Grand Inquisitor keeps pouring it on!


Most simply put, not honest: Rachel Maddow’s handling of the Fort Lee matter continues to warrant attention.

Last night, Maddow continued to frame events in highly prejudicial ways. By now, we would simply have to say that she is being dishonest.

Maddow ended her program with a short segment about the release of some new emails and texts. To watch the full segment, click this.

This is the way Our Own Lynch Mob began:
MADDOW (3/17/14): “At least we have explained the counter-narrative.”

That’s a newly released text message from former Port Authority executive Bill Baroni to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s campaign manager at the time, Bill Stepien.

That text message is in reference to Mr. Baroni telling the New Jersey legislature that some traffic study explained why access lanes had been closed onto the George Washington Bridge. We now know that was an untrue cover story.
The text message in question was sent on November 26 of last year. The day before, Baroni had testified to a New Jersey legislative committee. In his testimony, he said the lane closings in Fort Lee were part of a traffic study.

“We now know that was an untrue cover story,” Maddow said, putting her thumbs on the scale in a familiar fashion.

Let’s make an assumption. Let’s assume we know there was no attempt to conduct a traffic study or test in Fort Lee—none at all. Let’s assume it has been shown that David Wildstein’s alleged traffic study was always a hoax, a scam.

Plainly, that doesn’t answer a basic question: Did Baroni know, when he testified, that the alleged traffic study was a hoax, a scam?

Despite the rather obvious gap in her logic, Maddow almost always seems to suggest that it does. She almost always seems to suggest that we know that Baroni was aware that the alleged traffic study was a hoax—a mere cover story.

She has never explained how we know that at this point. But quite routinely, she keeps advancing that suggestion.

Go ahead! Watch last night’s segment; you will see this unsupported suggestion extended again. This is the way she continues:
MADDOW (continuing directly): This new exchange in these text messages comes from court filings by the New Jersey legislature. They show Bill Stepien texting Bill Baroni the day after his now proven-to-be-false testimony.

He texts him, “Hey, great job yesterday. I know it’s not a fun topic and not nearly as fun as beating up on Senator Frank Lautenberg,” which is a reference to a heated exchange Bill Baroni had with Frank Lautenberg in a hearing in 2012 in the U.S. Senate.

But the text message continues, "But you did great, and I wanted to thank you."

Mr. Baroni responds, "Thanks, William”—William Stepien. "Loretta and Wiz," meaning New Jersey Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblyman John Wisniewski, "will keep up their nonsense, but at least we will have explained the counter-narrative."

"The counter-narrative," AKA the cover story.

So Bill Stepien, who’d been Chris Christie’s campaign manager, tells Bill Baroni “great job” about his cover story, and Bill Baroni celebrates having sold “the counter-narrative.”
Let’s note the several things Maddow has done in that passage.

First, she reiterates the claim that Baroni’s testimony about the traffic study has been “proven to be false.” Even if we assume that’s true, it once again begs the question:

Did Baroni know his testimony was false? Did he know that the alleged traffic study was a hoax, a scam?

Having glossed this basic distinction again, Maddow reads the message Baroni sent, then stresses, for the third time, that he is referring to “the cover story.” She even implies, at the end of this passage, that Stepien knowingly congratulated Baroni for presenting a cover story.

If we assume this was a cover story, that still doesn’t tell us if Baroni knew it was. Meanwhile, we know of no evidence—none at all—that suggests that Stepien knew the alleged study was a hoax, although of course he may have.

Since December, Rachel Maddow has made a career glossing these obvious distinctions. At this juncture, it seems to us there’s little point in pretending that her work should be regarded as honest, unless we assume that she is unable to draw even the most basic journalistic distinctions.

For the record, we’re not trying to tell you about the status of Baroni’s testimony. (It may turn out that his testimony was dishonest.)

Instead, we’re trying to tell you about Maddow’s work, which strikes us as plainly dishonest.

While we’re at it, might we note something about the text of Baroni’s message? In his text to Stepien, he says that Weinberg and Wisniewski “will keep up their nonsense” in spite of his testimony.

Does that mean Baroni believed that the pair’s complaints were “nonsense?” Not necessarily, no! Baroni may have been maintaining a facade for Stepien’s consumption. But it doesn’t exactly sound like Baroni and Stepien were co-conspirators at this point.

We certainly wouldn’t draw any firm conclusions from this one text message. But Maddow hurried past the part of Baroni’s message which might suggest that he and/or Stepien still may have believed that Wildstein was telling the truth, that Weinberg and Wisniewski were just peddling “nonsense.”

Maddow ignored that part of the message. Instead, she kept pounding away with the “cover story” talking point, ignoring that basic question:

If we assume the traffic study was a cover story, did Baroni understand that when he testified?

In our view, it no longer makes much sense to assume that Maddow is working in good faith. She has had more than three months to flesh out the full story here, including Wildstein’s elaborate attempts to give the impression that a traffic study or test was being conducted.

She just keeps refusing to do it. If Maddow worked for a real news org, her keister would quickly get fired.


  1. If Bob had ever been successful enough to advance in a job where he supervised anyone, he might be able to say with some credibility when and for what reason somebody might get fired in the real world.

    Since has has not, he is free to speculate about whether involuntary mordant chuckling would get his imaginary analysts and other fictional characters fired.

    1. Did you realize that TDH wasn't writing an actual annual performance review for Darlin' Rachel?

      Sorry for asking, but I couldn't tell from your comment.

    2. Actually, he is writing his daily performance review for "Darlin' Rachel.

      And he says the same damned thing, day after day after day after day after day . . .

      But I am certain he is grateful for his toadies who find him so original and brilliant and insightful.

    3. The clock trolls @7:23: I comment on your cluelessness, and instead of responding to the comment you accuse me of being a toady. Well played!

      Anonymous @7:25P, "Poopypants"? That's what occurred to you? Well, it seems to be in keeping with the intellectual level of "Kiss my ass." I'm not whining about the trolls here. They don't bother me, and I think it's bad policy to try to keep them out. I'm just curious about somebody who comes to this blog "day after day after day after day" to read "the same damned thing." If I found myself challenged on the same grounds, I think I'd have a better response than "Kiss my ass."

      But that's just me.

    4. deadrat,
      Why do you come here? You seem intelligent and well informed; when was the last time you read a post here that advanced your understanding of the world or gave you some cheerful amusement?

    5. Since deadrat was responding to me, allow me to note for our friend the last sentence. Bob wasn't giving a job evaluation. He was saying a real news organization would have fired her by now. I haven't seen Bob name anything he would call a real news organization lately. He has said some nice things about talking heads at FOX.

      About the only thing Mr. Somerby is able to successfully demonstrate much expertise in of late is to identify people younger than he is. He likes them as a group if they are still at the age where they take standardized tests. Older than that, not so much.

    6. Lets face it, some people deeply resent Rachel, or any liberal coming under criticism. They're riled and here to right a wrong. To them politics is a team sport, and they're the buck up, suck up spirit squad

      They're the "Buck Up, Suck Up" Brigade

    7. Let's face it. Some people deeply resent Somerby lying
      about anything. His stories about Bridgegate began and today focus almost exclusively on Maddow. This thread
      focuses entirely on Bob Somerby with some gorilla dust being flung by commenters at each other. The only one other than you who injected Maddow into it is deadrat, a usually reliable Somerby defender.

    8. Trolls here don't care about anything but hating on Somerby.

    9. Trollmes,

      If I'm going to ask why people come to this site if they think it's boring and hateful, I suppose it's fair to ask me why I enjoy coming here.

      Specifically, TDH advances my understanding of the educational testing biz just about every time he writes about it.

      The commentariat amuses me daily. TDH is the absent father figure in a dysfunctional family of grown children who won't leave home. He writes impersonal notes but never responds directly to the kids, so they engage in more and more outrageous behavior to try to get his attention. But no matter what they say, Dad never talks to them. To add insult to psychic injury, he goes to the next-door neighbors and and talks to their kids. This has driven some of his own kids nuts. One of them, KZ, has stopped taking his meds and thinks he's from outer space. Another, who remains Anonymous but who posted a comment at 7:25P is suffering from Tourette's and when angered yells "Kiss my ass!" A third is a little slow and needs help from a loving parent and absent that has been visiting white supremacist web sites. Without supervision, the kids have turned on each other, with one faction attacking anyone who sticks up for Dad: "Suck up!" they yell. Poor little sister Cecelia seems to get the worst of it. The kids getting beaten up are demanding that someone from Social Services come and haul the abusers away. And God forbid anyone suggests that they're all old enough to find some cyberlife of their own and it might just be wise to swallow the rejection and move on. But they can't. They call out to "Bob" and pretend they know his every mood and emotion.

      The whole thing is a hoot. What's not to like?

      I happen to like obsessive curmudgeons. TDH is a daily challenge to make reasoned judgments on the basis of evidence and to reject scripts, automatic world views, and personal hatreds. Does he ride to the tunes of his own scripts, does he project his own world view, does his own emotion spill into his blog? Yes, yes, and yes. So what? The fine-meshed evidence sieve that he urges on everyone else can be used to filter his own blog. I find what's captured thereby informs me.

    10. One of the things I like best about deadrat, trollmes, is that he pretends we believe we are Zarkon, King of Doom and we further believe BOB thinks his analysts are real. One of the things which keeps me coming back is the inability of deadrat, clearly the most intelligent of Bobfans, to factually refute anything we say. His favorite dodge is to claim he doesn't understand us.

      But best of all are deadrat's fine psychoanalytical skills. Making BOB the father figure instead of the failed comic a few cynics heckle is masterful. I put it right up there with Freud, but just behind BOB suggesting a TV host has a few screws loose. Nobody, of course, can top our BOB.


    11. KZ,

      All I can know is what you post from the Galaxy Schizophrenia.

      My claim isn't a dodge. I simply don't have the patience to wade throughout your longer disquisitions. I've tried, and I get lost in the arch self-satisfaction and the irrelevance of most of the claims. I just don't think TDH's hypocrisy, if true, makes much difference to the points he makes.

      I actually made it through one your shorter screeds, though, and posted that I agreed with you.

      But come on. You think the model here is a failed comic and some hecklers? How many hecklers come back over and over to see a show they find hateful and boring? How many hecklers heckle others in the audience?

      I think there's some serious separation anxiety going on here. And I think you should get back on your meds. "Bob" isn't coming back to tuck you in. Get over it.

    12. All deadrat ever argues for here is that he is smarter than everyone else. In reality he is remarkably immature. A hero with empty goals and a never satisfied ego.

    13. The clock trolls @3:34A. Yep, it's all about me. I "argue" that I'm smarter than anyone else; I'm immature; A hero? (Who knows.) with empty goals and an unsatisfied ego.

      I don't think I'm smarter than everyone else, but I know enough not to think I know people's interiority from their comments on a blog.

      That makes me smarter than you, Sunshine.

    14. Poor deadrat, afraid of his own shadow. You are easy to read (and excite). Are you commenting on my nature? I'm afraid I am still smarter than you.

    15. So you think I'm fearful. Fearful and excited. And you can tell that from comments on a blog. Amazing. No, not amazing. What's that other word?

      Oh, yeah. Pathetic.

      Am I commenting on your nature? No, how could I know your "nature" from words on a monitor? I'm commenting on your ignorance.

      And yes, be afraid. Be very afraid.

    16. You mad, bro? Somebody got your goat? I don't feel pathetic. I'm so confused.

    17. Am I mad angry? Or like KZ, am I mad crazy?

      If I told you the answer, would you know?

      If you don't feel pathetic, then I guess the self-awareness pixie has made her visit to you yet.

      And you don't seem confused. Certainly not about what I think an feel.

    18. "If you don't feel pathetic, then I guess the self-awareness pixie has made her visit to you yet."

      Another angry, vile verbal vomit from our hero. You are too easy to seduce deadrat!

      Tell us what you think and feel. We are all dying to know these special things you think and feel. Come on little baby, you can do it.

    19. Ooh! I'm angry. Angry and vile. And apparently easy. An easy baby. Or something.

      You don't need me to tell you how I feel. You already claim to know.

    20. Hahaha! oh dear

      I think you are attempting some kind of retort? Just without wit (or self-awareness). It is most amusing prodding you. Finally you are providing a service here!

    21. Some kind of retort? Was I not typing slowly enough so you could follow? Or was it too many words of more than one syllable?

      I'm glad that you're amused. I live to serve.

  2. "She has had more than three months to flesh out the full story here, including Wildstein’s elaborate attempts to give the impression that a traffic study or test was being conducted."

    Wildstein's elaborate attempts?????

    Right now the Analysts are asking Bob for his resignation.

    And chuckling out loud.

    1. I would love to see Bob or any readers link to a single document in which Wildstein or Baroni refer to a study or test before the lanes were ordered to be shut.

    2. Given that the order came from the governor's deputy chief of staff, and that his campaign manager was also "in the loop" I'd also like to see documents from them referring to any "study" or "test."

      Instead, we get Baroni's preposterous story that this was all the idea of the police union chief.

      And Bob actually thinks Baroni could have actually believe on Nov. 25 that he was telling the truth.

    3. Yes, Wildstein's incredibly elaborate attempts.

      He ordered Durando on Friday to shut down the lanes on Monday, then called Fulton to tell him he ordered Durando to shut down the lanes on Monday.

      While telling both of them to tell no one, including the Executive Director and Fort Lee officials.

      How much more "elaborate" could he possibly have gotten?

    4. Uh, he could have actually used the word "study" somewhere at least once that anyone could tesify that they remembered?

    5. Precision of language is demanded only of Somerby's favorite targets.

      In this case, Kelly was "strongly implying" that Wildstein order a legitimate "traffic study" when she orded up "traffic problems in Fort Lee."

      In Bob's World, we must alwayas cast such clear simple words in their best possible light in order to beat up on Maddow some more, no matter how silly in makes Bob look.

  3. Baroni couldn't find by the end of November out the truth of whether there was a study or not in early September?

    Has anyone actually read Baroni's testimony? It would be a great example to be used to demonstrate the meaning of the terms, "non-responsive" and "disingenuous."

    A study conducted at the urging of the head of the police union -- an action which that person according to his lawyer now denies -- not the actual head of the Port Authority police with the official responsibility to make proposals?

    Most people reporting on the bridge closing, if not all others to a person, believe the study story was completely bogus, not just Maddow. So if she's dishonest, applying the standard being applied to Baroni, then she must actually believe there was a study.

    1. A study that by closing all but one lane would force EZ-Pass users to wait behind cash payers?

      A study that apparently was not preceded by any data analysis of actual usage of the three lanes vs. the 15 lanes for other eastbound bridge users?

    2. I think a quick conversation with Foye should have disabused Baroni of any notion that this was any kind of "traffic study."

      And he should have had that conversation on Sept. 13, before lunch.

    3. Foye didn't know anything. What can he tell Baroni?

    4. Foye certainly learned enough between the evening of Sept. 12 and the morning of Sept. 13 to write a blistering e-mail ordering the lanes re-opened immediately.

      But let's shove that e-mail down the memory hole, and certainly put the e-mail from Christie's deputy chief of staff ordering it. And while we are at it, let's also bury the e-mails between Wildstein, Kelly and Stepien -- who was running Christie's re-election campaign and certainly had a keen interest in the George Washington Bridge -- as they cackled about the "traffic problems in Fort Lee" while they were happening.

      This doesn't fit Bob's six-year narrative that Maddow is a horrible person and that this all could have been a legit study, just badly handled, and all involved who subsequently lost their jobs told the Gospel truth as best they could.

  4. If loose screws fell on the lawn of the sprawling campus, would anyone hear?

  5. More Somerby dissembling:

    "In his text to Stepien, he says that Weinberg and Wisniewski “will keep up their nonsense” in spite of his testimony. Does that mean Baroni believed that the pair’s complaints were “nonsense?”

    Of course! In Bob's World when someone calls something "nonsense" IN WRITING, that doesn't necessarily mean "nonsense."

    Why . . . it could mean anything. EXCEPT the word the guy actually used.

    1. It means that they thought the politicians would keep mining the scandal for political pay dirt.

      Does this really require close reading?

    2. Good lordy, deadrat. That's lame.

    3. Oh, I'm sorry. I live for writing comments you find insightful and entertaining. Apparently, I've failed. At least it was worth what it cost you.

      For Darlin' Rachel, Baroni's calling the legislators' questions "nonsense" is evidence that the Baroni is lying because the questions weren't nonsensical. For TDH, it's possible that Baroni had been duped (in which case he would have considered the interrogation nonsense) or that Baroni had guilty knowledge (in which case, he knew the questioning was perfectly sensible).

      I'm suggesting that "keep up their nonsense" means "keep giving me the business over this no matter what I say."

      Do I have to explain that I don't think Baroni meant that he was about to go into a business partnership with Weinberg and Wisniewski ?

    4. I get it, deadrat. Both you and Somerby think that Maddow is awful. Now unless the both of you lack the intellectual capacity to discuss anything else but Maddow, why not move on to a different subject?

      Or are you this boring in person as well?

      But proceed, in your lame attempt to redefine "nonsense" but still coming up only with "nonsense." You got your orders from Bob on High, so obviously a simply English word must now mean something competely different when you need to excuse the behavior of Baroni in order to beat on Maddow some more.

      But here's fair warning -- given their track record this story, I'm more inclined to go with Maddow's "lying through his teeth" than Somerby's "telling the truth as he best new it" hypothesis -- as the agency's No. 2 man, two months later. After all, how could have possibly known this was no traffic study? He only had two months to find out.

      I also wonder why he wasn't interested in the least in what Foye, Durando and Fulton had to say, because they sure told a different story than Baroni's "counter-narrative" two weeks later.

    5. Anonymous @9:02,

      You get it? I don't see that as very probable.

      Is it that TDH and I just think that Maddow is awful, or on several topics is she just plain awful by any reasonable standard? It's clear that TDH has a visceral reaction to Darlin' Rachel but can't quit her. I just find her annoying and avoid her. I realize that she does competent work on many topics.

      Do you actually read all the comments I post or just the ones on Bridgegate? Yes, I am as boring in person as I am in cyberspace, so certainly there's no good reason for you to read everything I post here. But if you're not going to do so, the least you can do is not claim that I discuss nothing but Maddow. I've waxed long (and probably boring) on Florida homicide law, popular writing about physics, the legal aspects of the rollout of the ACA, and the phony "scandal" about the IRS and 503(c) organizations.

      One reason I don't think you get it, is that you're commenting on me: I lack intellectual capacity, I'm boring in person, and of course, the troll's favorite I-got-my-orders-from-Bob. You don't know me, you have no real way to find out anything personal about me. Even if I told you, you still wouldn't know. But the absence of evidence doesn't stop you. (Do you figure that Bob Somerby and I secretly correspond so that he can give me orders on what to write? Or do you think it's clairvoyance?)

      Thanks for the "fair" warning -- and what an ironical usage that is. Am I inclined to believe that the apparatchiks are lying? Of course, because that's what I want to believe about all these clowns. But you can't define yourself in possession of the evidence by declaring that nothing was studied because "traffic study" is a civil engineering term of art. That lesson of waiting is part of what TDH is about.

      And that's another reason I don't think you get it.

    6. On judgement calls Somerby likes to go with "who knows?". I think this may have some intellectual integrity, but generally does not serve a purpose beyond that. At some point decisions have to be made, progress has to be made. On the other hand, we could just sit around in bagel shops, musing. Who knows?

    7. Yeah, Anonymous @3:45A, I'm with you. Fuck that intellectual integrity thing. And evidence in general. Progress must be served. Otherwise, we might just sit around and admit that we don't know things.

      Ya gonna finish that bagel?

    8. But Somerby's lame schtick is that no one can possibly know anything at all, thus Maddow is pretending to know.

      This is despite the mountain of evidence, not the least of which is documents and sworn testimony, that Somerby wants his fans to forget and you, as a loyal follower, dutifully obey.

    9. "Intellectual integrity?" You and Somerby?

      To quote a wise guy from earlier in the day but later in the thread:


      Oh, wait. You're serious."

    10. Yeah, that's the ticket: TDH believes that we can't know anything at all.

      And the clock trolls @9:59! I'm a loyal follower, dutifully obeying! What power that Somerby has!

    11. Anonymous @10:05,

      I said nothing about TDH's intellectual integrity or my own. I lampooned the the position that we should sacrifice some intellectual integrity in the name of the progress that has to be made. But never mind your failure to read for comprehension. Let's behold the perfect comment for this blog.

      Now, you could have written to claim to correct a mistake I'd made. I find this doesn't happen much in spite of my commenting on numerous topics. A recent comment about the "38 people watched Kitty G. die" story is a rare exception. It's not that I'm so unassailably accurate; I just don't think trolls are much interested in disputes about facts.

      You could have written to point out a particularly benighted opinion that I'd propounded. This happens more occasionally, although not commensurate with my lack of shyness in expressing my opinions.

      Or you could have simply added to the deep insight many trolls claim to have to my mental processes and character. You know the routine: I'm boring or I'm angry. Or I'm boring and angry. And don't forget that I have no mind of my own because I take orders from "Bob."

      But, no, in the perfect illustration of TDH's theme, someone you disagree with or think you don't like must lack intellectual integrity, i.e., he must be saying things he knows are wrong or taking positions he doesn't really believe. Wrong? Confused? Just a jerk? Not a chance, in spite of the fact the evidence for the last is as strong as its lack of relevance.

      Congratulations! You're now the poster boy for The Daily Howler.

      It must be a proud moment for you.

    12. Yes, and for you as well, since the comment was a reprint of you own comment @ 2:35 am. You have now written a complete refutation of yourself less than a day later. Somerby would be proud too. He can usually refute himself in the same post as well.

    13. Are you stupid? No, seriously, because if you are, then I'm not going to waste time responding. Yes, your comment used the same Bwahahahahaha! format as mine. Do you think that means that the comments were identical?

      I was making fun of someone who posts ignorant things pretending that he was speaking for all smart people.

      You're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.

      I was criticizing comments. You weighed in with an analysis of my character.

      Now answer my question so I don't waste any more time. Of course you post as Anonymous. Maybe you can get a bell or something.

    14. "I lampooned the the position that we should sacrifice some intellectual integrity in the name of the progress"

      Really? I missed that.

      "Fuck that intellectual integrity thing."

      You call that lampooning? Are you stupid?

      I'm pretty sure the guy was being somewhat sarcastic when he referred to Somerby's nonsense as having "some intellectual integrity", because it is clear this is how Somerby thinks of himself. I know you, deadrat, have trouble determining such things from what someone has written, but this is just your own limitation. Along with poor lampooning skills.

    15. OK, I ask a stupid question, I get a stupid reply. What did I expect? My bad.

      And here I am doing it again, responding to someone who not only knows how Somerby thinks of himself, it's clear how Somerby thinks of himself. Maybe you're right about me. At the very least, I'm not a one trial learner.

      And, I am so sorry my lampooning skills didn't meet your high standards. Comfort yourself that at least it was worth what it cost you.

  6. "in highly prejudicial ways"

    That made me laugh.

  7. And still no one has managed to make any of this important by linking it back to Christie. This is just a traffic delay until that happens. Not a missing plane. Why has Darlin' Rachel wasted so much time on her show over something that no one outside of NJ cares about, and no one will care about unless Christie can be tied into it.

    1. Try speaking for yourself sometime and not everyone who lives outside New Jersey.

      I live well outside of NJ, and I care very much about the way a potential candidate for president does his business.

      But then again, I'm old enough to remember the Plumbers.

    2. Sometimes a traffic jam is just a traffic study.

    3. And sometimes a traffic study is just a test. Be sure to disaggregate before making claims about the results.

  8. Please come again. You will soon find what a national treasure TDH is and has been.

    1. What happened to the nice people I was chatting with?

  9. This isn't about who will wind up having been right or wrong about a scandal. It is about being fair during the investigation. Maddow isn't but she should be, because journalists should not be propagandists.

    1. Why should opinion show infotainment hosts pretend to be journalists? And why should viewers call them what they are not?

    2. So it is OK with you if Maddow is like Rush?

    3. I take it you are unable to answer either question so you posed a different one.

      Maddow is like Bob. Bob is like Rush. None are journalists. Now, answer my question.

    4. Saying that Maddow is like Rush is like saying The Dick Van Dyke Show is like the Beverly Hillbillies. After all, they were both half-hour sitcoms in the 60s on the same network.

    5. Richard Deacon and Nancy Kulp are two of the finest small screen comedic forces in the American sit-com genre.

      Like Rachel and Rush both these shows are best in black and white.

      The Beverly Hillbillies was, of course, much more beloved by audiences, longer lasting, and higher rated. In fact, were it not for the fact it followed the higher rated Hillbillies half hour, Van Dyke may have been cancelled.

  10. She's not being fair because, like every other reporter covering this story, she believes the evidence is overwhelming that the "study" story is completely bogus?

    What other actual accusation not supported by facts as they are known has she made?

    1. She claimed the new York Times invented the story about the 38 witnesses in the Genovese case.

      Oops. Sorry. That would be Somerby that did that.

    2. The Times did make up an incorrect Genovese story. Somerby didn't invent that you morons.

    3. Don't call someone a moron when you cannot correctly restate the comment you are responding too. When you do that nobody with any intelligence needs to call you a name in return. You demonstrate for all what may be lacking.

      Somerby did exactly what I said he did. He claimed the New York Times invented the story.

      "(T)he New York Times essentially invented the tale about the uncaring neighbors...." So wrote Bob Somerby yesterday. Only in the same post he demonstrates that the New York Times did not invent the story about the uncaring witnesses and put their number at 38. The New York Police Commissioner did that.

      So when you call me a moron for saying something I did not say, and Bob makes a false charge refuted in his own post, what does it say about the collective intelligence of a blogger and his fans?

    4. You know folks, Somerby's review of the Genovese Books review only really focused on one of the two books. Here is what the other author had to say about the role of the new York Times and the accuracy of its story. No wonder Somerby ignored it.

    5. The Police Commissioner invented a fact. The NYT turned into a story. Bad on them both.

    6. It would behoove you to know a fact or two more before commenting deadrat. I suggest you follow the link above your comment. The liar here is the gentleman you claim urges a "fine-meshed evidence sieve" on everyone, Bob Somerby. And it has caused you to misstate things quite a bit.

    7. I read it. It's the author reviewing her own book debunking "revisionism." And guess what? The number isn't 38 witnesses. It's more like 60. At this rate and In a few more books, all of Queens will have heard and ignored the screams that night.

    8. I heard the screams, and I ignored them. I thought it was deadrat screaming.

    9. The screams might be inside your head. Don't ignore them. Ask KZ for some of his meds.

      He's not using them.

    10. Yes. If we took drugs we would agree with BOB that it is pure invention for the New York Times to take a number given to them by the Police Commissioner, interview some of the people themselves, then write a story about a crime.

      If we were medicated we would then conclude that invention was so severe the article should have never been written because the killing was over ten days earlier, no longer news, and only two people really saw it based on online review of one book fifty years later. Instead they should devote six days of coverage to an "almost killing" 15 years ago involving a prominent television personality.

      Dr. BOB and Dr. deadrat. Rooting out the nuts on the Networks and in the Netroots.


    11. More on Genovese and Somerby's invention of the invention!

  11. OMB (And Now for Something Completely Different)

    "By now, we would simply have to say that she is being dishonest."

    Well BOB, coming right on top of your, "she's got a few screws loose" post, you had to go and get tough on her didn't you.

    Sorry BOB, but considering the nonsensical lie you just told about the New York Times "inventing" the 38 witness story in the Genovese case, we'd say you had best hope there is a job opening for a restroom luggage attendant at your favorite coffee shop.

    "If we assume this was a cover story, that still doesn’t tell us if Baroni knew it was."

    No, but it suggests to most intelligent people that if he thought what he said was the "truth" he might have referred to it with that word instead of calling it a "counter-narrative."

    What tells us he knew it was a cover story was that he personally approved the press release the afternoon the lane closure ended which called the event a study of "traffic safety patterns," which was false. The fact he changed that story to a "fairness" in lane allocation study when he testified in November is a pretty good clue. Perhaps he didn't notice that after his false press release, his chief assistant, Mr. Unreliable but Important Wildstein ordered the collection of the E-Z pass data used as the centerpiece of his testimony. Given the hell that had just broken loose he wouldn't be keeping close tabs on that former blogger, and it wouldn't occur to him that the whole nature of the study had changed between the day the closure ended and the day he unknowingly read Mr. Wildstein's false cover story in good faith to the Legislature. He was just a fifty something innocent politician being badly misled by the anonymous blogger he hired.

    It is a good thing blog commenters are not part of any guild. You are full of it BOB.


    1. [I]t suggests to most intelligent people ....


      Oh, wait. You're serious.

    2. Woohoo! Yes it's all about you deadrat!

    3. How did you get that conclusion from my comment?

      I'm not the one claiming to speak for "most intelligent people."

    4. deadrat knows we "will keep up (our) nonsense, but at least (he) will have explained the counter-narrative."


    5. But we now know, thanks to the Incomparable Somerby, that "nonsense" no longer means "nonsense."

      After all, Baroni could have been saying that Loretta and Wis had legitimate concerns, though badly bungled.

    6. In our view, it no longer makes much sense to assume that (Somerby) is working in good faith. (He) has had more than three months to flesh out the full story here, including (Loretta and Wiz'z) elaborate attempts to give the impression that a (legislative investigation instead of a lynching) was being conducted.

      (He) just keeps refusing to do it. If (Somerby) worked for a real news org, (his) keister would quickly get fired.

  12. The study showed main lane traffic on I-95 was improved by the Wildstein test safety patterns. It is unfair that that little town gets 1/4 of the lanes with only 4.5% of the EZ passes.

    They need to reinstate the Wildstein solution. It really gets me sauced that they don't.

    1. So true. Speaking for thousands of "loser/rubes" who have learned the hard way thanks to painstaking unrelenting debunking of Maddow by the Incomparable Somerby, we know traffic on the bridge will not be affected.

  13. KZ is such a stalwart, to stay in the trenches with Bob's ridiculous credulity. Let's put it this way. Where is the burden of proof?

    I suspect this shows Bob's Harvard (a wannabe who got in!) and Gore-friend roots: the burden of proof is with those who have less power than with those who have power, no matter the arguments and evidence the less powerful bring to bear? Really, Bob is stuck as a sophomore philosophy student. It's sort of sweet (I spend hours each day with the likes -- my hours spent to advance them beyond this point). mch

    1. The burden of proof generally lies with the claimant. What are you talking about?

  14. If you listened to Rachel, that 1./4 of the lanes "dedication" was a justification for the road study, it was in effect not an actual thing, as traffic moved the same regardless...