What actually happened to the late Michael Brown?


Can we trust the things we're told? Once again, our current, award-winning Case Study is being placed on hold. The reason:

Family members have arrived in town, including two delightful great nieces!

This Gang of 5 is safely ensconced in a Little Italy BNB. Over the next few days, we'll be hearing about Newton's laws of motion as described in a recent grade 5 report!

For these reasons, our own case study will be delayed once again. For the record, we still have a fairly long way to go with this award-winning study.

As we've noted, our case study helps us consider a basic question:

Should we trust the various things we're told by our blue tribe tribunes?

Over the years, we've come to see that the answer is a very clear no. Our ongoing report concerning the alleged beliefs of those (very white) medical students provides a strikingly complex case in point.

For today, we'll float another example—an example involving what our tribe has been told, and tends to believe, about the deeply unfortunate shooting death of the late Michael Brown. The example is drawn from comments to this recent post by Kevin Drum.

Drum barely mentions Michael Brown in his actual post. We were somewhat puzzled by Drum's position concerning the concept of "woke," but the now-iconic death of Brown was only mentioned in passing in Drum's post.

As you can see, that topic was raised by the first commenter to Drum's post. That commenter seems to be taking a bit of an adversarial stance from the red tribe's part of town:

COMMENTER: Question regarding Michael Brown. How many people on this blog still believe the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative?

Somewhat snarkily, the commenter seems to be making a fairly obvious suggestion. He seems to be suggesting that our blue tribe was offered, and has accepted, an inaccurate narrative concerning Brown's death.

Eight comments were offered in rebuttal. In our view, those eight comments help establish the original commenter's point.

None of the commenters seemed to know about the Justice Department's conclusions regarding this tragic death. We refer to the Justice Department of Eric Holder, the attorney general who served under Barack Obama.

None of the commenters seemed to know what Holder's Justice Department said in its lengthy, formal report about the shooting death of Brown. Indeed, none of the commenters seemed to know that any such formal report even exists.

 That may be because the DOJ's findings were largely disappeared by our blue tribe's journalistic "elites." Increasingly, this is the way our own blue tribe's journalistic elites seem to function.

Alas! Again and again, then again and again, members of our own blue tribe don't seem to know how much we don't know—don't seem to realize how many things we aren't being told by such corporate careerists. 

We don't seem to know how much we don't know! To us, those deeply clueless eight comments seem to provide the latest example of this general state of affairs.

Increasingly, the people we see on your cable news screens are tribal propagandists. They tell us the things we'll be happy to hear. They disappear the rest.

Over on the Fox News Channel, a gang of propagandists play a similar function for that channel's red tribe consumers. Within our own blue tents, we're happy to say that they're worse, much worse, on the Fox News Channel. 

Without any question, that may be true. But the question we'd ask you is this:

When do we, within our blue tribe, plan to start healing ourselves?

Increasingly, the people we've been trained to trust are tribal propagandists. (They're "some of our favorite reporters and friends!") 

We've been trained to trust these people by profit-seeking corporate elites. Those profit-seeking "journalistic" elites are selling a tribally pleasing product—and our blue tribe keeps gulping it down.

The case study we delay today lets us look at the way one crazily inaccurate claim came to be widely believed by an array of blue tribe tribunes. We still have a long way to go with our study of that inaccurate claim—but the claim is frequently stated by blue tribe pundits, and the claim is crazily wrong.

Increasingly, this is the way our blue tribe functions. The actors on cable (and elsewhere) feed us our porridge. With gratitude, we swallow it down.

Major experts keep telling us that this is the way our flawed human brains are wired. We humans are wired for tribal belief, or so these top experts all tell us.

One authority tries to explain: One leading authority offers the following account of the Justice Department's formal report concerning the death of Michael Brown:

On August 11, 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened a civil rights investigation into the incident...Forty FBI agents went door-to-door looking for potential witnesses who may have had information about the shooting. Additionally, attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and from the United States Attorney's Office were participating in the investigation.

On March 4, 2015, the federal investigation cleared Wilson of civil rights violations in the shooting. The investigation concluded there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson's asserted belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that forensic evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account...Numerous witnesses were found to have given accounts of actions they were unable to see from their vantage points, or to be recounting others' accounts.

In our view, that's a somewhat limited account of what the DOJ said in its lengthy formal report. But it gives you the general idea.

None of the eight rebuttal commenters mentioned that DOJ study. One possible reason could be this:

Within the tents of our own blue tribe, this DOJ study was largely disappeared. Instead, the children told us about this second, companion report:

On September 5, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice began an investigation of the Ferguson, Missouri, police force to examine whether officers routinely engaged in racial profiling or showed a pattern of excessive force. The investigation was separate from the Department's other investigation of the shooting of Brown. The results of the investigation were released in a March 4, 2015, report, which concluded officers in Ferguson routinely violated the constitutional rights of the city's residents, by discriminating against African Americans and applying racial stereotypes, in a "pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law."

Each of those DOJ reports was very important. Within blue tribe channels, we were told about that second report. The other report was largely disappeared.

By way of contrast, Fox viewers were told about that first report. The snarky first commenter to Drum's post had quite possibly heard all about it.

This is the way our blue tribe currently functions, at least on the profit-seeking end of corporate pseudo-journalism and often within the academy. One final point:

You've heard nothing on blue tribe channels about any follow-up to that second report—to the report about the general conduct of the Ferguson police department. Our multimillionaire cable stars don't care about what happens in Ferguson. Few things are ever more clear.

Your lizard brain will now start insisting that the various things we've just said are terribly wrong, oh so wrong. Disconsolate experts say this reaction is an inevitable part of the package.


  1. "Without any question, that may be true. "

    Tsk. But of course it can't, dear Bob. What it can be is what it is, dear Bob: another instance of your tribal brain-dead dembottery.

  2. https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy

    Here is a pretty good rundown on the origins of the word "woke" and its changed meaning by the right wing. Somerby says he was puzzled by Drum's definition -- so was I, given that it comes nowhere near the original meaning (as used by African Americans) and only reflects the white use of the term by BLM.

    I think it is a good idea to begin a discussion of wokeness with the term's actual origins. Somerby is not doing that. Instead he is using the mere mention of wokeness to revive his complaints about coverage of Michael Brown's shooting. Recall that Brown was an unarmed black man who was killed by a police officer who said that Brown lunged at him, causing him to be so terrified that he just had to shoot Brown dead. Never mind what witnesses said. Brown didn't put them up to saying anything at all. He was lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood. But Somerby somehow thinks that is germane to the justification for his shooting. Because that is how Somerby reasons.

  3. Not sure if Michael Brown was a Leftie, but the cop who shot him is most likely a Rightie, based on how the cop couldn't add the number of feet Brown ran from the cruiser in the story he made up. All cops lie, Left or Right, but not being able to do basic mathematics is a Right-wing trait.

  4. "Your lizard brain will now start insisting that the various things we've just said are terribly wrong, oh so wrong. Disconsolate experts say this reaction is an inevitable part of the package."

    My lizard brain is wondering why Drum talks about "woke" and Somerby goes immediately to Michael Brown's shooting and the rightness of it all, compared to news reporters (and activists) who wondered why he had to die for his misdemeanors. What does that have to do with the way the right wing co-opts a black term and redefines it for its own purposes? Has Somerby no other associations with the word "woke" than to defend the cop who killed Brown? BLM has achieved a major reduction in the number of unarmed people (black and white) killed by police. In that respect, the movement has been a success. Somerby is apparently uninterested in that too. Drum, to his credit, cares about more than just defending racism and calling liberals nasty names, such as "lizard brain."

    While we're at it, that term doesn't come from science or experts, disconsolate or otherwise. It comes from a discredited theory of brain evolution that no scientist has believed for 50 years now. It takes pop science a while to catch up with actual science.

    Our Somerby is so worried about the press saying something incorrect, even if it is later corrected, and yet he is stuck in the things he thought he heard at Harvard and apparently never bothered to catch up with modern versions on any number of topics, including the philosophers who have addressed Wittgenstein's language-related concerns, the computer scientists who value Godel, or the way in which initial current events reporting is subsequently corrected as new info becomes available, whether it is the number killed in last weekend's blizzard, or what witnesses said about Brown. Is Somerby unaware that eyewitness testimony is often wrong and the least reliable form of evidence at trials? Apparently not. And notice how he blames the reporters, not the witnesses who told reporters things.

    And look how he uses Drum's offhand mention of BLM to abandon his discussion of that med student study -- something Somerby himself got more wrong than those hapless witnesses to Brown's shooting, and the reporters who told us what they said (as if the reporters were police investigators). Run, run little Somerby. You can bring up the med school study again next year, repeat your lies again, and pretend that no one ever mentioned your lies about it, while painting the press as a bigger liar than you are.

  5. "As you can see, that topic was raised by the first commenter to Drum's post. That commenter seems to be taking a bit of an adversarial stance from the red tribe's part of town:

    COMMENTER: Question regarding Michael Brown. How many people on this blog still believe the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative?

    Somewhat snarkily, the commenter seems to be making a fairly obvious suggestion. He seems to be suggesting that our blue tribe was offered, and has accepted, an inaccurate narrative concerning Brown's death."

    The commenter asks how many people still believe the false narrative that brown had his hands up in surrender -- implying that no one at Drum's blog still believes it. He is not accusing the commenters of STILL believing that Brown had his hands up when he was shot. Somerby's accusation that commenters were unfamiliar with the later report is wrong. This comment says the opposite -- that no one on Drum's blog still believes the initial reporting by witnesses. This is Somerby's misreading. And frankly, I don't see the snark.

    The red tribe version was that Brown rushed the officer causing him to shoot. The BLM activist version was that Brown was shot in cold blood with his arms raised in surrender (based on an eyewitness account in the press). The corrected version after investigation was that Brown was running away, then stopped and turned and advanced on the officer, who was fearful and shot Brown (12 times). The cop said Brown tried to reach inside the car, upon which he fired twice, then Brown ran away. The commenters on Drum's blog discussed the evidence and said that the cop should have been able to subdue him without killing him, given that he had stopped running and may have been injured at that point. Instead he was killed.

    The comments that come immediately following do not show ignorance of the DOJ report at all, as Somerby claims. The commenters say they do not believe the cop's testimony. They do not believe the cop's life was in danger from Brown. That is very different than the way Somerby is portraying the commenters.

    Personally, I doubt that Somerby went back and refreshed his memory about the shooting. I think he reacted off the top of his head, and that he did not read the commenters carefully or with any objectivity. What Somerby says the commenters said and what I think they said are very different, but anyone here can go read the comments on Drum's blog for themselves.

    Somerby is confusing the red tribe and blue tribe accounts, and he is hearing snark where I don't think there was any. And then he mischaracterizes what the subsequent commenters were discussing -- was it really necessary for the cop to have killed Brown? Even the commenters acknowledged that the cop was not going to be charged. But the commenters are discussing how the shooting might have gone differently. And that doesn't imply they have swallowed any blue tribe propaganda. It implies disagreement with the DOJ narrative that Brown was so scary that he had to die.

    Somerby mind-reads the commenters, saying that they didn't know what was in the DOJ's report. Somerby cannot know what the commenters know from what they said. They were saying they disagreed with that subsequent justification by the officer of his own actions. And Somerby is twisting the words of the commenters on Drum's blog.

    One of the commenters says: "I actually read the grand jury transcripts cover to cover. You can find them online."

    Somerby nevertheless calls the commenters ignorant.

    1. "...and advanced on the officer, who was fearful..."
      Mind-reading by the investigators, or just taking the word of a police officer already caught lying?

  6. "The other report was largely disappeared."

    This is total nonsense.

    It is a matter of focus, not a plot to "disappear" or suppress knowledge that was available to people in the mainstream press. The left was focused on preventing such killings by police and holding police accountable. The right was focused on exonerating the officers who engage in such killings.

    I could go back and find articles about the supposedly disappeared report in the mainstream press of that time period, but I won't waste my time. Whenever Somerby claims something has been hidden on the left, it is easy to contradict his assertion using 5 minutes on Google or with the NY Times index. Try it yourself.

  7. "This is the way our blue tribe currently functions, at least on the profit-seeking end of corporate pseudo-journalism and often within the academy. "

    Notice that Somerby has now broadened his habitual accusation against the press to include "the academy." The academy refers to professors and researchers at colleges and universities nationwide. Have professors really joined the press in manipulating opinion, as Somerby claims? The abandonment of the search for knowledge in favor of propagandizing is first of all unlikely, because of the practice of peer review. It would require a conspiracy to do this. Second, demonstrating bias works against the ways scholars are rewarded. Academics care about their reputations because that is how they get promoted and paid more, via greater visibility as a trusted and reliable scholar. Somerby thinks academics will risk that to convince a few red tribe members of their own point of view? That is far-fetched.

    But Somerby does appear to have joined the right-wing attack on academia. Academics tend to say things that upset red tribe members, because the truth skew left, not because those who seek truth do but because reality is more closely aligned with left wing views. That is why more educated people are Democrats, not Republicans. The right has been attacking universities and scholarship forever, just as authoritarian governments and dictators first task is to dismantle the universities. A free society depends upon the free search for knowledge that occurs among scholars. An attack on thought among professors is an attack on democracy, just as much as Somerby's ongoing crusade against the mainstream press is.

    Notice how Somerby attacks press for reporting on Brown's killing, then he shifts to include academics at the end, without any evidence or proof or even argument. He just adds academia into his concluding sentences. Bait and switch. And for those who do not believe Somerby is right wing, notice that he is promoting yet another right-wing talking point with this maneuver, joining the right's attack on professors (see Dinesh D'Souza or David Horowitz). If Somerby were liberal or progressive, he wouldn't be doing that. But then, he wouldn't be writing most of what he writes here.

    1. This is a really stupid comment..

    2. See how Somerby’s contentions on the quality and professionalism of the news reporting and the intellectual honesty of the experts is morphed into the suggestion that Somerby wishes to silence journalists in general and undermine all expertise. Criticism is now tantamount to sabotage.

      We see this ridiculous and duplicitous take in the face of Obama’s DoJ finding nothing that would justify the nightly violence, chaos and burning in Ferguson, that was breathlessly and uncritically reported upon by the media

      It’s trash blogboard psy-ops.

    3. This is what justified the protests:


      Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department by the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, March 4, 2015

    4. Anonymouse 2:36pm, I’m afraid that a CNN panel did not put their hands in the air and say “Hands up, don’t shoot” over the injustices that were sited in the DoJ report.

      The meme was and continues to be that police have no problem gunning down a black kid over shoplifting. THIS despite the report.

      THIS despite the tenets of journalism and the intellectual rigor…of our experts.

    5. CNN is not BLM. It is a cable news channel.

      The protests arose over police actions, not CNN. Those are detailed in the DOJ report on the Ferguson police force, Riots are not solely about the precipitating event but the result of built-up frustrations over endemic and institutional wrongs. The report described those.

      The meme (as you call it) is consistent with statistics maintained by the Washington Post over police shootings of unarmed people (black and white). BLM because a national movement because organizers decided Ferguson was a last straw and something needed to be done. Their accomplishment has been to motivate actions in police forces nationwide, that have results in a significant reduction in police killings of unarmed people since 2015. Kevin Drum reported that on his blog awhile back.

      Your simple-minded synopsis of what happened in Ferguson is pathetic. In view of what BLM achieved due to largely peaceful (95%) protests, Somerby's fixation on Brown's misdeeds makes no sense at all. Brown didn't deserve to die for anything that occurred and it is clear that Miller lied and could have prevented the killing, if only by starting his car and leaving, or calling for backup while waiting in his car with the windows up. Instead, he shot an 18 year old who wasn't even a shoplifter (as far as Miller knew). Rousting black teens for jaywalking is one of the police activities constituting harassment in the DOJ Report on Ferguson's policing.

    6. Anonymouse 3:30pm, all the public angst was about the police shooting of Michael Brown.

      It was not necessary to have any sort of build up in public tension via daily non-lethal injustices to inspire outrage over the shooting of a teenager.

      It is the job of the media and politicians to bring some restraint and clarity to this sort of situation.

      Unfortunately, that role has been utterly jettisoned in the service of partisan politics of all persuasions and that fact is a continuing contention of this blog.

      Despite the findings of a DoJ investigation, the “Hands up, don’t shoot” meme continues today as seen by a panel of media and chattering class experts and lesser anonymouse souls on this blog.

    7. Being against shooting black teenagers is political? Are you saying the right is for it? Really?

    8. As usual, Cecelia has no idea what she is saying.

  8. It was never difficult to find the available
    facts in the Brown case. The Washington
    Post rightfully humiliated Vice President
    Harris and Senator Warren for
    calling it murder. It has not been the
    left’s finest hour, but you were always
    free to make up your own mind.
    In recent weeks, the news from
    the committee has demonstrated
    conclusively that Bob has spent six
    years making a horse’s ass of himself defending
    Donald Trump and his enablers.
    He’ll still do it, but it’s a tough hang
    every day. So we get more of
    Reverse Racism’s Greatest Hits.
    Unhappy New Year, Bob.
    You are a lousy person.

    1. Lots of black teens (Brown was 18) are frightened of the police. It is natural for someone to run away when scared. Sometimes that flight response is hard to overrule, when someone is panicked. I do not understand why cops are permitted to shoot unarmed teens when they are running away like that.

      Bob Somerby has not described anything in Holder's Report that explains this part of the situation. I don't think the press or activists are lying when they raise questions like this.

    2. Brown was walking into stores, taking stuff off the shelves and pushing the owner out of the way ( his friend said this was a “prank” they engaged in from time to time), he acted in the same way when confronted by the cop( as backed up by DNA evidence and eye witnesses). So he wasn’t acting like he was afraid of anyone
      ( almost any suburban white kid would be terrified to treat act that way) and Holder said the shooting was justified. My own feeling is that Brown was mentally challenged, and the cop should have called for back up. But you misrepresent the facts in a way that is all too typical of activists and even the Corporate left media (MSNBC). Liberals who remain silent (like me) in there situations share in the blame, there was no good reason to burn down Ferguson and Micheal Brown was a bad one.

    3. And those are crimes punishable by death?

      “Smith was a bad one,” you say. A bad what? And presumably white suburban kids do bad things too, such as commit mass shootings or take a gun to a protest and use it to kill unarmed protesters.

    4. An officer has training, a badge, a uniform, a car, and authority, but he gets so scared he can’t handle an 18 year? Yeah, that’s plausible. About as plausible as your suggestion that “bad” teen wouldn’t feel fear when shot at by police.

    5. "Brown reached through the window of Wilson's police SUV. Wilson was armed with a pistol, which was fired twice during the struggle from inside the vehicle, with one bullet hitting Brown's right hand."

      How many teens do you know that have tried to grab a cop's gun? That act of lunacy was Brown's first, so what is a cop supposed to think and do? Not be fearful? Brown was 6 feet 4 inches tall, and weighed 292 pounds.

    6. Why would a cop aproach Brown on the street if he was so big and yet doing nothing more than jaywalking? That is now decriminalized in CA because cops were using it as an excuse to roust minorities. I think it is only the cop’s word he reached in. I don’t think any sized teen would have done that.

    7. Credible eyewitnesses and forensic evidence support the cop's word. Numerous witness accounts were consistent with Wilson's account and also agreed with the physical evidence at hand. Many witnesses corroborated that Wilson acted in self-defense during the event.
      Witness 102 was a 27-year-old biracial male. He said he saw Wilson chase Brown until Brown abruptly turned around. Brown did not put his hands up in surrender but made some type of movement similar to pulling his pants up or a shoulder shrug and then made a full charge at Wilson. Witness 102 thought Wilson's life was threatened and he only fired shots when Brown was coming toward him.
      Witness 103, a 58-year-old black male, testified that from his parked truck he saw "Brown punching Wilson at least three times in the facial area, through the open driver's window of the SUV... Wilson and Brown [had] hold of each other's shirts, but Brown was 'getting in a couple of blows [on Wilson]'."[13]: p.29  Wilson was leaning back toward the passenger seat with his forearm up, in an effort to block the blows.
      Witness 108, a 74-year-old black male, told detectives the police officer was "in the right" and "did what he had to do", and that statements made by people in the apartment complex about Brown surrendering were inaccurate. Witness 108 later told investigators he "would have fucking shot that boy, too", and mimicked the aggressive stance Brown made while charging Wilson. He explained Wilson told Brown to "stop" or "get down" at least ten times, but instead Brown "charged" at Wilson. Witness 108 also told detectives there were other witnesses on Canfield Drive who saw what he saw.
      Witness 109, a 53-year-old black male, said he decided to come forward after seeing Dorian Johnson "lie" about the events on television.  He said when Wilson asked the two boys to get out of the street, Brown responded something to the effect of "Fuck the police." Afterward, Wilson got out of his car and Brown hit him in the face. Witness 109 said he saw Wilson reach for his taser but dropped it and then grabbed a gun, after which Brown grabbed for Wilson's gun. According to 109, at one point Brown ran away from Wilson, but turned around and charged toward the officer. He said Wilson fired in self-defense, and did not appear to be shooting to kill at first.[13]: p.33 

      Witness 113, a 31-year-old black female, made statements that corroborated Wilson's account. She said she was afraid of the "neighborhood backlash" that might come from her testimony, and feared offering an account contrary to the narrative reported by the media that Brown held his hands up in surrender.[13]: pp.33–34  She also told investigators she thought Wilson's life was in danger.


    8. /~``~`~``--+}}\;|[ree~~ \|\|\|\|\|\| 41 ___==___(0) /%? ? ? / [a2] ^$% "'"' {]}[{]}[] ><<>><<> \|\\ * **** ** *** ;) {}{}()() ?? !! +-_=""/

    9. Officer Wilson didn't do himself any favors not learning how distances work.

    10. "...so what is a cop supposed to think and do? Not be fearful?"
      Why not? Per the nonstop, media propaganda about brave police officers, who put their lives on the line, why would a brave first responder with a gun fear a teenager without one?

    11. 'Brown was 6 feet 4 inches tall, and weighed 292 pounds."
      Yet, when he punched Officer Wilson in the face twice, it didn't leave a mark. Per Officer Wilson, who I am told is not a liar, despite all the lies he told.

    12. That Officer Wilson said he felt the teenager was bulking-up, like the Hulk, to run through a hail of bullets to get at him, should have taken his defense of "reasonable" fear for his life and well-being off the table.

  9. "What actually happened to the late Michael Brown?"

    He was shot by a police officer and died of his wounds. Is there any doubt about that?

    1. Would any serious adult call that the whole story?

    2. I wouldn’t call Holder’s report the whole story either.

    3. fffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttttttttttttttt

  10. Vis a vis the mask discussion yesterday, Digby today says that she hasn't gotten sick once since she began routinely wearing a mask on airplanes, not with covid or anything else (cold, flu).

    1. The people who at this point make up their own minds ( and are not bullied by creeps like Bill Maher and Fox News) about their health are really to be admired.

  11. At noon on August 9, Wilson drove up to Brown and Johnson as they were walking in the middle of Canfield Drive and ordered them to move off the street. Wilson continued driving past the two men, but then backed up and stopped close to them. A struggle took place between Brown and Wilson after Brown reached through the window of Wilson's police SUV, a Chevrolet Tahoe. Wilson was armed with a SIG Sauer P229 pistol, which was fired twice during the struggle from inside the vehicle, with one bullet hitting Brown's right hand. Brown and Johnson fled and Johnson hid behind a car. Wilson got out of the vehicle and pursued Brown. At some point, Wilson fired his pistol again, while facing Brown, and hit him with at least six shots, all in the front of his body. Brown was unarmed and died on the street. Less than 90-seconds passed from the time Wilson encountered Brown to the time of Brown's death.

    1. I don't believe Somerby has ever mentioned Johnson in any of his many essays about Brown.

    2. I don't believe so, either. What should Somerby say about Johnson?

    3. Johnson was a witness. Why would the cops harrass Brown and not Johnson? Did Johnson say Brown reached into the car? Did he see Brown shot? Why is the bullying laid only at Brown’s feet when he was with Johnson?

  12. Is the FBI aware of all these Michael Brown truthers?

    1. That the corrupt Ferguson Police Department were nickel and diming black citizens to pay for their overtime?
      We can only hope so.

    2. The FBI investigating white supremacist terrorist groups shows political bias against the Republican Party.

    3. Anonymouse9:31pm, why were they working overtime?

    4. $$$.
      Police work is incentivized by how much loot the cops walk away with.

    5. Look at this! There is a piece of shit thing calling itself Cecelia trying to mimic a human being by pretending to have gender. Empathy is what makes someone human. No girly name can redeem a worthless sociopath like you.

    6. No matter the context, I’m always humbled by anonymouse displays of empathy.

    7. This from the piece of shit who yesterday called a human being a “thing” for not using Cecelia’s pronouns. You piece of shit sociopath. You don’t belong here among genuine humans. Even Mao is a better person than you.

    8. You should be thankful Cecelia. Such nuts are used to dismiss actual white racism and garden variety bigotry. As I suspect you know.

    9. Also, I got all the exculpatory information on the cop and the shooting in real time when the trial took place. These were outlets Bob would call “Blue Tribe.”

    10. Anonymouse 12:09am, knock yourself out.

      Referring to yourself as a they or them is the most dehumanizing impersonal status that can be claimed. It’s a type of disassociation. Why not call yourself Legion?

      It’s an assault on the concept of personhood and is wholly synonymous with being an “it”, a thing, and a no…thing.

      You go along with that. I never will.

    11. Triggered, Sis?

    12. haven’t called anyone a sociopath or a piece of shit.

      You’re only anonymices.

    13. Treating various people and groups as subhuman nothings is a staple of contemporary Republican politics. Cecelia is just your garden variety exponent.

    14. Cecelia @9:33 said: "You’re only anonymices."

      And yet Cecelia thinks it is OK to regularly call other commenters here rodents, because they don't use choose to use the nyms she wants them to. Calling people animals is no better than calling them "things" or "it" (terms applied to objects, not people). There is no excuse for this behavior. And yes, that makes Cecelia a piece of shit and a sociopath. Sociopaths consider other people to be objects placed around them for their own convenience, to be used, harmed, discarded at whim. Who knows what Cecelia does to others in real life.

    15. anon 11:11 - outrage is the rage nowadays - one of the click bait tropes on the screen is how this or that thing that someone somewhere said is or has caused "outrage." The standard for what is an "outrage" certainly has gone down. And here you are outraged by being called "anonymice" - good going!! But Cecelia is being good-naturedly witty, it's a play on words anonymousE plural is anonymice. You don't seem to mind the vile, deranged poster anon 11:57 and 12:09. It would be nice if the libs here were as good natured and rational as Cecilia is - and I don't agree with her often.

    16. No, Cecelia is being a bitch. There is no requirement to be good natured toward a person who is trying to provoke others here.

      I have asked Cecelia several times to stop calling anonymous commenters mice. No, Cecelia does not intend it as word-play. It is hostile to those who do not want to use a nym.

      "it's a play on words anonymousE plural is anonymice."

      The point is not how the plural of mouse is formed, it is that Cecelia thinks it is fine to call other people rodents. That isn't any more funny than calling a person who has listed pronouns an "it" and a "thing" instead of a human being. If you can't understand that, you are no better than Cecelia.

      Cecelia was snidely attacking trans people, intersex people, nonbinary people and others who want to define their own gender, just as those of us who call ourselves anonymous here are defining our own screen presence. It is the same principle. You may find it a funny joke but others here find it a hostile attack on self-definition, something conservatives don't seem to be able to tolerate except in themselves. Are you that guy, AC/MA? Do you think it is A-OK for conservatives to define what others may say, do, be? Think about it.

      I think you agree with Cecelia quite a bit, especially given that you both are here to shore up Somerby's garbage.

    17. AC/ MA,
      Preach it!
      Being criticized is now called "cancel culture", and viewing ideas through the lens of someone who isn't a straight white male is derided as being "woke".


    18. Anonymouse 12:16, it’s astounding to me that you can feign umbrage over being called an anonymouse and rip your hair out over pushback against your new age delusion that biology is a matter of mindset, yet with malicious joy, you’ll call a blogger a pedophile over his complimenting the singing of a 10-year-old. You’ll do THAT sheerly and completely out of political pique.

      Who sre you kidding? Anonymices aren’t in the same galaxy as empathy. That fact is not dependent upon the social policies you endorse.

      No one is fooled by your whining. Anonymices are here as a political militia. You’re here to write harangue after harangue. That’s your job and your only job, anonymouse. Can the moral outrage act. You don’t have those chops.

    19. If you aren’t empathetic towards Bob Somerby, you have no empathy. Shorter Cecelia.

    20. Shorter AC/MA: do as I say, not as I do. As for painting Cecelia as the voice of reason, get help.

    21. Anonymouse1:51pm, no. It’s not merely unempathetic to suggest that Bob has the hots for ten-year-olds. because you don’t appreciate his political takes on the culture.

      It’s beastly.

    22. And yet the right keeps calling everyone everywhere on the left pedophiles, and you haven't said a word against it. They are your bros. Look up Frazzledrip -- that's what you've been endorsing, especially now that Trump has joined QAnon.

      Somerby has been oozing slime over preteens for decades now. Go back and read what he wrote about Malala, or Anne Frank. I am basing my comments on what Somerby writes, not fantasy like the right wing does.

      And you close with another animal reference (beastly).

      Lolita is the most beautifully written, empathetic book about a pedophile ever. But Humbert Humbert still is what he is. So is Somerby when he defends child marriage, reminding us that it used to be common back when girls were property of men. But I think one of Somerby's most offensive essays was the one about Godel and that wasn't about culture wars or politics. He was essentially saying that if he couldn't understand Godel's work, then it must be gibberish, and mocking Godel for having dementia at the end of his life. Whatta guy our Somerby is!

    23. Anonymouse3:19pm, Somerby didn’t defend child marriages, he pointed out that dating between an adult and an of-age teenager is not defined as being pedophilia. It’s not the same as handing 3rd graders money to tip drag queen performers.

      It’s interesting that it’s dangerous and bigoted for parents to be outraged over that drag queen displays at schools and libraries, but Somerby’s remarks on Gödel are unforgivably inappropriate.

      Bob pointed out that women, in their late teens. being courted by Cary Grant or William Holden was the stuff of many Hollywood scripts. He didn’t suggest that makes it fine and dandy, just that the current attention to the matter was highly politicized.

      Indeed it is salient info that Roy Moore had these relationships and it was rightly reported.

      The fact that the most widely reported relationship had been approved by the of-age teen’s parent should have been as widely broadcasted too, but that fact was an ant at the media picnic- which was Somerby’s contention.

      Of course , it’s your game to interpret admiration for Malala and Anne Frank as being lascivious despite Somerby having involvement and interest in nieces and now grand nieces. It’s what anonymices do while calling others contemptible.

    24. anon 1:10, I'm very outraged by your post.plus I'm melting like a snowflake into a big puddle.

    25. 14 is not “of age” in the US

    26. Somerby gushes over teen girls (never boys) and he doesn’t just say he admires them (as many of us do). He is embarrassing.

    27. anon12:16, I don't know why you are so upset about being called an "anonymouse." Mice are cute. Look at Mickey Mouse, and what about that mouse in that movie, Ratatouille, a most lovable character. And Mighty Mouse, plus that book Maus. But, aside from that, the most logical conclusion I can come up with is that your presentation here is an elaborate parody of a woke liberal. Nobody possibly could be as absurd as you, and least one would hope not. I'm thinking that you might actually be Thomas Pynchon, pulling off such a brilliant satire.

    28. What a moron you are.

    29. If it wasn't for women, planes would run on time.

    30. Without women planes can’t takeoff.

    31. The Wright sisters? Women are in the back of the plane serving coffee and juice where they should be. Men are in the front flying the plane, doing the work. That's the way it's always been and the way it always will be.

    32. 12:24/ Trump 2024!

    33. They don't call people who say there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot "Republican Truthers". They call them "liars".

  13. We getcha free 'cause the clips be fat boss
    Them, they're the jams and commence to going off
    She sweats the beat and ask me 'cause she puffed it
    Me, I got crew kids seven and a crescent
    Us cause a buzz when the nickel bags are dealt
    Him, that's my man with the asteroid belt
    They catch a fizz from the Mr. Doodle-big
    He rocks a tee from the Crooklyn nine-pigs
    The rebirth of slick like my gangsta stroll
    The lyrics just like loot come in stacks and rolls
    You used to find a Bug in a box with fade
    Now he boogies up your stage plaits twist or braids

  14. Women need to get in the kitchen and stay in the kitchen.

    1. Men need to get on their Lawn-Boys and stay on their Lawn-Boys.

    2. Women need to shut up.

    3. @11:43 & 1:06 - cranky because someone defaced his Elliot Rodger poster

  15. I fail to see the point in reviving discussion of Brown. Is Somerby trying to argue that BLM shouldn't have happened? The BLM movement has resulted in a substantial reduction in police killings of unarmed people (white and black). So what is Somerby's beef? That reduction in itself shows that changes in policing can and did result in fewer deaths. Arguably, that justifies the complaints by BLM, without picking apart the mishandling of the interaction with Brown, which resulted in his death at the hands of cops. The investigation and reforms in St. Louis similarly justify the need for change, regardless of what Brown and Miller did and didn't do.

    Somerby often seems to think that if he can pinpoint one tiny flaw in a news report, that invalidates all of the rest of what the press has done, or it overturns the claims involved, even when there is substantial other evidence that has not been examined. That is wrong. There is no chance that BLM and its accomplishments can be overturned by Somerby's complaints about how Brown's killing was reported, especially early on.

    If witness statements can be majorly flawed, Gloucon's reliance on them needs to be substantiated by something beyond what the interrogators got a few witnesses to say. I personally find it majorly implausible that any 18 year old would lean into a police car and punch an officer in the face, several times. It makes no sense at all. In academia, we would say it "doesn't pass the smell test." Somerby finds that plausible when he rejects other things that do make sense. Partly that is because Somerby rarely considers anything in a broader context, in Brown's case, in the context of everything that is known about both the officer and Brown and the situation. Context matters, but not to Somerby, ever.

    1. Rayshard Brooks fought and defeated two cops and then stole there taser at the Atlanta Wendy's shooting. What makes you think a much bigger and younger man can't try it too? These thing are rare but they do happen.

    2. Cop cars come windows and doors that lock.

  16. Most of your suspicions about about Bob are well founded, at 12:02. His game now is to
    write about anything but but the Trump report,
    where he will invariably take a ridiculous position and make a fool of himself. The
    horrors of black racism will be his
    predictable go to.
    But to be more fair to Bob than he deserves
    , some on the left have been playing the
    short memory game on the Brown case.
    That is, when the verdict on the Brown
    case and Holder’s report came out, the
    left was quiet with good reason: most
    of the facts disputed what anti cop
    hysteria they had been fanning. So,
    they just waited a certain amount of
    time for everybody to forget the facts,
    and they started in again.
    Happens all the time. Are Joe and
    Mika really throwing Dr. Ford under the
    bus when they talk about poor Kavanaugh?
    Well, a lot of us forgot what all that was
    about. The ultimate example is
    Monica Lewinsky and the Clinton
    Impeachment, where attention whore
    Lewinsky simply waited a generation
    for everyone to forget She was trying
    to extort a high paying job out of the
    White House, and got her TV Movie
    at last.

    1. anon 12:46, you are quite wrong - there are millions of things other than the "Trump report" that TDH has neglected to write about. Possibly, if you'd like to read about that report, there are other avenues for you. but otherwise not a bad post.

    2. A fucking awful and unnecessary post with no other purpose than to goad civil rights supporters.

    3. anon 8:42, thanks for expressing your outrage.

  17. Hello vcare!
    Would you like to meet Mister Fanny?
    If so, then reply to my comment.
    You will be most pleased.
    Mister Fanny can make all of your dreams come true.