A WEEK IN THE LIFE: Less than a dozen, though possibly more!


Two imitations of life: As of last Thursday night, the first few facts about the matter had started to emerge.

A limited number of classified documents had been found in a Washington office belonging to President Biden. That said, how many such classified documents had been found? 

On that afternoon's Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace asked one of her favorite reporters and friends to explain:

WALLACE (1/12/23): Carol Leonnig, tell me what we know to be the facts at this hour about the classified documents that the Biden White House and the Biden lawyers have turned over to the [National] Archives and DOJ.

In the first four minutes of the show, Wallace had already offered an early primer in the ways the facts of this case seemed to differ from the earlier, year-long struggle involving classified documents and Donald J. Trump. 

That said, the facts of this new case had just begun to emerge. Wallace asked Leonnig for the facts as they had come to be known at that hour.

Providing unintentional comic relief at one point, Leonnig replied as shown:

LEONNIG (continuing directly):  Nicolle, you couldn't be more right in focusing on the differences between the so-called Trump case and the Biden case. What we know so far about Biden's classified records is that an assistant in his office is feeling very badly because there were less than a dozen, but still at least 11 or 12 copies of documents that were classified. that were in and discovered, in early November, in his center based in Wilmington, and also with Washington offices.

Later, very much later, in the last couple of days, more, a handful more of documents were found that were closer to Biden's home in Wilmington...

In fact, that additional "handful more of documents" had been found in Biden's Wilmington home. That said:

As is required by Cable News Law, Leonnig started by telling Wallace that she couldn't be any more right in what she had already said. These "deference rules" are now widely observed on blue and red tribe "cable news."

Weirdly, Leonnig then vouched for the sincerity and good faith of an unnamed Biden adviser. This Biden adviser was said to be "feeling very badly" about some unspecified aspect of these emerging events.

That was an extremely strange journalistic statement. The unintentional humor came when Leonnig tried to define the number of classified documents involved in this new chase. 

How many such classified records had been found in the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C.? There were "less than a dozen, but still at least 11 or 12," Leonnig told Wallace and the rest of the circle of friends.

Quickly, let's be fair! Leonnig is a very experienced, very high-ranking reporter for the Washington Post. It's also true that everyone gets their language tangled up on occasion, especially when they engage in contemporaneous, off-the-cuff speech.

Still, the analysts chuckled! According to Leonnig, the number of documents found at the Penn Biden Center was less than a dozen, but at least 11 or 12. We've spent the past four days trying to puzzle out what that formulation could correctly be said to mean.

("Less than a dozen" would mean that the number of documents was 11 at the most. "At least 11 or 12" would somewhat fuzzily seem to mean that the number was 11 at the least, and possibly more than 12.)

Everyone's can get tangled up, but the analysts chuckled at that. Much, much stranger was Leonnig's instant act of vouching for the Biden team's apparent good faith. 

To this day, it remains hard to know exactly how many classified documents are involved in this new and unfortunate news event. Beyond that, our pundits rarely provide exact numbers about the number of documents involved in "the so-called Trump case."

For the record: 

By most counts, 325 classified documents emerged from Trump's Mar-a-Lago lair during the endless attempt by the federal government to get the documents back. By most counts, sixty (60) of those documents had been marked Top Secret.

As far as anyone knows at this time, the basic numbers in these two cases are therefore vastly different. By most current accounts, fewer than twenty documents seem to have emerged in the Biden matter—and twenty is a substantially smaller number than 325.

That said, the Biden number is hard to define, in part because the Biden team has started reporting the number of classified pages found at his Wilmington home (apparently, six), rather than the number of classified documents. Inevitably, such distinctions will fly over the heads of the modern American journalist, including at the Washington Post, a famous American newspaper which is currently being transformed.

If you're interested in the basic facts of this case, the facts will often be hard to find. Something else won't be hard to find:

We refer to the dueling Storylines which will often be driving the action.

Last Thursday, when very few facts were actually known, Wallace was already working from tribal Storyline on her very popular blue tribe TV program. Within that tribal Storyline, Biden was a bewildered innocent in this evolving matter. 

It may turn out to be the case that Biden actually was a bewildered innocent. That said, Storyline was running well ahead of known facts as Wallace unveiled her scripts.

Leonnig added unintentional comic relief with her puzzling account of the numbers. That night, on the Fox News Channel, a different Storyline emerged.

That Storyline came from Tucker Carlson. In fact, the Storyline which emerged from Carlson was much more like a self-published true crime / horror novel. 

The transcript of the bulk of Carlson's opening monologue can be reviewed right here. To its credit, Fox News was at least willing to publish a record of (most of) what its TV star said—and the transcript carries these headlines:

TUCKER CARLSON: This is the beginning of the end for Biden
Tucker reacts to Biden allegedly mishandling documents

In fairness, the headline writer had thrown the word "allegedly" in. Tucker was much less circumspect as he crafted his thrilling red tribe novel.

Leonnig's account of the number of documents provided some comic relief. Other parts of what she said seemed to betray an unattractive acquiescence to instant Storyline.

On yesterday afternoon's Deadline: White House, the clowning was ugly and stupid. We hope to get to that by the end of the week—but even yesterday's stupid behavior wasn't as striking as the screeching novelization performed by Carlson last Thursday night.

Everywhere President Roosevelt looked, he saw "one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished."  Everywhere we look today, we see imitations of (journalistic) life.

What we don't see or hear from our own tribe is devotion to various serious topics of a type which actually matter. 

You will never see Wallace and her favorite friends discuss the types of events described in this (deeply flawed) report about the public schools of Shaker Heights—about the needs and the interests of the black kids who attend school in that well-known Ohio town.

Yesterday, Wallace pretended to honor Dr. King. In truth, she and her circle of well-heeled friends happily piddled the day away in service to Storyline.

These endless events are all part of A Week in The (Imitation of) Life. Tomorrow, we'll turn to the dumbfounding novel Tucker created on his very strange program that night.

Journalistically speaking, Nicolle Wallace presides over a daily imitation of life. Tucker tends to take things a bit farther, though he does occasionally seem to raise questions which someone might sensibly ask.

Tomorrow: Tucker's imitation of life


  1. Somerby makes a fuss over the words "in" and "closer to." Carol Leonnig says:

    "Later, very much later, in the last couple of days, more, a handful more of documents were found that were closer to Biden's home in Wilmington..."

    Somerby says:

    "In fact, that additional "handful more of documents" had been found in Biden's Wilmington home."

    That isn't exactly true either. The NY Times says:

    "The additional pages, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said, were discovered hours after a White House statement on Thursday morning that cited only one that Mr. Biden’s aides had discovered the night before in a storage area adjacent to the garage of the president’s home in Wilmington."

    Strictly speaking, as Somerby wishes to speak, Biden does not live in a storage area adjacent to his garage. I'm fairly confident he lives in a house, like nearly everyone else does.

    The NY Times says: "Thursday evening, the White House said, Justice Department officials had gone to retrieve that page, and a White House lawyer had met them to oversee the transfer. Five additional classified pages were then identified among the materials with it."

    As with Trump's cache of documents, Somerby expects precision at a point where documents are still emerging, where journalists have not been given solid counts, and have not been direct participants in the document recovery.

    Somerby has a grand time laughing at the journalists who are trying not to be wrong about the counts, hedging a bit, perhaps talking about documents when only one had been found on Biden's property, not the 5 more that emerged when the officials went to retrieve that 1.

    But the orders of magnitude are clear.

    Trump deliberately stole thousands of documents he wasn't entitled to have, and refused to return them. Biden's staff failed to return handfuls and when that was discovered, they cooperated fully in returning them. If it is less than a dozen or 11-12 (perhaps depending on whether you add in that 1 additional document first discovered near the Wilmington garage at Biden's home, or 5 more (which would be more than a dozen but less than two dozen, for those with terminal excessive literalness).

    Somerby thinks this is funny. Why? Because, just as conservatives like to own the libs, Somerby likes to own journalists, especially female ones. Laughing at women, even when they are essentially correct and have done nothing wrong, just makes Somerby's day! Never mind that the exact number doesn't really matter. Never mind that no one cares about this except Somerby. Because we all know that 11 is not 12 and if it isn't 12 then it isn't a dozen and must be less than a dozen, even if you later find another one that would make it 12 and a dozen later on.

    Can Somerby be a bigger asshole?

    1. "Because we all know that 11 is not 12 and if it isn't 12 then it isn't a dozen and must be less than a dozen, even if you later find another one that would make it 12 and a dozen later on."

      Profound. I shall ruminate on this the rest of the day.

    2. Why not? That's what Somerby is wasting his time on.

    3. So if the blog topic is a waste of time what does that say about comments made about it?

    4. Making a comment that the blog is wasting people's time is a public service to those who can read. It doesn't follow that the comment itself is a waste of time, if even one person is spared the agony of reading Somerby today.

    5. “Trump deliberately stole thousands of documents he wasn't entitled to have, and refused to return them. Biden's staff failed to return handfuls and when that was discovered, they cooperated fully in returning them. If it is less than a dozen or 11-12 (perhaps depending on whether you add in that 1 additional document first discovered near the Wilmington garage at Biden's home, or 5 more (which would be more than a dozen but less than two dozen, for those with terminal excessive literalness).”

      How’s this for excessive literalness: what sort of plaudits are we to give for 12 classified documents or 1200 classified documents (six years in Biden’s custody) wholeheartedly returned when discovered in a shed in this climate?

      What a guy!

      Any nuclear codes?

    6. Go away and take Trump with you.

    7. Cecelia, the poor thing, was conned by a failed real estate developer from Queens.
      So sad.

  2. "That said, the Biden number is hard to define, in part because the Biden team has started reporting the number of classified pages found at his Wilmington home (apparently, six), rather than the number of classified documents. "

    Is Somerby sure they are actually doing this? It doesn't make sense that the Biden team would use a method of counting that magnifies the number instead of minimizing it. Pages can be individually classified within a document where other pages are not classified -- each page is individually marked. But there is no benefit to counting individual pages for press purposes.

    Further, unless Somerby himself has access to information not available to cable news or the press, how does Somerby know what is meant by each of the sources when they do their reporting?

    A larger issue is what is gained by clouding the issue, muddying the water, when it comes to counting a trivial number and comparing it to a much larger number? Does creating confusion help clarify the differences between what Biden did and what Trump did, or does it help Trump and the conservatives when they want to claim that these two presidents have done the same thing?

    When Somerby laughs about the difference between 11-12 and less than a dozen, does he also laugh when Trumpies try to call thousands of stolen documents the same as a handful of overlooked documents that were not returned as they should have been at the end of Biden's VP term. And isn't there a difference between what the president himself does as he deliberately steals documents and refuses to return them, and a president whose staff let him down, who didn't even know he had such documents, and immediately returned them?

    At the very least, Somerby has an odd sense of humor. If he seriously thought liberals would laugh along with him at this laboriously contrived "joke," no wonder he failed in his standup career.

  3. "It may turn out to be the case that Biden actually was a bewildered innocent. That said, Storyline was running well ahead of known facts as Wallace unveiled her scripts."

    A reporter with no knowledge otherwise gives the president the benefit of the doubt, and Somerby calls that "storyline"?

    Not even the liberal press got ahead of itself and called Trump a thief when Trump's documents were first discovered. They waited until he made statements about the documents being his, until they started attributing intent to him.

    Somerby manufactures storyline in the inadvertent extemporaneous wording of a single reporter's document-count. That is very slim evidence to accuse the entire press corps of marching in lock-step. But it does reveal Somerby's motives clearly -- he wants to accuse the press corps of furthering a liberal storyline so that he can claim the news is actually fake, propaganda from the left, so that...what? How does this benefit us liberals, the group Somerby calls himself part of? How does it benefit anyone except the right wing, for whom THIS is storyline about the media?

    For Somerby, this has nothing to do with accuracy. It is all about smearing the mainstream media and then calling them liberals, painting everyone who is not conservative with a single brush. Over silliness about whether 11 is less than a dozen!

    And no, Somerby's actions today are not funny. Just sad. And he hopes no one will read him too closely, so that his negative impression of the press will linger, without anyone seeing that it is built on nonsense (as it often is).

  4. “What we don't see or hear from our own tribe is devotion to various serious topics of a type which actually matter. “

    They discuss the war in Ukraine. They discuss voting rights. They discuss social justice and the legacy of Dr King. They discuss bills passed and signed into law over the past two years and their impact on Americans. They discuss economic policy. They even have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on to discuss economic inequality.

    All important topics, all ignored by Somerby.

  5. Evidently, Leonnig meant to say a bakers dozen.

    1. You just took the wind out of Somerby's ever so hilarious joke at Leonnig's expense. But I think that only applies to donuts, not documents. And since we don't know whether that was documents or pages, we are left knowing nothing at all, except the number is greater than 0 and less than what Trump took by many thousands of documents (not pages).

    2. What joke at Leonnig’s expense? Bob was amused.

      The line “a handful more of documents” is funnier.

      Everyone know that Sandy Berger set the unit of measurement as a “pants full”.

    3. Clearly, Trump’s absconding of documents has eclipsed Berger’s and requires a new unit of measurement. Let’s see. How about “double wide” full? “Tractor trailer full?” “Donald Trump crazy level” full?

    4. When Somerby pretends to be amused, he is committing an imitation of comedy that, like the imitation of life, isn't funny at all. It is obnoxious name-calling and reflects hostility toward two women who were just doing their jobs. Who does that?

      Does Somerby stand and laugh at street workers too? Does he visit the market to laugh at the cashiers? And yet he cannot take it when hecklers want to ridicule his standup comedy performance, and he is too thin-skinned to read his comments here. But laughing at women who misspeak is so funny that he has to write a blog essay telling the world?

      I think it may be time to start musing about the nature of mental illness again.

    5. Hmm. Shouldn't it be 'underpants-full'?

    6. mh, it’s always the gold standard with Trump.

      A golden American Standard full.

    7. Anonymouse 11:54am, Leonnig didn’t misspeak. It’s an MSNBC show. She minimized.

      Leonnig is supposed to be an investigative journalist at the WP, not a columnist or tv opinionizer.

      You want to show her respect? Expect her to live up her to title.

    8. Trump's response to finding documents: "They're mine, all mine!"

      Biden's response to finding documents: "What documents?"

    9. She didn’t “minimize”. She’s just trying to be careful, saying what we know at this point. How did she respond to Trump’s document story?

    10. 11:54: I often wonder if the massive explosion of stand up comedy in the 80’s contributed to the undermining of our discourse by turning everything, literally everything, into fodder for jokes. There was always a subset of self-righteous comedians whose shtick was to mock society or mock others. It’s the South Park attitude.

    11. mh, you don’t classify documents by handfuls or a 12 docs as being less than a dozen.

      She tried to subtly convey the message that it is not many documents and ended up being laughably obvious.

    12. mh, are you sure it’s the comedians who are self-righteous?

    13. Cecelia, how do you know it wasn't 11 documents instead of 12? Maybe she falsely rounded up. That would shoot your whole theory about subtle meaning.

      Somerby also doesn't know how many had been discovered, how many she knew about, at the time she made the statement. Also it was Leonnig not Wallace who said that.

      Somerby won't admit that Trump is lying (when he obviously is lying), because he doesn't know what is in Trump's mind. The same courtesy applies to Leonnig. Somerby does not know how many documents she thought had been recovered. Thus she could have thought it was 11, but upped it to 12 to be sure she wasn't underestimating.

      Somerby of course assumes the worst and Cecelia follows right behind him.

    14. By the way, note the date of Wallace’s program that Somerby is quoting from. It’s 1/12. A bit more has come out since then. Easy to attack Leonnig for not knowing stuff that came out later.

    15. Heavens forfend, Cecelia. Comedians being self-righteous?? Perish the thought. Only their targets are self-righteous, amirite? Everything is a big joke, no?

    16. Anonymouse 12:28pm, guesstimating the number of docs as being less than a dozen and then “falsely rounding up to a dozen” is even more amusing.

      Your level of respect for this very experienced reporter’s abilities is dismal. I know this is about castigating Bob, rather than any real concern for Leonnig, but do her favor of not trying to defend her. She’d thank you.

    17. mh, we both know that this depends upon whether you find something funny or not.

    18. mh, yes, it’s the public’s fault she didn’t wait till then.

    19. Sure. By that reasoning, she would never report on any ongoing matter, because something new might come out tomorrow. Is that how you think journalism works?

    20. Yes, mh, unless she could quantify the exact number of docs in Biden’s possession, she could not report on the story in way, shape, or fashion.

      Or perhaps, she could report on the story, say that the exact number of docs is yet to be determined, rather than ending up looking ridiculous in an attempt to do Nicole Wallace’s job.

    21. That is pretty much what she did, Cecelia.

    22. Anonymouse 3:55pm, did Leonnig do it a handful of times or 12 times, but less than a dozen?

    23. See, this is what passes for a joke on the right.

      Somerby is the problem, not Leonnig. Somerby thinks that if he can confuse the issue and make it seem like Leonnig was downplaying the number of documents (although how that is possible when she says 11-12), then everyone will think Biden did the same thing as Trump.

      Really, what is the point of Somerby's criticism? It is so empty that all we are left with is his intention to harm Leonnig and Wallace. And we already know he doesn't like female journalists. So what is new?

      But Cecelia thinks this is pretty entertaining. That makes me wonder what is wrong with her. Doesn't she realize that Somerby wouldn't like her any more than Wallace or Leonnig, because he doesn't like women. Cecelia thinks she might be an exception, but why should she be?

    24. Anonymouse 4:23pm, no, it actually is funny when someone says that there are 12 of something, but less than a dozen. It’s funny too when documents are quantified as the amount you can hold in your hands. Trump’s little hands or Biden’s hands?

      It’s terribly funny when you see a professional investigative reporter bumble this way because they trying to walk a fine line in not reporting what they do not know, yet also give the impression of paltry amounts.

      That’s our professional media.

      Do you really only enjoy bloggers who, though they will never know you in real life, might like you if they did?

      And if they didn’t like you, or were critical of you in some way, that’s because they’re misogynists.

      It’s time you grew up.

    25. You read the quote, so you should know that isn't what she said. She said 11, less than a dozen, then corrected to 12. And no, it isn't funny at all. It is how people speak when not reading off a teleprompter. And if you are interpreting handful literally, there is something wrong with you. Super-literal interpretation of figures of speech indicates a frontal lobe injury or deficit (schizophrenia, mania, autism, dementia).

      It shouldn't be funny when a reporter tries not to make a mistake, but the numbers are paltry, especially compared to the thousands of documents Trump stole on purpose.

      There is something majorly wrong with your "sense of humor", which is not humor at all but a cheap shot by Somerby, which you are endorsing whole hog, shill that you are.

      Somerby is definitely a misogynist. His own words condemn him. Just as yours show you to be a nasty troll with no empathy for others, who is here only to push conservative memes on the unsuspecting and cover Somerby's back.

      You are an annoyance to all of the genuine commenters here -- that is defined as people who talk about the issues Somerby raises, instead of baiting and demeaning other commenters. You have to be one of the stupidest people's I've encountered, and your mean-spirited imitation of MTG and Boebert's ugly banter only emphasizes what a souless person you are. I'd feel sorry for you but you would only interpret it as weakness.

      It is time for you to crawl back into your hole now.

    26. In an ER, one way they diagnosis such mental problems is to ask a patient to explain a figure of speech. The literalness of their response is a symptom.

    27. Anonymouse 6:01pm, you should hear yourself.

      It’s terrible to find amusement in a reporter…”correcting” themselves within the context of a sentence? Would speculating that it’s 11 docs, but not a dozen make that much difference if you weren’t bending yourself into a pretzel?

      Are you now anywhere nearer to knowing the “correct” amount of documents by hearing from this journalist that it was 11 of 12 docs, but less than a dozen and was just a “ handful”?

      Oh, you’re so empathetic as you castigate everyone who finds this “contextualizing” pretty damn arbitrary and ridiculous.

      You’re a great humanitarian. Just ask you.

  6. "What we don't see or hear from our own tribe is devotion to various serious topics of a type which actually matter. "

    Here are the headlines at Alternet, which is leftist news aggregtion:

    How 'hydrological whiplash' brought 'deadly storms' to rain-drenched California: climate scientists

    'Failed Republican candidate' arrested as 'key suspect' in series of drive-by shootings at lawmakers’ homes

    How DeSantis and Abbott advanced their 'radical conservatism' with 'an eye beyond their states': report

    How overturning Roe v. Wade led to the Supreme Court’s 'obvious departure from collegiality of years past'

    Under opinion (commentary):


    What a mess: The New York Times interviews Republican voters

    Russell Banks, John Brown, and the American soul

    America's worst pastime: Why our National Defense Strategy has no plan for peace

    'I should know': Ex-health insurance executive calls Medicare Advantage plans a 'money-making scam'

    The United States finally has an economic plan for a domestic high-tech economy


    How are these not serious issues that our country needs to be discussing?

  7. “Wallace was already working from tribal Storyline”

    In reality, she was working from the known facts to contrast Trump and Biden.

    A “liberal” channel ought to point out the differences. Why?

    Because of the bullshit that Somerby quotes from Carlson. Everyone knows how the right will react, dumping Trump’s behavior down the memory hole.

    Wouldn’t it have helped back in the 1990’s if the mainstream media had not joined with right wing media to undermine Bill Clinton? I see this current situation as the media trying to be careful and not to do something similar again. And no one in the media is saying what Biden did isn’t possibly serious or that no investigation should be done.

    Remind us again how Republicans and their media reacted to the Trump document fiasco?


  8. tl;dr

    "A limited number of classified documents had been found in a Washington office belonging to President Biden. "

    Yes. It's funny, dear Bob, ain't it? Personally, we find it hilarious.

    ...we've heard so much about the horrors of it, recently, yeah? Keeping all those 'stolen' super-secret documents in the garage, eh? So, we guess the sudden mass-extermination of foreign CIA agents recently could be (hypothetically, of course) explained by this discovery, eh?

    Oh, dear...

  9. As President, why doesn’t Biden make use of the Trump doctrine and simply declassify all those documents via ESP? Problem solved.

    1. Uh-huh. Retrospectively, yeah?

    2. I think you meant “retroactively”, dimwit.

  10. "Leonnig added unintentional comic relief with her puzzling account of the numbers."

    Yes, I think it is funny when Biden stutters too. And it is so so hilarious when Trump cannot walk down a ramp without holding on to the railing.

    People accord each other lingistic charity when speaking face to face, because people make all sorts of language-related mistakes speaking off the cuff, as Somerby himself acknowledges. People ignore them, unless they are confused about meaning, in which case they ask a question.

    But not Somerby. Somerby points and laughs -- ha ha ha ha. If he did that in real life when talking to others, he would have no friends. Leonnig's meaning is clear. Somerby is being a total jackass by laughing, which reveals ill will on his part, not any major conspiracy to spread storyline. How can there be storyline when the number of documents are what they are? And what storyline is Somerby pimping when he says the documents were IN Biden's house when they were actually in a shed next to his garage -- and I doubt that is where anyone keeps their current reading material? Somerby is polishing up his own storyline with that switch in location, putting his own thumb on his own scales (which also happen to be conservative, not liberal as Somerby keeps claiming).

    This would be a hilarious gaffe on Somerby's part, except that it is so darned sad.

    1. This post has been identified as very high in projection. Probably wins for the day in that department.

    2. This is choice: “ And what storyline is Somerby pimping when he says the documents were IN Biden's house when they were actually in a shed next to his garage -- and I doubt that is where anyone keeps their current reading material?”

  11. Wallace report current events on a cable news show. The Shaker Heights school situation is an ongoing, chronic problem that was reported in depth by both the NY Times and the Washington Post in background articles.

    This is a similar objection to Somerby's complaints about what appears at the top of his online news source. It is about where you go to find out which types of information, not a lack of coverage by cable news (which implies that everyone ignores school news, when that is not true).

    Somerby is confused about what is breaking news and what is sociology.

  12. "Journalistically speaking, Nicolle Wallace presides over a daily imitation of life. "

    From the way Somerby is now using the phrase "imitation of life," it is clear that he is not alluding to any of the deeper and more subtle meanings of various authors, but just grabbed the words because they have the word "imitation" in them. He appears to be using imitation to refer to fake news, the most superficial meaning (and also the most literal).

    Did Wallace say anything fake? Did Leonnig? Not that I can see. Are Wallace and Leonnig going through the motions of being reporters? Not that I can see, and certainly not based on Somerby's stupid complaint. So this amounts to just some obscure name-calling on Somerby's part. Again, without supporting evidence.

    Fanny Hurst would turn over in her grave, but that wouldn't bother Somerby either, since he thinks whatever anyone else has written is HIS to use, even with distorted meaning that takes his usage far from the original meaning of the creative person who thought up the phrase and applied it to the indignities of life as a second-class citizen in the 1930s.

    1. Better trolling please.

    2. You might say this is an imitation of trolling...

    3. Well, a good troll can be compelling so there's that.

    4. Troll is always "someone posting something I don't like or agree with."
      In any event, those who thing this blog is less phony than Nichol Wallace's work are very lost people.

    5. Anonymouse 12:44pm, so you think everyone you disagree with is a troll?

    6. 5:08,
      I often disagree with non-trolls, who make good faith arguments. I don't imagine you're familiar with them.

    7. Then you belie yourself in your suggestion that trolls are merely “someone posting something I don’t like or agree with”.

    8. Cecelia, you are embarrassing yourself. Go away.

  13. By Somerby's reasoning, Wallace hasn't talked about Shaker Heights' ratty gifted programs lately, so she is a horrible reporter and the liberal media runs on storyline.

    Here is news that Somerby has never ever talked about:

    "Global Push to Treat H.I.V. Leaves Children Behind
    Sub-Saharan Africa has made steady progress in delivering lifesaving medication to adults, but young patients are harder to reach and 100,000 are dying of AIDS each year"

    That makes him a horrible person and no kind of liberal blogger. He obviously runs on storyline himself.

    Does that seem like fair reasoning to anyone here?

    1. Yes, most of your posts "seem like fair reasoning" until picking them apart, then they quickly crumble into nit-picking and other irrelevance.

    2. That's because I am responding to Somerby's posts, which start and end with nit-picking (and other irrelevance).

    3. "then they quickly crumble into nit-picking and other irrelevance."

      Kinda like your response

    4. No, the reasoning of Anonymouse 12:06pm does not seem like “fair reasoning” for one minute.

      Somerby blogs his thoughts about culture in general, media culture in particular.

      To suggest that he is a hypocrite because he does not live up to his expectations of the professional U.S. media corp, is solid bunk.


    5. Meh. Government scientist's word salads ain't 'reasonings' by any stretch of imagination. They don't pass the Turing test.

    6. Mao's word salad doesn't either.

    7. When did Somerby last muse anything about culture in general?

    8. When did he last talk about tribalism? .

    9. Mao,
      Please leave the convincing of people to not trust democratic government institutions to the pros (i.e Putin, Russian oligarchs, and the Republican Party of the USA).

    10. Putin, Russian oligarchs, and the Republican Party of the USA
      AKA America's enemies.

    11. Anonymouse 7:38pm, youre spinning the late Sen. Church in his grave.

    12. Ahh. So that's how Church says, "Nailed it!"?

  14. Bob rushed to present a ridiculous defense
    of Trump’s handling of documents, he
    rushes to degrade those who might
    attempt to defend Biden, or call for
    Fair play for him. He hates such people
    His mind reading that others are
    “pretending” to honor King (as
    opposed to his own efforts) is
    extremely mean spirited, but that’s
    our Bob.


  15. ...so, the Big Guy was renting the house and the garage with the super-secret nuclear codes in it to his genius-painter son? For $50k/month?

    ...tsk. The plot thickens...

    1. Mao, the 50k wasn’t a rental payment that Hunter paid to Pres Biden. That money was a deposit on a suite of offices that Hunter had engaged to lease.

    2. Correcting Mao? Be prepared to be called a dembot.

    3. Mao only calls dembots that.

    4. Oh yeah? Could be. We're not really interested in all the sordid details of this sad affair.

    5. Mao and Cecelia are both on the Hunter beat, encouraging, think what trouble those two idiots might get into with idle hands.

    6. I pointed out misinformation against the Bidens.

      You’re welcome.

    7. Like any sane person, I'd only vote for a drug-addled Hunter Biden, if he runs against a Republican.

    8. Anonymouse, congrats. That makes you equal to every accusation you’ve made about Trump voters.

    9. That was a joke.

    10. Fer Gawd’s sake — don’t you know you aren’t wanted here?

    11. Anonymouse 8:40pm, I’ve not been banned. I’m able to comment.

      Is that a status different from yours?

    12. Notice that no one has contradicted what I said. Just go away.

    13. Cecelia has just as much right to make bad faith arguments here, as any other Right-winger.
      Besides asking her to go away, or make good faith arguments isn't going to happen.

  16. What difference does finding one or two more documents in Biden's shed make, when Trump deliberately stole thousands of documents? Why is Somerby making a fuss about this?

    1. Bob feigns a humanist outlook but his hatred of the left is now, obviously, pretty limitless.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. From No More Mister Nice Blog:

      "A 17-year-old girl jumped to her death from an 8th-floor window on Manhattan's Upper East Side on Sunday, the New York Post reports:

      The teenager, who hasn’t been publicly identified by authorities, was in the eighth-floor Upper East Side apartment with her mom and her aunt shortly before 1 p.m. Sunday when she leaped to her death, the sources said....

      Police and locals have revealed little about the tragedy. Neighbors said the girl’s father is an investment banker with JP Morgan Chase, but that they hadn’t seen him around much recently.

      [Yastreblansky continues:]

      How broken are the brains of the Gateway Pundit commenters who responded to this story? Many just blamed the usual suspects for the girl's death, as if teen suicide is a liberal/elitist plot:

      Might have been some trans conversion tragedy.🤷🏻‍♀️ Maybe they’re calling the child a daughter but it wasn’t actually a daughter? Kids are being driven insane by the schools. And woke parents.

      ... [After quoting more comments in that vein, he continues:]

      And the ones who don't believe that their political enemies are reponsible for this death think it's a real kneeslapper.

      And a new democrat voter is christened.


      She probably got caught on onlyfans and got her internet privileges taken away.


      Too much Red Bull...which apparently does not give you wrings


      Where was HiLiARy?


      People are killing themselves to get out of New York.


      Mark that one a "Covid death".


      She was pushed out the window by the gas stove


      It was the Tesla! The Tesla did it!


      It must be a new Tik Tok challenge. I'll be right back!

      [Yastreblansky says:] I understand how the fear of death can lead to gallows humor, but this is beyond that. It's the dehumanization of anyone these people regard as their enemies. (On the right these days, "Upper East Side finance guy" equals "liberal.") The primary difference between this and what Alex Jones did to the Sandy Hook families is the reach of his broadcast -- in both cases, we see a pure absence of empathy.


      And this is what passes for humor with Cecelia, Mao and other conservative commenters here too. Even Somerby doesn't have much of a sense of empathy when he attempts humor.

      Somerby calls for more discussion of serious topics, but it is painful to attempt that when the influx of right-wingers that Somerby attracts interject this sort of garbage into whatever discussion starts. I don't want to put things that I care strongly about into the conversation, only to have them mocked and trampled by people with no sense of what is appropriate any more.

      So, I agree with mh's earlier suggestion that too much ugliness is being written off as humor. I don't want to make things I care about fodder for Cecelia's quips or the mockery of those who cannot and will not talk seriously about social problems. And that includes Somerby.

    2. Joe Bob Bill, you’re comparing amusement over the bumbles of an A -team investigative reporter to insensitivity towards the suicide of a teenager.

      Just who is trivializing what here?

    3. It's worse than that.
      He's comparing a human with Right-wingers. Let's not do that.

    4. Anonymouse 7:48pm, you’re what passes for sagaciousness among anonymices.

    5. Yes, we’re talkng about dhumanizing people so you think it’s a good idea to call commenters mice again. What’s wrong with you?

    6. I’ve made fun of your intentional avoidance of a singular online identity, rather than a mass identity.

      I’ve never said anything like this about anonymices.

      “It's worse than that.
      He's comparing a human with Right-wingers. Let's not do that.”

    7. Stop calling other commenters rodents and people may have more sympathy. You come here to pick fights.

    8. Anonymouse 8:27pm. I’m not looking for anything remotely similar to sympathy from you.

      Why would I?

      I take you at your Anonymouse 7:48pm word.

    9. As I said, you come here to pick a fight.

    10. Anonymouse 8:39pm, what do you come here for?

    11. It's not Cecelia's fault she can't make good faith arguments*. She's a Right-winger.

      *or understand economics/ basic arithmetic, or have a sense of humor/ history