. Don't know what "personal gain" he's getting out of this blog.

      Once upon a time, Bob's blog got widely quoted and linked, which is how I found it in the waning days of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. You hardly see that any more, if at all.

      And yes, he does seem to have become what he once condemned -- another Maureen Dowd who sees the "real story" in tangential issues that are revealed only by his keen insight.

    3. He was widely quoted when conservative bias was predominant. Now that their ox is getting gored, liberal hypocrites pretend he doesn't exist

  45. There's only one explanation for hysterical tenor of Anonymous's replies: he's been rendered near-insane with partisan rage. I MUST DEFEND THE TRIBE AT ALL COSTS!!!

  46. RUMOR -- George Zimmerman NOT Being Charged

    I was told that the State of Florida is going to announce on Tuesday that there is not enough evidence to prosecute George Zimmerman.

    This is a tip I got from a very close friend who would not make this up.

    This person is very close to the Seminole County FL Sheriff's Department, and says that the cops are already getting ready for trouble in Sanford.

    I have no idea of whether this blogger is correct. Whether or not he is, there is a possibility that Zimmerman will not be charged. Such a decision could lead to violence. In fact, Al Sharpton has more or less threated to encourage violence if no charges are filed.

    It seems to me that President Obama, being black, is in a unique position to make the kind of statement that would encourage acceptance of the police investigation and discourage violence. I hope he makes such a statement.

    1. Wow, David. A rumor! Then it must be true.

      Here's a newsflash for you. There was ALWAYS the "possibility" that Zimmerman will walk on this.

      Now as your pee-in-your-pants fears of mass rioting breaking out, suppose instead that people peacefully assemble, as is their right under the First Amendment, to vent their anger that way. Got a problem with that?

      Of course, you do. You've already accused people who have spoken their minds in public, peaceful protests of stoking hate and inciting violence.

      Doggone that First Amendment anyway.

    2. "Suppose instead that people peacefully assemble, as is their right under the First Amendment, to vent their anger that way. Got a problem with that?"

      Maybe. My approval or disapproval of a demonstration doesn't necessarily depend on the Constitution. E.g., in Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that there's a Constitutional right to burn a cross as long as that act isn't meant to intimidate. Nevertheless, if the KKK burns a cross just to demonstrate racism in general I would disapprove.

      Getting back to your hypothetical case, Anon, my feelings would partly depend on whether I thought the demonstration's message was accurate. Right now, I don't yet have a definite opinion about guilt or innocence. I may have one after more facts and evidence are released. Suppose I then believed that Zimmerman had attacked Martin, had killed him in cold blood, and that the police had chosen not to prosecute because Martin was black. I'd approve of a peaceful demonstration for people to vent their anger. OTOH if I believed that the police had done their job properly, that Martin had made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman deserved to be exonerated, then I would disapprove of a demonstration designed to drum up anger against Zimmerman, against the police force, and against non-African-Americans in general.

      Anger can be dangerous. Anon, your hypothetical question talked about venting anger. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar shows that venting anger at a funeral can be twisted into drumming up anger strong enough to encourage murder. There are modern-day examples. Anti-abortion demonstrations, supposedly designed to vent anger, may have encouraged an anti-abortionist to murder Dr. George Tiller. Al Sharpton and others led demonstrations to vent anger after an accidental death in Brooklyn. These demonstrations encouraged the murder of Yankel Rosenblum. Demonstrations at Freddie's Fashion Mart encouraged an unbalanced individual to murder seven people.