OUR OWN RHODES SCHOLAR'S FIRST NINE MINUTES: The Scholar was perhaps a bit manic this night!


The pleasures of watching a clown: Our Own Rhodes Scholar may have been in a bit of a manic phase last Wednesday night.

The various signs may have seemed to be there. But oh, dear God, the pleasures!

Elsewhere on our tribe's "cable news," everyone knew that the day's "breaking news" involved that pointless request to Kevin McCarthy by the January 6 committee. 

Other hosts went straight to that piffle at the start of their TV shows. As she started her own TV show, The Scholar of course offered more:

MADDOW (1/12/22): And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Happy to have you here.

You know, it is not the kind of problem that should come up all that often in politics. I mean, it happens from time to time, but really it seems like the kind of thing that would arise maybe, if you had a long career, it might arise once during your career. I mean, maybe if you had a really long career, it might arise twice if you were particularly star-crossed.

But people would talk about it because that's crazy. I mean, it's just a rare thing. At least it ought to be a very rare thing.

But for House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, it must feel like it happens all the time to him. In his time as a Republican leader in the House of Representatives, it has happened three times in the past five years already, and now it looks like it might happen to him a fourth time.

That's the way The Scholar began. Like everyone else, she was going to focus on Kevin McCarthy—but she was going to give us a great deal more than our other cable stars had done.

As always, The Scholar was giving us more. She opened with a bit more than nine minutes of misdirection, misstatement and clowning. 

Only then did she mention (and hype) the committee's basically pointless request. As always, Our Own Rhodes Scholar had given us much, much more.

It was so cool and so entertaining! In that murder mystery-style open, The Scholar had told us that something seems to happen to McCarthy pretty much all the time.

We didn't yet know what that something was! But already, we over here in our own failing tribe were being allowed our good fun.

The Scholar proceeded to offer nine minutes of unadulterated bullshit. She misstated facts, focused on trivia, and thrilled us with a speculation.

Perhaps a bit maniacally, she even broke away at one point to ladle such corporation-friendly bullshit as this:

MADDOW: The great federal Florida reporter Marc Caputo, who works for NBC News now—quite a coup for NBC to have landed him. There is nobody like Marc Caputo in Florida political journalism today. 

And, today, Mr. Caputo is the sole by-line on this scoop from NBC. Although I should mention, the legendary NBC justice correspondent Pete Williams contributed reporting to this as well.

If you want a little peek behind the curtain here as to how those of us in the NBC News family read scoops from our own shop like this, you should know, like I said, Marc Caputo is an unparalleled reporter in terms of Florida politics.

But Pete Williams being a contributing reporter on this as well—Pete Williams is like the emperor of the kingdom of understatement. When everybody else has their hair on fire about something going on in the criminal justice system or in the courts, it is Pete Williams who is the cooling saucer who brings everything down ten notches and makes everybody take a breath and stop overreacting.

So you put Marc Caputo on the byline from Florida and you put Pete Williams, "Mr. Calm Down, Everybody," as contributing reporting, and, frankly, you do not expect a lead as red hot as this one from NBC News today.

Mr. Caputo is great, we were told—but Mr. Williams is legendary. 

It was quite a coup for NBC News to have landed Mr. Caputo the Great, who's unparalleled Florida-wise.  But Mr. Williams—his nickname is "Mr. Calm Down, Everybody"—is like the emperor of the kingdom of understatement.

Our Own Rhodes Scholar wasn't especially calm as she delivered this onslaught. Is Pete Williams "the cooling saucer?" Our tribe's top-rated cable news star could have used a great deal of cooling this night—might well have come down several notches.

That said, The Scholar was offering us one of the pleasures we get from her TV show—the pleasure of being allowed inside the club. We were being given a little peek behind the curtain here as to "how those of us in the NBC News family read scoops from our own shop."

It was just so wonderfully cool! We were going to see how they do it!

Briefly, can we talk?

The world is full of important events. It's full of important topics.

Children get shot and killed in the streets every day. Around the world, children are dying in war zones.

Especially during these Covid days, problems afflict the public school which low-income kids attend. By world standards, our American "health care system" remains a clownish mess.

You'll never hear this corporate clown discuss any such problems as these. Instead, this corporate clown provides us the pleasures of insider tribal war, along with the excitement of manifest bullshit like this.

During this peculiar side trip, The Scholar has been referring to a news report filed by Caputo that day. Caputo had engaged in a rapt speculation as he wrote—a rapt speculation which, in tribal terms, tilted quite strongly Our Way.

This thrilled The Scholar, who  proceeded to tell us that we can certainly trust every word Mr. Caputo  might have said. She proceeded to read the "red hot lead" from NBC News that day.

MADDOW (continuing directly): Dateline, Orlando, Florida. Quote:

Congressman Matt Gaetz`s ex-girlfriend testified today before a federal grand jury investigating him for sex crimes, a major development that suggests the U.S. Department of Justice may be moving closer to indicting Congressman Gaetz. The ex-girlfriend, whose name is being withheld by NBC news to respect her privacy, has been in talks for months with prosecutors about an immunity deal.

Under a possible deal, she would avoid prosecution for obstruction of justice in return for testifying in the investigation into whether Gaetz in 2017 had sex with a 17-year-old female for money and whether months later he and others violated a federal law prohibiting people from transporting others across state lines to engage in prostitution. Gaetz has not been charged with a crime. He has denied all accusations.

The attorney for Gaetz`s ex-girlfriend, Tim Jansen, declined comment about the case Wednesday today, when he was spotted by an NBC News reporter entering the federal courthouse in Orlando with his client. A Department of Justice spokesman declined comment.

Gaetz did not respond to a request for comment. But legal sources familiar with the case say Congressman Gaetz is being investigated for three distinct crimessex trafficking a minor, violating the Mann Act, which prohibits taking women across state lines for prostitution, and obstructing justice.

Yay yay yay yay yay! To Mr. Caputo, it was "a major development"—a major development which suggested the possibility that a certain action might occur.

That was fairly shaky stuff, but yay yay yay yay yay! In our tribe, we loathe the (fully ridiculous) Gaetz. For that reason, we love to hear speculations that the Justice Department might be moving closer to indicting him, especially for sex crimes! Yay yay yay yay yay! 

We simply love to hear such things—and we get to hear them here. The Scholar will always pleasure us in such ways, but only after a manic insistence that we can believe every word.

How big a deal was the Gaetz news this day? It wasn't that big at all. It didn't appear in print editions of the New York Times at all.

If Gaetz is ever actually indicted, that will be actual news—though indictment, as you may have heard, differs from guilt or conviction. Unless you're watching the Maddow Show, where being indicted has always meant that you're guilty, and where speculation about an indictment comes to about the same thing.

The horrible Gaetz is a minor back-bencher, but The Scholar loves topics like this. On this evening, she pleasured us with the least restrained speculation, while assuring us that "Mr. Calm Down, Everybody" had comfortingly signed on.

She has played this game again and again; she loves the (possible) sex crime beats. In fact, she loves the sex beat itself, though she tends to cover her ears and close her eyes as she pretends that she hates what she's doing when she takes out this favorite toy.

Has Gaetz committed some sort of sex crime? Like Our Own Rhodes Scholar herself, we have no way of knowing. 

If he's ever indicted, that will be news—although it won't mean that he's guilty.

On this occasion, he hadn't been indicted, but why should we care about that? It was the fact that he possibly could be indicted which fed into murder mystery show, in which we were told that something that happened to Kevin McCarthy again and again.

That said, what had happened to Kevin McCarthy again and again? Whatever it was, it rarely happened to anyone else! Once again, here's how the framework started:

MADDOW (1/12/22): You know, it is not the kind of problem that should come up all that often in politics. I mean, it happens from time to time, but really it seems like the kind of thing that would arise maybe, if you had a long career, it might arise once during your career. I mean, maybe if you had a really long career, it might arise twice if you were particularly star-crossed.

But people would talk about it because that's crazy. I mean, it's just a rare thing. At least it ought to be a very rare thing.

But for House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, it must feel like it happens all the time to him. In his time as a Republican leader in the House of Representatives, it has happened three times in the past five years already, and now it looks like it might happen to him a fourth time.

What had The Scholar been talking about as she floated this tease? What had happened to McCarthy three times, though it might even happen a fourth?

For everyone else, whatever it was might happen maybe once during a long career! As she continued, The Scholar explained. This is what she was talking about on this manic evening:

MADDOW (continuing directly): It's just not that often that a sitting member of Congress gets indicted on multiple federal felony charges, you know, while they're serving in Congress. For poor Kevin McCarthy, though, now the leader of the House Republicans, he keeps having to deal with this over and over again.

First, it was Chris Collins, multiple federal felony charges for insider trading and corruption and all this stuff. Then, it was Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter, multiple federal felony corruption charges.


Kevin McCarthy having to deal with that in his conference, two of those guys. That happening to two of them. I mean that was a—that was a rare thing. That was like a blue moon on your birthday.

When it had happened only twice, "that was like a blue moon on your birthday," we were told. But it had happened to McCarthy three times—and it might even happen a fourth!

For the record, The Scholar was talking about members of Congress getting indicted. And poor McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, has had "to deal with [this] over and over again." It had already happened three times!

Incredibly, Our Own Rhodes Scholar actually had one fact right. Three Republican House members have been indicted in the past five years—Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter and Jeff Fortenberry.

(Fortenberry has pleaded not guilty. He hasn't yet been tried.)

The Scholar was already wishin' and hopin' that Gaetz might make it four. This was the highly pleasurable bullshit with which she was starting her show.

Before too long, The Scholar would be praising the legendary restraint of Mr. Cooling Saucer. That said, how cool was The Scholar herself as she peddled her pleasing framework on this manic night?

The Scholar was overheating badly! Consider the clownlike things she now said:

Already, The Scholar had said that something like this should happen to someone maybe once if he had a long career. Now she was computing the statistical craziness as she imagined that the count for poor McCarthy might even rise to four:

MADDOW: Members of Congress do get in trouble. There are ethics scandals and scandal scandals among members of Congress all the time. But it is really rare for real felony federal criminal charges to be filed against a currently serving member. It's really rare for a currently serving member of Congress to be arrested.


It`s become almost a regular part of Kevin McCarthy`s job by now. Three times in just the last five years this has happened to him. And now, again, it looks like it might be happening to him again, which is—

I mean honestly, this is like getting hit by lightning while you're winning the lottery on a blue moon on your birthday. This is not normal but this is Kevin McCarthy's life.

To The Scholar, it looks like it might be happening to him again! 

(Or then again, maybe it won't! But The Scholar was giving us more.)

"I mean honestly," The Scholar now said—signaling that what came next was going to be complete bullshit. What was happening to McCarthy was so statistically improbable that it was "like getting hit by lightning while you're winning the lottery on a blue moon on your birthday." Or so Our Own Scholar said. 

That was wonderfully enjoyable fun. It was also world-class bullshit. For better or worse, members of Congress get indicted more often than The Cable Star was saying. 

Collins was indicted in 2018—but uh-oh! As USA Today noted in this report, two Democratic House members (Chaka Fattah, Corinne Brown) had been indicted and convicted as recently as 2015 and 2016—and Senator Menendez (D-NJ) had been indicted in 2015 too!

This suggests that Nancy Pelosi had been hit by a blue moon on her birthday too! McCarthy was no longer alone!

Of course, when Fortenberry was later indicted, that made it three times in five years for McCarthy. So how about it? Is three indictments in five years "like getting hit by lightning while you're winning the lottery on a blue moon on your birthday?" 

We'll guess that it possibly isn't. When Fattah was indicted in 2015, the Washington Post took a backward look at the general phenomenon. Its report appeared beneath this headline:

More than two dozen members of Congress have been indicted since 1980

That was more than two dozen members in 35 years. Already, that was approaching an average of one indictment per year, but the Post included this note:

Note: This list doesn't include members of Congress who pleaded guilty to wrongdoing but weren't indicted, like Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who pleaded guilty to corruption charges in 2006, and Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who admitted to taking bribes and resigned in 2005.

In short, members of Congress get indicted or plead guilty to crimes quite a bit more often than The Scholar was suggesting.  Let's remember what this idiot said at the start of these nine minutes of pleasure:

"If you had a long career, it might arise once during your career."

The Scholar had been off on one of her jags as she started her program this night. Sadly, this tendency helps explain why we self-impressed liberal viewers adore The Scholar so much.

It isn't Rachel Maddow's fault that she has these predilections. It is the fault of her corporate owners that her endless mugging and clowning and all-around bullshit has continued to stay on the air. 

As a tribe, we liberals have been unable to see the problems with what Our Scholar does. But she mugs and she clowns and misstates and mis-frames—and we've rarely seen a person who cares so little about the people who actually suffer out there in the country and out there in the wide world.

To an amazing degree, she dreams of locking Others up. We're forced to guess that it's a part of her "very, very Catholic" upbringing.

She also loves to entertain. Last Wednesday night, she finally agreed to entertain us with some of her trademark comedy stylings. After burning almost nine minutes away, she entertained us with this:

MADDOW: So again, that was reported today, just after noon Eastern Time today, by reporter Marc Caputo at NBC News. 

And I don't know how House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy's day was going up to that point, but after having had to deal already with three different Republican members of the House being charged with multiple federal felony charges while they were serving in Congress, now to get that news breaking at lunchtime today, can you imagine if he has to deal with a fourth one?

I imagine that was a dyspeptic moment for Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy today, right? Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the next Republican caucus meeting! 

"Can you guys please stop with the crime-ing? Just for a little while? Just for a hot minute?

"Trump is not here to keep you all out of prison anymore. Enough with the felonies, you guys. Hit pause. Save me."

Wonderfully, Our Own Rhodes Scholar treated us to some open mike work! She began to "imagine" what McCarthy will think if Gaetz ever does get indicted. She began to "imagine" what McCarthy had thought when he heard the "news" about Gaetz that day—and as she did, she launched one of her wonderfully entertaining impressions. 

Wonderfully, she imagined the Leader telling the minions to "stop with all the crime-ing!" This gave us enjoyment at home.

At that point, we were 9 minutes and 15 seconds into her nightly gong show. At that point, she finally told her viewers that the January 6 committee had requested, hat in hand, that McCarthy appear.

We'd been given 9 minutes and 15 seconds of perfect tribal pleasure. It was also pure Stupid all the way down, in an array of ridiculous ways. But we highly self-impressed liberals seem to like it like that.

Top experts weep when they watch this prime-time TV program. It's been our self-impressed tribe's favorite program for the past many years.

Its star is devoted to dreams of locking Them up. According to experts, this is the way we humans behave when things start to get out of hand.

Once again, full disclosure: We don't know if Gaetz has engaged in any crimes. 

Neither does Our Own Rhodes Scholar, although she built her first nine minutes around the general idea that maybe she pretty much does. No "journalist" should ever do that, no matter how many millions of dollars she's paid by her corporate owners, no matter how widely she's praised by the viewers she persistently disrespects.

That said, her work has been like this all along. Our self-impressed tribe gulps her product down, after which we tell ourselves how dumb The Others are.


  1. "Our Own Rhodes Scholar may have been in a bit of a manic phase last Wednesday night."

    Maddow was forthcoming about her struggles with depression and bipolar disorder. Somerby takes advantage of her honesty by calling her mentally ill. How? By continually referring to her as manic, as if her illness were so out of control that it was affecting her reporting. Maddow, as a highly paid star, has access to excellent medical care and there is no reason to believe she isn't receiving whatever treatment she needs. That's why Somerby's constant use of this term is no more than a slur.

    But not only does Somerby malign Maddow when he refers to her bipolar disorder, but he implies that the 2.3 million Americans who similarly are bipolar cannot function in their jobs. This is as ugly as when Somerby implies that Donald Trumps many crimes and bigoted moments are the result of him being "crazy," being narcissistic or sociopathic. People with mental disorders are responsible for their behavior except for in well-defined situations that may provide a legal defense of insanity. Neither Trump's problems nor Maddow's would fit such legal criteria.

    There is no difference between Somerby current use of the word "manic" and the now shunned use of such terms as retard, spaz (for spastic), moron, and similar previously diagnostic terms that found their way into daily use to malign people we dislike for entirely different reasons than their health conditions.

    Good, decent people long ago stopped using such terms. They stopped shunning people with mental illness, stopped refusing to hire them, in fact, were legally prevented from discriminating against them by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Somerby either never got the word (unlikely) or he is far from a good, decent person.

    A few days back, Somerby signed on to the belief, commonly held among standup comics, that they may say anything they want in the service of comedy, no matter how unfunny and no matter how much it might hurt specific people to hear it. Once again, Somerby shows that he is that kind of asshole. Someone who uses the bipolar disorder of 2.3 million people as his personal insult against a woman who has done nothing whatsoever to him and does not deserve to be called such names.

    Somerby should be ashamed of himself, but he won't be. Conservatives never are.

  2. "She opened with a bit more than nine minutes of misdirection, misstatement and clowning."

    Again, no evidence of misstatement provided. Somerby complains because she teases instead of directly stating her point about McCarthy, just as Somerby routinely does, but that isn't misstatement, nor even misdirection. It is just a delay for dramatic effect. Maybe Somerby doesn't like drama? That seems to be his problem.

  3. "Like everyone else, she was going to focus on Kevin McCarthy—but she was going to give us a great deal more than our other cable stars had done."

    Yes, she tells us that what the Republicans have been doing, and McCarthy specifically, is unusual in a historical context. She tells us this is not "business as usual" but a departure from the way congressmen function.

    That is important perspective that many viewers, especially Republicans, may not have, or may not have thought about. Why can't Republicans conduct themselves without this happening so often these days? It is a fair and important question.

    Of course Somerby doesn't want people to think about that. He is carrying water for the Republicans and it is his job to defend them against uncomfortable points, such as this one raised by Maddow. So he tries to shift the focus to her mania. What a jerk!

  4. "In short, members of Congress get indicted or plead guilty to crimes quite a bit more often than The Scholar was suggesting."

    Somerby leaves out the part where those pleading guilty in advance were all Republicans.

    1. What a surprise, eh? As is we need Maddow to point out McCarthy’s bottom of the barrel scuzzy reversal on Jan 6


  5. Oh dear. Enough with the 'Maddow' dembot, dear Bob, please.

    Didn't she admit herself (or via her lawyers anyway) that everything she says on her dembot show (e.g.: "really, literally paid Russian propaganda") is bullshit, not deserving anyone's attention?

    So, why are you paying so much attention, dear Bob? What's the matter with you? Just expel this lying dembot from your head, once and for all...

    1. Good question, Mao. Why do people pay attention to Maddow? IMO she creates an imaginary world, just as novelists do. Quite a few people enjoy being in this world, so they follow her reporting. These viewers don't want to be taken out of their comfortable imaginary world, so they ignore and deny any reporting that disagrees with it.

      It's appropriate for Bob to address Maddow, because she has quite a few believers. Maybe some of Bob's readers are Maddow believers.

    2. Meh. Establishment media dembots deserve occasional mockery, but what dear Bob does here is ludicrous. Weird.

      Sure, it's his blog, whatever suits him.

      Detailed day-to-day analysis of Howard Stern could be funnier, though.

    3. Mao, for whatever reason you are here every day with mostly repetitive observations, except for that several week period after the previous POTUS lost.

    4. We appreciate your being a dedicated follower, dear dembot.

    5. "Good question, Mao. Why do people pay attention to Carlson? IMO he and Fox create an imaginary world, just as novelists do. "


    6. @7:18 You didn't exactly fix it, you added to it.

    7. I made it accurate. Your version is flat out wrong, based on studies of the knowledge of current events held by viewers of MSNBC and CNN compared to Fox News.

  6. "The Scholar had been off on one of her jags as she started her program this night. "

    Another veiled references to manic episodes, but does Somerby really think that her shows are unscripted? Does he think no staff writers were involved in her so-called "jags"? Does she actually have these figures about how many indictments in how many years in her head instead of someone looking them up?

    This is not a jag. This is her program and it is her attempt to place McCarthy's plight in a larger context of historical practice in Congress and Republican wrongdoing. We need that because what the Republicans have been doing is not normal.

    Only a fool thinks more Republicans are not going to be indicted. The 1/6 committee is working methodically and it will get to Trump and his co-conspirators last, after they have built a solid case on the basis of the lesser participants in what was quite obviously a conspiracy to keep Trump in power, through both force and fraud.

    Somerby's pretense that nothing special is going on is so profoundly desperate that it should be obvious to all whose side he is arguing these days.

    1. Marigold (new name) - we sure hope the indictments start flowing. Maybe the 1/6 committee will succeed where Mueller failed. Let's hope so, we can dream.

    2. You really shouldn't be so fixated on names. They are the least important part of what anyone says around here, except possibly Mao.

    3. As tepid as Mueller's investigation was, it revealed major corruption on the part of Trump and his cronies, many of whom were indicted and convicted.

    4. The 1/6 investigation is not a dream. Just as indictments and convictions resulted from Mueller's investigation, so too have they resulted already from the 1/6 committee's activities, including its referrals to law enforcement for prosecution.

      This is reality, not dreams. I agree that it is a mistake to consider Mueller a "failure" when he laid out a blueprint for impeaching Trump on obstruction despite being constrained by both Trump and Barr looking over his shoulder. Obstruction of Mueller's efforts did occur, but he still managed to show Trump for what he was. Others will finish his job.

  7. "To an amazing degree, she dreams of locking Others up."

    Who knows what she dreams of, but there is nothing wrong with wanting wrongdoers to be locked up. The current wrongdoers happen to be alt-right conservatives and the members of congress manipulating them for their own political gain. I wouldn't refer to them as "Others" or even "The Others" unless Somerby wants us to believe that all Republicans were complicit.

    When people commit major crimes against the American people, it is right to think they should be "locked up" (Somerby's odd term for seeking justice).

  8. "We don't know if Gaetz has engaged in any crimes. "

    That means Maddow could be right about him. It makes as much sense to assume she is, than it makes to assume Gaetz has done nothing wrong.

    It is far from normal to have your ex-girlfriend called to testify about your actions to a grand jury. It is far from normal to have your wingman Joel Greenberg plead guilty to crimes that implicate you, rolling over on you and describing your role in his crimes. That's unusual too. So, when Maddow speculates, the possibilities she mentions are far from ungrounded. She is, of course, careful to keep her language speculative, acknowledging that Gaetz has not yet been charged. But really, what is the likelihood he will get off given the testimony against him? Nil, in my opinion. It is just a matter of time, and he himself knows what is happening.

    That's why Somerby pretense that Gaetz may be entirely innocent and is being wrongly discussed is pretty ridiculous. But recall that Somerby lives by the precept that everything is possible and anything can happen, and he may not even be willing to say that the sun will rise tomorrow. So his reluctance to consider Gaetz in legal jeopardy seems like his idiosyncrasy, not Maddow's. The only difference is that we don't know enough about Somerby to say what his mental disorder(s) might be, so we cannot call him names as readily, other than saying he is full of shit and has not basis for defending conservative scum like Matt Gaetz.

    1. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/18/gaetzs-old-wingman-help-prosecutors-516221

    2. He seems to be focused not so much on the truth of that particular story as he is that story's inclusion into the news program at the expense of other, more important ones.

    3. It's not a news program. It's a comedy show. She's a comedian like Jon Stewart.

    4. And Jon Stewart's audience said that they got most of their news from his show. Same with Maddow. They come for the humor and stay for the news.

    5. Well her bit about Kevin McCarthy really killed, didn't it? Didn't that leave you doubled over? ;)

  9. "Wonderfully, she imagined the Leader telling the minions to "stop with all the crime-ing!" This gave us enjoyment at home."

    Yes, because it is absurd to think that McCarthy or Trump would ever tell others to stop being criminals. It is a very funny idea.

    Somerby's failure to see the humor leads me to suspect that perhaps he dislikes Maddow because she is funnier than he is.

  10. We've been wondering when Somerby would get around to defending Gaetz. He seems to like young girls, just like Roy Moore. So much that he is suspected of passing them around to influence others -- so much for being a "minor back bencher". That is what "trafficking" means (in case Somerby doesn't know).

    Such crimes don't seem to upset Somerby nearly as much as the idea that some white male might be wrongly accused. Paradoxically, the investigators are taking enough time to nail down the evidence, so that he will not be wrongly charged. That doesn't make Gaetz innocent. It means there is no rush to judgment (as Somerby keeps implying) and when something happens, such as Gaetz's ex-girlfriend testifying, it is important for the public to know because our government runs on transparency, even among the House's criminal set. These people are elected to do the public's business and we should be told when they screw up.

    But Somerby seems to believe that all women lie about sex in order to entrap men, so he won't believe a word of what any woman says against Gaetz, even after he is convicted. But he fully believes that Rittenhouse was so scared that he shot an unarmed mentally ill man. Perhaps the wrong mentally ill person, in Somerby's estimation.

  11. Yeah that's cable news. Breaking news, I found my car keys. How bout I jiggle them in front of your face for an hour?

    In other news, Cory Booker fell for Mitch McConnell's bait on whether to frame voting rights as something that affects everyone or just African Americans. Of course voter suppression is part of racism, there shouldn't be a good old boy with a gun at your voting place, but the bills that Republicans just blocked also encourage politicians to avoid dark money. You would have been able to run serious campaigns without needing the approval of cabals of rich donors. Anti corruption is a policy that benefits every single voter and only hurts the donor monopoly that exists. In fact Arizona's Sinema didn't used to be a hack before she started doing more fundraising. That thumbs down on raising our wages didn't have to happen.

    In other serious news about how truly expendable us drones are to these wealthy people, the Nation reported that the homeless and mentally ill are being effectively euthanized in America (or at least Albuquerque, New Mexico) by arresting them for littering and locking them up until they get sick and die.


    1. This smacks of dubious but familiar “progressive” thinking, if the mainstream left is in the right odd reasoning must be employed to change the situation. Mitch McConnell fighting dark money? Tell me another (before you change the subject).

    2. Mitch doesnt control state legislatures. Connecticut and New York have passed anti-corruption legislation. But it's harder to do this without education, without a movement. And nobody knows what these policies are, and I didn't see Booker talk about them in response to Mitch.

    3. I don't think you know what the word euthanasia means. It doesn't mean just killing people, especially not negligent homicide.

    4. @5:40 that's a good point. They're being killed because it's painful for the other people living in New Mexico to see let alone touch a homeless person. Euthanasia is done to spare the pain of the deceased.

  12. "a major development which suggested the possibility that a certain action might occur."

    You have to watch the weasel words. They really fool you with them.

    could have
    may have
    appears to

    Charlie Browns: use of those words are indications you're getting played.

    1. These are the words that people and newspapers use in order to avoid being sued. It has nothing to do with convincing readers that something happened that didn't actually happen.

      Somerby doesn't do inference. He won't infer that the sun is coming up, from a sunrise. Matt Gaetz has been officially informed that he is being investigated. This is a matter of "if" but "when."

      If Somerby thinks that no one's guilt can be talked about until the jury delivers a verdict, he is mistaken. If Somerby had stated that the 9/11 perpetrators were innocent because they hadn't yet been proven guilty, he would have lost his job the way Bill Maher did.

      And while we're at it, Somerby himself is the master of weasel wording. He'll say stuff like "We don't know for sure that Rachel Maddow stuffs cash down her pants" but she does seem especially manic today.

    2. She does seem especially manic today.

  13. As Bob tries to deflect from Trump engaging in the slimiest possible election tampering on tape, he can’t much land a punch on Maddow. And yes, since everything he critiques here are clearly symptoms of the current state of the infotainment world he could find anywhere, he does seem a bigot being driven round the bend by a successful lesbian.
    For the record, yes, MSNBC has overhyped the Gaetz situation based on its salacious element, though there are signs now it may come to something.