"These are my kids. These are our kids..."


A sleepy town's District Attorney: We owe an apology to Imani Perry, a thoroughly good and decent person, with respect to whom we showed bad judgment yesterday afternoon.

Professor Perry is a good decent person, plus she's a worried parent. That said, we want to ask you to think about what the Dadeville, Alabama District Attorney has said.

Three young people have been arrested for last Saturday's mass shooting in Dadeville. Two of those young people are teenagers. Somewhere along the way, in some unknown manner, their chances for productive lives had somehow been snuffed out too.

(As soon as we get Trump in jail, we can discuss such things on our tribe's cable news.)

Their lives have been snuffed out too. That said, there are the four young people they shot and killed, along with the 32 injured. In what is (inevitably) being described as a "sleepy town," we took great heart from the things we saw the D.A. say at yesterday's press event.

The District Attorney is named Mike Segrest. In a "sleepy" Alabama town which is roughly half white and roughly half black, he made a statement about the only way we can hope to survive our decades-long race to the bottom.

Three young people were under arrest. Four others had been shot and killed. 

The D.A. lamented the large number of kids from other towns who were traumatized by what happened last Saturday night. 

Then, he offered this:

SEGREST (4/19/23): There were so many kids in this venue, and what they saw, it’s—they’re victims in this. Their families are victims of this, and the ripple effect of this, you know, it’s kind of like a wave rolling across Lake Martin, but that ripple didn’t stop when it hit the banks. There are other communities involved.


In talking about the victims, I'll share something with you. I'll try not to get emotional, and I'm not going to be taking any questions because I probably would. 

But one of the victims that wasn't injured is Lexi—Lexi Dowdell.

It was Lexi's 16th birthday party, "sweet sixteen." There's an uncut cake and unburned sixteen candles that never got lit. 

Lexi's brother was one of the victims. On her 16th birthday party, she knelt by her brother as he took his last breath. That’s what we’re dealing with here. Those are what these victims went through.

The message that I want to send is, I know some of these victims personally. Some of these kids are kids of friends of mine, people that I went to school with, people that I played ball with, and against, in the community, back in high school.

And these are my kids. These are our kids. Don't mess with our kids. Do not mess with our kids. 

Thank you. 

These are our kids, the D.A. said, gesturing to other officials standing behind him, white and black together.  That was a white D.A. in Alabama talking about some of that town's black kids. 

Our nation is in a world of ginormous cultural hurt. That unfolding disaster, long in gestation, can only be addressed by white and black together, but also by red and blue.

Last night, at least one of our blue tribe's cable hosts was pushing the We Hate The Others buttons on one of our "cable news" programs. Our tribe has long thrilled to that message. We love love love love love love love to hear that we're morally good.

That said, those good, decent kids are everyone's kids. It takes a village to raise a nation of kids, and it takes all of us struggling together. 

It takes the kids, white and black together, who marched through Clay County, Missouri in support of their schoolmate and friend, Ralph Yarl. It takes a person like Mike Segrest, who—with apologies for using her name—seemed to say he knows Lexi Dowdell.

These are our kids, he said. When he did, that town didn't seem quite so sleepy.

There is no way to win a war of the type our deeply unimpressive tribe keeps insisting on fighting. We're going to need red and blue together, which means that our profoundly self-impressed tribe needs to drop our glorious hate about all the bad people we loathe.

Three cheers for Ralph Yarl and his family and friends. Three cheers for that town's D.A.


  1. Here, for your, dear Bob, reading pleasure, is incomparable Mike Whitney writing about your tribal chiefs:

    The Bud Light Revolt


  2. It's deeply psychological for the psuedo liberals obsessed with racial division - like the house troll here. It is almost as of they are brainwashed. I agree they are unimpressive. They will turn themselves around when the herd does. Ultimately they are herd followers.

  3. The second amendment is evil.

  4. Good one from Bob here.

  5. What truly ugly, evil rubbish.
    After the Parkland Shooting some of the kids who came through by the skin of their teeth formed groups and started receiving publicity for taking anti gun political action. Bob's "disordered" martyr, who attempted to overthrow our govenment through violence which resulted in dead cops, completely played the situation, and gave the Gun people everything they wanted. But the kids would not shut up.
    For there trouble, the saintly Mr. Somerby ridiculed them and portrayed them as spoiled brats. Now, in desperation as the tide seems to be turning against the gun loving right, Bob raps himself in supposed compassion for the kids, calling for unity while of course demonizing the people he despises. You know, the libtards begging for common sense gun laws.
    While Bob lusts to see Trump escape any accountability , he must deplore anyone demanding the slightest Justice for the cops who got bear spray in the face on January 6th.
    So just what IS Bob willing to do for future victims of gun violence beyond berating MSNBC? Less than nothing, is the answer you can count on.

    1. This passage contains several glaring and embarrassing logical fallacies and faulty arguments, including:

      Ad hominem: The author attacks Bob's character by labeling him as a hypocrite and implying that he does not care about the victims of gun violence.

      False equivalency: The author suggests that the Parkland students' peaceful activism and Bob's violent and criminal behavior are somehow equivalent.

      Straw man: The author misrepresents Bob's position by claiming that he wants Trump to escape accountability and does not care about the victims of gun violence.

      Hasty generalization: The author assumes that Bob's behavior is representative of all gun advocates, which is not necessarily true.

      Red herring: The author distracts from the issue of gun violence by bringing up unrelated topics, such as the January 6th Capitol riot.

      Loaded language: The author uses emotionally charged language, such as "evil rubbish," "saintly," "spoiled brats," and "libtards," to sway the reader's opinion.

      False dilemma: The author implies that Bob is either with the Parkland students or against them, ignoring the possibility that someone could have a different perspective or solution to the issue of gun violence.

      Appeal to emotion: The author uses emotional language and exaggeration, such as "dead cops," "overthrowing the government," and "bear spray in the face," to evoke an emotional response from the reader.

      Begging the question: The author assumes that Bob's actions are "ugly, evil rubbish" without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this claim.

      Non sequitur: The author jumps from one topic to another without any logical connection, making it difficult to follow their argument or evaluate their claims.

      Overall, the passage is full of logical fallacies and faulty arguments that weaken its persuasiveness and credibility. The author may be using emotionally charged language and logical fallacies to manipulate or appeal to the reader's emotions, rather than presenting a rational and well-reasoned argument.

      If the author wants to improve the quality of their writing and argument, here are some suggestions:

      Use logical and rational arguments: Instead of relying on emotionally charged language and logical fallacies, the author could present a well-reasoned argument based on evidence and facts.

      Avoid personal attacks: Rather than attacking the character of individuals or groups, the author could focus on the issues and ideas at hand.

      Provide evidence: To support their claims, the author could provide evidence, such as statistics, studies, or expert opinions, to bolster their argument.

      Consider different perspectives: Rather than assuming that there is only one "right" way to view a topic, the author could consider other perspectives and acknowledge the complexity of the issue.

      Engage in civil discourse: Instead of trying to provoke or offend others, the author could engage in civil discourse and seek to understand and respect different viewpoints. This may help create a more constructive dialogue and lead to more meaningful and productive discussions.

    2. This is hilarious. Are you using an ai chatbox?

    3. Ah, mordantly funny perhaps. Dr. Logic may if fact BE Bob. No honest reader at this point can dispute that Bob wants Trump to escape any legal accountability , or any accountability and all for that matter. To site just one obvious example from the hapless, no doubt Trump loving Dr. Logic. Flake off, shithead.

    4. A smart response would be to focus on the facts and evidence presented to support or refute the claim that Bob wants Trump to escape legal accountability. It would also be appropriate to express disagreement respectfully without resorting to insults or personal attacks.

    5. @6:09 Somerby has many times argued that Trump is mentally ill and thus deserves pity not prosecution. You wouldn't ask for evidence if you had been here for any time at all.

      People are generally not polite or respectful to liars who attack black female journalists and professors as a target of choice, and who say horrifyingly awful things while claiming to be liberal.

      You can fuck off. You are just another troll using an annoying bot to fill up comments with noise, preventing actual discussion of anything. Go away.

    6. I agree with @4:21 too.

      This logic bot sounds like it is judging a formal debate, but that isn't what is happening here in comments. People are expressing their own opinions, other things Somerby has said, ongoing current events beyond Somerby's rant, and each other's posts. The bot is at a loss because of that, making specious criticisms of posts we might agree or disagree with, but don't find to be full of fallacies at all.

    7. If someone is criticized for making illogical comments, it may be helpful for them to take the criticism as an opportunity to learn and improve their reasoning skills, rather than using the statement to defend their right to make illogical comments. Ultimately, constructive dialogue and respectful exchange of ideas are crucial for productive conversations and growth.

    8. @6:39 No one cares about you analysis. If you have nothing to contribute to discussion you do not belong here.

    9. Well now honey, I do declare, it's mighty unfortunate to hear that you feel that way. It seems that you might be feeling a little frustrated, and I sure do understand how that feels. However, I think it's important to remember that we all have something to contribute to a discussion, no matter how big or small. It's only by sharing our different perspectives and experiences that we can truly come to understand each other and find solutions to the challenges we face.

      Now, I reckon you might not find putting a spotlight on your logical fallacies particularly helpful or relevant to this particular discussion, and that's just fine. We all have different strengths and areas of expertise, and sometimes we might not see eye to eye on things. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss each other's contributions out of hand.

      So I would respectfully ask that you consider giving logical responses sometime. After all, we're all in this together, and we all want what's best for ourselves and our communities. So let's see if we can find some common ground and work together to make a better world for all of us, shall we?

    10. Fuck off. Making fun of Southern people with a fake dialect is the kind of thing Somerby disapproves of. Or maybe you aren't trying to help him but just trolling for the hell of it.

    11. Eh, what's up mh? I hear you've been feeling a little down in the dumps lately. Well, that's a real shame, and I'm sorry to hear it. I reckon nobody likes being called out on their logical fallacies, but sometimes it's just something that happens, ya know?

      Now, I don't know exactly what happened, but I'm sure you didn't mean to make any mistakes or say anything that wasn't quite right. It's just that sometimes, we all get a little carried away with our own opinions and ideas, and we might not always realize when we're making mistakes.

      But you know what, that's okay. Nobody's perfect, and we're all just doing the best we can with what we've got. Sometimes we might stumble and fall, but that's just a part of life. It's how we pick ourselves back up and learn from our mistakes that really matters.

      So, I want you to know that there's no shame in making a mistake or being called out on it. We all make mistakes, and we all have room to grow and improve. The important thing is that we take responsibility for our actions and try to make things right when we can.

      Now, I know that sometimes it can be hard to hear criticism or to feel like we're being judged unfairly. But I want you to know that there are people out there who care about you and want to see you succeed. We're all in this together, and we're all just trying to make our way in the world.

      So don't you worry about a thing, doc. You're a good person, and you've got a lot of good ideas to share with the world. Just keep being yourself, and keep striving to do your best. And remember, if you ever need a friend or a shoulder to lean on, I'm always here for you.

      In the words of one of my favorite philosophers, "That's all folks!" But seriously, take care and keep on keeping on.

    12. mh didn’t say anything above, I did.

    13. If you’re leaving, keep on going, faster please.

    14. Our nation is currently facing a crisis of immense cultural damage. This disaster, which has been developing for a long time, can only be resolved through collective efforts between the white and black communities, as well as the red and blue.

      The recent cable news program, hosted by a member of the blue tribe, has been observed to use deplorable tactics of othering that have long been indulged in by our tribe. Despite this, the children of this nation are everyone's children, and it is the responsibility of the entire village to raise them. We must struggle together to create a brighter future for the generations to come.

      The white and black children who marched through Clay County, Missouri, in support of their schoolmate and friend, Ralph Yarl, are a shining example of how we can work together to create positive change. Similarly, individuals like Mike Segrest, who spoke out in support of Lexi Dowdell, prove that we are all connected, and we all have a stake in the future of this country.

      As a nation, we must recognize that we cannot win the current cultural war that we find ourselves in. This is a battle that can only be won through collaboration between the red and blue tribes. It is incumbent upon us to set aside our differences and work together to build a brighter future.

      One of the key challenges that we face as a nation is the issue of othering. We tend to divide ourselves along racial and political lines, which only serves to exacerbate the cultural damage that we are experiencing. We must recognize that we are all interconnected, and that we all have a role to play in creating a more equitable society.

      Another challenge that we face is the issue of tribalism. We tend to identify strongly with our own tribes, and we often view those outside of our tribes as the enemy. This mindset only serves to perpetuate the cycle of cultural damage that we are experiencing. Instead, we must recognize that we are all in this together, and that we must work together to create positive change.

      One potential solution to these challenges is the concept of "intersectionality." This term refers to the idea that we all possess multiple identities, and that these identities intersect to create a complex web of experiences and perspectives. By recognizing the intersections between our various identities, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and others. This understanding can then lead to greater empathy and collaboration, which are essential for creating a brighter future for all.

      In conclusion, our nation is currently facing a crisis of immense cultural damage. We must recognize that this is a problem that can only be resolved through collective efforts between the white and black communities, as well as the red and blue tribes. We must set aside our differences and work together to create a more equitable and just society. By recognizing the intersections between our various identities, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and others, and ultimately create a brighter future for all.

    15. At 6:31, as you probably know for at least a year Bob has replied to every charge against Trump with his own version “yada yada yada” that goes “Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail Trump.” He long put forth a ridiculous theory that if we couldn’t prove Trump didn’t believe what he said then he didn’t do anything illegal. He used to put a sort of disclaimer on his Trump defenses (some of these people think Trump is guilty of a crime, and they may be right) but the “they may be right” part fell off as Trump’s crimes got worse and Bob’s defense of him (the poor man is disordered) got lustier. In the end he suggested those appalled by Trump just like to see people go to jail ( unlike him, of course). These are things he’s repeated over and over again. Would you dispute any of this?

    16. Greetings! I sense a disturbance in the logical force. Your comment contains some unprovable claims that need to be analyzed. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

      First, you claim that "Bob has replied to every charge against Trump with his own version 'yada yada yada' that goes 'Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail Trump.'" This claim is subjective and unprovable without evidence. While it's possible that Bob has a pattern of responding to charges against Trump in this way, we cannot assume that he has done so without evidence to support this claim.

      Next, you suggest that Bob has put forth a "ridiculous theory" that if we couldn't prove Trump didn't believe what he said then he didn't do anything illegal. This claim is also unprovable without context or evidence. We cannot assume that Bob has put forth this theory unless we have specific examples of him doing so.

      You then mention that Bob used to include a disclaimer in his defenses of Trump, but that the "they may be right" part fell off as Trump's crimes got worse. Again, this claim is subjective and unprovable without evidence. While it's possible that Bob has changed the way he defends Trump over time, we cannot assume this without evidence to support the claim.

      You go on to suggest that Bob's defense of Trump got "lustier" as Trump's crimes got worse. Once again, this claim is subjective and unprovable without evidence. We cannot assume that Bob's defense of Trump has become more enthusiastic without evidence to support this claim.

      Finally, you claim that Bob suggested that those appalled by Trump just like to see people go to jail, unlike him. This claim is also subjective and unprovable without evidence. We cannot assume that Bob has made this suggestion unless we have specific examples of him doing so.

      In summary, your comment contains several unprovable claims that lack evidence or context. While it's possible that these claims are accurate, we cannot assume that they are without evidence to support them. In the future, it's important to provide specific examples and evidence to support claims, rather than relying on subjective impressions.

      Remember, the logical force is strong with those who rely on evidence and reason. May the facts be with you.

    17. God made trans kids in His own image and likeness.

    18. 10:48,
      What are the facts and logic behind banning abortions?
      I hear God has something to do with it, but that's a logical fallacy, because there is no proof that God exists.
      Asking religious people "What else you got?" is the best thing for society, since we want to base our path forward on facts, not superstitions.

    19. As we engage in discourse and debate, it is essential that we remain vigilant against the use of whataboutism, particularly in the context of the abortion debate. This tactic of deflecting attention away from the matter at hand by introducing tangential and unrelated examples of alleged wrongdoing can be particularly insidious, as it seeks to undermine the very foundation of reasoned and evidence-based dialogue.

      One example of the use of whataboutism can be seen in the comment at hand, which attempts to defend former President Trump against charges of wrongdoing by introducing tangential and unrelated criticisms of those who oppose him. The argument that Trump is not guilty of wrongdoing simply because we cannot prove he did not believe what he said is a prime example of the logical fallacy known as the burden of proof reversal.

      Whataboutism is a tactic that can be seen across a range of political debates, but it is perhaps most prominently employed in the context of the abortion debate. Those who oppose abortion often attempt to deflect attention away from the issue at hand by introducing tangential and unrelated examples of alleged wrongdoing, such as cases of child abuse or neglect. By doing so, they seek to undermine the very foundation of the argument in support of abortion rights, which is based on the right of individuals to make choices about their own bodies.

      It is essential that we remain vigilant against the use of whataboutism and engage in reasoned and evidence-based dialogue. By doing so, we can ensure that our debates remain grounded in logic and evidence, rather than in rhetoric and misdirection.

      At the heart of the matter is the importance of staying focused on the issue at hand. Whether we are discussing the conduct of a political figure or the ethics of abortion, it is essential that we remain focused on the specific topic being debated. The introduction of tangential and unrelated examples of alleged wrongdoing serves only to distract from the issue at hand and undermines the very foundation of reasoned discourse.

      Moreover, the use of whataboutism can also be seen in the context of broader social and political debates, such as discussions around race, gender, and sexuality. Those who seek to undermine efforts to promote equality and justice often attempt to deflect attention away from the issue at hand by introducing tangential and unrelated examples of alleged wrongdoing, such as cases of reverse discrimination or alleged attacks on free speech. By doing so, they seek to undermine the very foundation of the argument in support of social justice, which is based on the principle of fairness and equality for all individuals.

      As we engage in dialogue and debate, it is essential that we remain focused on the issue at hand and resist the temptation to engage in whataboutism. By doing so, we can ensure that our debates remain grounded in logic and evidence, rather than in rhetoric and misdirection.

      It is also important to recognize the underlying motivations that drive the use of whataboutism. Often, those who engage in this tactic are seeking to protect their own interests or agenda, rather than engaging in a genuine effort to understand and address the issue at hand. By deflecting attention away from the issue at hand, they seek to avoid accountability for their own actions and to undermine efforts to promote justice and fairness for all.

      In conclusion, the use of whataboutism is a pernicious tactic that undermines reasoned discourse and impedes progress on a range of social, political, and ethical issues. As we engage in dialogue and debate, it is essential that we remain vigilant against this tactic and stay focused on the issue at hand. By doing so, we can ensure that our debates remain grounded in logic and evidence, and that we are able to make progress on the important issues facing our society today.

    20. It is essential that we keep the conversation relevant to the matter we are discussing to ensure that we are able to understand each other's perspectives and work towards a meaningful resolution. By veering off topic, we risk losing sight of the original issue and failing to achieve a productive outcome.

      The original comment contains several logical fallacies, including ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and unprovable claims. The commenter attacks the character of the person they are discussing, rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. They also misrepresent the opposing view by creating a straw man argument, and make claims that are not supported by evidence. It is important to recognize and avoid these types of fallacies in order to have productive and respectful discourse, as they detract from the substance of the argument and can lead to misunderstandings and miscommunication. Any discussion of abortion will not change that.

      I would appreciate it if you could keep this in mind during our future conversations and help steer us back to the topic if we do start to drift off course. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

    21. Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, but the Bible does say that life begins at first breath and that a developing baby in the uterus is the personal property of the mother, ie not a human with rights and agency.

      Prior to the 70’s right wingers generally did not oppose abortion, indeed Roe v Wade was decided by a Republican majority, right wing Supreme Court.

      It was only in the wake of failing to stop the Civil Rights movement that the Republican Party went out looking for a wedge issue to unite right wingers against Dems and found that abortion worked well. This was a scheme not based in ideology, but on obtaining and maintaining dominance - owning the libs.

      It is reasonable to rely on the concepts of sentience and viability when considering the issue of abortion, criticisms of abortion based on religion and morality are illogical, and furthermore have been demonstrated to be made in bad faith.

  6. Somerby, self-described liberal. Can anyone cite any liberal position he advocates, even a single one?

    1. Here are a couple that come to mind
      1. Supporting Biden against Trump. From my (conservative) POV Trump is a disgusting person, with fairly good policies. Biden is a disgusting person with destructive policies.
      2. Believing that the charges against Justice Thomas are a big deal. In a Wall Street Journal op ed, James Taranto presented evidence that Thomas errors are negligible or non-existent. I'm not saying that Taranto is necessarily right. I'm just saying that liberals tend to take the charges more seriously then conservatives.

    2. Somerby doesn’t support Biden. He attacks him. Somerby has not discussed Thomas, although many liberals have. Liberals don’t tend to be silent about issues they care about. 0 for 2 David.

    3. Trump has good policies? eh David? He turned this country into a hellscape for women by thoughtlessly appointing religious nuts to the Federal courts and the supreme court, taking only from the approved Federalist Society list, because his fat lying ass was busy playing golf most of time.

      Hey David, as a good Jew, do you approve of the Sorosicization of the local DA's, elected to office?

    4. Fair questions, @8:50. I am torn about the SC overturning Roe v Wade. I'm a big supporter of a women's right to choose, so I liked Roe as a policy. OTOH the Roe decision was based on terrible reasoning IMO. It was legally correct that this wrong-decision be overturned.

      IMO the Roe decision is a little like vigilante action. Here's a crude analogy. OJ Simpson was guilty of double murder. Under California law, he deserved to be executed. If RBG had taken a gun and shot OJ, that would have been a just result, but achieved in an improper way.

      I don't know what you mean by "Sorosicization" or how it specifically relates to Jews. Can you explain? In my opinion, the prosecutors supported by Soros are misusing their powers in a way that is resulting in more murder victims of all races and religions.

      I was a long-time admirer of Soros, for both his investing acumen and his clever way to helping to undermine the USSR. I don't understand why he now supports these bad prosecutors.

    5. David,
      Did you support Trump trying to gaslight COVID, like it was some common NY Times political reporter?

    6. My response to DinC has been removed.

    7. David in Cal,
      I agree that it seems like overkill to go after Thomas' blatant corruption, after putting him on the Supreme Court despite him being a sexual predator.

  7. David and Cecelia are good decent people.

    1. Unless they are bots or Somerby sockpuppets or trolls at a troll farm in Eastern Europe.

      I wouldn't call much that Cecelia writes "decent" or "good," especially as the evening wears on and she drinks more.

    2. Anonymouse 6:28pm, look around you, girl.

      Anonymices have turned this thread into a 1984 Two Minute Hate Rally with their militant outrage, hateful character assassination, and supercilious proclamations. All because a blogger referenced his desire for dialogue and compromise.

      You can’t just disagree that this is doable, you must rant and castigate at the very notion of someone wishing to try, even when he is expressing his own cynicism that it’s possible.

      It’s so opportunistic and contrived. It’s so alien to the way most people behave in real life. It’s utter theater.

    3. Dialog and compromise? Where did Somerby say that? Please quote.

    4. Anonymouse 7:50pm, why can’t anonymices read the entire blog instead of scanning for fodder to contrive into outrage?

      What do you think Somerby means when he says that change will take black and white, red and blue together?

    5. He didn't say it, right? Otherwise you could quote where he said it. What you quoted is vague and could mean anything or nothing. He says nothing about talking (dialog) and nothing about compromise when red and blue come together. The union and the confederacy came together in the civil war, but were they dialoging or compromising? Not so much. Somerby may want the left to surrender while the right declares victory and transforms our society into an authoritarian theocracy. Red and blue would be together then, but not in any way that involves dialog or compromise.

      It helps nothing when you put words into Somerby's mouth. Let him write his own essays and stop reading into them whatever you yourself want to hear.

    6. Yes Ceceliia, it’s funny in his “let’s all join hands” moment MSNBC must still be shut out. Take the football and shove it, Lucy.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. It helps nothing when you put words into Somerby's mouth. Let him write his own essays and stop reading into them whatever you yourself want to hear.”

      Right, Anonymouse 8:48pm, because it’s ever so rational to think that Somerby could be championing total capitulation to conservatives, the NRA, and Mike Lindell, by referencing Mike Segrest remark that these murdered and terrorized kids are “all our kids” [everyone’s concern] and saying that it takes the student marchers for Ralph Yarl, blacks and whites, blue and red, all together, to make change.

      By these sentiments, it’s so logical… and reasonable to think that Somerby means to pave the way for Republicans, horny for an authoritarian theocratic regime, because it’s Bob who is extremist in his thinking…certainly not you…

      AI’s only reaction to your remarks would be to laugh.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    10. Anonymouse 9:51pm, MSNBC gets shut out…how?

      The new holy roller regime installed at the FCC puts them in a camp?


    11. MSNBC is shut out of Bob’s endless pool of faux kindness: we must join hands and leave our disordered country wrecker alone, but Bob is still free to despise Alex Wagner. Hard to believe you don’t notice this, but being honest has always been tough for you…

    12. I also once went to some lengths to explain why I don’t use a handle on the comments board anymore. But, you persist with your Trumpian, ever so clever disparaging nickname. Cecelia, you yourself will never be able to get with Bob’s program.

    13. One thing Cecelia, Bob, and I have in common, is we all have no idea what Bob is going on about.

    14. Anonymouse 7:10am, do you as a parent, a friend, a leader of some sort, focus solely on other people’s children, friends, charges, etc?

      I think the answer to that is yes. Overwhelmingly, yes. Yes,you do.

      The sole exception being towards those people in your sphere who do look around your shared “environment” and don’t see Mount Olympus.

    15. Anonymouse 7:15am, Bob tolerantly provides his anonymouse detractor tribe members with a home and I have given these nameless nobody-in-particulars an identity of sorts.

      Both those things are human inclinations.

    16. Claiming your inhumanity is a “human inclination” suggests you suffer from a nihilism borne from indoctrination by a death cult.

    17. Anonymouse 11:07pm, my name for you is the only distinction you have.

  8. GOP should support statehood for PR and DC.

  9. "Somewhere along the way, in some unknown manner, their chances for productive lives had somehow been snuffed out too."

    The main cause of crime is poverty. This is true all over the world and no big mystery. I doubt Somerby will be discussing that, ever.

  10. “Bob’s behavior is representative of all gun advocates”….sounds like a concession that Bob is a gun advocate. Which I don’t actually believe, my contention would be that Bob would side with almost any posistion, if it meant opposing the people he irrationally despises: the flawed but generally correct gang at MSNBC.

    1. Essays like this convince me that Somerby is being paid to shill for the right wing. But who knows? There are gun enthusiasts in MD, especially in the red counties. He lives alone and is getting on in age. He might fear all that Baltimore crime and plan on shooting the next black face who rings his bell. Who knows? As Somerby himself says -- anything is possible. And we know he isn't liberal.

    2. If Bob was doing what he once claimed to do the blog would be neither liberal or conservative, he be doing his best to call out the flaws in the press on either side. He once did something close to this. At some point he stopped watching the most watched outlet. Early on the excuse was “everybody knows Fox is full of crap so they don’t need watching.” This went on for years. His recent work on Carlson is a rare exception, he long ago concluded Hannidy was an honest broker, and he ignored the rest. In a way, the judgement against Fox is a judgment against Bob, and his epic, ridiculous, appalling fail.

    3. Carlson made the mistake of calling Trump a “demonic force” and a “destroyer”. Oops

  11. "That unfolding disaster, long in gestation, can only be addressed by white and black together, but also by red and blue."

    So, then, why is Somerby not exhorting the red tribe to change its ways and respond to the pleas of young people and their parents to STOP this carnage? We all heard the pride of the right speaking at the recent NRA meeting. Did it sound like any of them were in sympathy with the parents of dead children? Did it sound like they want to do anything to stop what is happening? Not to me.

    How then does Somerby dare to include the blue tribe in his exhortation, when the blue tribe is pretty much the only tribe doing anything about gun control? Instead, Somerby tells us that unless we give the right everything they demand, we are not going to get any gun control. It is as if the red tribe is holding us hostage by threatening our kids:

    "We're going to need red and blue together, which means that our profoundly self-impressed tribe needs to drop our glorious hate about all the bad people we loathe."

    No assurances that we do not hate The Others will satisfy. What Somerby and Republicans mean here is that we must capitulate in all ways, but I have seen evidende that Republicans will take such compromise as a sign that they should cooperate in bipartisan gun control legislation. They will take it as a sign of weakness from us, and declare victory and then continue their scorched earth implementation of policies such as dismantling the social safety net (medicare, social security), eliminating the ACA (as Trump promised to do, replacing it with a "better" plan), and privatizing education.

    Is this truly the cost of protecting our kids? I cannot vote for that, and I find myself hating The Others who demand it, including Somerby. Instead, I suggest that we throw the book at gun owners whose weapons wreak havoc on young people. The Crumbleys are an example. Gun manufacturers are another. As the blue states who have voting majorities start to accomplish such things, let's see if the Republicans are willing to meet us halfway on gun control then. Presumably, they must love their kids too, but I really see no evidence of it in their statements or actions. That means Somerby is preaching to the wrong people with today's message.

    If he loves all those kids, no matter what race, he should be talking to the right wing. Why isn't he doing that? What does it mean about his overwhelming love of children that he will not say a single word in support of gun control but instead blames the children who are shot and defends their killers, such as Kyle Rittenhouse, George Zimmerman and other miscreants who are not excitable boys but murderers.

    Somerby has no kids. If he did, he wouldn't write such blatantly insulting garbage and try to pass it off as caring.

    1. There are several logical fallacies in this passage:

      Ad hominem: The author attacks Somerby personally rather than addressing the substance of his argument.

      Strawman: The author misrepresents Somerby's argument by suggesting that he is blaming children who are shot and defending their killers, when in fact Somerby is advocating for gun control measures to prevent such tragedies.

      False dichotomy: The author presents a false choice between throwing the book at gun owners and manufacturers on one hand, and capitulating to Republicans on the other hand, ignoring the possibility of bipartisan compromise.

      Slippery slope: The author suggests that compromise on gun control will lead to the dismantling of social safety nets and privatizing education, without providing evidence to support this claim.

      To improve the argument, the author could address Somerby's argument directly, provide evidence to support their claims, and engage in respectful debate without resorting to personal attacks or logical fallacies.

      In addition to the logical fallacies mentioned earlier, there are a few other flaws in the argument:

      Hasty generalization: The author assumes that all Republicans are against gun control, based on the statements of a few individuals at an NRA meeting. This is an overgeneralization that ignores the diversity of political views within the Republican party.

      Confirmation bias: The author appears to have a preconceived notion that the Republican party is hostile to gun control and other progressive policies, and interprets all evidence in support of this view while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

      Emotional reasoning: The author's argument is driven more by emotion and personal opinion than by factual evidence and logical reasoning. The author seems to be reacting out of anger and frustration rather than engaging in a reasoned debate.

      Overall, the argument is weakened by these flaws, which undermine the author's credibility and the persuasiveness of their claims.

    2. I stand by what I wrote.

    3. Ad hominem attacks are the best attacks.

    4. Here’s some reasoning for you: pfffffffft.

    5. Things are not going to be going very well for you from here on out.

    6. Why do you apply this junior high deep analysis to one of Bob’s posts? Don’t think he’d pass the test…😊

    7. Unfortunately Bob, having tried everything else, descends to shamltz.

    8. 8:14. It’s pointed out to you that Bob only asks one side to come together while insisting on the evil of the left. Why don’t you respond to that, hard on?

    9. I understand your concerns regarding the comments made by Bob. It is important to acknowledge that Bob is only asking one side to come together while simultaneously criticizing the other. This is a divisive approach that can further fuel polarization and animosity.

      I want to assure you that your concerns are valid, and there are steps we can take to address this issue. One way to start is by engaging with Bob and others with whom you disagree in a respectful and constructive manner. It is important to actively listen and try to understand their perspective, even if you do not agree with it. By doing so, we can begin to find common ground and work towards solutions that benefit everyone.

      It is also essential to focus on the positive aspects of our society and recognize the efforts of individuals and organizations working towards a better world. By celebrating these positive efforts, we can combat the negativity and hostility that is so prevalent in our current environment.

      I want to emphasize the importance of empathy and compassion in our interactions with others. It can be challenging to engage with individuals with whom we disagree, particularly in a climate where tensions are high. However, by approaching these interactions with an open mind and heart, we can build connections and relationships that transcend our differences.

      Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge and respect the diversity of our communities. Our society is made up of individuals from various backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs, and it is essential to recognize and celebrate these differences. By doing so, we can foster an environment of inclusivity and mutual respect that benefits us all.

      The growing division and animosity in our society are a pressing concern that must be addressed. However, we can take steps to build a more unified and compassionate society. By engaging with others in a respectful and constructive manner, focusing on the positive aspects of our society, and embracing diversity, we can work towards a better world. I hope that you will consider these points and continue to engage in constructive dialogue with those with whom you disagree. Together, we can build a more equitable and compassionate society.

    10. 9:51,
      In your opinion, how important are good-faith arguments in reducing the tribal divisions?

    11. What exactly are you trying to say? State what you mean directly in a precise way.

    12. I took Bob's advice and listened to "the Others". They're a bunch of bigots, who feel oppressed because minority rights are being protected.

  12. What religious person could agree with Somerby's attempt to blackmail liberals using the lives of "our" children?

  13. Somerby has no right to claim kids as his own when he is unwilling to call for the change that will protect their lives.

    His post today is an abomination.

    1. It's more than clear that the problem is yours, not Bob's.

    2. No asshole, the problem belongs to our kids, all of them. Can’t you read?

    3. No, I can’t read. I learned Whole Language, not phonics.

    4. So not funny.

  14. Today is the anniversary of Columbine. If Somerby cared, he would have noticed.

    1. It was also Hitler's birthday. Clearly Bob is a nazi.

    2. 5:43,
      Do you have any proof Bob is a registered Republican?

    3. I find it quite possible Bob votes for Democrats. It’s his get out of jail free card.

    4. Anonymouse 9:23am, that’s true across the board.

  15. These right wing gun nuts will fire on anyone:

    "Capitol Rioter Opened Fire on Sheriff’s Deputies
    April 20, 2023 at 5:40 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

    “A Texas man facing charges in the January 6 riot opened fire last week on sheriff’s deputies who had gone to his home to check on him ahead of his scheduled surrender to the FBI,” NBC News reports."

  16. Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy.