TRAUMA AND REVOLUTION: Lawrence O'Donnell's peculiar remark!

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2020

Sources of anguish, despair:
Lawrence O'Donnell has done some good work down through the many long years.

He's highly experienced in certain areas. There have been times when he's put his experience to very good use on the air.

He's also had some remarkable meltdowns. On balance, these meltdowns haven't been helpful. We'll suppose that few meltdowns are.

Last night, Lawrence started his program by mocking one of the craziest things Donald J. Trump has said yet. In the past few days, the commander has gone farther and farther is support of the idea that we shouldn't do a lot of testing for covid-19.

Reason? If you do a lot of testing, you'Ll end up reporting a lot of "cases." As of yesterday, Trump was almost sounding like he thought the testing somehow creates the infections.

Lawrence started his program by mocking these statements. He didn't explore the possibility that the person making these statements may be cognitively or psychiatrically impaired in a way which medical experts ought to be discussing in public forums.

Donald J. Trump continues to make highly peculiar statements. Last night, at 10:26 PM Eastern, Lawrence made a very strange statement of his own.

MSNBC's Joy Reid had just offered a perfectly reasonable speculation. The videotape of George Floyd's death displayed remarkably heinous conduct by former officer Chauvin, Reid correctly said. Acknowledging that she doesn't know, she said that widespread viewing of the tape may be creating a major change in public perceptions concerning racial misconduct.

Reid's speculation was perfectly reasonable. O'Donnell's response was not.

Lawrence turned to a second guest, MSNBC's Trymaine Lee. This exchange occurred:
O'DONNELL (6/25/20): Trymaine, video has made all the difference. We didn't have a video like that of Michael Brown.

LEE: That's right...
Lee continued from there, moving directly to remarks about the history of lynching. He should have corrected what Lawrence said, but we aren't going to blame him for this.

O'Donnell's implication was obvious. Videotape of Michael Brown's death would have shown horrific misconduct by a police officer, in the way the tape from Minneapolis did.

There are various ways to assess such a comment. The most obvious assessment would be this:

As a matter of basic anthropology, Lawrence's comment calls attention to certain facts about the basic nature of our self-impressed species. We say that for these reasons:

Surely, Lawrence knows what the Obama Justice Department reported about the unfortunate shooting death of Michael Brown. After a lengthy investigation, the department issued a lengthy formal report whose findings were explicitly endorsed by Attorney General Holder.

In its report, the department held that the unfortunate killing of Michael Brown did not involve any act of police misconduct at all. The report was based on forensic investigations and interviews with eyewitnesses, not on the bogus stories which quickly arose in the aftermath of Brown's death.

The liberal world—a world which includes corporate-paid, profit-seeking multimillionaires like O'Donnell—has chosen to ignore, indeed to disappear, the findings of that detailed report. Within that world, Michael Brown's death has remained an iconic example of racist misconduct by America's racist police.

How racist are America's police officers and our police departments? We can't answer those questions.

We can say that O'Donnell surely knows what Eric Holder said about the formal report his Department of Justice prepared. Surely, O'Donnell must know what that report said. He just isn't willing to tell you.

Our liberal world has disappeared the findings of that report. (Over on Fox, viewers are allowed to hear about the findings.) In this way, our liberal world creates our own preferred storylines and our own tribal beliefs, just as the conservative world generates various crazy beliefs about the coronavirus.

Aside from the millions of dollars in corporate pay which are involved in his conduct, why would someone like Lawrence O'Donnell mislead his viewers in the way he did last night?

Anthropologists tell us that this is the way life forms like us are wired. Our species is hard-wired for the creation of tribal beliefs, whether true or false, these disconsolate scholars now say.

They leave it to us to state the obvious. The refusal to tell the public the truth—by which we tend to mean the whole truth—may lead to anguish and despair, even to traumatization.

Lawrence behaved very badly last night, in a way which is required at his profit-based corporate network. By way of contrast, we think of the impressive young woman cited by the Washington Post's Theresa Vargas last week.

In our view, Vargas has been a superb addition to the Post's roster of columnists. In the column under review, she discussed Governor Northam's decision to remove the giant statue of Robert E. Lee which forms the centerpiece of Richmond's jaw-dropping Monument Avenue.

At the press conference announcing his decision, Northam appeared with Zyahna Bryant, a 19-year-old UVa student. Where do such impressive young people come from? That's one of life's continuing mysteries. Vargas offered this background:
VARGAS (6/18/20): When Northam announced at a June 4 news conference his landmark decision to take down the statue and place it in storage, he said: “Virginia has never been willing to deal with symbols. Until now.”

Proof of that statement stood nearby. Zyahna Bryant, a 19-year-old University of Virginia student, had started a petition seeking the statue’s removal when she was a 16-year-old high school student.


The first time Bryant organized a rally was in 2013, after Trayvon Martin’s death.

“I remember that for so many of us, this felt like a defining moment,” she recalled on her Instagram page in a post that appeared a few days before George Floyd’s death. “This was a moment that I can cite in my life as a time where I truly lost hope in the systems that continue to fail Black and Brown people.”

Bryant was 12 at the time.
That means she was in middle school when she first started asking, “How much more blood?”
Luckily, Bryant didn't "truly lose hope" when she was 12, at the time of Martin's death. Within a year, she had started to organize. This month, she stood nearby as Northam made his announcement about the Lee monolith.

Luckily, Bryant didn't lose hope—but we'll guess that others did. Reportedly, some kids in Flint truly lost hope in themselves as a result of the misinformation with which they were plied during the Flint water crisis. Earlier this week, we cited a 7-year-old who was "terrified" by the things he was told in the wake of George Floyd's death.

Somewhat similarly, a great deal of anguish and despair has accompanied the videotape of George Floyd's death. So too, we'll suggest, with the standard accounts concerning Michael Brown's death, and even concerning the death of Trayvon Martin.

When people like Lawrence refuse to tell the public the truth, there may be unfortunate consequences. On the brighter side, their selective presentations may boost their ratings. In this way, their vast deceptions help Keep Salary Alive.

But in response to their presentations, sensible people feel, then express, anguish, dismay and despair. They may even end up terrifying their 7-year-old children.

This conduct may be based on the sense of anguish people like Lawrence agree to engender. Anthropologically, so it goes as our tribal leaders pave our current revolutionary road.

There is no single correct way in which an adult should respond to accurate accounts of this nation's brutal racial history. There is no single correct response to the horrific videotape of George Floyd's death.

In our view, there probably is a correct way to respond to Lawrence's conduct. We think people like Lawrence should stop deceiving their viewers, though anthropologists rush to tell us that nothing like that will ever occur.

In recent weeks, we've read columns in the New York Times in which substantial people have expressed remarkable states of despair in the wake of George Floyd's death. In some cases, the judgments these people describe may not seem to make total sense.

There was the philosophy professor from UVa, Yale and Johns Hopkins. In his column, he said that by 2010, while living in Charlottesville, he "was hardly leaving the house."

"When I did venture out," he wrote, "I kept to myself, avoided small talk, went straight home after doing what I needed to do, grateful when I finally made it back to the safe comfort of my own home."

It isn't clear that he was talking about fear for his physical safety, but it isn't clear that he wasn't. He did say that he felt that he was "possibly in danger [at that time] just by walking out my front door."

As he continued, he too mentioned the death of Trayvon Martin, which occurred two years later, in 2012. On June 17, when his column appeared, he also said this:
"It will be a great surprise if I am not driven to my keyboard within the next few years writing about our campus’s very own George Floyd moment. In the meantime, I keep my distance—I don’t want to be a candidate for such a moment."
To date, there has been no such moment on his current Hopkins campus. Granted, he still has a few years to go. But on a basic statistical or common sense basis, should that fact be anything like "a great surprise?"

In the language of modern literature, that professor was perhaps expressing a sense of "despair." On June 6, the Times had published a somewhat similar column in which a black author who lives in New York City expressed annoyance with the white friends who, "brazen as ever," had emailed him in the aftermath of George Floyd's death.

Did we mention the fact that he said he was talking about white "friends?" At one point, addressing these friends, the writer said he knew that he had "to avoid offending you. Because I know offending you is dangerous."

As with the philosophy professor, so too with this writer. "As a black man, what I actually feel—constantly—is the fear of death," he wrote—"the fear that when I go for my morning stroll through Central Park or to 7-Eleven for an AriZona Iced Tea, I won’t make it back home."

Presumably, there's no way to declare that any such fear is "wrong." It is possible to wonder about the extent to which such a fear makes basic statistical sense.

It's also possible to wonder about the sources of such fear. This writer also mentions Trayvon Martin, and he too mentions something his teachers showed him, perhaps unwisely, when he was 7 years old.

In line with its treatment of everything else, the Hamptons-based New York Times loves to publish such testimonies. These testimonies may not necessarily seem to make perfect statistical sense, but they do serve to spread the sense of despair.

Concerning the unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin, we're so old that we can remember what Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about the incident in real time. He said that, based on his own experience as a youth, George Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of death as Martin banged his head on the ground, or perhaps on the sidewalk, just before Martin was shot.

Coates was newly returned from Paris at the time. He quickly shifted his point of view in the days ahead. But as with Michael Brown, so too here:

Young people like Bryant routinely hear a heavily edited account of what is known to have happened that night. In a possible break with editorial norms, the Times let the June 6 writer describe the killing of Martin as a "murder," ignoring the fact that a duly constituted jury unanimously found that it wasn't.

Our tribe has created novelized versions of these events which please our need for moral superiority. On the down side, our heavily edited storylines may also terrify children while helping fill good decent adults with anger, anguish, despair.

On Fox, viewers hear the fuller story concerning these unfortunate events. On our own exalted channels, we much brighter liberals do not. If a person like Lawrence is willing to say what he said last night, what chance is there that he will honor admirablele young person like Bryant with a fuller account of what was once called "the whole truth?"

Seven-year-olds are terrified; 12-year-olds lose hope. Professors are afraid to leave the house. Other highly substantial people write such things as this:
MCDONALD (6/15/20): We can’t rely on the education system to do this work for us: A friend in education told me about white teenagers she’s come across who didn’t learn about slavery or the civil rights movement until high school...One study found that white children who attend predominantly white schools and grow up in predominantly white neighborhoods are less likely to take racism seriously than children who grow up in more diverse settings; many of them have a limited understanding of our country’s sordid history. A quote from an 11-year-old in a 2018 Time article says it all: “Racism was a problem when all those slaves were around and that like bus thing … like Eleanor Roosevelt, and how she went on the bus. And she was African American and sat on the white part … but after the 1920s and all that, things changed.”
Really? A single (alleged) statement by a single 11-year-old child "says it all?" Claims like that may seem to make sense in the world where mothers are terrifying their 7-year-olds, but also in the world where people like Lawrence agree to mislead millions of viewers in the ways their owners prefer.

To what extent are we the people being told "the whole truth" about a range of deeply important matters? We plan to explore that question next week.

For today, we invite you to think about Lawrence. If we were inclined to behave in the fiery way he often does, we'd call last night's statement a "lie."

Surely, though, he must have known what he was doing when he made that grossly misleading statement. He must have known that he was misleading the bright young people he often pretends to admire.

To what extent are we the people over here in our tribe actually told "the whole truth?" More on this question next week.

But why did Lawrence say what he did? Also, and very important:

Do you think his conduct was wrong?

Still coming: Examples and statistics


  1. Michael Brown, the gentle giant, was a vicious thug and a menace to good people and their children.

    1. A woefully inadequate response. (The same applies if you're attempting to be "ironic.") But if that's all you can come up with in response to Somerby's analysis, so be it. At least you're not as ridiculous as Mao.

  2. "As of yesterday, Trump was almost sounding like he thought the testing somehow creates the infections. "

    It creates panic, dear Bob.

    Completely unnecessary and very harmful panic. And that's what your liberal-zombie cult wants.

    This is not complicated, dear Bob.

    1. I haven't been this panicked since that time Saddam Hussein didn't possess weapons of mass destruction.

  3. "There are various ways to assess such a comment. The most obvious assessment would be this:" blah, blah, blah.

    No, dear Bob, the most obvious assessment is this:

    Your liberal-nazi dembots (of whom O'Donnell is one) are employing goebbelsian methods of hate-mongering race-war propaganda.

    And now they're freely admitting that truth doesn't matter at all. Anything will do, so long as it inflames racial hatred.

    They're being more transparent about their lying. And that's good, we think.

    1. You really sound like a clown (leaving aside everything else) with this "Nazi" stuff.

    2. Sorry, my dear, but I'm not familiar with any other organization of a similar magnitude and power that would put so much industrial-scale effort to incite racial hatred. Perhaps you could help?

    3. The NRA, for one.

    4. No, sweetie, that doesn't refute the charge of your clownishness with this nazi stuff. No comparison.

    5. Tsk. So, you couldn't. Just as I thought.

      So, liberal-nazi it is, then. Noticeably drifting to the direction of fascist-nazi.

      Sorry if I hurt your feelings, my dear, but yes: truth hurts.

    6. Nice,Mao.
      Your gibberish almost, but not quite, distracted me from the fact you are a HUGE supporter of white supremacy.

  4. Somerby doesn’t mount an effective rebuttal to O’Donnell’s contention.

    O’Donnell didn’t say the two incidents (Floyd and Brown) were equivalent.

    He implied that, had there been video of the Brown incident, that might have spurred a reaction similar to the one that was spurred by the video of Floyd’s death.

    Does Somerby agree with that or not?

    He may believe that the DOJ report is sufficient to dispel that notion, but there is nothing like a video to make the dry words on a page have a much more immediate and visceral impact.

    Had there been a video, perhaps people would have found the officer justified in killing Brown and dropped the whole matter. But it is also possible that many would have seen a young black man gunned down by a police officer and reacted with protests and calls for reform, as they are now doing.

    1. No. Floyd was qualitatively and quantitatively different from Brown. Other incidents didn't spark such outrage and reaction. There's nothing that is in the same league as Floyd, and most people perceive it.

  5. Somerby seems to be implying that those protesters would feel differently if only they weren’t being misinformed by the media (and liberals, one presumes).

    As if all those black folks and others protesting racism need to have their incorrect emotional responses reined in by mainstream news organizations, or as if the protesters are looking to people like Lawrence O’Donnell for their cues.

    I find this preposterous. It shows that Somerby hasn’t thought much about why these people are protesting in the first place.

  6. "the unfortunate killing of Michael Brown did not involve any act of police misconduct at all"...if you don't count the police violating First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments on a daily basis, as being "involving acts of police misconduct".

  7. "We'll suppose that few meltdowns are [helpful]."

    Meltdowns are helpful to the person having them because they call attention to a problem that can then be addressed.

    Emotion in general is helpful, in fact it benefits our survival, which is why we evolved to have emotions of various types.

    1. The idea that emotional displays should be suppressed is a white upper middle class American phenomenon derived from the British, but not all cultures have the same belief.

  8. "In the past few days, the commander has gone farther and farther"

    Somerby is back to referring to the president as "the commander," leaving off "in chief". This gives him a status he does not hold and has not earned. Endowing the president with artificial gravitas is something conservative Trump supporters do, not anything a liberal would do. It is a small thing, but works subliminally to pump up our fat, flailing, failure of a president.

    1. That is because Somerby is a Trumptard, dedicated to re-electing Trump.

    2. Your ignorance and prejudice against the blogger know no bottom.

      TDH doesn't say why he refers to Trump as "the commander." Perhaps he can't bring himself to write the title that implies that Trump knows the nuclear launch codes. Whatever the reason, it cannot be to "endow" Trump with "gravitas."

      Commander is an actual US navy title, with a paygrade of O-5 in the military parlance, the equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the army. Not an insignificant rank, but a far cry from the highest -- general in the army or admiral in the navy (both O-10).

      Calling Trump commander is a demotion, since all officers in the military are subordinate to the commander-in-chief.

    3. TDH refers to Trump as Commander, because TDH has dedicated his pathetic existence to defending DJT (and Roy Moore, Ron Johnson, Barr, Jim Jordan, Zimmerman).

    4. That's right deadrat, Trump has not earned even the lowest military title because he dodged military service. That's why giving him this one rankles, it is akin to the kind of theft the Stolen Valor people track down. Calling Trump commander is inappropriate. If he wants to refer to him as commander-in-chief, I would have no complaint. That IS his title, but calling him just plain commander is wrong in quite a few ways and it is hard to see this as anything but an attempt to remove some of the tarnish Trump has earned.

    5. Trump is a lying draft-dodger, blow-hard bully, total incompetent, minority President, eager traitor, and craven bootlicker of enemy tyrants.

      And what rankles you is not that he is commander-in-chief of all US armed forces, but the fact that TDH has shortened his title to commander.

      If your bigger problem is with a blogger than Trump, or if you think a faulty parallel to stolen valor is more distressing than stolen elections, then you've got a serious problem. Don't they have meds for that these days, professor?

      Ask your personal physician. I'm beginning to worry about you.

    6. All your talk about reading comprehension and you continually miss my point, which is that Somerby is no liberal yet he continues to describe himself as one.

      There are too many Trump supporters in our country for me to waste time trying to convert any of them. However, when someone pretends to be liberal in order to try to sway independent and liberal voters, that is something I can and will keep addressing.

      I've said this repeatedly, so you should have gotten the point by now.

    7. All your talk about how I'm wrong to declare that you can't read for comprehension, and you continually miss my point that you're no arbiter of who's liberal and who's not, mostly because your arguments are faulty.

      It should be clear to you that I fully understand the point you're trying to make. Just as it should be clear to any rational person that you have failed to make it.

      Case in point: your utterly ridiculous stance about TDH's giving Trump a rhetorical demotion to commander when he's actually commander-in-chief.

      Here's a liberal value that "conservatives" abhor: someone can be wrong without being a heretic. Which side are you on? Hint: it's not the liberal side.

      So should I thereby conclude that you're a feral Trumper?

  9. O'Donnell said: "Trymaine, video has made all the difference. We didn't have a video like that of Michael Brown."

    Somerby said: "O'Donnell's implication was obvious. Videotape of Michael Brown's death would have shown horrific misconduct by a police officer, in the way the tape from Minneapolis did.

    Notice that Somerby is putting words into O'Donnell's mouth. "Lawrence" didn't say anything about horrific misconduct with Brown. He just said that being able to see video now has made the protest different. I believe one difference is the support the protesters are garnering as people can see for themselves what the police did to Floyd.

    But Somerby doesn't know what O'Donnell meant and the implications are ambiguous, not obvious at all. This is unfair to O'Donnell, who Somerby trashes, referring to a meltdown he never actually describes. It can't be this simple remark, so what did O'Donnell do?

  10. Somerby seems to think (using the term think rather loosely) that the media should not show videos of police abuse of AAs. Naturally so -- if a video were available of say Zimmerman and Travon Martin, it would be harder for Somerby to defend Zimmerman, as he did a few years ago (but since Somerby has not hesitated to defend Roy Moore and AG Barr, I I doubt he would not have let that stop him).

  11. Somerby seems to think, which is a step ahead of you, troll. Nothing TDH says implies that the media shouldn't show videos of police abuse.

    Am so happy to testify about a great spell caster that helped me when all hope was lost for me to unite with my ex-girlfriend that I love so much. I had a girlfriend that love me so much but something terrible happen to our relationship one afternoon when her friend that was always trying to get to me was trying to force me to make love to her just because she was been jealous of her friend that i was dating and on the scene my girlfriend just walk in and she thought we had something special doing together, i tried to explain things to her that her friend always do this whenever she is not with me and i always refuse her but i never told her because i did not want the both of them to be enemies to each other but she never believed me. She broke up with me and I tried times without numbers to make her believe me but she never believed me until one day i heard about the DR. EMU and I emailed him and he replied to me so kindly and helped me get back my lovely relationship that was already gone for two months.
    Email him at:
    Call or Whats-app him: +2347012841542


  13. I am very happy to share this little awesome testimony about Dr Okosun a great herbal doctor who help me enlarge my penis size.3.2 cm to 8.3 cm longer with his herbal mixture, my girlfriend is now so amazed with the autonomous size of my penis , if you you are also in need of help on how to enlarge your penis to become bigger and stronger I advice you to contact Dr Okosun on his email ( )or contact him on whatsapp number +2348136785562, if your penis is 4.2 cm and want to get it reach 9.2 cm within two weeks i recommend Dr Okosun just feel like promoting his Good work, Give him a try and thank me later.


     Contact Dr. Odunga at OR Whats App/CALL +2348167159012

    I got my ex husband back to me and also got fertile and gave birth to twin girls after 12 years of marriage.
    When I came online last year, I saw a testimony about Doctor ODUNGA and how he has been helping people with marriage issues and I decided to contact him. We spoke on email at and later he gave me his WhatsApp number which is +2348167159012. He assured me he would help me get my ex husband back after 3 years of no contact. Doctor Odunga is the best spell caster I must say. My husband called me after 24 hours of contact. The third day, I received natural herbs for fertility and after using it, I became fertile and conceived. I and my husband reconnected, had sex and I was pregnant. Presently I am happy to say I am the mother of twin girls and this is ALL THANKS TO DOCTOR ODUNGA. I came online to say this If you need help, I believe you are saved with this man.  

    Contact his email at

     OR Whats App/Call +2348167159012 and you too will give a testimony too to help others

  15. My name is James Rodriguez I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies, The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email dr Lucky and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try. I contacted this great dr and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 20,000 million Dollar. dr Lucky truly you are the best, with these great dr you can win millions of money through lottery. I am so very happy to meet these great man now, I will be forever be grateful to you dr. Email him for your own winning lottery numbers. whatsapp number +2348145810121  

  16. I was searching for help on the internet to get my ex husband back after he divorced me 5 months ago, i came across so many testimonies from different people and they are all talking about this wonderful man called Doctor ODIBOH DADA on how he help them to save their marriage and relationships and i also contact him on his email ( and explain my problem to him and he did a nice job by helping me to get my divorced husband back within 3 days and later on i got pregnant for him, for we have been married for 6 years no pregnancy .. I never believe that such things like this can be possible but now i am a living testimony to it because Doctor ODIBOH DADA actually brought my lover back and also help me got pregnant, If you are having any relationship problems or any problem concerning life itself why not contact Doctor ODIBOH DADA for help via his email: or whatsapp +2347048883838. Then i promise you that after all said and done you will have reasons to celebrate just like me.

  17. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
    Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever