OUR STORIES, OURSELVES: The Skittles are always front and center!


Other facts must disappear: We're willing to admit it! We were struck by a certain headline in today's New York Times.

Does the headline make any sense? In print editions, the headline quite literally says this:

House Passes Bill to Make Lynching a Federal Hate Crime

We were puzzled by that headline. In what universe doesn't a lynching already qualify as a federal hate crime? To our eye and to our ear, that headline didn't quite seem to make sense.

What exactly would this federal bill do? Once again, we're willing to say it! To out ear, Emily Cochrane's news report doesn't quite seem to make sense:

COCHRANE (3/1/22): The House on Monday overwhelmingly approved legislation that would make lynching a federal hate crime, moving to formally outlaw a brutal act that has become a symbol of the failure by Congress and the country to reckon with the history of racial violence in America.

Passage of the anti-lynching bill, named in honor of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old Black teenager brutally tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955, came after more than a century of failed attempts. Lawmakers estimated they had tried more than 200 times to pass a measure to explicitly criminalize a type of attack that has long terrorized Black Americans. This bill was approved 422 to 3, and was expected to pass the Senate, where it enjoys broad support.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 422-3. As a general matter, the only bills which pass by such margins are bills which make little real sense. 

Again, in what universe wouldn't a lynching already be a federal hate crime? Cochrane never addressed that question. That said, quoting Rep. Bobby Rush, she did mention a recent event:

COCHRANE: Like other lawmakers who spoke in support of the bill, he invoked Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man shot and killed in Georgia while out for a jog, calling his death a “modern-day lynching” and further evidence that the measure was urgently needed. A week ago, a jury found three white Georgia men guilty of a federal hate crime in connection with Mr. Arbery’s murder.

The measure passed on Monday would categorize lynching as a federal hate crime, carrying a penalty of up to 30 years in prison.

We'll admit that we don't exactly get it. The men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery were convicted, just last week, of a federal hate crime. Somehow, though, this very murder was supposed to show that further legislation "was urgently needed."

For the record, what would constitute a lynching under terms of this legislation? This news report doesn't say.

Given the hate crime prosecution which resulted in conviction last week, why was new legislation urgently needed? There may be an answer to that question, but Cochrane didn't say what it was, not did she notice the apparent logical gap.

We were struck by a second news report in today's National section. The headline notes a political development which may be quite important:

How Immigration Politics Drives Some Hispanic Voters to the G.O.P. in Texas

For the second time in the past few days, the Times was running a news report about the way some Hispanic voters in south Texas are abandoning the Democratic Party-—are realigning as Republicans. 

Last Friday, the Times ran this news report about the way "Democratic officials" in one Texas border town are now "becoming Republicans."

Today's report describes a similar realignment. This strikes us as an important topic—but we were struck by the way Jennifer Medina began today's report:

MEDINA (3/1/22): Mayra Flores, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, has done much of her campaigning in South Texas in Spanish. She has heard one phrase repeatedly from voters as she and other candidates try to become the first Republicans to represent the Rio Grande Valley in Congress.

¿Y nosotros?

And what about us?

“I hear every day that they’re tired—they feel that there is so much attention and help being given to the immigrants,” Ms. Flores said. “The attention’s on all these illegal immigrants, and not on them.”

Grievance politics, it turns out, translates.

Mayra Flores, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, says that everything's being done for "illegal immigrants" at the expense of people like her.  Flores is campaigning for the House in Spanish—and running as a Republican!

As Medina continues, she quotes other Mexican-Americans in south Texas who see things in a similar way. “We were raised hard-core Democrats, but today Democrats want to give everything away," one such person says.

Depending on the extent of such attitudes, this strikes us as a very important topic. That said, we were struck by the way Medina instantl6y characterized those voters' views:

Such people aren't assessing an issue. They're succumbing to "grievance politics," Medina instantly says. 

Just to be clear, these news reports run in two different directions. That said, they emerge from the way our liberal tribe has sought to define its identity in recent years. So did the statistical claim which appeared in a news report in Sunday's Washington Post.

That news report described the reaction of some black women to President Biden's nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.  Rightly or wrongly, that nomination wouldn't pass the House by a 422-3 vote if some such vote was held.

In an early survey by ABC/Ipsos, 76% of Americans disapproved of the way Biden limited his search for a nominee to black women, and to nobody else. That was only one survey, of course—but 76% is a fair amount of disapproval. 

This past weekend, we were struck by this part of the Washington Post's news report, in which Professor Means is being quoted:

WILLIAMS AND WOOTEN (2/27/22): Means, whose scholarship has focused on Black women in the judiciary, notes that the path to the Supreme Court, narrow for any individual, is almost impassable for Black women. In modern times, most appointees to the court have come from the Ivy Leagues and have clerked for federal judges.

“If White men are overrepresented in the judiciary and they’re selecting who they want to work with in their offices, will they select people who look like them? Yes, unless they prioritize having diverse clerks,” she said.

Jackson clerked for Breyer, the justice she has been nominated to replace.

Supreme Court nominees also tend to come from the federal bench. Means said there are only 45 Black female federal judges out of more than 780 active federal judges. That’s in part because Black women are still fighting for equitable treatment in political parties and ideological groups, which tend to elevate the names for consideration.

"There are only 45 Black female federal judges out of more than 780 federal judges" in all?

Within our tribe, everyone knows how we're supposed to react to such numbers. Based upon some quick mental math, we had a different initial reaction.

We decided to cipher those numbers out. Tomorrow, we'll show you what we found.

Way back when, in the long ago, the late Joan Didion said it. "We tell ourselves stories in order to live," she said—and in order to form our sense of our own identities within a fragmented world. 

Again, her nugget presentation:

DIDION (1979): We tell ourselves stories in order to live. The man with the candy will lead the children into the sea...We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.

We humans tell ourselves stories. We impose a narrative line upon a complex, confusing world.

Sometimes the stories we tell ourselves may be on the order of fairy tales. They may involve cartoonized angels and dreamscape demons, like the man with the candy who leads the children into the sea, where they drown.

In the course of inventing these stories, we may invent our own identities—and the odds are good that we'll end up on the angelic side. We may be especially drawn to this task here in our modern Babel.

In Ukraine, people today seem to have a very strong sense of national identity. We have no such sense of national identity here in our badly splintered nation—a nation of many tribes. 

As a result, each tribe is forced to construct its own story—our tribe's story currently runs on race. Quite often, it leads us to say things which may not seem to make much sense, or which may seem officious. In these ways, the stories we tell ourselves may drive other people into the other tribes. 

Given how much is at stake, the stories we tell ourselves will often be badly formed. We may invent claims which simply aren't true. We may stress absurdly irrelevant facts. We may become rude and officious.

We may refuse to come to terms which how much we don't really know!

Because we're struggling to shape our internal life, we may tend to bend the facts when we tell ourselves out tales. So it has been with a deeply unfortunate shooting death which occurred in 2012.

We invent cartoons in order to live—in order to form an identity. It's hard to believe that this cartoonization will actually turn out well. 

Tomorrow, we'll try to get to what Charle Blow has said, this past week, about that shooting death. Also, we'll try to get to the novelization which appeared at Slate.

We'll try to get to the cartoon which emerged from Deborah Roberts at ABC. Some material in the Washington Post was pure journalistic porn.

For today, let's leave it at this:

As we tell ourselves this story, the Skittles are constantly front and center. As if by mandate, by rule of law, other key facts disappear.

Tomorrow: The Skittles will quickly appear


  1. "Quite often, it leads us to say things which may not seem to make much sense, or which may seem officious."

    This s a HUGE problem on the Left. It's why recent legal immigrants are turning towards the Republican Party, which wants to ban abortions due to freedom, and is so upset with cancel culture they want to ban CRT from being taught in school.
    Wait a second...where was I?

  2. tl;dr, however:

    How's lynching a "hate crime", dear Bob? Correct us if we're wrong, but lynching, the English word "lynching", means execution of suspects in a crime, without a legal trial. Right, dear Bob?

    We don't quite understand how "hate" fits into this.

    ...as for illegal immigration, no surprise there: the only group of people fond of it (in our humble opinion) are super-greedy rich liberals who want cheap and easily intimidated servants. Oh well...

    1. Trump is the most Liberal President in the history of the USA. It's no wonder he put sexual predators who want to ban abortion, on the Supreme Court. If Stalin was alive, he'd be jealous of Trump's totalitarianism.

    2. This is substandard trolling.

    3. Agreed, and that's measuring it against the already substandard level of trolling that takes place here.

    4. It's fair to ask again of Mao.... are you involved with the people blocking access to the comment section, and are you being compensated for keeping an eye on Bob, making sure he only critiques leftish news outlets?

    5. "This is substandard trolling."

      It's like Facebook's algorithm around here.

  3. "We were puzzled by that headline. In what universe doesn't a lynching already qualify as a federal hate crime? "

    In the American South during the 17-20th centuries, black people would be lynched and even though everyone knew who had done the lynching, the perpetrators would not be brought to justice. Either they would not be charged, or all-white juries would not convict the perpetrators.

    Black civil rights activists and their political allies sought for decades to enact a federal anti-lynch law, always opposed by Republicans and Southern Democrats. Such a law would enable federal authorities to investigate and bring to justice those involved in lynching black, Hispanic or other minority group members, as well as anyone else who was considered outside the law while engaging in vigilante acts.

    Such a law is not only an important symbol of racial progress, ensuring the black people can find justice no matter where they live in our country, but it sends a message and provides a mechanism for resisting the increasingly violent alt-right and their militias. If this bill were not available, only acts of hate against specified minorities could be prosecuted. With an anti-lynch law, those who are lynched who are white officials and poll workers and school board members can also receive federal investigation.

    Why is this necessary? Because of the death threats the right has been making against political opposition and local officials, not simply those made against minorities themselves.

    Somerby will not even refer to extrajudicial killings as vigilante acts, so it is not surprising that he today feigns ignorance about the purpose of a federal anti-lynching bill.

    1. For God's sake, the 1/6 insurrectionists built a gallows to hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi on the steps of the Capitol building and Somerby doesn't think we need a federal anti-lynching bill?

      Washington DC is not governed by any of the states. Those state bills aren't going to cover anyone lynched in Congress.

      Is Somerby a moron?

    2. This appears to be above standard trolling... I wonder if this possibly be the same poster who wrote "This is substandard trolling."

      Such a fun comments section.

    3. Laws should not be passed as symbols of racial justice. They should be passed to fine or put people in Jail who should be fined or put in jail.

    4. Either a troll or a lunatic with a keyboard or both. Either way, they are the cream of the crop.

    5. I think that fits the guy in the white sheet, who lynches his black neighbor, is acquitted by his pals on the jury and thinks he got off scot free. He should be put in jail but if there cannot be an unbiased trial locally, the point of the federal law is to make sure justice is done. I think the penalty for lynching should be jail time, don't you? Fining is for businesses who release toxic wastes or athletes who show up late for practice.

      I don't consider a federal anti-lynch law to be "symbolic" but a very real backstop for achieving justice in areas of the country where the justice system is biased or yahoos are threatening local officials so they cannot do their job effectively. Think of it as a change of venue.

  4. "The bill passed the House by a vote of 422-3. As a general matter, the only bills which pass by such margins are bills which make little real sense."

    Now here is a sentence which makes no sense.

    The only bills which pass by such margins are ones that make so much sense that no one has any objections.

    1. He's saying they have no objections because the bills are meaningless gestures, there's no controversy.

    2. Here's a summary which proves the point:

      It was already federally illegal to lynch, and it was already federally illegal to conspire to commit any federal crime. This just adds a new redundant crime that is specifically conspiracy to commit lynching.

    3. Sure, “rationalist.” Just like the congressional declaration of war on Germany in 1941:

      “ The vote was 88–0 in the Senate and 393–0 in the House.”

      A meaningless gesture, ho hum.

    4. “Rationalist” @1:13:
      You are, how shall I say this, wrong:


      I will quote the relevant passage for you if you are too lazy to read it:

      “No anti-lynching bill has been passed by both houses into federal law.”

    5. This is tiring.

      *As a general matter*, the only bills which pass by such margins are bills which make little real sense.

      Observe the highlighted phrase. Finding an exception doesn't disprove the point.

      “No anti-lynching bill has been passed by both houses into federal law.”

      This also doesn't make me wrong about anything I wrote upthread.

    6. Rationalist is right. Before Civil Rights legislation it was already illegal to commit murder in the deep south. Bwahahaha!!!!

    7. You're not making whatever point you think you are making.

      Which makes the (insane?) laughter at the end all the stranger.

    8. 4:20, I was agreeing with you. What is the problem?
      Also, before Voting Rights passed in the 60's, blacks already had the right to vote, so it was just really it was just meaningless gesture. See, we agree. LOL

    9. "Before Civil Rights legislation it was already illegal to commit murder in the deep south."

      This made my point for me. Look up the act you're referencing.

      Now re-read my earlier comment:

      It was already federally illegal to lynch, and it was already federally illegal to conspire to commit any federal crime. This just adds a new redundant crime that is specifically conspiracy to commit lynching.

      Optionally add fake laughter and LOLs. You know... they tend to work better when you've (actually) won a debate with (actually) cogent points.

    10. Rationalist,
      That makes sense if you think it through.
      Now, which Republicans in Congress do you think have thought it through?
      Name names.

    11. ""Before Civil Rights legislation it was already illegal to commit murder in the deep south.""

      All the time it was illegal, white men were lynching black people and not being prosecuted for it. Or if there was a trial, they were acquitted, even though they did the crime. That is why a federal law was needed. Southern communities were protecting the lynchers from the legal consequences of their actions.

    12. "Southern communities were protecting the lynchers from the legal consequences of their actions."

      The things the economically anxious won't do.

  5. If they had any guts they would make "no knock warrants" a hate crime.

    Oh sorry, we killed the wrong black person in the wrong house. Oopsie daisy! I'm such a ditzy armed person!

  6. The anti-lynching law will have no effect. It's just symbolic. We rely on symbolic actions more and more. E.g., there are concerts, dedications, cartoons, etc. that support the Ukraine. The real concern is what weapons we're sending, how many of them, when they arrive, how much training is needed. etc.

    People make miniscule changes in their life style that have no measurable effect on CO2 emissions. Even wind and solar do not have major impact. Under today's technology, the most important action would be building a great many nuclear power plants.

    We're careful not to use the N-word, but we keep black children trapped in failing schools.

    Religions are based on symbolic acts. And, symbolic acts do make us feel good.

    But, symbolic acts do not actually work. Our country will die if we continue to rely on symbolic actions to deal with real problems.

    1. Notice how David leaves out diplomacy and financial pressure as methods of controlling Russian aggression. It is only about guns to him.

      People's behavior created the climate crisis, so it is reasonable to think that by changing that behavior they can mitigate it. His suggested nuclear solutions are not those of experts on the subject.

      I haven't seen any evidence that those on the right, especially the extreme right, are avoiding using the N-word. But I do agree that right wingers and bigots tend to prevent black people from seeking better places to live and go to school.

      A law that allows prosecution of lynchers is not symbolic in places where the public is dominated by those who approve of lynching, including not just the South but also places where militias and secessionists are trying to make their own laws.

    2. @12:15 Do you think Al Sharpton should be prosecuted under this law for his role in the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum?

    3. David,
      It's the same reason plastic-making chemical companies, and not the people, should be on the hook for recycling.

    4. “symbolic acts do not actually work.”

      Can anyone in full possession of their reasoning capacity make such a statement?

      What does “work” mean in this context?

      What exactly do you mean by “symbolic?”

      Symbolic acts, words, gestures, can affect public opinion, which can then affect laws.

      The entire civil rights movement can be seen as a series of symbolic acts. Protests, speeches, by people who had no political power. Their only power came from their solidarity and their willingness to take these actions and face the consequences.

      Rosa Parks sitting where she wasn’t supposed to was a symbolic act, but it led to a Supreme Court case and a change in segregation laws.

      Is writing a symbolic act? Writers don’t “do” anything, but in their advocacy for various causes, they can sway public opinion.

      Give it some thought if you think the American flag, the Christian cross, or the Confederate flag don’t “work” in practical ways.

    5. mh - you got me. Yes, in some circumstances symbolic acts can be useful for motivating people, as your examples demonstrate.

      So, I will modify my assertion to claim that Americans rely too much on symbolic acts.

    6. Symbolic: Carrying a sign that says "de-fund the police"
      Effective: What Micah X. Johnson did.

  7. "Depending on the extent of such attitudes, this strikes us as a very important topic. That said, we were struck by the way Medina instantl6y characterized those voters' views:

    Such people aren't assessing an issue. They're succumbing to "grievance politics," Medina instantly says. "

    You see this dynamic in every town across America, where there are longtime residents of a community confronted by newcomers from somewhere else. In the smallish California community where I lived, the newcomers were the awful people from Orange County, who drove up rents and property prices and created congestion -- they had to put in a traffic light on the main drag because of the interlopers!

    The attitudes of established Hispanics along the Southern border is captured in the 1996 Chris Cooper film, Lone Star. Property owners don't like the immigrants crossing their property. There is competition for low wage jobs. The new people are poor and reflect badly on Hispanics, or they are not Mexican but from other Central or South American countries.

    The resentment over the perceived handouts given to the poor is a hallmark of Republican grievance politics. It doesn't matter whether the poor are new immigrants (even from Afghanistan) or struggling white or black citizens. There is a certain kind of person who becomes semi-prosperous through hardwork and then resents others who are not so fortunate when they need help.

    Of course this is grievance politics -- and it is what the right wing does. That's why such people do not feel comfortable as Democrats any longer. This is a natural evolution. People get money and they become Republicans. Giving it an ethnic tint changes nothing about that dynamic. Immigrants have been coming to the US for our country's existence and people have been resenting them forever too.

    Somerby wants to make a big deal of this, but it has been happening since long before Trump made a fuss about it. It is just another Democrats in disarray story, but why is Somerby, a supposed liberal, singing this sing?

    When Mexican-Americans on the Rio Grande want to make it clear that they are not like all those bad people coming across the border, what better way than to adopt Trump's language? The only question is why Somerby thinks this matters? Why he thinks the press is wrong to be disdainful of the phenomenon. A Republican is inciting the resentments of her constituents to get elected. So what? She isn't even the first Hispanic candidate to do this.

  8. "Tomorrow, we'll try to get to what Charle Blow has said, this past week, about that shooting death. Also, we'll try to get to the novelization which appeared at Slate.

    We'll try to get to the cartoon which emerged from Deborah Roberts at ABC. Some material in the Washington Post was pure journalistic porn."

    Somerby has gone full-out bigot!

    This is what happens when you elect someone like Trump. He gives every lowlife blogger permission to be his worst self. It has become nauseating to read Somerby these days and it makes a person sick at heart to do the work of refuting his garbage.

    His language has deteriorated. His reasoning is absent. He isn't even trying to craft a reasonable essay. What he posts here now is just a rant against those who are still trying to maintain a society that is livable for everyone, not just white old men living in Baltimore.

    There is a war going on, but Somerby uses his podium to blast those who argue for equity and social justice. Whatta guy! The only thing now that makes Somerby any different than your drunken uncle at a family dinner, is that Somerby has a legacy audience from the days when he used to say something readable. Now it is just bigotry and hate 24/7, in service of the worst Republican scum. Arguing against that is a huge waste of time, but it seems wrong to leave Somerby here claiming to be liberal, sane, reasonable when he is about as bad as it gets these days.

    1. Accusing someone of being disloyal is the most trite criticism possible, almost certain to be employed in bad faith. You'll find history's most powerful morons using it to control dissent.

    2. 12:09 - It may also be that you have mental problems. Or that you are trolling. Or both.

    3. "Accusing someone of being disloyal is the most trite criticism possible"

      Somerby was accused of not mentioning the war. Who said anything about disloyalty?

  9. I tend to agree with Bob on a lot of what he is suggesting here, the problem is he is only SUGGESTING it. Suddenly the Times, we should note, is a respectable news outlet when Bob finds something he agrees with. Whatever. Some of us have a libertarian streak that doesn't even like the concept of Hate Crimes, which was a legitimate technique for studying patterns of crime but is dubious presence in our Courts.
    I'm glad Bob brought up the Arbery murder, but he doesn't mention that the nature of the crime and the defense of the killers strongly suggests that the bad old days of the South he insists are over may not be at all. Or even that, northward, stuff went on with the goofball judge in the Rittenhouse case ("Let's give the witness for the defense a round of applause! )that ought to offend serious people.
    President Biden made his promise to put a black woman on the Court because it would attract black and female voters. Some right wingers may have a problem with these ethics being used to choose a candidate for the Court in that fashion. Pardon me while I fart.
    The left's use of identity politics certainly can't be rated as ethically lower than the right's endless water ballet in the sewer. Bob, dedicated to only looking at the ethics of the left and the left press, has no trouble missing this. The question is does it hurt them or help the Democrats? I see a lot of evidence that suggests it hurts them, but it's hard to be sure. The answer is probably "sometimes yes, sometimes no." It's still worth noting the truth in these matters, so go ahead and bring on the skittles. There are other cases Bob could site, but since he's already done this one to death, let's die again. -Greg

    1. Greg, why did you claim that the letter written to Trump by the Crumbley's's mom was representative of how "they" think. You said in the letter she expressed a deep hatred for immigrants but then when asked for specifics, you misquoted the letter.

      Here is the full text of the letter. How can you explain your claim that this includes deep hatred of immigrants and is representative of how "they" think?

    2. I went to a lot of trouble to quote the parts that show that deep hatred, a week or so ago. Now you are just trolling. Your question was answered -- go away.

    3. When, where? Name one. You're lying.

    4. How hard is it to open that link and cut and paste the part you felt like showed deep hatred. When I asked you last time, you misquoted her!!!

    5. The letter is representative of a few things. Notice how she voted on a combination of falsehoods (Trump is a successful businessman, he will bring down medical costs, immigrants today don't work hard like her European relatives did) with real concerns like her medical bills and underfunded public needs, which she wrongly says cannot be shared with new residents. Actually we have a lot of potential money for education, the assholes just would rather we stay dumb, watch sports, and clock in to drive the rich in their Ubers. (See Aviva Chomsky's book for a good debunk of the resentfulness shown here toward new residents.)

      What's called "illegal immigration" is mostly a feature of us constantly making the process of moving here difficult. Ironically, it was way, way easier to apply when the so called "hard working" immigrants in her family came here. And by the way, immigrants work hard as hell still and won't see a penny in social security. No, that money they earned will go to everyone else. We're sponging off them, not the other way around.

      Misinformation works. A study found believing three pieces of information was enough to send away 80 percent of Obama voters from the Hillary ticket, two pieces was about 40 percent, and one was 10 percent. Here's the kicker: feeling like the economy was not working for you had the same effect as believing two pieces of misinformation.

      Democrats consider it gross to come out against capitalism but Trump won her vote with a few canny lies and a posture that he wanted to rein it in.

      Screw Trump and the politics of division. Long live the labor movement, which doesn't need that.

    6. My apologies, I shouldn't have trusted my memory on those numbers, so here's a direct quote:

      "The statistical association between belief in these fake news stories and vote choice in the
      2016 election by former Barack Obama supporters is very strong. Among those who believed
      none of the three fake news stories, 89 percent cast ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016; among
      those who believed one fake news item, this level of electoral support fell to 61 percent; but among those who had voted for Obama in 2012 and believed two or all three of these false assertions,only 17 percent voted for Clinton (Tau-b correlation=.50).
      just 12 percent of those who thought that
      the current economic situation was “good” or “very good” abandoned Hillary Clinton, while 39
      percent who regarded the economy as “poor” or “very poor” defected from the Democratic ticket
      (Tau-b = .24).

      Here's Aviva Chomsky's investigation into the fear-mongering slanders about immigrants.


    7. Where is the deep hatred? Where is the quote of the deep hatred of immigrants? Show me exactly where that is in the letter. Where does she commit the slanders the author here mentions? Show me exactly where it is representative of how they think? So you go from the letter showing a deep hatred to her believing falsehoods? Oh my God what a great reason to hate her and demonize her. Loser.

    8. You are the one who is promulgating falsehoods about Trump voters. "Deep hated" is your invention and utter misinformation.

    9. "immigrants today don't work hard like her European relatives did"

      There's nothing in the letter that says that.

    10. >There's nothing in the letter that says that.

      Where do you think Italy is located? I'll wait.

    11. Feel free to show me where it says immigrants don't work as hard like her father did. And while you're at it, where it shows hatred for immigrants.

    12. You're spreading misinformation. You're lying. You're a liar.

    13. I guess it's just that Somerby thing. You're just not that smart and you recognize shortcomings and others and fail to see them in yourself.

    14. "show me"

      The letter uses the phrase "Hardworking" only in reference to European immigrants, her family.

      But you already know this. You're just a troll.

      I hope one day you find out what sex feels like.

    15. If he calls them hard-working that is not the same as saying other immigrants don't work as hard as they did. Nor is it an expression of hatred. That is all misinformation and lies you have spread. Or maybe it's just another misreading.

    16. Do you really think that shows hatred for immigrants? Do you really think it says "immigrants today don't work hard like her European relatives did"???

      Really? For real, you believe that?

  10. Anon at 4:08 ...... Well, I seem to have been awarded my own "legitimate political discourse" you know, in a Bob or Trump kinda way, just keep repeating your supposedly suspect phrase no matter how many times you've been corrected. First let me say, I have even greater reason not to engage in an exchange with you because the comment section in being shielded (please Bob, get help) from certain people. So I have to hunt down and way to sneak in. So you can see a back and fourth would be highly tricky from my end. Also, you "replied" to a comment I made on a thread addressing the post that was about something else. So can the bad manners, bully.-Greg

    1. The record shows your claim was wrong. And weird! You really believe that letter shows "hatred for immigrants?"?? Very strange just because it doesn't.

    2. You don't understand with the difference between someone being "wrong" and having a different take than you. Mine is well supported, you have gone to full snowflake.

    3. That's fair. Your take is it shows hatred for immigrants. Makes sense.

  11. Further st 4:08, If you feel strongly about the nature of the Crumblys and their crime, why dont YOU post about it? Are you afraid you would embarrass yourself? What are your thoughts on Bob's take? These people weaponized their kid to terrorize and murder innocents at a school They killed four young people. You seem to think the big problem here is Northern Condescension. But if I'm
    wrong, let's get your insight. Can you only play offensive?
    "Thank you for making them PAY for their HANDOUTS!" Mrs. Crumbly wrote to Trump as She instructed her kid that the important thing was not to get caught. Nothing pathological here, move along!
    But I've said too much. From the outset, I mentioned the letter as something people should read on their own, and form and opinion. This seems to really freak you out. -Greg

    1. I don't care at all about them. I'm just interested in misreadings and partisan overstatements.

    2. So the slaughter of four teenagers leaves you indifferent, but there's a chance to own a lib, gotta go!
      Misreading? doubtful... but I suggested readers investigate for themselves. Partisan overstatement? that's a judgement call and I would classify your own comments on this as highly partisan.
      Get help Bob. -Greg

  12. Iron Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated
    Iron titanium aftershokz Plated ray ban titanium Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass apple watch titanium Plated gold titanium alloy Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass Plated Brass smith titanium Plated Brass