ANATOMY OF MODERN DISCUSSION: Fort Apache the Bronx, back in '71!

FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2020

Whose deaths turn up on TV?:
Over the weekend, the claim flitted by, two or three separate times, as we flipped through C-Span's programs.

It sounded like it couldn't be true. In the end, we decided to check.

The claim had been made by Rafael Mangual, Deputy Director for Policy Research/Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. As part of a much longer presentation, this was his factual claim, though it seemed a bit hard to believe:
MANGUAL (6/18/20): In 1971, the NYPD fired their weapons more than 800 times. They wounded more than 220 people and killed almost a hundred. By 2016, those numbers were down to 72, twenty-something and nine, respectively.
To watch the whole C-Span program, click here.

Meanwhile, say what? In 1971, police officers in New York City shot and killed "almost a hundred" people?

The statement seemed hard to believe. We ourselves were in and out of Gotham in those days. Our sister and her husband were living in Manhattan at the time, on their way to a stay in Bed-Stuy.

In 1974, we even stood backstage at the Winter Garden as we watched Zero Mostel perform Ulysses in Nighttown! If memory serves, it was one of Mostel's greatest thrills!

We'd been in and out of New York in those days. We didn't recall all that gunfire, or any blowback from same.

In fairness, this had been the general era of Fort Apache, The Bronx. It was also the decade of Manhattan, a film in which no one got shot by police, not even the Woody Allen character, who we now understand to have been richly deserving.

That said, did Gotham police shoot and kill almost one hundred people in 1971? Skillfully, we started to google. Soon, we were reading this report from WNYC, the Gotham NPR outlet:
HENNELLY (11/22/11): The number of civilians shot and killed by New York City police officers has fallen to a record low.

In its annual firearm discharge report, the NYPD said officers killed eight people in 2010—compared to 12 in 2009 and 93 in 1971, when the record keeping began.

The NYPD shot and wounded 16 civilians last year.

[...]

The dramatic reduction in civilian police shooting casualties parallels an equally significant decline in NYPD officers fatally shot in the line of duty. In 1971 a dozen officers were killed, whereas for the last three years no officers were. Also in 1971, 47 officers were wounded, compared to only two last year.
As it turned out, Mangual's numbers were solid! In 2015, PolitiFact reported that 1971 had been "a particularly brutal year for both shootings of cops (47 injured, 12 killed) as well as the number of people shot and killed by police (221 injured, 93 people killed)."

The official data are here. As always, we certainly can, and we surely will, believe whatever we want.

So it went in the street-fighting days of 1971. One year earlier, as chaos reigned, the Weatherman accidentally detonated one of their home-made bombs, blowing up their Greenwich Village townhouse. So it went in those long-ago years.

Today, things are perhaps perceived to be worse. Consider:

Yesterday, the New York Times published the type of first-person account it just can't seem to quit. Thanks to the highlighted claims at the start of the profile, the ridiculous paper had finally found a Republican hopeful to love:
PETERS AND GRAY (7/9/20): John James still feels the sting from the harrowing encounters and indignities he has experienced as a young Black man crossing paths with the police.

He recently recalled the time he was with the woman who is now his wife at an upscale mall in suburban Detroit and two officers approached them in their car, guns drawn. Had his wife, who is white, not been there to de-escalate the situation, he said, “I don’t know what would have happened.”

A few years later, he was pulled over with one of their sons in the back seat. At the sight of the flashing blue and red lights, he asked himself if this was the day his child “sees his daddy bleed out in the street.” Mr. James, a West Point graduate and Apache helicopter pilot who once flew combat missions in Iraq, came to a chilling conclusion: He could be killed during a traffic stop in the suburbs just as easily as he could have been killed at war.

These are the kinds of stories that Mr. James, a Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan, said he hoped would help white Americans better understand the issues of racial justice now at the forefront of an election unlike any in his lifetime.
Will those stories help white Americans better understand (important) issues of racial justice? Even as we agree to assume that those stories are true, we have no way of answering that question.

We do note this:

The Times didn't attempt to explain why James was pulled over in his car on that one occasion. (Through some remarkable fluke, the future candidate didn't bleed out in the street in front of his son that night.)

Also, why had officers approached his car in suburban Detroit that time, guns drawn? The Times didn't go into that either. As readers, we were allowed to flesh out these stories through the work product of our own minds.

For the record, Candidate James sounds like an impressive person. It sounds like he's lived an impressive life.

(Even more so, his impressive father. At present, James runs "a shipping business that is part of the company his father started after moving to Michigan from segregated Mississippi in the 1960s." We're always amazed by people who have what it takes to do things like that.)

Candidate James is an impressive person. In 2018, he came surprisingly close to winning his previous Senate race.

That said, was his assessment correct?

Granted, it's the type of assessment the New York Times currently seems to love. But is it correct to say that Candidate James "could be killed during a traffic stop in the suburbs just as easily as he could have been killed at war?"

We're prepared to suggest that that assessment may not make perfect sense, even though it's a type of assessment the New York Times currently loves to publish.

In fairness, such assessments are thrilling to read of a weekend out in the Hamptons, and they fuel revolutionary fervor. On the downside, people may start believing such assessments, even passing them on to their kids.

Before long, substantial people may write essays for Slate in which they say their 7-year-old son was "terrified" by the things they recently told him. More specifically, they may say their 7-year-old son is terrified by what he's been told and wants to leave the United States.

Out in the Hamptons, that's a good read! But in the mind of a 7-year-old child, that is a tale of true terror—and, perhaps, an unfortunate tale of a possible misapprehension.

Could Candidate James "be killed during a traffic stop in the suburbs just as easily as he could have been killed at war?"

We're prepared to suggest a possibility which won't likely show up in the Times. We're prepare to suggest the possibility that that's a misguided assessment.

To explain why we're prepared to do that, we'll now mention a second person we've seen on TV in the past few weeks. We refer to Wilfred Reilly, an assistant professor of political science at Kentucky State University, an historically black college in Frankfort, Kentucky.

Reilly is the kind of person you're allowed to see on the Fox News Channel but not on CNN or MSNBC. We've seen him briefly on two Fox programs in something like the past month.

As Fox guests go, we'd say that Reilly is strongly non-partisan. On the other hand, he's sometimes a bit less precise with his statistical summaries than we'd like cable guests to be.

That said, his current data address an interesting question. Whose deaths will you see on cable TV, or in the New York Times?

More specifically, whose shooting deaths at the hands of police will you hear about on TV or read about in the Times? In a brief recent appearance with Laura Ingraham, the gentleman said this:
REILLY (7/6/20): In my most recent book, Taboo, I look at a lot of these cultural questions in American society. And I mean, one of the things I find, that other researchers have found many times before, is that the large, 75-80 percent majority of those killed by police in a typical year, for example, are Caucasian or Hispanic individuals, and those cases receive less than 20 percent of the media coverage of police violence.
To watch that brief appearance, click here, move ahead to 23:30.

There are other ways to sift those numbers about who gets shot and killed. We don't know where the statistic about media coverage comes from. For our money, Reilly isn't always a total stickler for perfect statistical accuracy.

That said, Reilly is speaking to a blindingly obvious state of affairs—a state of affairs you'll only hear discussed on Fox. In Taboo: Ten Facts You Can't Talk About, he discusses this same topic—the disparate coverage, within major media, of black and white shooting deaths.

When black shooting deaths are extensively covered and white shooting deaths may not be covered at all, misperceptions may arise. We think of the absurd presentation John Yang recently slept through on the PBS NewsHour:
YANG (6/16/20): Louisville has banned—in reaction to this, banned no-knock warrants. They called it Breonna's Law. How effective do you think that will be?

RITCHIE: I think it's good that we're stepping back to look at how those police officers came to be at her door and looking to interrupt one of the mechanisms that has resulted in her death and also in the death of—I can name five other black women killed by no-knock warrants, Tarika Wilson, Kathryn Johnston, Alberta Spruill, Aiyana Stanley-Jones.

So, there's many—this is not the first time. And so I think that stopping no-knock warrants is important, and that we need to recognize that increasing the time that folks have to respond to 15 or 30 seconds or a minute, imagine someone backing on your door in the middle of the night. That's not enough time to understand what's going on either.

So, we need to maybe step further back and ask ourselves, why are people showing up at—police officers, armed police officers, showing up on people's doors to serve no-knock or short-knock warrants?

And I think then we need to look at the war on drugs, which is where those warrants came from and what brought those officers to Breonna's door that night. And we need to rethink our approach to that in a way that we are taking an approach to saving lives not, taking them, in this way, as Breonna Taylor's was taken.
Barnard researcher Andrea Ritchie was Yang's only guest. When she named people other than the late Breonna Taylor who had died during "no-knock" raids, she named five black women, and she named nobody else.

Almost surely, such presentations will create false impressions. Yang and Judy Woodruff should have been disciplined, the very next day, for sleepwalking though that presentation on PBS that night.

Especially with respect to life-and-death matters, selective presentation may lead to gross misimpressions. Before too long, we have Hopkins professors who won't leave their homes, and we have terrified 7-year-olds who want to leave the country.

You can hear about this topic on Fox. CNN's angriest dog in the world is unlikely to speak to this issue.

Here within our failing society, this is the way our upper-end "discussions" now work. On the upper levels of the press, we've been this dumb, and this destructive, for an extremely long time.

We were surprised by what we learned from the Manhattan Institute researcher. We weren't surprised by what Reilly said, but we think he's discussing a topic which ought to be discussed a lot more.

That said, the things that people are told on Fox aren't heard by us Over Here. On our own cable channels, we're handed our own tribal tales, nothing else.

On the upper ends of our corporate press corps, this is largely the way "discussion" had worked for decades before Donald J. Trump ever descended that staircase.

By light-years, Trump is the most disordered high-level player yet. But these people, all through the upper-end press corps, were thoroughly Trumpist before he arrived on the scene.

How many people are shot and killed by police officers? Roughly a thousand people per year!

Which deaths get covered, which get disappeared? We've seen Reilly address that question twice, but it's all taking place Over There. This is no way for discussion to work, but it's how we got Trump in the first place.

126 comments:

  1. "Out in the Hamptons, that's a good read! But in the mind of a 7-year-old child, that is a tale of true terror"

    As Somerby should know, not many 7 year olds read the NY Times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The kid got the story from his dad, not from the NYT.

      Delete
    2. Of course! That's my point. And do you think that dad is explaining in the same terms and with the details that appear in the NYT? Of course not.

      Delete
    3. Oh, that's your point?!

      I still don't get it. Maybe it's just me.

      The NYT scares the dad who scares his kid. I suppose that's debatable, but it doesn't hinge on whether the dad reads the paper to the kid.

      Delete
    4. Somerby tries to blame the NY Times for scaring 7 year olds. How? By tying the reporting to what parents choose to tell their kids. If he wants to blame the parents for scaring the kids, that's one thing, but he blames the media for reporting what is happening in the world.

      Try a different context. Parents need to tell their kids something about what is going on with covid. Do you think any parent is telling kids the number of deaths and cases and the infection rates and progress toward a vaccine, the symptoms and the rising and falling numbers? Of course not. But the media has a duty to report all of that stuff.

      If a parent explains about covid and a sensitive child is scared, that isn't the media's fault, any more than it is the media's fault when a parent tells a child about racism and the need to protect against it in various ways.

      My grandson is 9 and his parents have been talking to him about race and any number of other things, since he was a small child reading picture books with black main characters in them. If parents talk appropriately about such things with children, then when a crisis occurs or a situation worsens, you are not springing the entire subject on them all at once and can have a less threatening discussion. Parents should also be aware that kids may be frightened and try to help them cope with their fears (kids fear many things, not just the things adults find scary). Some 3-4 year olds are afraid they will go down the drain hole when you pull the plug after a bath. Their fears are not necessarily realistic, and there is not blame to be assigned to anyone just because a 7 year old is terrified and wants to move to another country. You'd think Somerby's experience with young children would have taught him that...that's why I think he is using those fears to admonish BLM parents for their talks with their own kids. If we all stop talking about racism, maybe it will go away -- just like the virus goes away if you don't test for it or wear masks.

      Delete
    5. If the BLM view is correct, then there is no need for the media to report statistics that disprove it.

      Hence, it is a simple matter of deduction that Somerby must believe BLM is wrong and that the media needs to counter their views with “facts.”

      Delete
    6. If a parent explains about covid and a sensitive child is scared, that isn't the media's fault

      Let's reverse it. Let's suppose that Fox News explains to a parent that Covid is just a mild flu that doesn't kill very many people, and certainly not children, and that parent teaches what he's learned to his offspring, who thereby decide not to take any warnings at school seriously.

      Does Fox bear any responsibility for the inevitable outcome?

      Delete
    7. The process of simple deduction -- you're doing it wrong.

      Delete
    8. @deadrat

      That’s no rebuttal.

      If you believe a report is 100% accurate, you would not urge the reporter to include alternative facts.

      The stories about BLM, like Lowery’s, transmit BLM’s views. If these views are correct, there is no need to include facts that challenge these views.

      There is nothing wrong if Somerby has a beef with BLM, by the way. Clearly stating it would be preferable.

      Delete
    9. Except in your head, reports are rarely 100% accurate, and with complicated social issues, "views" are never 100% correct. I don't know whether TDH has a "beef" with BLM. He clearly has a beef with the reporting on the issues with which BLM is concerned. Both Reilly and BLM can be "right." Some people live inside a bubble in which only one right side is presented. Fox News watchers hear one side; you hear the other. TDH says that's a bad thing. As always, YMMV, and evidently does.

      Delete
    10. So if something might scare a 7yo the NYT should not publish it? Ok, thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
    11. A GREAT SPELL CASTER (DR. EMU) THAT HELP ME BRING BACK MY EX GIRLFRIEND.
      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: Emutemple@gmail.com
      Call or Whats-app him: +2347012841542

      Delete
  2. "It was also the decade of Manhattan, a film in which no one got shot by police, not even the Woody Allen character, who we now understand to have been richly deserving."

    This is what sarcasm looks like.

    Every time deadrat or some other idiot claims that Somerby didn't defend Roy Moore, think about comments like this one.

    No liberal would ever suggest that Woody Allen or any other child molester should be shot, but treating an affair between a 42 year old man and a 17 year old girl as something to be flippant about, shows you where Somerby's sympathies lie (hint: it's not with the girl). Prison is good enough.

    Are such liaisons harmless? Consider what Mariel Hemingway, the very young actress in the film, has to say about it:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/woody-allen-mariel-hemingway-manhattan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quoting MH from the article:

      In real life, Woody and I didn’t have a romantic relationship, but he did make me feel incredibly intelligent.

      Presumably the 17-year old is not Mariel Hemingway but Babi Christina Engelhardt. Odd that you didn't ask us to consider what she has to say.

      Or are you talking about Tracy, the girlfriend of Isaac Davis?

      In any case, what real-life minors have to say about their sexual relationships with adults is immaterial. Such relationships are illegal and presumptively exploitative.

      In any case, fictioinal minors don't exist.

      In any case and just for the record, TDH didn't defend Roy Moore's activities with underage girls. If that were untrue, you could quote TDH to that effect. But you won't because you can't.

      Delete
    2. Did you skip the part where Hemingway says that Allen tried to seduce her and how that made her feel? You are selectively quoting here deadrat.

      "The actress suggests that Allen attempted to act upon the crush by flying to her parents’ home in Idaho and inviting the teen to Europe." This occurred before she was 18.

      My point is that middle aged men who have "crushes" on teens and act upon them by offering them trips to Paris, timed for right after that crucial 18th birthday, are adhering to the letter of the law but not its spirit, which is to protect young girls from exploitation by older men.

      Somerby doesn't understand that spirit of the law either, and clings to legalisms just as you do, deadrat. The point of such laws is the distance in experience and resources, the coercive nature of such relationships.

      Mariel Hemingway was not a "fictional minor" but was underage at the time of the filming. And she did exist.

      TDH defended Roy Moore from newspaper articles showing that the accusations against him were part of a larger pattern of behavior involving inappropriately young girls, in which he used his power as an Asst. District Attorney to influence their behavior. The fact that Moore occasionally dated a girl who was barely legal is irrelevant when he was so much older.

      Delete
    3. Mariel Hemingway was not a "fictional minor" but was underage at the time of the filming. And she did exist.

      You want to talk about Mariel and Woody. TDH is talking about Tracy and Isaac. You want to accuse TDH of being too coy by half? Go ahead.

      There is no "spirit of the law" here. Our system requires that the law be clear, so we declare a particular age of majority. Maybe you should be old enough to legally buy liquor before you can legally decide to have sex. Make your case to your state legislature.

      And, of course, you couldn't quote TDH defending Roy Moore. Just as I predicted. TDH's complaint has nothing to do with the disturbing behavior of the Gadsden Mall Creeper or with his dating girls who were "barely legal." TDH criticized the news media for tut-tutting about the 14-year age gap between the GMC and his wife, who was 24 when they married. TDH says they should have instead covered the "credible" (TDH's word) accusation of molestation by a woman who was underage at the time.

      Keep telling your lie, and I'll keep calling you on it.

      Delete
    4. @deadrat
      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-parochials-elizabeth-taylor-age-18.html

      Somerby is talking about Moore’s dating habits (exclusive of course of the ones he is accused of molesting), and not just his future wife:

      “Moore's teenage dates were born around 1960. Their mothers would have been born even earlier than that, perhaps around 1940.

      Their values and outlooks would have been formed during that cultural era. Women married very young—and Hollywood kept suggesting, in its private conduct and up on the screen, that these very young women should maybe perhaps and possibly hook up with older men.”

      I grew up in the 1970’s, and few would found have Moore’s predilections normal or healthy back then.

      Delete
    5. I was a child in the 1950s and I remember the disapproval voiced by my parents about the marriage of a friend (in his mid 30s) to a neighborhood girl, the minute she turned 18. The marriage lasted less than a year but was sufficient to derail her life choices, not so his. More often, guys in their 30s who hang around young girls, seducing them with attention and listening to complaints about parents, turn out to be pimps. Someone has to satisfy male sexual craving for young girls. This is part of sex trafficking, which is a kind of slavery rampant in our country and tolerated because guys like Somerby and Woody Allen make it seem OK to have such urges. And what happens to those girls when they get older? Hint: They don't marry Roy Moore.

      Delete
    6. Your quote is from TDH's explanation why the mothers of young girls weren't upset at the attention that the Gadsden Mall Creeper to their daughters.

      Here's the actual complaint from TDH as he quotes a WaPo story thusly:

      Roy Moore, their candidate for U.S. Senate in next week’s special election, is accused by women of pursuing them when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s.

      TDH responds:

      Say what? Is Moore accused of "pursuing" women when they were teenagers? In fact, he stands accused of assaulting two teenagers, in ways which would presumably be criminal.

      Roy Moore stands accused of assaulting two teenagers. That said, at the Washington Post, it seems to be the dating which has the scribes upset.


      (Emphasis mine.)

      Delete
    7. Hoo boy. And that is exactly why Somerby tried to show that Moore’s dating of very young women was perfectly acceptable by the so-called standards of the time. Which is hogwash of course.

      The original Post story was written because of the allegations of molestation. The other women were interviewed because they agreed to come forward, finding Moore’s behavior creepy on reflection. They paint a fuller picture of Moore’s behavior, wouldn’t you say?

      Delete
    8. “ This is part of sex trafficking, which is a kind of slavery rampant in our country and tolerated because guys like Somerby and Woody Allen make it seem OK to have such urges. And what happens to those girls when they get older? Hint: They don't marry Roy Moore.”

      Men have the right to marry whoever they want, who is of legal age, and who will have them.

      How shocking is it supposed to be that men find young women appealing? Aside for the youth and beauty aspect of this dynamic, there’s likely some sort of biological compunction toward fertility.

      My mother was fresh out of high school when she married my father, who was ten years older and had spent his time getting out of law school and starting a career. They loved each other. She bore three children and died because of a complication in her last pregnancy that weakened her heart.

      She wasn’t a slave and he wasn’t an ogre. Ive seen pictures and know that she was beautiful, and have been informed by all that she was smart and great fun.

      Of course he was attracted to her. Of course he loved her. Life has plenty of ugly aspects without people having to manufacture more of them.

      Delete
    9. Don't women have the right to a fair chance at happiness in life?

      I'm glad your mother told you that she loved your daddy, but she is lucky he didn't turn her out on the street to pay his bills. I hope you are aware of the statistic that women who wait to have children until they are in their 20s instead of their teens, have fewer complications and deaths in childbirth. They also abuse their kids less, since they have more life experience, self control, knowledge and aren't themselves still children.

      Being attracted to someone doesn't mean you have to marry them, much less molest them. Men can be expected to control themselves.

      And no one here was talking about you or your mommy and daddy, especially since she didn't quit school to get married.

      Delete
    10. Those 14 and 15 year olds think they love their pimps too. Why wouldn't they? Older guys have cars and can buy alcohol and drugs and they have self-confidence and pretend to know about things. And the attention they pay to youngsters is flattering when teens are mostly ignored because they are so annoying.

      This is what lack of empathy looks like -- an inability to imagine that circumstances might be very different for someone other than yourself, Cecelia.

      Delete
    11. Roy Moore was described in the press as doing the following things:

      1. Going to the local high school and using his position as Asst DA to call a young girl out of class in order to ask her out, since she had been avoiding his advances.

      2. Following a young girl around the mall and talking to her, trying to flirt with her and ask her out, as she repeatedly said no and tried to get away from him. Ultimately she visited mall security and asked them to keep him away from her.

      3. Asking an underage girl who worked at the mall to go out with him, while she was working on her job and couldn't get away from him. Her boss had to ask him to leave her alone.

      4. Attending church and civic functions where young girls were present, flirting with them and asking them out. That kind of event is where he first saw the girl who years later became his wife.

      This behavior was so pronounced that it was well known in the community, and his coworkers considered it creepy and abnormal, and were willing to call it that to the press.

      This is all in addition to the rolling around in underwear on a blanket with a 16 year old, that he is accused of doing, the attempted rape of a young girl who he had offered to drive home from her work, and the whole dispute over whether he had actually signed an underage girl's year book, after he had spent evenings meeting her at her workplace to flirt with her and hang out.

      The paper also mentioned one barely legal teen that he dated formally (took out) when she was 17 and after she turned 18, who Somerby thought was A-OK because the mama considered him to be "a catch" and was delighted to have him as a son-in-law. Slim pickings in that community, I guess, but I wouldn't want my mama to push me toward a much older man and I find her parenting questionable. If there are no suitable marriage prospects in a small town, send your daughters to community college to meet more people.

      Delete
    12. Can you all at least get the age of consent and the legal bonds of marriage down pat rather than wasting pixels and the patience of the universe on condemning every contrary opinion as a championing of pedophilia and male domination?

      Delete
    13. “ I'm glad your mother told you that she loved your daddy, but she is lucky he didn't turn her out on the street to pay his bills“

      She died when I was two-years-old. Not long after we discussed the birds and the bees and the importance of a facial cleansing regimen.

      Delete
    14. Cecelia, there are several organizations working to increase those age of consent and legal marriage ages because they are not good for girls and the women they will become.

      When women are underrepresented in state legislatures, men can establish whatever ages they think the public will accept. In some states, those ages are much too low. How do you decide what is too low? You can use statistics about health and teen pregnancies, what happens when a girl doesn't complete her high school education, rates of divorce, domestic abuse and child abuse compared to older ages at marriage. Dating young girls is a bad idea by any measure. When older men date such girls, the girls are less likely to understand birth control and protection and they pick up STDs and get pregnant at a higher rate. They are then forced into marriage by parents who wish to avoid the shame of having a baby out of wedlock. The lower marriage ages are in states with less access to abortion, so the girls have few options but to marry these guys, who are no prizes to begin with, so it is no surprise when the marriage doesn't work out. But a woman leaving such a marriage in early adulthood has fewer job options because she hasn't completed her high school diploma, and if she has a child, how can she support it, so she may be trapped in a loveless abusive marriage by the choices made by her (or for her) when she was too young to understand the consequences.

      Guys don't think about any of this. The kind of man who seeks out young girls is typically what psychologists call "sexually inadequate" and emotionally under-developed. A normal man finds dating a child boring or unappealing. A sexually inadequate man seeks out a child because her lack of experience will keep her from understanding that he has sexual problems. She may take the blame for his difficulties. He may abuse her physically when she catches on or asks about it or, heaven forbid, complains. An emotionally immature man may find a playmate when she is young, but when she grows up and he does not, they will have a lot less in common. When she wises up, he may use force or coercion, emotional blackmail or threats to children to keep her around.

      These relationships are not a pretty picture of domesticity like your family (keeping in mind that women who die young in childbirth are frequently idealized). There is nothing romantic about this and a great deal wrong with it. Educate yourself so that you know what you are talking about, Cecelia.

      Delete
    15. “ There is nothing romantic about this and a great deal wrong with it. Educate yourself so that you know what you are talking about, Cecelia.”

      Because rather than rejecting the hyperbole of sex slave and master, I was actually advocating for all females to get married right out of high school to much older men.

      And rather than suggesting that girls in puberty have everything it takes to attract male attention (as well as a culture that encourages this) so it’s not tantamount to pedophilia for men to notice, I’m actually advocating that they go ahead and hit on teens.

      Just like Somerby was championing Roy Moore.




      Delete
    16. I've dragged you right up to the water. Drinking is your choice.

      TDH's complaint is that the news media concentrated on the "creepy" (including the GMC's marriage at age 38 to a woman who was 24) while they ignored or downplayed allegations of crminal behavior.

      You're horrified by the age gaps, legal and illegal. TDH has pointed out that not everybody at the time was a member of your Bluenose Brigade.

      Now maybe TDH is wrong. Maybe you and the Brigade are right, and your stories from the Seduced and Abandoned file are dispositive. Maybe the "fuller picture" of titillating tales of legal behavior of which you disapprove is actual evidence of illegal behavior of which the law disapproves.

      I'm not convinced, but unlike you, I don't have the magic lodestone of infallibility, so I may be excused my error. But right or wrong, TDH has not "defended" Roy Moore. As usual, he's criticized the news media for downplaying possible illegal behavior while raising a shocked eyebrow at events neither illegal nor universally shocking.

      You and the rest of the Brigade have taken umbrage, and not content with instructive moral anecdotes, you've decided to accuse TDH of defending a child molester.

      Here's what a "defense" of Roy Moore looks like:

      Roy Moore has been falsely accused of inappropriate and illegal sexual behavior by biased reporters repeating dubious tales of women who cannot be trusted.

      When you can quote TDH to that effect, you'll have a point. But you can't, so you don't. Get back to me when you can.

      Delete
    17. Don't women have the right to a fair chance at happiness in life?

      That right, you Anonymous Numptie, the people who disagree with you are arguing that women have no right to happiness in life.

      I'm glad your mother told you that she loved your daddy, but she is lucky he didn't turn her out on the street to pay his bills.

      WTF is wrong with you?

      Really, not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know the answer out of morbid curiosity.

      I hope you are aware of the statistic that women who wait to have children until they are in their 20s instead of their teens, have fewer complications and deaths in childbirth.

      You should be thrilled, since if they die in childbirth at least they're not being pimped on the mean streets of your imagination.

      They also abuse their kids less, since they have more life experience, self control, knowledge and aren't themselves still children.

      So Our Cecelia's daddy didn't love her mommy? I've lost the thread of your argument. Help me here.

      Being attracted to someone doesn't mean you have to marry them, much less molest them. Men can be expected to control themselves.

      Being attracted to someone is a large part of the reason people marry. Most marriages, I dare say, don't involve molestation and most men "control" themselves around underage girls. What's your point?

      And no one here was talking about you or your mommy and daddy, especially since she didn't quit school to get married.

      Hey, you and the rest of the Bluenose Brigade don't get to trot out your Moral Anecdotes for the Rest of Us, and then dis Our Cecelia when she points out that the technique swings both ways.

      Delete
    18. Roy Moore was described in the press as doing the following things:

      [redacted list of creepy things done by the Gadsden Mall Creeper]

      Still waiting for those quotes from TDH defending the GMC's behavior.

      This is all in addition to the rolling around in underwear on a blanket with a 16 year old, that he is accused of doing, the attempted rape of a young girl who he had offered to drive home from her work....

      Oh, you mean the things TDH accused the media of ignoring in favor of criticizing the age gap between the GMC and his wife?

      The paper also mentioned one barely legal teen that he dated formally (took out) when she was 17 and after she turned 18, who Somerby thought was A-OK because the mama considered him to be "a catch" and was delighted to have him as a son-in-law. Slim pickings in that community....

      It's Alabama. You can walk through the gene pool down there without getting your ankles wet.

      but I wouldn't want my mama to push me toward a much older man and I find her parenting questionable.

      I too find your mama's parenting questionable. She raised a child who can't think straight.

      If there are no suitable marriage prospects in a small town, send your daughters to community college to meet more people.

      The tuition at Bumfuck Alabama Community College is $5,400 a year. Not everybody's got that. And heed comedian Taylor Tomlinson's warning: "Community college is a great affordable option, but so is the Dollar Tree."

      Delete
    19. Somerby made many posts defending May-December romances within the context of the Roy Moore scandal (NOT his marriage which played no significant role), you have to be willfully ignorant to not see that as a defense of Moore's legal but creepy actions. Indeed, Somerby embarrassingly talked about his own affinity for young females. Did Somerby's efforts accomplish anything? No, Moore was defeated, even by Republicans.

      This all started back with the 16 words, Somerby was wrong then too.

      Delete
    20. TDH did write about May-December romances, asking when we became the party of the Bluenose Brigade, horrified at age gaps between people in legal relationships. None of what he wrote defended May for values of May equal to underage.

      TDH criticized the news media for concentrating on Moore's creepiness while ignoring his alleged illegal behavior. If you erroneously categorize that as a defense of Moore, all I can do is explain why you're wrong.

      For the record, here's TDH's view as stated on 12/4/17:

      Our view? As a general matter, we don't think it's a great idea for women as young as 19 to get married. Beyond that, we don't think it's a great idea, as a general matter, for women who are 19 to date or marry men who are 32.

      That said, the average age of first marriage for women was still 20.3 as of 1970.


      And on 12/9/17:

      At present, Moore seems to be lying through his teeth.

      Some defender.

      You say, "Somerby embarrassingly talked about his own affinity for young females." Are you talking about this from TDH:

      We never "dated" a teenager, we thought. But then we said, Uh-oh!

      Wait a minute! We thought of Name Withheld, who we met at the long-lamented Gampy's
      [long-closed Baltimore bar on Charles St] when we were 39 and she was a wickedly funny 19.
      ...
      On our one "date," we went out to lunch to celebrate her 20th birthday. Comedian Jon Hayman was in town that weekend.

      "Congratulations," he wryly told us. "She's no longer half your age!" Almost surely, we came back with an instant witty rejoinder.
      ...
      We never "dated" Name Withheld.


      I'd say you were too easily embarrassed.

      Delete
    21. The press did not ignore Moore's alleged illegal behavior. They focused as well on his alleged creepy behavior to show a pattern, since his alleged illegal behavior was his word against his accusers. Within that context, quite clearly Somerby was defending Moore, made even more clear by the fact that only you interpret it otherwise, his one known fanboy.

      I am not embarrassed by Somerby's creepy behavior, I am embarrassed for him. Surely you are not so naive as to think he simply shared this story without a defensive motive. If you are, that is just another sweet moment in the epic love story between two internet barflies with empty lives.

      Delete
    22. The press did not ignore Moore's alleged illegal behavior.

      So you didn't even bother to read most of what TDH wrote on the subject.

      They focused as well on his alleged creepy behavior to show a pattern,

      Yeah, like the age gap between the GMC and his wife.

      since his alleged illegal behavior was his word against his accusers. Within that context, quite clearly Somerby was defending Moore, made even more clear by the fact that only you interpret it otherwise, his one known fanboy.

      Quite clearly you can't read for comprehension. And the truth of the matter isn't determined by a vote of the Anonymous Bluenose Brigade.

      Surely you are not so naive as to think he simply shared this story without a defensive motive.

      I'm sophisticated enough not read hidden motives into text.

      If you are, that is just another sweet moment in the epic love story between two internet barflies with empty lives.

      Pretty tough words from somone who still lives in his parents' basement obsessing over a report from two years ago about stores of creepy behvior from fifty years ago.

      Now, how do I know that you still live in your parents' basement? The same way you know Somerby's motives and the same way you know I'm a barfly.

      Delete
    23. I loved my parents and would be happy to live in their basement. Is that supposed to be an insult?

      Are those "pretty tough words"?

      Is it my reading comprehension or is it your emotions?

      You are demonstrably an internet barfly, as you lurch from one TDH post to the next leaving a trail of vomit. (Please don't riff off of my superior writing with one of your lame jokes, it is a bad look for you.)

      The press detailed Moore's alleged illegal behavior thoroughly, that is how we know about it. Don't be foolish. When the press covered Moore's alleged creepy behavior, it focused on the young females he went after, like those at the mall, his wife was not a major focus - Somerby got his blood up when Maddow mocked it because of her own relationship involving an age gap. Petty but whatever.

      What does determine the truth? What is truth? This is not a matter for truth, this is how what was done was interpreted. The impact of what Somerby did, regardless of what he or anyone claims, was that everyone except his one fanboy understood it as a defense of Moore.

      I do not doubt your sophistication, more power to you. Hidden motives? I don't think so. It was pretty plain. Like your mama.

      I do not read for comprehension, I read for edification.

      Delete
    24. I loved my parents and would be happy to live in their basement. Is that supposed to be an insult?

      As usual, the point went over your head. (Hint: how would I know where you live?)

      The press detailed Moore's alleged illegal behavior thoroughly, that is how we know about it. Don't be foolish. When the press covered Moore's alleged creepy behavior, it focused on the young females he went after, like those at the mall, his wife was not a major focus - Somerby got his blood up when Maddow mocked it because of her own relationship involving an age gap. Petty but whatever.

      Now you've switched to a different claim: the press did their job right. They properly covered the important issue of the alleged illegal behavior of the Gadsden Mall Creeper. TDH is wrong about their emphasis on side issues and their coverage of matters of no public importance.

      You provide no evidence, of course, neither citing any proper coverage nor countering TDH's counterexamples. Which is fine. Baby steps, as they say. It would be possible to list what news stories said about the GMC and what TDH wrote about those stories, and then compare and contrast.

      This is much different from the original claim, namely that TDH is defending the GMC in criticizing some of the news coverage of him. That's entirely in your head and the heads of the Bluenose Brigade.

      This is not a matter for truth, this is how what was done was interpreted.

      The triumphant emphasis is mine. In the legal biz, this is called an admission against interest. Thank you for making my point.

      The impact of what Somerby did, regardless of what he or anyone claims, was that everyone except his one fanboy understood it as a defense of Moore.

      Everyone? You mean you, right? Or did you take a poll among your group of Anonymous Ignoramuses? You needn't answer because voting isn't a reliable path to the truth of a matter. Presumably at one time most people thought the world was flat. Now, even in the US, a majority think it's spherical. The shape of the earth, however, was, is, and always will be independent of what shape people think it is.

      I do not doubt your sophistication, more power to you. Hidden motives? I don't think so. It was pretty plain. Like your mama.

      My mother is dead. That plain enough for you?

      I do not read for comprehension

      Hey, you're preaching to the choir here.

      I read for edification.

      You need to look up the words edify and comprehend. I don't think they mean what you think they mean because you can't get to the former without the latter.

      But thanks for sharing.

      Delete
    25. Your mama is dead because she could not stand being your mama anymore.

      Even when trolled hard, you insist it all goes over your head. Color me dubious.

      I did not switch claims, I addressed your claim. Google yourself all the media coverage of Moore, there was plenty of it. Are you saying there was not?

      The claim is TDH defended Moore, not just by criticizing the press with a dubious claim, but by going on and on about May-December romances and his own encounter. There is a further claim about why TDH defended Moore, but like you said, baby steps.

      Your adversarial nature is fine for the court, but not effective in public discourse. The point about truth and interpretation went over head (so you claim). The TDH/Moore issue is not a materialist claim nor a court case. It is about popular opinion, and more broadly, politics and elections.

      Most people know what both words mean, I am encouraging you to think about things differently via psychology, this gets your blood up and I would rather not cause anyone consternation, but give it a try puzzling out what I could mean. TDH is playing a similar game, he is just not good at it. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure, like Somerby, you do not have kids.

      I did not share. What do I mean by that?

      Delete
  3. "When black shooting deaths are extensively covered and white shooting deaths may not be covered at all, misperceptions may arise. "

    White lives matter says Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "we have terrified 7-year-olds who want to leave the country"

    Too bad they can't, now that our covid numbers are so high that no other country would accept them.

    Just as we will not accept children fleeing violence in their own countries. Since we do not hear about the killings there, perhaps we don't believe those kids are in any real danger. I've never heard Somerby decry Trump's policy of sending those kids back. Maybe he thinks their claims are being exaggerated too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another Somerby Whisperer who wants to tell Somerby what he thinks and what he should write about.

      If only Somerby read his comment section.

      Delete
    2. Just sayin' that Somerby is no liberal.

      He had choices and he made them, and what he chose to write about is a conservative think piece that would be at home in any Republican funded publication.

      Delete
    3. 'Another Somerby Whisperer who wants to tell Somerby what he thinks and what he should write about.'

      Somerby can write about anything he likes, I'll just point out that he is a malevolent Trumptard dedicated to attacking liberals and supporting DJT's re-election.

      d

      Delete
  5. Anon @11:32 a.m.

    Trying one's best to be thorough and accurate in presenting/analyzing evidence, and drawing a reasonable conclusion that "misperceptions may arise," is NOT the equivalent of a making racist dog-whistle, i,e, "white lives matter," as you so blithely translate. The latter "spin" comes straight from your own political agenda, and demonstrates that you are just fine with the selective use of evidence to achieve ideological purposes. You may feel that advancing an ideological agenda is better than analyzing all the evidence, but down that road lies a new Babel in which each side has its own "facts" and seeks to reinforce division for political gain. And, yeah, Somerby has been saying so for eyars now, and you don't like it because it calls you out on your b. s. Still you persist. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some men are underpaid too. When women advocate for higher pay, shouldn't they be including men in their cause?

      Endangered species matter, but if you advocate to save them, aren't you ignoring all of the other animals who have a right to live on this planet?

      Aren't all workers wage slaves in the sense that they do not have the freedom to quit their jobs but must put up with unpleasant working conditions to put food on the table? So shouldn't we be giving reparations to anyone who has ever worked for a living?

      Broadening a cause to the point where it is no longer about the original grievance and too large to meaningfully address is a tactic used against protests involving legitimate, specific grievances.

      Delete
    2. "Trying one's best to be thorough and accurate in presenting/analyzing evidence, and drawing a reasonable conclusion that "misperceptions may arise," is NOT the equivalent of a making racist dog-whistle, i,e, "white lives matter," as you so blithely translate."

      Except that it is exactly that, a racist false equivalence on Somerby's part. He is, in effect, saying that the BLM people are making a fuss about nothing, since white people get shot too. And he has stated that race may not be a factor in why black people are killed by police, looking only at the statistics.

      Somerby has sometimes alluded to our country's troubled racial history, but he doesn't look beyond the statistics to see how black people are routinely treated by police compared to white people. He doesn't understand that these shootings are part of a larger policing problem that affects black people differently than white people.

      So his suggestion today is not a disinterested examination of the use of stats by a newspaper, as you suggest, but a bigoted attempt to undermine the protests by implying that they are unneeded (or biased). And his rationale is nothing a liberal would present, but the kind of thing that conservatives routinely use to argue against BLM protests.

      He and David could have a nice conversation about why no one seems to care about all the black-on-black killings in Chicago.

      Delete
    3. Your tribal response indicates your dedication to the party line, Comrade, and has been reported with favor in dispatches to the Central Committee. Congratulations.

      Delete
    4. You’re the biggest tribalist here, deadrat.

      Delete
    5. He's got nuthin' so he resorts to Somerby's attack line (future anthropologists are weeping).

      Delete
    6. You’re the biggest tribalist here, deadrat.

      That's called projection. Look into it.

      If I were a tribalist, I would defend TDH no matter what he writes. I don't. I've called him the slowest boy in the class for his refusal to learn some basic math and physics. I'm on record as saying he's gullible to accept the assertions of poseurs like Harari, and that he needs to get his quotes from Aristotle right. It's nonsense for hiim to conflate the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the current protests about the death of George Floyd. And I weary of his fine parsing of the word lie, which is fair to apply to people who have a duty to get things right and willfully indulge in ignorance instead.

      There's plenty to criticize in what TDH actually writes without making up nonsense.

      By the way, I haven't heard back yet from the Central Committee, but rumor has it that you're up for the Order of Glory, Second Class. Fingers crossed.

      Delete
    7. I am a tribalist, there is nothing wrong with that, Somerby has been wrong on that for years. My tribe is the progressive movement, and we are on the move. Hints that we may be communists that would employ central planning are not taken as insults, this is what we fight for. The Soviet Union btw was not what we fight for, that was hierarchical authoritarian state capitalism. Somerby can cling to his neoliberal pals, he is not of my tribe, he plays no role in the progressive movement.

      Delete
    8. Somerby is the David in Cal of Maos.

      Delete
  6. “the disparate coverage, within major media, of black and white shooting deaths.”

    One of the reasons, perhaps the biggest reason, for the disparate coverage, is that Black Lives Matter and other activists have staged high-profile protests that gain media attention. Presumably, white people could also be protesting police tactics against white people.

    One might fault BLM for focusing on black victims, but they are highlighting an issue that affects all people who interact with police. Presumably, many of the reforms they support would be beneficial for all.

    Also, Somerby has expressed a desire for a post-racial society, that the concept of “race” is an outmoded legacy of the slaveholders. If so, then why does it matter if “black” victims of police violence are in the news? Aren’t they just victims?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, MH, I'll buy that distinction. Makes sense. It raises of the question, though: Why don't white people object to police shootings of their own kind? I don't know the answer to that one. Any ideas?

      Delete
    2. Part of it may be that black people have had a very different history than white people in the US, and they connect current examples of police violence with that history. They are more willing to see police behavior in a critical light.

      Ultimately, I have no idea though. Surely there are examples of killings of white people by police that deserve outrage.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps because they identify with the police, see them as protectors rather than a threat, and want them to be present next time they need to call a cop because a black person is drinking at the wrong water fountain?

      In other words, because white people are part of the establishment that police exist to protect, while black people are not.

      If you are a member of the white underclass, survival is your main objective and engaging in protests is not an option. Black people, regardless of SES or class, are visible targets for cops whereas white people are only targets when they have done something to attract such attention. So it is hard to get middle class white people to march on behalf of criminals who are roughed up while being arrested. I have seen protests in CA when white men have been shot by police, but those victims were mentally ill or homeless, and the protesters were liberals, not Somerby types, and definitely not alt-righters supposedly protecting civil rights and freedoms under the flag. Those protests of white shootings were televised and reported in the LA Times (too lowbrow a paper for Somerby to read, apparently).

      Delete
    4. 'Surely there are examples of killings of white people by police that deserve outrage.'

      Uh, Ruby Ridge and Waco ? Spawned an entire terrorist movement, including the then largest terror attack in US history.

      Delete
    5. Because we have the consolation of owning everything?

      Delete
    6. TDH isn't faulting BLM for its focus. His target is misleading reporting.

      Delete
    7. @deadrat

      I didn’t say Somerby was critical of BLM. I suggested why the media covers black victims of police violence so much, and that had to do with BLM. It was my own addition to the discussion to think about how one views BLM. I would imagine that most discussions on Fox News revolve around a disapproval of BLM’s focus on black victims. It was Somerby who brought Fox News into the discussion.

      Delete
    8. 'His target is misleading reporting.'

      His target is liberal or even Centrist reporting. He quotes Fox approvingly here, demonstrating once again his Trumptard creds.

      Delete
    9. For many years, media have downplayed black crime -- and by a very big margin. You can find local news stories, but seldom does a crime committed by a black person make the national news. This is the case regardless of the race of the victim.

      Delete
    10. Most crime is local and of little interest nationally.

      Of course, there was that guy named OJ...

      Delete
    11. David, for many years, it has been considered bad journalistic practice, biased, to include the race of a criminal or suspect in a news report. That was done to avoid giving the public the impression that all crime is committed by black people, white people, Hispanics or any specific group. BLM is not a media outlet, so their focus on black killings doesn't violate any journalistic standard and their hope is to call attention to the senseless, unjustified shootings, jailings and mistreatment of black people at the hands of police. That may be partially why you and Somerby think that white killings aren't reported enough.

      Delete
    12. Cops shoot black people for different reasons than they shoot white people.

      They shoot black people due to prejudice, they are acts of racism.

      The racism is institutional to the police force, they were originally formed to catch escaping slaves.

      The racism black people suffer from is not just shootings by cops. Cops harass black people in a multitude of ways that do not happen to whites.

      Delete
  7. “the disparate coverage, within major media, of black and white shooting deaths.”

    A little nitpick here: the coverage is of deaths, not strictly shooting deaths. George Floyd, for example. Eric Garner. Etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Racial justice" is an entirely hitlerian concept.

    And 75 years after that ideology got defeated, with 50 million (or whatever the number) casualties, it's now coming back - "racial justice".

    This is a funny world, I'll give you that, dear Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 你闻自己的屁眼

      Delete
    2. Racial justice, as Mao uses the term, refers to white supremacy. And he is right that it is coming back, with the approval of our President.

      Delete
  9. 'That said, the things that people are told on Fox aren't heard by us Over Here.'

    You mean your group of malevolent Trumptards, who claim to be liberals, but spend all of your time attacking liberals, repeating right wing memes, defending the likes of Roy Moore, DJT, Zimmerman, Turner and Barr ?

    Somerby is not just a clueless Trumptard, he is a malevolent Trumptard dedicated to the re-election of DJT.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Somerby quotes from someone on Fox News, but he doesn’t convey the tenor of the discussions about BLM on Fox News. They are invariably critical of BLM’s focus on black victims. The guy Somerby quotes is being used to further that criticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That "someone on Fox News" is Wilfred Reilly, and of course he's a dupe of the Fox News spin. That's a given. The question is whether he has a valid point.

      Delete
    2. No. The point is misleading reporting, or so you said. Fox ought not be quoted without identifying the ways in which it is misleading its audience.

      Delete
    3. No, he doesn't. For one thing, he includes Hispanics in with whites to reach that 75-85% figure. Hispanics are overrepresented just like blacks are. They have similar problems with bias. They were included as a focus by BLM, not lumped with white deaths. Their deaths are not under-reported by the media, especially not in areas such as Southern CA, where I live. So including Hispanics with with whites distorts the data, works against the point his opponents have made, and is incorrect when talking about police bias. I consider it dishonest and a way of cooking the data.

      Delete
    4. Why should we trust him?
      “Reilly isn't always a total stickler for perfect statistical accuracy.”

      Delete
    5. Finally, Anonymous @2:45P takes things seriously. The Anonymi Ignorami aren't going to eat lunch with you any more.

      We shouldn't trust him. We should check his claims, just as we should check the claims of those who are interviewed on the networks we like.

      It's not necessary to identify the ways Fox misleads its audience. That's a given.. What's necessary is to engage with what Reilly said.

      Delete
    6. Somerby is talking about the media being misleading, not the substance of the issue at hand. (It’s a media blog, remember?) Of course you should put Reilly’s comment into the context of Fox News’ misleading presentation. And misleading presentation by the media is what Somerby’s concern is, you said. Besides, why should we engage with Reilly’s statistical argument if Somerby says his statistics aren’t trustworthy?

      Delete
    7. why should we engage with Reilly’s statistical argument if Somerby says his statistics aren’t trustworthy?

      Oh, so now you'll take TDH at his word.

      Or at least the word you thought you heard. How hard is it to get this stuff straight? It's right there in the blog entry. Here's what TDH actually says:

      For our money, Reilly isn't always a total stickler for perfect statistical accuracy.

      In other words, warning! Always check the claims.

      Continuing:

      That said, Reilly is speaking to a blindingly obvious state of affairs—a state of affairs you'll only hear discussed on Fox.

      TDH is saying that there's a challenge to our narrative, and that it's dangerous to ignore it. Your choices aren't ignoring it and adopting it unconditionally.

      Delete
    8. For our money Scarlett Johansson isn't always good-looking, like early in the morning before showering. That said, she is really good-looking.

      He is saying that it is dangerous, but HE IS PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS DANGEROUS YOU FUCKING MORON.

      SOMERBY'S ENTIRE TAKE ON ELECTORAL POLITICS IS WITHOUT MERIT, THERE ARE NO TRUMP VOTERS TO CONVINCE YOU BOOTLICKING FUCKING MORON. IT IS ABOUT MOTIVATING VOTER TURN OUT YOU THOUGHTLESS FANBOY FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
    9. For our money Scarlett Johansson isn't always good-looking, like early in the morning before showering. That said, she is really good-looking.

      An active fantasy life is a good thing -- up to a point.

      He is saying that it is dangerous, but HE IS PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS DANGEROUS YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Why are you SHOUTING? What kind of evidence do you want? Would you consider the constant rightwing meme of the doctrinaire liberal who won't test his prejudices against the evidence? Yeah, I know the irony and projection are pretty thick, but the other side thinks it's effective.

      SOMERBY'S ENTIRE TAKE ON ELECTORAL POLITICS IS WITHOUT MERIT, THERE ARE NO TRUMP VOTERS TO CONVINCE ...

      I happen to agree with you. As Sam Harris says, "What evidence do you present to someone who doesn't value evidence? What logic do you use to convince someone that logical argument is important?"

      ... YOU BOOTLICKING FUCKING MORON. IT IS ABOUT MOTIVATING VOTER TURN OUT YOU THOUGHTLESS FANBOY FUCKING MORON.

      So, Sparky, you're the one screaming invective on a comment section of a blog nobody reads, one that you, yourself say has no merit, but I'm the one who's a moron?

      I agree with some of what TDH writes; I disagree with some. In either case, I find value in reading a contrarian point of view. That's just me, though. But if this blog has no value for you, I have to ask what the hell you're doing here.

      Delete
  11. My half-black cousin L published a column directly on this point. She wrote about taking her young son to a BLM demonstration.

    Adjusting a lecture on structural racism from slavery to the present for a 6-year-old is a mighty task. In an hour on Saturday morning, we went through slavery, Reconstruction, voting rights, civil rights. I told him about the racism his relatives had endured, and I drew the line from being enslaved to police brutality.

    I also told him that an officer being black or Asian or Latinx didn’t mean they were good, and that being white didn’t mean they were bad. I told him what mattered was that an officer could see Tamir Rice for what he was: a child. And I told him that, in this country, I trusted some cops to do that more than others.

    He was silent a moment. “Why didn’t you tell me this before?” he said.

    “Well, you weren’t old enough before,” I said. “But now you asked. Did you want me to tell you earlier?”

    “No!” he said. “I wish you hadn’t ever told me about black people being killed.”

    “Yes, but everyone is protesting now to try to stop it,” I said.

    “They’re trying to stop it?” he asked.

    “If there are enough mommy cops at the next march, we’re going to go.”


    It's a beautifully written column. However, it does buy into the two myths that many blacks are killed by police and that myth that blacks are at greater risk of being killed by police. I think L did unduly frighten her son.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add that L frightened her son about the lesser risk. There are a lot of murders in Jersey City, NJ. E.g., see "21-Year-Old Man Shot, Killed. Third Murder in City in Less Than a Week" https://www.tapinto.net/towns/jersey-city/sections/police-and-fire/articles/21-year-old-man-shot-killed-third-murder-in-city-in-less-than-a-week

      Delete
    2. "However, it does buy into the two myths that many blacks are killed by police and that myth that blacks are at greater risk of being killed by police."

      See, impressionable people like David believe this is true because of what guys like Somerby write.

      Blacks are at greater risk of being killed by police because they are more likely to have an encounter with police, more likely to be stopped (driving while black) or ordered out of the car or asked to produce ID (like Gates) or hassled in a Walmart while shopping. And all of those encounters can potentially end tragically, while white people go about their business in the expectation that they will not have any interaction with police.

      And David, if you stay out of bad neighborhoods, you will avoid most violent crime. If a black person stays out of bad neighborhoods, he will be stopped by cops and asked what he is doing in your part of town.

      Delete
    3. David, what does your half-black (most people call that "biracial") cousin say about your attitudes when you tell her about black-on-black crime? Do you dare tell her the things you type here?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @1:58P, you might as well ask David in Cal about his conversations with his imaginary octoroon best friends.

      Delete
    5. @1:56 -- Yes, blacks are a lot more likely to be stopped by cops and asked what he is doing in some part of town or in an expensive car. This is annoying and inconvenient and unfair, but it is not a mortal risk.

      Delete
    6. "but it is not a mortal risk."

      Unless you get shot in the process.

      Delete
    7. @2:54 PM David in Cal

      Why is it unfair? I'm sure men are stopped far more often than wimmin, is that also unfair?

      Should the cops, in your opinion, stop cars randomly, deliberately ignoring those that are, for whatever reason, raise their suspicions? Or not stop at all?

      Delete
    8. Mao, it is unfair to be stopped when the cops have no valid reason for their suspicions other than race. Courts have found that. No doubt, things are different in Russia.

      Delete
    9. Mao - The Stop and Frisk program saved black lives in NYC. It was ended by Mayor DeBlasio because it was unfair to innocent blacks who were stopped. IMHO it's based on the fact that blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than Asians or whites.

      @3:06 - your comment is not based on facts. The risk of an innocent black person being killed after being stopped by a cop is miniscule. It's not zero. I have read about such cases. But, a black person is a thousand times more likely to be killed by another black person.

      Delete
    10. I still don't see how it would be unfair, dear David.

      Suppose, for the sake of argument, you only stop cars that exceed the speed limit. And suppose at the end of the day it turns out that you stopped a disproportional number of drivers of the SUPERIOR AFRICAN RACE.

      Would this be unfair?

      Delete
    11. Mao - A lot of innocent black people get stopped by - police. That may be good policing, since blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes. But, it's unfair to the many innocent blacks who frequently must bear the annoyance of a police stop.

      Delete
    12. Well, this is how prevention works.

      Generally speaking, city life has its pluses and minuses. And yes, a lot of annoyances.

      If one is extremely concerned about this sort of 'fairness', they need to move to a small town where the local sheriff knows everyone. And voila: problem solved.

      Delete
    13. According to Lizzie, who I know, she is not your cousin.

      David you are a lying sack of shit (that is actually what she said).

      Delete
  12. Yes, 1:58, L is well-aware of my attitude. We are Facebook friends. Our political differences don't affect our personal fondness for each other.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “75-80 percent majority of those killed by police in a typical year, for example, are Caucasian or Hispanic individuals, and those cases receive less than 20 percent of the media coverage of police violence.”

    Where does Reilly get his data? There is no federally maintained database of police use of force. It was supposed to be coming out soon, but where is it?

    As such, American citizens have no way of researching this adequately.

    The question isn’t whether I or any other reader agrees with Reilly’s numbers. The question is whether Somerby agrees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mh - I think the Washington Post has a data base on this subject.

      Delete
    2. @david
      It is maintained on an ad hoc basis by a newspaper. Their intentions are good, but it isn’t an official database. They can only go so far to try to be accurate. How long can they keep maintaining it? It is a national shame that no such public database exists with mandates that police departments report such incidents.

      Delete
    3. Well, you're outta luck. If history is a guide, TDH isn't gonna tell you whether he agrees with Reilly. He's gonna tell you that you won't hear Reilly in your bubble, but your adversaries will in theirs. TDH thinks that's a bad thing, but as always, YMMV.

      Delete
    4. Yeah. It’s a bad thing if Reilly is correct.

      If not, or if he is manipulating the data, then why should his views be given an airing?

      So, the question again arises: why does Somerby think his views should be aired?

      Delete
    5. And how are you gonna find out if Reilly is correct? By ignoring him for the sole reason that he's on Faux News?

      If Reilly is manipulating the data or even if he has made an honest mistake, we should find out before dismissing him. If that happens, isn't airing it a good thing? The "bad thing" doesn't arise from Reilly but from our habit of refusing to examine claims that contradict our cherished views.

      Delete
    6. Where does Reilly get his data?

      Wouldn't that be nice to know? Perhaps we could rely on an industrious, fair-minded press corps to find out.

      Nah, I'm just funnin' you. But admit it, I almost had you there.

      Delete
    7. When I have sex with women, they do not cooperate. Weirdly, they do not frame it that way, they call it...what's the word, oh yes, "rape".

      Huh, so should it be called not cooperating or rape?

      Delete
    8. It should be called a dubious analogy, likely used in an attempt to make some specious point or another.

      Delete
    9. Dubious because you say so. Call me dubious about your point. Explain why it is a dubious analogy.

      Delete
    10. Ooh! I know this one. It's because it's dubious you've had sex with women.

      How'd I do?

      Delete
    11. Why is it dubious I have had sex with women?

      If I have sex with women, does it make the analogy less dubious?

      Should I have sex with women?

      Do analogies require sex with women?

      What if it is anal sex?

      What if it is sex with a man?

      What if I just snuggle with women?

      I am disappointed you could not explain it.

      The analogy works whether or not I have had sex with women.

      Delete
    12. If you don't have sex with women, then there are no women who do not cooperate, and there are no women to "frame" the nonexistent sexual encounters. Therefore there's nothing to adjudicate between "cooperating" or "rape."

      Care to try again?

      What if it is anal sex? What if it is sex with a man?

      I don't know. What if you go fuck yourself?

      The analogy works whether or not I have had sex with women.

      Er, no. And you said "when" not "if."

      So you haven't had sex with women, correct? What's my prize for being right?

      Delete
    13. If I have sex with women, does it make the analogy less dubious?

      Should I have sex with dubious women?

      These are questions about actual events that do not play any role in determining the soundness of the analogy. There may be a mocking aspect to the questions as well, and if so, it was not diffused by the weak retort.

      It is hypothetical reasoning using analogy. The analogy works regardless of whether it describes actual events.



      Delete
    14. If I have sex with women, does it make the analogy less dubious?

      But you don't, so why do you ask?

      Should I have sex with dubious women?

      If the women are dubious about you, then they're not going to have sex with you, now are they? If you mean that it's dubious that they're women,....

      These are questions about actual events that do not play any role in determining the soundness of the analogy.

      Hey, you brought it up.

      There may be a mocking aspect to the questions as well, and if so, it was not diffused by the weak retort.

      A mocking aspect you say. Imagine that. Diffused? Do you mean defused? Sparky, you're just not the linguistic genius that you think you are.

      It is hypothetical reasoning using analogy. The analogy works regardless of whether it describes actual events.


      Any reasoning here is certainly just hypothetical.

      Delete
    15. All words were intended as presented.

      The analogy stands, no valid criticism is offered.

      You are upset, get some rest.

      Delete
    16. No doubt you intended to present your ignorance to this comment section.

      Your analogy couldn't stand with assistance, your run-on sentences can't change that.

      If I allowed Anonymous numpties like you to upset me, I'd have time for nothing else, I'm well rested.

      Delete
  14. “The analogy works whether or not I have had sex with women”

    I’m not sure of what point you’re trying to make.

    Are you suggesting that the police commanding that someone put their hands on their steering wheel is the same thing as you commanding/forcing a woman to put her hands somewhere on you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you said, it is an analogy, so not the same thing. It may be dubious, I do not see it that way. It depends to some degree on whether others gain clarification. Apparently it has failed with you, but this is not unexpected considering your worldview. Not complying with whatever cops say is not the same thing as being uncooperative in any meaningful way. You may be fine with consenting to whatever cops want, more power to you, but others do not, others want to challenge the problem of authoritarianism in our society.

      Delete
    2. Right. Because there’s no difference between a default desire to comply with police officers in the course of their doing their job from the complete capitulation to an abridgment of my rights by a bad cop.

      This sort of thinking is as stilted as authoritarianism.

      Delete
    3. It is not bad cops, it is institutional.

      Cops routinely push the boundaries of what is legal when they interact with citizens. I would like to limit the boundaries of their authority, and transfer much of their remaining authority to others with better skills and expertise to handle the situations they deal with.

      I am not suggesting some rigid, binary situation.

      You are welcome to comply, if someone else does not want to comply, I want challenge the notion that that is uncooperative.

      I fail to see how what I am saying is suggesting there is no difference between you wanting to comply and you accepting a bad cop taking away your rights. My analogy does not say there is no difference between consensual sex and rape. Within your framing, I am saying the bad cop wants to characterize you as uncooperative, but you should reject that and characterize yourself as a victim, or be able to resist the bad cop without being labeled uncooperative, as if you did something wrong, when it was the bad cop that did something wrong.

      Delete
    4. Dembot, the cop who arrests a fraudster trying to pass a forged bill is a good cop. He is your dream lover.

      Bad cop is the one who says 'hell with it', and goes to nearest doughnut shop. That'd be your rapist.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 7:22am, youve been all over the place here and you’d make far more sense if you simply stated that you won’t cooperate with law enforcement officers who illegally infringe upon your constitutional rights.

      If you’re saying that you won’t cooperate with police officers who do work within their proscribed boundaries because you think those boundaries unjust, you’d more accurately cast yourself as engaging in civil disobedience (being nonviolently uncooperative) in order to challenge the system.

      The system is not going to assign some neutral term to your actions, let alone a term that denotes heroism. That comes in the aftermath of a successful campaign.

      Until then, as much as is possible, you work within the system to change it, and otherwise take your lumps when you decide that you must be uncooperative in some way.

      You keep on keeping on and you are adult enough to understand that your contrarians will not drop to their knees and applaud.

      If you are successful, you attempt to mitigate the breach and to unify as quickly as possible.



      Delete
    6. Argument by analogy is weak for the reason that the correspondences must be close if not exact. Your case fails because it doesn't take into account the difference in legal privilege, so to speak. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a situation in which a woman who objects to your sexual advances would have any legal obligation to have sex with you. When it comes to sexual activity, she has complete autonomy over her body, and it makes no difference to the law how you choose to characterize her refusals.

      Cops, on the other hand, enjoy a great deal of legal privilege in performing their jobs. The law grants them the authority to stop and frisk you if they have reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good and to arrest you if they have probable cause to suspect that you've committed a crime. They may order you and your companions to do certain things (like exit a car) if they feel it's necessary to insure their safety. They have qualified immunity if they make errors in good faith when they act within the bounds of their authority. And the law in most states (but not all) require physical obedience upon arrest, limiting your recourse to an appeal to the courts after the fact.

      There are theoretical legal limits involved. Reasonable suspicion must be articulable and not just a gut feeling. Merely asserting one's legal rights is not grounds to call anyone uncooperative. In practice, these aren't much protection, and bad cops get away with murder, literally and figuratively. But that doesn't change the legal landscape.

      If a cop goes to handcuff you because he's said you're under arrest, and you try to stop him, then he may persist and in most jurisdictions, you'll be guilty of the type of uncooperative behavior that's called resisting arrest. If you tell your girlfriend that you're going to handcuff her because you'd like to play out a BDSM scene, and she tries to stop you, under no circumstances will she be called uncooperative. If you persist, you'll be guilty of assault or battery or both.

      No one is saying that you can't reject a cop's judgment or that you can't characterize yourself as a victim. And in some states, you may legally resist an unlawful arrest, even employing reasonable force to do so. Although some have prevailed in court after doing so, I doubt you could find a lawyer who would advise resistance. And in most places, it would be impossible to find such a lawyer, since the contemplated act is illegal.

      On the other hand, I doubt you'd find a lawyer who would advise a woman that she'd have any fear that her rapist would have grounds to characterize her resistance as being "uncooperative."

      Delete
    7. Cecelia and deadrat, I would note I have significantly altered how you approach your comments. Not patting myself on the back, but I think it is noteworthy, and this new approach is appreciated, and more effective from my point of view. Huzzah. Kudos.

      That said, I do not see how my analogy fails to get my point across. Indeed you seem to have a clear idea of what I was conveying, but it seems to make you uncomfortable, in some way.

      As implied in my analogy, it applies to cases where cops are pushing the boundaries of what is legal to the discomfort of the citizen. It is not difficult to imagine, this happens routinely. There are countless videos of "auditors" engaging with cops who go past their legal limits of authority.

      Analogies are an effective and commonly used tool in explaining or clarifying. They may (or may not) be weak in some forms of arguing, I prefer explaining and clarifying over arguing myself, so whether it is weak or not in the context of arguing is not a concern of mine.

      Working within the system is not effective. The last hundred years have involved pushing the system towards more equality only to have the powerful fight and often reverse those positive changes. Minneapolis is an example of this with respect to cops. So are unions and social security and taxes and environmental regulations and on and on. Of late progressives have been more effective, in part through protests, where most of the violence was against the protestors. Cities are now talking about significant changes, we shall see. Consent decrees were ok, however it was trivial for the Trump admin to restrict their use.

      Delete
    8. Don't kid yourself, dear dembot.

      Either cops will still be able to arrest you for passing fake $20 bills, or your inner city Liberal Paradises turn into Rio-like favelas where cops don't go.

      In the latter case, getting caught passing a fake $20 bill will get you killed immediately, and without any fuss from your zombie cult.

      No luck for you, I'm afraid.

      Delete
    9. I would note I have significantly altered how you approach your comments.

      I haven't noted any difference in my or Our Cecelia's "approach," but in my case, I might be too close to notice. Perhaps you could give details to highlight the differences before and after you arrived on the scene. It would also help if you could give the demarcation date.

      That said, I do not see how my analogy fails to get my point across.

      Of course you don't. I gather you either failed to read my explanation @3:28P, or didn't understand it if you did. Not to worry, though. I don't comment in the hope of bringing enlightenment. I comment for my own amusement.

      Indeed you seem to have a clear idea of what I was conveying, but it seems to make you uncomfortable, in some way.

      First, whatever you perceive about how I feel, comfortable or not, is entirely within your head. You have no access to my feelings, even were I to tell you about them. As it is, I don't have any feelings.

      I don't understand how you figure that I have a clear idea of what you're saying. I don't even think you have a clear idea of what you're saying, beyond the banal observation that cops often exceed their authority and the powerful in general resist change to their favored and favorable status.

      Working within the system for more equality is not effective? Married gay couples might disagree. The last 100 years "involved pushing the system" towards equality? That would be since 1920, the decade the Klan ran the Indiana legislature and two decades before the end of what I call The Golden Age of American Lynching." So, no.

      Analogies are an effective and commonly used tool in explaining or clarifying.

      They can be effective, but their usefulness relies on the proper alignment of the correspondences. (He repeated.)

      I prefer explaining and clarifying over arguing myself,

      I take that means: "I myself prefer explaining and clarifying over arguing." Assuming so, you're doing it wrong.

      so whether it is weak or not in the context of arguing is not a concern of mine.

      That the weakness of your argument is of no concern to you is evident. The topic here though is argument in the sense of argumentation, not in the sense of bickering.

      Delete
  15. احدث اساليب الصيانة فى الاسكندرية لان الصيانة السليمة يجب ان تتم على أيدي متخصصين لدينا فريق عمل متميز من المهندسين والفنيين والمتخصصين .متخصصون فى صيانة واصلاح الأجهزة المنزلية , نحن الأسرع فى الوصول اليك ، فريق الصيانة فى خدمتكم على مدار اليوم , اتصل نصلك أينما كنت
    نتميز عن غيرنا بالإلتزام مع العملاء ، العمل الجاد ، الاحترافية في الصيانة , توفير خدمات راقية المستوى , فريق عمل مدرب بإحترافية
    صيانة كريازي بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة كريازي بالاسكندرية
    صيانة ثلاجات كريازي بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة ثلاجات كريازي بالاسكندرية
    رقم صيانة كريازى بالاسكندرية
    صيانة ديب فريزر كريازى بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة كريازي بالاسكندرية
    صيانة كريازي بالاسكندريه
    صيانه كريازي بالاسكندريه

    ReplyDelete
  16. احدث اساليب الصيانة فى الاسكندرية لان الصيانة السليمة يجب ان تتم على أيدي متخصصين لدينا فريق عمل متميز من المهندسين والفنيين والمتخصصين .متخصصون فى صيانة واصلاح الأجهزة المنزلية , نحن الأسرع فى الوصول اليك ، فريق الصيانة فى خدمتكم على مدار اليوم , اتصل نصلك أينما كنت
    نتميز عن غيرنا بالإلتزام مع العملاء ، العمل الجاد ، الاحترافية في الصيانة , توفير خدمات راقية المستوى , فريق عمل مدرب بإحترافية
    صيانة كريازي بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة كريازي بالاسكندرية
    صيانة ثلاجات كريازي بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة ثلاجات كريازي بالاسكندرية
    رقم صيانة كريازى بالاسكندرية
    صيانة ديب فريزر كريازى بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة كريازي بالاسكندرية
    صيانة كريازي بالاسكندريه
    صيانه كريازي بالاسكندريه

    ReplyDelete
  17. EFFECTIVE LOVE SPELL TO GET EX HUSBAND/BOYFRIEND OR EX WIFE/GIRLFRIEND AND CURE HERPES AND INFERTILITY THAT WORKS WITHIN 24 HOURS.

    Contact Dr. Odunga at odungaspelltemple@gmail.com 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 odungaspelltemple@gmail.com 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 odungaspelltemple@gmail.com

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. I visited my doctor for a second opinion to verify that I am currently experiencing genital warts on both sides of my inner labia caused by HSV which I was not aware I had until the genital warts appeared. I discovered them about 2 months ago and it saddened me to find the warts because I felt it meant I had contracted an STD,I never applied medical drugs or therapies,because I prefer going natural routes first if any are available. At first, I was not sure I’d be able to use anything since the labia is such a sensitive area but I remembered that I had been reviewing series of testimonies on how herbal doctor razor had been curing people of Genital warts, And I had Them on the bottoms of my feet so I decided to try doctor razor herbs. Thankfully, Doctor razor herbal medication seems to be getting rid of the genital warts. When I first began applying it I noticed some slight aching feelings in my vaginal area that I had never felt before. I no longer feel the aches though. I AM SO GRATEFUL TO BE COMPLETELY CURED OF THIS VIRUS.However, I don’t feel the shame anymore and am so grateful to Mother Nature and Doctor Razor for helping a sister out. Reach him on Email : drrazorherbalhome@gmail.com Whatsapp/Call his cell phone on +2349065420442. Visit Doctor Razor's Website : https://drrazorherbalhome.wixsite.com/drrazorherbalhome

    ReplyDelete