Can Liberals Follow Clinton’s Lead And Empathize With Their Enemies?

By Bob Stone

Hillary Clinton made a speech recently in which she referenced something she calls “smart power.”

MSNBC said:  “Clinton defined the term Wednesday as “using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security,” while “showing respect” for other countries and actors on the world stage – “even for one’s enemies.”

Clinton’s exact words were:  “Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

Interesting maxim.   Without getting into what it means in terms of national security, i.e. “know thy enemy” v. “love thy enemy,” are liberals truly capable of taking Clinton’s word to heart?

Let’s find out.

“Sean Hannity and Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton came to blows over Ferguson tonight after Norton told a stunned Hannity that she didn’t read the evidence of the case. Norton said she wants to talk about moving forward and larger issues of race in America, but Hannity didn’t let that slide.

He repeatedly asked her why she wouldn’t read the evidence, accused her of pushing “a narrative that has been proven false,” and asking her bewilderedly, “The truth isn’t your concern?!”

Norton shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!” (Story here)

Call me crazy, but I have a problem when members of the United States Congress formerly state on record an accusatory remark about an individual with nothing less than reckless disregard for the truth.

So my question is, are liberals willing to  empathize with a sworn enemy like Sean Hannity; even for objective reasons?  Because when I hear someone who’s not too fond of Hannity say “I can’t believe how well he handled himself in that interview” — the world seems a tad off kilter.

This entry was posted in Conservatives, Liberals, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Can Liberals Follow Clinton’s Lead And Empathize With Their Enemies?

  1. Mike Spindell says:

    Interesting question and so I’d like to pose another. Can White people empathize with people of color and understand their chagrin that policeman are killing them in unwarranted numbers? After all, just like Bob I’m asking an “innocent” question, not “loaded” with anything but inquiry.

    Also too:

    “Because when I hear someone who’s not too fond of Hannity say “I can’t believe how well he handled himself in that interview” — the world seems a tad off kilter.”

    And listening to the interview to me Sean Hannity was Sen Hannity. Perhaps the world is a “tad off kilter” because the log in the eye of the beholder is White Privilege, or just perhaps only bigotry. Like me, Norton was talking of the larger issue, but some like the author of this blog are uninterested in THAT issue because those Negroes are only a mob, joined with their White “Amen Chorus”. Really Bob, what’s showing is either blindness or desperation.

  2. Bob Stone says:

    Mike,

    You did everything but answer the question.

    Quite telling.

  3. NBC says:

    Mike: Interesting question and so I’d like to pose another. Can White people empathize with people of color and understand their chagrin that policeman are killing them in unwarranted numbers? After all, just like Bob I’m asking an “innocent” question, not “loaded” with anything but inquiry.

    Answering a question with a question. Based on my personal experience I believe that white people can empathize with the perception that black people are bing ‘killed” in “unwarranted” numbers.

    As to Hanity, even though I do not agree with his ilk on many issues, that does not mean that he cannot make good arguments worth pursuing.

    So can I empathize with my “enemies”, yes I can.

  4. Bob Stone says:

    Perhaps objectivity is not dead.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Bob,
      A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of your closed mind. 🙂

      NBC,
      So my answering a question with a question is answered by you in the affirmative…..or negative…..or perhaps both. Do you really think that was droll on your part, or merely disingenuous?

  5. Not every enemy (or their ideas, feelings or wishes) is worthy of respect.

    Respect (in the context of the meaning of the word as you are using it) is earned, not due.

    You recall the long departed FFLEO, Bob. He was an old school traditional conservative and while we often disagreed, we had common ground and he was a reasonable man. The very portrait of what they mean by the saying “the honorable opposition”. We could agree to disagree (and you, of all people, know that was in part because on many issues I am more conservative in the Eisenhower sense than I might otherwise appear). If he were on fire, I’d put him out.

    Dick Cheney, on the other hand, and his PNAC fascist zealot cohorts are a bunch of reprehensible vile bastards and while I respect their right to have and voice their opinions, I feel no obligation whatsoever to protect their feelings, cater to their wishes or respect their ideas or them personally as people. If they were all to spontaneously combust in the next ten minutes, nothing of value to society would be lost.

    Then take Bron for example. I respect his right to have his opinions and have his say, but many of his ideas I don’t respect and some I think are outright insane if ever put into practice. But aside from that, I think he’s an alright guy who loves his wife and kids and (in his own misguided way) wants better for people (and by people I mean in a more egalitarian way than even he would probably admit). If he were on fire, I’d put him out and then ridicule his love of Ayn Rand until the EMTs got there (just to keep his spirits up).

    Intent counts for something, Bob. The well motivated opposition deserves a degree of respect, but the bad actors? They deserve every sling and arrow.

  6. NBC says:

    Mike: So my answering a question with a question is answered by you in the affirmative…..or negative…..or perhaps both. Do you really think that was droll on your part, or merely disingenuous?

    Or perhaps another one of those reading comprehension issues?

    So far noone has explained to me the relevance of the dog obedience to Bob’s biases. Was I correct in my observation that this was a reading comprehension problem on the part of those trying to further that ‘argument’?

  7. Bob,

    I’d also like to point out the Hillary is about as liberal as the rest of the DNC which is to say they are centrist Republicans.

  8. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    What about my question?

  9. Elaine M. says:

    Gene,

    Right you are! She’s like her significant other–the former president.

  10. Bob,

    I answered your question. But I’ll give you the short version if you couldn’t be bothered to read the long form.

    Not every enemy is worthy of respect.

  11. NBC says:

    Gene: Not every enemy is worthy of respect.

    But their comments may still hold relevance.

  12. NBC says:

    Bob: Norton shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!” (Story here)

    And by framing what should happen in a false or uninformed narrative she has destroyed much of her credibility.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “And by framing what should happen in a false or uninformed narrative she has destroyed much of her credibility.”

      And besides she’s Black and so a member of the mob.

  13. NBC,

    Respecting someone’s right to free speech and respecting them are not the same thing.

    Knowing your enemy though is a separate discussion in tactics and strategy.

  14. Bill Clinton nixed Glass St… and Hillary (should she pull the miracle over Mittns) will finish the job by nixing Dodd Frank. SarOx and anything else that will get in Wall Streets ways(such as FCPA)

  15. eniobob says:

    Not really that knowledgeable about Sean Hannity,the reason being when ever I have seen his program the questions are ALWAYS loaded.Now if that is how people should talk to one another I can’t see”Liberals Follow Clinton’s Lead And Empathize With Their Enemies?”.

  16. Elaine M. says:

    Sean Hannity is often bewildered. He NEVER pushes a narrative or an agenda. How many conservatives in Congress empathize with their enemies?

  17. I don’t think you can understand an enemy without empathy in an intellectual way. For example, I understand much of the ultra-conservative bent is based in fear, but empathy is by definition the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I don’t share their fear because it is quite often irrational.

    I respect reason. The irrational? Not so much.

  18. swarthmoremom says:

    Eleanor Holmes Norton is not a member of congress. She is a non voting delegate.

  19. swarthmoremom says:

    Norton cannot vote. Remember conservatives don’t want to DC to be represented which is another example of white privilege. Norton is a highly accomplished graduate of Yale Law School, and Sean Hannity is an idiot. Enough said………..

  20. NBC says:

    Gene: I respect reason. The irrational? Not so much.

    Agreed.

  21. Bob Stone says:

    So far only NBC and eniobob (in part) have answered my question.

    Here it is again:

    Call me crazy, but I have a problem when members of the United States Congress formerly state on record an accusatory remark about an individual with nothing less than reckless disregard for the truth.

    So my question is, are liberals willing to empathize with a sworn enemy like Sean Hannity; even for objective reasons?

  22. Sorry you don’t like the answer you got, but it will have to suffice, Bob.

  23. swarthmoremom says:

    Who cares?

  24. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    You did everything but answer my question.

    What is Hannity upset about?

    Can you empathize with him? Aren’t you upset too?

    After all, weren’t you upset at how the Patriot Act passed?

    Must you make me spell it out?

  25. Bob Stone says:

    That’s a no from swm

  26. eniobob says:

    “To be fair, Paul has discussed some of these same issues. He criticized police militarization after Ferguson. He opposes mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, and advocates returning voting rights to nonviolent felons. On Thursday, after Clinton’s remarks on the Garner verdict, he told CNN he’d like to work with her on criminal justice reform. That’s great.”

    Look further:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/12/05/rand_pauls_big_selling_point_is_dead_how_clinton_schooled_him_on_criminal_justice_reform/

  27. Broke clocks are right twice a day, Bob, but I explained how I look at the broader question.

  28. Bob Stone says:

    Only, I didn’t ask the broader question. Thus you didn’t answer.

  29. Bob Stone says:

    Bob: “Gene, what did you think of tonight’s game?”

    Gene: “Ken Burns has a great documentary on Baseball….”

  30. You’ll have to take what you got. You think it was non-responsive? Use your empathy to infer an answer more to your liking.

  31. Hannity is a bully and a tool.

    Empathy for him, his family, hjs physical well being and such.

    As for his having a tough of it, in his job

    F%#@ him!

  32. Bob Kauten says:

    Rewrite this as a metaphor involving dogs, and I’ll read it.

  33. Elaine M. says:

    Now we know where Bob gets his news.
    😉

  34. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine,

    You know nothing.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Ah yes, Norton’s argument from ignorance is the interviewers fault.”

      So it seems in your mind Bob that Norton a Black woman was ignorant because she didn’t do what you felt it was her duty to do and read the transcript. That she was being interviewed by paid propagandist, who is a college dropout and a thoroughly ignorant man who makes his living at a propaganda outlet, is irrelevant to you. Why? perhaps because Ms. Norton, with a BA from Antioch, an MS and Law Degree from Yale tries to make a point that you disagree with. Her point is the same as my point which talks to the larger issue of context. However, in you police bias you are incapable of seeing the larger, overarching issues she raises and deem her responses to the propagandist ignorance. In any event she is Black so in your mind her degrees are no doubt the result of unfair affirmative action that unfairly discriminates against White people.

  35. Elaine M. says:

    Okay, Bob, whatever you say.

  36. Bob Stone says:

    Ditto.

  37. NBC says:

    Bob: Rewrite this as a metaphor involving dogs, and I’ll read it.

    I hope that you will not misread it as some appear to have done and concluded that the reference to obedience and dogs shows that Bob is biased when in fact his statement shows the opposite.

  38. NBC says:

    Elaine: Now we know where Bob gets his news.

    Any better sources than yours? What was it again? NY Post. Oh I forgot, that was presented as factual.

  39. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    I don’t know which post of mine to which you’re referring.

  40. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    The funny thing is the question has nothing to do with Hannity and everything to do with self-honesty.

    Simply change the parties and retain the same structural problem.

    Rachel Maddow and Republican Congresswoman Michell Bachman came to blows over (Insert Issue Here) tonight after Bachman told a stunned Maddow that she didn’t read the evidence of the case.

    Maddow repeatedly asked her why she wouldn’t read the evidence, accused her of pushing “a narrative that has been proven false,” and asking her bewilderedly, “The truth isn’t your concern?!”

    Bachman shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!”

  41. po says:

    I cannot empathize with Hannity, for the simple fact that I know him and what I know is that he cannot be trusted. I know my interests are not what matters to him, and to me, he is much like the biblical (or quranic) orthodox to the non-religious, different intent, different purpose, different language and different meanings to morality!
    he never spoke for me, why would he start now?

  42. You’d have gotten the same answer from me, Bob.

  43. Bob Stone says:

    Lack thereof.

  44. blouise says:

    The rhetorical device known as the loaded question seeking self-honesty. I love it!

    So my question is, are liberals/conservatives willing to empathize with a sworn enemy like Sean Hannity/Rachael Maddow, even for objective reasons?

    The assumption built into the question is that all liberals see Sean Hannity as a sworn enemy and all conservatives see Rachel Maddow as a sworn enemy.

    And the whole thing begins with Hillary Clinton who is neither conservative or liberal.

    I’m with SwM … who cares? Which Bob will now reclassify as a “no”.

  45. Bob Stone says:

    Okay Blouise,

    So a willingly ignorant congresswoman making irresponsible remarks on the floor off congress doesn’t bother you.

    Got it.

    No empathy.

    Check.

  46. Elaine M. says:

    Gee…I’d hazard a guess that most any day that Congress is in session there’s someone making irresponsible and/or idiotic remarks on the floor. Louie Gohmert comes to mind first.

  47. pete says:

    I’m gonna go with S’mom @8:25p.m.

  48. blouise17 says:

    Bob,

    Strangely, my self-honesty barometer never registered a lack of empathy within my personality but then I think of Robbie Burns line “And would some Power the small gift give us. To see ourselves as others see us!”

  49. Anonymously Yours says:

    Interesting question and insight. I think reasonably educated folks can and try to see both side of an argument. To know thy enemy better than they know themselves is a predicate to knowing how to use what they belittle you with to win that segment of folks over to your side.

  50. blouise17 says:

    Bob.

    😉

  51. Bob Stone says:

    AY,

    I don’t even see the sides here. This is the same thing that pissed me off about the Patriot Act; congressmen not bothering to read.

    It’s shameless ignorance.

    Or maybe not so shameless, since she did throw a tantrum when she was called on it. Much like Palin gets when you ask her tough questions like “Who were the Axis powers?”

  52. Bob Stone says:

    Anybody remember that scene from “Game Change”

    It reminded me of a line from an SNL skit.

    Dumb Student: “Europe…where’d they get that name?”

  53. Bob Stone says:

    This is the SNL skit that came to mind when Julianne Moore, as Palin in “Game Change,” was having a hard time figuring out who were the Axis and Allied powers in World War II

    http://www.teachertube.com/video/seinfeld-history-lesson-241598

    Same thing:

    Norton told a stunned Hannity that she didn’t read the evidence of the case. Norton said she wants to talk about moving forward and larger issues of race in America, but Hannity didn’t let that slide.

    He repeatedly asked her why she wouldn’t read the evidence, accused her of pushing “a narrative that has been proven false,” and asking her bewilderedly, “The truth isn’t your concern?!”

    Norton shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!

  54. Elaine M. says:

    In that video clip, Sean Hannity said that Darren Wilson stopped Michael Brown because he fit the description of a suspect in a robbery. Is that correct? Didn’t he stop Brown for jaywalking?

  55. What should have happened….

    Is a T R I A L

    Not everyone , taking a position, is blessed with your gift of blab!

  56. NBC says:

    Elaine: In that video clip, Sean Hannity said that Darren Wilson stopped Michael Brown because he fit the description of a suspect in a robbery. Is that correct? Didn’t he stop Brown for jaywalking?

    He told Brown and Johnson to use the sidewalk but he did not stop them. He claims that when he reversed the car, it was because of the cigarillos he observed as well as the black outfit that matched the description of the robbery suspects.

    That Brown was in fact carrying the cigarillos openly has been testified to by his friend Johnson.

  57. NBC says:

    Laser: What should have happened… Is a T R I A L

    Not if there is no probable cause finding. Even those with whom we disagree have constitutional rights

    Laser: Not everyone , taking a position, is blessed with your gift of blab!

    Oh the irony my friend. Let me know if you want more comments on your filings. I understand that you have been asking people to discuss the cases and I’d love to contribute my amateur understanding.

  58. You can comment when you answer the paramount question.

    Does willful misconduct moot barton?

  59. NBC says:

    Mike: And besides she’s Black and so a member of the mob.

    Totally baloney… I guess you could not really object to her destroying her own credibility through her irresponsible actions. It irks me when people argue from ignorance, especially when they are on ‘my side’ as I would hope them to not fall for such logical errors. It makes it too easy to lose your credibility and audience, even if the underlying message is important to be told.

  60. NBC says:

    Laser: Does willful misconduct moot barton?

    Not according to the case law. However, I may have missed relevant caselaw so perhaps you can explain your position here in more detail.

    The court explains:

    Plaintiff’s only arguments in response are (1) that the Barton doctrine “doesn’t apply to due to willful misconducts,” and (2) that “Defendants claim of Barton . . . [is] void ab initio due to their wanton acts of bad faith and the fact that they are being protected by federal agents and agencies REFUSING to Do Their JOB to Defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!” (Dkt 31 ¶¶ 107, 113, at 18-19.) These are not recognized exceptions to the Barton doctrine. Cf. Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d at 971-72 (discussing limited statutory exception to Barton doctrine in 28 U.S.C. § 959(a)). Defendants’ motions to dismiss are therefore GRANTED.

    Did you ever address why the court was wrong, in your appeal?

  61. swarthmoremom says:

    The whole thing is a set up. Does anyone seriously think that Eleanor Holmes Norton has any credibility with those that watch Sean Hannity? She is a highly educated very liberal black woman…not exactly their cup of tea.

  62. Bob,

    Really the only thing going on here is the ought/is fallacy on Norton’s part. Is it poor logic? Certainly, but I fail to see the need for outrage to combat bad logic. Sarcasm and mockery work just fine in conjunction with pointing out the error and it is better for your blood pressure.

  63. Bob Stone says:

    “Certainly, but I fail to see the need for outrage to combat bad logic. Sarcasm and mockery work just fine in conjunction with pointing out the error and it is better for your blood pressure.”

    You didn’t watch the video; did you?

  64. NBC says:

    “We now hold that Barton precludes suit against a bankruptcy trustee for claims based on alleged misconduct in the discharge of a trustee’s official duties absent approval from the appointing bankruptcy court.”

    Satterfield v Malloy, 2012, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00003-TCK-FHM)

    See also the case referenced https://casetext.com/case/in-re-crown-vantage-6

  65. Bob Stone says:

    What the hell does that mean?

  66. 1) Didn’t say it was Hannity’s fault.
    2) It wasn’t an argument from ignorance (asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven), it was the ought/is fallacy (the failure to reconcile normative and descriptive statements).

    Invoking God will not help you if you don’t use precision logic and proper terms and insist on attempting to put words in my mouth, Bob.

  67. Bob Stone says:

    Then what did you mean when you said

    “Certainly, but I fail to see the need for outrage to combat bad logic”

  68. laser/NBC,

    I’m all for free speech, but I refer you both to Rule #7.

    7) If the subject in the comments naturally meanders? Go with it if you like. The columns are intended as jumping off points for discussions. Meandering happens. That doesn’t mean hijack every thread you post to for your pet cause. If you want to do that, get your own blog. It’s easy. Hijacking will get you warned. Persistent hijacking will get you banned.

    If you both wish to discuss laser’s legal problems, might I suggest that email might be a better medium of exchange rather than across multiple threads. Or at least wait until an appropriate thread, say one on bankruptcy law or corruption.

  69. Bob Stone says:

    “Ah yes, Norton’s argument from ignorance is the interviewers fault.

    God help us.”

    Was in response to SWM’s remark

    “The whole thing is a set up. Does anyone seriously think that Eleanor Holmes Norton has any credibility with those that watch Sean Hannity? She is a highly educated very liberal black woman…not exactly their cup of tea.”

  70. I’m pretty sure that sentence is in plain English and requires no clarification, Bob.

  71. Bob Stone says:

    No, you were reading the wrong response.

  72. As usual, NBC, you skip the issue.

    1St if all…stealing assets from an estate, failing to disclose conflicts of interest and betraying your court approved client fir secret cohorts

    Isnt duty to an estate.

    And…. the question simple is…

    Does Barton protect bad faith conduct?

  73. Regardless of whether that was directed as Smom or not, what Norton did was not an argument from ignorance by definition.

  74. Bob Stone says:

    Laser/NBC,

    Take the bankruptcy debate elsewhere please.

  75. Bob Kauten says:

    NBC,
    “Bob: Rewrite this as a metaphor involving dogs, and I’ll read it.”

    “I hope that you will not misread it as some appear to have done and concluded that the reference to obedience and dogs shows that Bob is biased when in fact his statement shows the opposite.”

    I’ll respond to the part of your sentence above, that I was able to understand: There’s no reference to obedience and dogs in the article above. That’s why I didn’t read it. Bob Stone has conditioned me to think of everything in terms of dog metaphors. I can no longer understand anything else. Apparently, neither does he.

    I ran your above sentence through Google Translate, trying several different languages. All of them just spit the original text back at me.

    Having made a significant effort, without success, I address the query to you:
    What?

    Mordacitas? Certe non ex me!

  76. NBC says:

    Oh my, you referenced, in your minimal response

    Bankruptcy Litigation Committee News of November 2005, Vol 2, No 2

    That is not a really relevant precedent.

  77. Watch the video? Were not your description of the pertinent statement(s) accurate? Why would I want to give Hannity tick on YouTube if you are allegedly relaying the reasons that you (and presumably Hannity since it is part of his job as propaganda puppet) were outraged?

    No, I didn’t watch the video.

    What was relayed was the ought/is fallacy.

    Really, Bob, if you have other reasons why people might think you’re crazy for having a problem, you should be clear in stating them.

  78. NBC says:

    Bob: I can no longer understand anything else. Apparently, neither does he.

    Well I can certainly accept your admission, as to your representation of what he can or can not do, I’ll let Bob respond.

    I am sorry, I was mistaken in a preconceived notion that you were interested in a discussion. Now I understand.

  79. Bob Stone says:

    Really Gene,

    You’re going to correct my grammar?

    You’re going to tell me that

    “Ah yes, Norton’s argument from ignorance is the interviewers fault.”

    Isn’t the same thing as

    “Ah yes, Norton’s argument from [ a lack of knowledge or information] is the interviewers fault.”

    “Regardless of whether that was directed as Smom or not, what Norton did was not an argument from ignorance by definition.”

    Well, thanks for resorting to the irrelevant conclusion fallacy there chum.

  80. NBC says:

    Bob: Take the bankruptcy debate elsewhere please.

    Shall do.

  81. NBC says:

    Quick question Bob, what would be a proper location for the bankruptcy debate. I’d really like to have Laser understand that bad faith conduct is not a valid exception under Barton.

  82. Bob Stone says:

    Wherever you started it I assume; that way you can keep track of your conversation in one place.

  83. Sorry, Bob, but you were not making a grammatical error but rather a substantive error in terminology.

  84. NBC says:

    Bob: Bachman shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!”

    I am not surpised. Bachman is just not that smart.

  85. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    Everyone is the hero of their own story and you cannot really understand their argument until you understand their point of view (which requires at least some empathy). I am more than willing to judge anyone’s position on its merits rather than its author (even if said author is you, Bob) and acknowledge a good argument from an opponent. However, as regards Sean Hannity, I see nothing laudatory in his use of misrepresentation, obfuscation and lack of nuance to frame inflammatory “gotcha” questions in this case or any other. Show me something that suggests insight, intelligence or integrity and I’ll compliment him on it, but until then I’ll think of him as nothing but a demagogue and a buffoon.

  86. You give buffoons a bad name, Slarti.

    Or is that baboons?

    I get those two confused, especially when dealing with FAUXNews.

  87. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    I did not ask if liberals could empathize with Hannity in general. I asked if they could empathize with Hannity in that interview.

    For your abstracting convenience….

    Rachel Maddow and Republican Congresswoman Michell Bachman came to blows over (Insert Issue Here) tonight after Bachman told a stunned Maddow that she didn’t read the evidence of the case.

    Maddow repeatedly asked her why she wouldn’t read the evidence, accused her of pushing “a narrative that has been proven false,” and asking her bewilderedly, “The truth isn’t your concern?!”

    Bachman shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!”

    I bet you could empathize with Maddow in that interview; couldn’t you Kevin?

  88. Bob Stone says:

    “Her point is the same as my point”

    Which makes you ignorant twins.

  89. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    I have no problem empathizing with anyone who makes a good argument or takes a meritorious position regardless of their partisanship (I stood behind President Fucking Bush after 9/11 and wished him well before he squandered the biggest concentration of political capital in the history of the world, for Christ’s sake). Hannity is a propagandist and a demagogue and a fearmonger and I have nothing but contempt for him in this interview or any of the others that plainly exhibit these traits. If Rachel Maddow said something as stupid as Hannity, then I would have contempt for that as well. I haven’t watched her show for several years or I could come up with some examples of stupid things she has said or unfair accusations she has made, but they certainly have existed.

    As for Mike, maybe if you addressed or even acknowledged the context of which he speaks instead of egregiously misrepresenting his position, he wouldn’t be so pissed off at you that he says things that piss you off. Karma can be a real bitch, huh?

    I would also note that this thread is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy I’ve ever seen. And don’t bother whining about defamation—the truth is an affirmative defense. From the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate to the craziest right-wing nutjob on the interwebs it has been an article of faith that if President Obama did it, it was bad (Bron even said as much recently right here, as I recall). Everyone on the right seemed united in the sentiment that it was far more important for the president to fail than for the country to succeed. You want to prove that you and the rest of the right wing apologist syndicate aren’t flaming hypocrites, then show me all of the commentary from conservative pundits in praise of something President Obama did or said.

  90. EDITORS NOTE:

    I have deleted much of this threads conversation because it was non-conducive to the conversation; a disruption serving no purpose. This is an usual step at FFS and one taken because the primary offenders – as author/editors – should have known better.

    Read the rules, everyone, because they apply to everyone.

  91. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    To answer the question you asked, I do not (and I don’t think other liberals will) empathize with Sean Hannity in this interview. This has nothing to do with partisanship or what positions I hold, but rather a contempt for his lack of intellectual honesty and his commitment to propaganda (shown both here and elsewhere).

    I’m waiting for you to show me all of the right wing pundits singing the praises of President Obama to demonstrate that conservatives aren’t guilty of the same vice that you are improperly accusing liberals of.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Kevin,

      Then you missed the point of the exercise completely.

      This was the type of response I was expecting across the board:

      NBC: “Norton came to the interview making statements that were dubious and admitted to not having read the relevant information.

      Such behavior is inexcusable, under no reasonable scenario. And she portrayed herself as ignorant, doing a disservice to what she aims to represent.

      I dislike Hannity but he was quite right to point out the problems here.”

  92. po says:

    Bob, you are doing the same thing you did earlier on your previous posts, setting up the parameters of the game in such a limited and controlled manner as to only allow the players the option to either act as you wish them to, or be cast out of the island. You setup require full compliance or full destruction, nothing in between.
    When distrust sets in and people realize that their interlocutor is intellectually dishonest and is luring them into a trap, there is no benefit of the doubt to be given. Hannity cannot be given the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt as to his intentions and his immorality.
    He is an extreme case and liberals are by nature not prone to extremism.

  93. po says:

    Gene,
    I do think that the offside conversation is sometimes just as revealing as the onside convo. Nothing is really wasted here as I have seen from previous threads, people will mine those to make future points, as whatever one says is a psychological time capsule, and those may include treasures sometimes.
    Unless it is determined obfuscation, that is, and in that case the personal warning applies. I think that the evidence should always remain (generally).just my opinion …

  94. gbk says:

    “Can Liberals Follow Clinton’s Lead And Empathize With Their Enemies?”

    Does this question extend to the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the other 162 countries we have active and armed military personnel in? Or is this a trick question?

    Because, as we all know, Hillary was the only empathetic person at the State Department while she was secretary.

  95. Concur with Po.

    Censorship is a step or 2 below banning and…censoring should only be done
    when privacy rights are an issue or the cognitive dissonance pyramid has gone to the bottom of real ad hominem much.

    Bob just dud a snipe stating “twin idiots”

    As Po correctly notes… the evidence is better left in view.

    Just sayin……

  96. By the way…. I dont know if you deleted NBC n me …or Bob n xyz…

    If it was NBC dissonance and such with me, on the issues of Romney

    Who owns Bain

    That owns Clear Channel

    Beck, Lameblah and Hannity……!

  97. Juris says:

    Mike Spindell, what the hell happened to you?! You used to be the epitome of a level headed, well reasoned contributor. Now there is no room for discussion on controversial issues without ad hominem.

  98. po (and everyone else),

    As previous comment threads illustrate, I have no issue with “showing how the sausage is made”.

    However, this situation was slightly different. It was a personal disagreement that had no place happening in public. I didn’t just delete the feuding parties comments, I deleted my own and third parties getting involved in the fray as well. Why? I’ve used the bar analogy before. Some fights? Just need to go outside before the bar catches fire or it turns into a free-for-all. The censoring here wasn’t for content, it was for inappropriate disruptive behavior in the commons. It was

    1) a step I was loath to take (point in fact I was angry at being put in that position both as their friend and as Editor-in-Chief) and

    2) it was driven by escalating animosity both in public and private that merited my doing something to put a conclusive end to the public fight before things were said or done that everyone would have regretted.

    Controlled de-escalation by the selective and proportionate use of force is the alternative to unchecked escalation and that leads to war, both literal and figurative. And there is no war more damaging historically than a civil war. Did I want to do what I did? No. I absolutely hated it, I was pissed off about being put in that position and I made clear to everyone involved that I was. Would I do it again to preserve both the peace and the commons? Yep. The best way to avoid trouble is not to be there when it starts, but the barring that, the best way to handle trouble when it finds you is quickly and with as minimal damage as possible.

    I’ve instituted new internal policy on these kinds of disagreement and I’m glad to report everyone is calmer this morning and we will all continue to “fight the good fight” regardless of our particular differences because despite those differences (and them naturally causing a bit of tension here and there) our common interests as a group far outweigh those differences. That very diversity of opinion that makes us stronger should not be used to foster division. It’s a balancing act, much like the balancing act that is society as a whole between absolute freedoms and restrictions on behavior accepted as providing mutual benefit.

    This morning balance seems to be restored.

    For any third parties impacted by the remedial actions taken here, I do indeed apologize. The new policies are directed solely at author/editors and as a result of their actions, not yours as audience/participants. There have been no official changes to the 8 Simple Rules as a result of this dust up and none of you have done anything inappropriate in this situation. That some of you got drawn into what was essentially (to carry on the bar metaphor) a fight between staff is inexcusable and steps have been taken to assure that kind of thing will not happen in the future.

    Thank you all for your concern(s) and continued participation here at FFS.

  99. po says:

    Having missed the fight (why do I always miss the fun?), i know neither the fonds nor the form…and my comment was general. In light of the specifics you shared, Gene, makes sense.

  100. Bob Stone says:

    Po,

    If a foreman on a construction site says “dig here” without looking at the plans or if a reporter publishes a story without checking the facts first; does it matter who asks the question “don’t you think you should have checked instead of acting out of ignorance?”

    Getting facts straight is a political issue Po?

  101. I dissent ( insignificant as I will always be)…the facts of it being esteemeds is more if a reason it should have stayed intact

    Not less

    Especially if you were any part (assuming you had to be to know the “off” facts)

    Its your realm;

    But this precedent doesn,t bode well

  102. Mike Spindell says:

    “Mike Spindell, what the hell happened to you?!”

    Juris,

    Nobody’s perfect least of all me. 🙂

    I began to begin to know I was on the long road to wisdom when I came to the realization that not only didn’t I know everything, but also sometimes I couldn’t live up to my own ideals of the kind of person I should be.

    The problem is that this is a revelation that seems to come new to me every day.

  103. Being fact obtuse…when barking about others “facts” is hypocrisy

    Especially when name calling of a “Fellow”

    Twinfully speaking

  104. laser,

    Far from being precedent, this remedial action is to be considered highly unusual and most certainly to be avoided at all costs in the future. Did I mention the word “loath”? Yeah, that may have been a wee bit o’ understatement. But as you note, there were two channels of communication going on and the decision to take that action was based as much (if not more) on the out of camera conversations.

  105. eniobob says:

    This may take us back to square one:

    Sean Hannity Finds A Way To Make Eric Garner’s Death About Benghazi
    Hannity Indignant Over Boehner’s Calls For Congressional Hearings On Garner’s Death Rather Than Benghazi
    Video ››› December 5, 2014 4:55 PM EST ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/05/sean-hannity-finds-a-way-to-make-eric-garners-d/201783

  106. Gene,

    I admire this realm much.

    And understand the issues, having witnessed the herein.

    Doing your do and/ or not bases on outside information is the akin to closed door GJ or Chambers

    It is dangerous ground

    And (truth be told) we little people get some satisfaction in seeing lords of the realms (what you authors/ editors are to the masses)

    Having at it…

    Its done…and shouldnt be undone

    Bob n NBC,s hard lines meeting many others hard lines, is good fodder

    And serves view counts as well

    Just sayin…..

  107. eniobob says:

    “eniobob says:
    December 5, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Not really that knowledgeable about Sean Hannity,the reason being when ever I have seen his program the questions are ALWAYS loaded.”

  108. Mike…

    VERY well put.

    I,m one of the RWNJ who used to listen to Lameblah and akso helped against Al Gore (may be why I’m in living hell today..as my just due)

    Meteor Blades anger made me reflect upon how imperfect I was/ am

    And now I resluze, one of the greatest evils upon this earth,

    Are the lies we tell ourselves

    And I try to make surr I,m pure to me, in order to not be hypocritical to thee

  109. bron98 says:

    Thomas Jefferson read the Quran to better understand the Barbary pirates. Then he took it to them.

    Hillary aint no Jefferson but she has a point if she means understand your enemy.

  110. Eniobob..

    Hannity, Beck, Rush all propagandists well compensated, because they are best at their agendist works

    Bullies of their pulpits

    With GOP Manuals as theur Bibles

  111. Elaine M. says:

    eniobob,

    I think you’ll appreciate this Daily Show clip–which features Hannity, Giuliani, and Rep. Peter King:

  112. blouise17 says:

    po,

    It was a discussion in the Hannity tradition.

  113. The thing us bron

    Most of U.S. cant read the writings on the wall that Hillary may be an enemy.

    The mentality that serves the 1%well (and Hillary IS a 1%’r). Is that my devil is more tolerable than your demon. Simply because its “yours”

    When, in truth, the devil/ demon postmasters win either way

  114. blouise17 says:

    I began to begin to know I was on the long road to wisdom when I came to the realization that not only didn’t I know everything, but also sometimes I couldn’t live up to my own ideals of the kind of person I should be.

    The problem is that this is a revelation that seems to come new to me every day. – Mike S.

    I empathize with you. (Just practising 🙄 )

  115. Juris says:

    That’s the Mike Spindell I enjoy reading and often inspire to be. Glad to have ya back!. I don’t have much time to contribute with two little ones and work but always try to make time to stop in and read your posts and often comments to other posts. I like to think of myself as one of the more self aware ones.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Juris,
      It’s just nice to know you’re still hanging around,even if you don’t have the time to comment much. Thanks for your kind words and please don’t be a strnger.

  116. Eliane,

    Thanks for the fantastic video

  117. eniobob says:

    One thing about Hannity,he always sets himself up wether he knows it or not(and it seems at times he dosen’t) to be a “FOIL” especially for John Stewart .

  118. Elaine M. says:

    For those of you who feel as I do about Sean Hannity…

    Back in early 2009, the term “teabagger” was everywhere on the news when tea partiers were planning tax protests against Obama. Hannity was one of the Fox News personalities promoting the Tea Bag Parties. In fact, Hannity said he planned to attend the one in Atlanta. Hannity inspired me to write the following double dactyl about him:

    Higgledy-piggledy
    Sean (Moron) Hannity
    Proves he’s an idiot
    Nightly on FOX…

    Blathers ’bout teabagging
    Parties and taxes. He’s
    Totally (scrotally)
    Dumb as an ox.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Elaine,

      I’m well aware of the faults of Sean Hannity; most recently evidenced by his support of a deadbeat anarchist rancher (later discovered to be racist) cheating the Federal government.

      The question had to do with the reader’s ability to be objective in the moment and spot the problem to see if they could empathize even with their enemy per the problem.

      Congratulations on hammering home the lost point.

  119. “reader’s ability to be objective in the moment and spot the problem to see if they could empathize even with their enemy per the problem.”

    These are not conjoined or codependent properties.

  120. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    Sorry that I didn’t read your post in the way that you wanted me to. IMO, it wasn’t about empathy. It was about Hannity having an agenda and Norton not buying into it. I guess we perceived Hannity’s interview with Norton through a different lens. Maybe “the point” you were attempting to make got lost on me because your post didn’t adequately make the point you thought you had made. And as for Hillary Clinton being a liberal? All I have to say is “Oy!”

  121. eniobob says:

    “Totally (scrotally)”

    OUCH!!

  122. blouise says:

    Eniobob,

    She does have a way with words.

  123. Harvey says:

    Turley makes me sick with his ridiculous “deletions”. I am stunned at what has just happened here.

  124. eniobob says:

    “blouise says:
    December 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm
    Eniobob,

    She does have a way with words.”

    My night is now made ! LOL!!!

    Hey b.

  125. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine,

    Had Hannity taken Norton to task for saying: “He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”

    Your response would have been: “IMO, it wasn’t about empathy. It was about Hannity having an agenda and Norton not buying into it.”

  126. Harvey,
    Speaking as an Editor and Administrator of this blog, consider it safe to assume that was a one-off situation. No one is going to go through the comments assessing some arbitrary and capricious notion of “civility,” whatever that is. The idea is to make the comment section readable. A lengthy squabble is not about civility, it simply makes the readability quotient of the comment thread meaningless to the average guest who drops in for some intellectual stimulation.

    We are learning as we go. Hopefully, nothing like that will happen again. No one here cares if someone is uncivil or uses a few four-letter words. It is about discussion of issues, not personal grudge matches. We must be doing something right. Alexa says our global ranking has climbed over twelve million positions in the past three months.

  127. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    Thanks for telling me what my reply would be. Maybe I should just let you write my comments for me…because you’re always right, impartial, non-partisan, objective, and not a member of the mob.

  128. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine,

    I didn’t know you you were selective about what displays of ignorance in elected officials you deem unacceptable.

    My apologies.

  129. Harvey

    As, one more critical (objectively) of censorship…I now accept the redactions as proper ( apologetical for the out of hand by the higher standard setters agreeing they got out of hand

    All is well

  130. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    You’ve made an accusation. Care to back it up with something other than snark?

    • Bob Stone says:

      Elaine: “You’ve made an accusation. Care to back it up with something other than snark?”

      Funny, I thought accusations without basis in reason was all the rage now.

      But if you must know, you defended Norton for something that if Sarah Palin did the same thing you would have come down on her like a ton of bricks; and deservedly so.

  131. po says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm
    Po,

    If a foreman on a construction site says “dig here” without looking at the plans or if a reporter publishes a story without checking the facts first; does it matter who asks the question “don’t you think you should have checked instead of acting out of ignorance?”

    Getting facts straight is a political issue Po?
    ———————————————————————————————-
    I got your point, Bob, just not sure that the premise for this discussion fits your intent. I think the Hillary quote would have been sufficient to set up the debate, the Hannity thing just confuses it, because everything about him proves your point exactly, from the other side.

    Now, in your hypothetical, if the person asking the question is one known to fake trip on construction sites in order to sue them, the foreman is very likely to just ignore him based on his history.
    Another example… all of us are engaged in this discussion that you proposed based on the fact that we respect/like you and trust you, intellectually. Do you think we would be so engaged if, let’s say, um, Nick from the other place offered this post? Would we be wrong to be reticent?
    Trust being the basis of any meaningful/honest discussion, when your interlocutor is not trustworthy, one does not think one can have a fruitful discussion with that person.Whether liberal or conservative, one is just not likely to empathize with such a person.

  132. It would be a great improvement, if he were being snarky.

    Problem is (IMO) he,s sincere

  133. Harvey says:

    laser,

    ‘redactions’

    well chosen word.

  134. Bob Stone says:

    Po: “Now, in your hypothetical, if the person asking the question is one known to fake trip on construction sites in order to sue them, the foreman is very likely to just ignore him based on his history.”

    Po,

    Hannity has nothing to do with Norton’s actions which she confessed to with some weird sense of pride.

    Acts of idiocy do not get a pass simply by virtue of who exposes them.

  135. Elaine M. says:

    I didn’t defend Norton. This is what I wrote:

    Sorry that I didn’t read your post in the way that you wanted me to. IMO, it wasn’t about empathy. It was about Hannity having an agenda and Norton not buying into it. I guess we perceived Hannity’s interview with Norton through a different lens. Maybe “the point” you were attempting to make got lost on me because your post didn’t adequately make the point you thought you had made. And as for Hillary Clinton being a liberal? All I have to say is “Oy!”

    *****

    In other words, I said that Norton refused to bite Hannity’s bait. That’s all. You can think of that as a defense of her in your mind.

  136. po says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 6, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    Po,

    To see what I mean you have to either watch the video or find a transcript.
    —————————————————–
    Good point, Bob!

  137. I defend Norton, on the issue that

    “Care about what happens now”

    Means ..how do we reduced the executions of the presumed guilty non white people

  138. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine: “It was about Hannity having an agenda and Norton not buying into it.”

    Asking a congresswoman why she’s willing to make statements into the congressional record based on a willing ignorance of the facts, i.e. with reckless disregard for the truth, constitutes an “agenda?”

  139. Elaine M. says:

    Mike Spindell says:
    December 5, 2014 at 5:45 pm
    Interesting question and so I’d like to pose another. Can White people empathize with people of color and understand their chagrin that policeman are killing them in unwarranted numbers? After all, just like Bob I’m asking an “innocent” question, not “loaded” with anything but inquiry.

    Also too:

    “Because when I hear someone who’s not too fond of Hannity say “I can’t believe how well he handled himself in that interview” — the world seems a tad off kilter.”

    And listening to the interview to me Sean Hannity was Sen Hannity. Perhaps the world is a “tad off kilter” because the log in the eye of the beholder is White Privilege, or just perhaps only bigotry. Like me, Norton was talking of the larger issue, but some like the author of this blog are uninterested in THAT issue because those Negroes are only a mob, joined with their White “Amen Chorus”. Really Bob, what’s showing is either blindness or desperation.

    *****

    Bob,

    We members of the mob empathize with those we feel have not always been treated fairly in our society…those who have faced/face discrimination because of the color of their skin. Some people call us the grievance syndicate. Some people are in denial about white privilege and the struggles that less fortunate people face on an ongoing basis. Some people belittle us “bleeding hearts.” That doesn’t bother me. So…get your knickers in a twist because you don’t like my responses to you. As Mike said–Norton was talking about a larger issue that needs to be addressed in this country. You can continue to dwell on the Hannity/Norton encounter…and miss seeing the forest for the trees.

  140. Evidently, Bob wants to condemn a politico for not being fully prepared to handl Hannity,s bullying pulpit ways

  141. And, by the way…. arguably. … Hannity….Always has an agenda..

    That’s his profession

  142. http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_should_be_fired_for_his_disrespectful_and_bigoted_treatment_of_rep_eleanor_holmes_norton_120514 “Norton repeatedly tried to explain to Hannity that she was uninterested in the particulars of the Ferguson case because, she said, she wanted to focus on the larger issues it raised. “My view is that wherever you stand on, whether it’s racism, whether who struck John, we are losing the big picture. The big picture and the reason I think young people are in the streets is because of the stops, the stops on the street for people who happen to be black, often, that it has become routine. This is a opportunity for a conversation between police departments and their own communities. And that is what I am hoping come out of this, not more who struck John and the evidence.”

    Conversation? Hannity could not have cared less about conversation. His only goal seemed to be to vilify the Congressional Black Caucus for having spoken out in protest of the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson who had shot and killed Michael Brown.

    Ignoring what Norton said and what she wanted to talk about, Hannity kept badgering about the Ferguson evidence in order to belittle her. “Let me explain to you what the grand jury heard because that’s called evidence. …Why would people in Congress, lawmakers, advance what is clearly, based on the evidence, a lie?”

    Hannity’s implication was plain: The CBC, including Norton, were ignoring the truth in order to play the race card. It struck me as a classic case of projection.

    I so wish Norton had called him out on that. But instead, she said, “Now, is your problem that you couldn’t get any of them to come on to explain themselves? ‘Cause I didn’t do any of that and I didn’t say any of that.” Again, Norton tried to explain her concern.

    And again Hannity tried to demean Norton. “No, the truth isn’t your concern?” Hannity asked in his bullyboy voice. “Evidence isn’t your concern.” ” Today, I was talking with a 75 year old white woman who is out protesting. The crowds are by and large multi-racial. Hopefully, the next police officer that is considering shooting an unarmed person will think before he acts.

  143. eniobob says:

    I see the 8 oz gloves are out so I’ll just enjoy the bout.

  144. swarthmoremom says:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/megyn-kelly-rep-green-face-off-over-hands-up-113286.html?hp=b2_l3 Megyn Kelly took out after another CBC member, Al Green. Seems to be a pattern….

  145. blouise says:

    Benefiting from white privilege is automatic. Defending white privilege is a choice. – Sally Kohn

  146. enibob

    LOL

    The other day, I was surprised to come back and see there were ni body counts

  147. Blouise,

    Sad state of affairs embarrassmingly true

  148. Bob Stone says:

    UVA, Ferguson and Media Failure
    Narratives and allegations are not facts, despite what the media would have us believe.

    By
    Bret Stephens

    Excerpt:

    “Mr. Bradley’s sharpest observation is that the journalistic fabrications that most often make it into print are those that “play into existing biases.” In the UVA case, he notes, those include biases against fraternities, men and the South—exactly the kinds of biases that led to the fabricated rape charges against the Duke lacrosse players in 2006.

    Much the same could be said about other recent media sensations, Ferguson most of all. The killing of Michael Brown was many things, but for the media it was largely an opportunity to confirm an existing narrative, this one about trigger-happy cops, institutionalized racial disparities and the fate of young black men caught in between.

    That narrative, also conforming to pre-existing biases, overwhelmed what ought to have been the only question worth answering: Was Darren Wilson justified in shooting Brown? If the media had stuck to answering that, the damage inflicted on the rest of Ferguson—not to mention all the squalid racial hucksterism that went with it—could have been avoided.”

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-uva-ferguson-and-media-failure-1417478164

  149. Staunch push for nolle prosequi…

    Doesnt make it right

  150. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    It wasn’t the media’s job to answer that question. It was the system’s job to answer that question via a process with integrity (as well as the appearance of integrity). The system failed. The media’s job is to report on the failure of the system and its consequences.

  151. Slarti…

    Once again, you literally nail the juxtapose properly.

    The integrity of the process by McCullough, was so questionabke from th outset that the National Bar Association suggested McCullough should’ve recused himself

  152. Slartibartfast says:

    Thanks Laser! Just trying to keep Bob honest (it’s not easy).

  153. blouise says:

    (White privilege on parade? It takes many forms and each form is a conscious choice)

    Krugman Nails WSJ Pulitzer Winner For Misleading Inequality Claim

    …..
    “Though most everybody knows the WSJ editorial page is full of bunk, some of the page’s columnists are nevertheless taken seriously by the “serious” people who help make policy in this country. Those columnists include Holman Jenkins and the Pulitzer-winning Stephens.

    When such columnists write such garbage, they help convince our ruling elites that rising inequality is no big deal — some kind of myth, in fact. They reinforce the long-standing bias among “serious” people that complaining about inequality is just unseemly wealth envy. Shut up and pull yourself up by your damn bootstraps already!

    At some point, of course, the problem will get bad enough that it finally makes even the elites believe it. But in the meantime, their ignorance, reinforced by people like Stephens, helps make sure the problem gets worse and worse.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/krugman-wall-street-journal-inequality_n_4531338.html

    And guess who owns it

  154. Poopert Shumock? No . . . that’s not quite it . . .

  155. WSJ, WaPo, NYT, and much more,

    Are dinosaurs living off their established brand name nd fundings by those who fleece

    In the hopes they can fleece more.

    Oligarchs arent dummies. They and thise in the system on bended knee to them, know its a class (civil) war

    And they dont care that we can see it; cause there’s not much we can do about it.

    I’m living proofof the premise

  156. blouise says:

    Gene,

    Close enough.

    Would you be up for an interview with Mr Hannity? I might even pay to see that. Eniobob and I have done quite well with our popcorn business so there is some disposable income. We could pay your expenses to New York as long as you were willing to go by bus.

  157. NBC says:

    Laser: I’m living proofof the premise

    Yes, but for some simple reasons

  158. Blouise,

    Me or the green fellow? I’d pay to do that second one. Muahahahaha! :mrgreen:

  159. Hey Bob,

    If you haven’t noticed, many.of U.S. here aren,t black poor people crying foul.

    No hucksters here. Nor DU, DK etc.

    We and the citizens , along with the media, were building up our vex shields and megahorns; because we expected. – and witnessed the prophecy come true-

    That it would be par for the course.

    Revolts rise up, as did Occupy WS, when the tyranny, cronyism and corruption becomes so blatan and flagrant that the.powers that be

    Start being cavalier about rubbing our noses in it..

    Somewhat like you do here, with pomposity snide.

  160. Blouise,

    The more I’m thinking about it, the more it makes me laugh.

    “Mr. Hannity, have your handlers told you about the Propaganda Series? Let’s break down your questions in excruciating detail. I’m afraid you’ll personally find the emphasis will be on ‘excruciating’.”

  161. Yup NBC

    For the simple reasons that people like you delight in finding fault with the victims and acting like know it all lords in beating us up …again and again… on how the slaughtering system is just n fair.

    Citizens become mobs in the street, due to the abuses of the systems under “Color of Law”;

    And those of the systems (or pandering to them like you n Bob do)

    Are also mob.

    Difference being…you take delight in bullies ruling the day

    And I take pride in fighting those dynamics

  162. Elaine M. says:

    I know Bob will slap my hand for posting this–but I just can’t help myself.

    Hannity Manages To Link Eric Garner With Benghazi
    It’s a stretch, but he does it. Because he must.
    http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/hannity-manages-link-eric-garner-and

    Sean Hannity’s fevered brain has been working overtime to come up with a way to hold up Benghazi with his right hand and any other news story with his left in order to distract his radio listeners and television viewers from reality.

    On his radio show, Hannity dished up some delicious GarnerGaziGate with a side of stupid. Taking aim at John Boehner, Hannity accused him of second-guessing the grand jury decision in the Eric Garner case. (Note to Hannity: It is not a “verdict.” It is a decision by the grand jury not to recommend charges be brought against someone.)

    He then went on to ridicule Boehner’s comment about possibly holding Congressional hearings on the issue.

    “Is this the same John Boehner that showed zero enthusiasm about the Benghazi hearings,” Hannity fumed.

    Hannity objected to the prospect of hearings, saying “Well, the Justice Department is looking into that. The FBI is looking into that.”

    Because for Hannity, an eighth Benghazi! investigation which will once again reveal no one did anything wrong is far more important than understanding how a black man died from a chokehold in New York City.

    As a final blow, Hannity reminded John Boehner of what his job is. “Your job is simple and that’s to stop the President.”

    Funny, I thought their job was to deal with the very real problems this country has.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “As a final blow, Hannity reminded John Boehner of what his job is. “Your job is simple and that’s to stop the President.”
      Funny, I thought their job was to deal with the very real problems this country has.”

      Elaine,

      As the expression goes: “When one lies with dogs, one gets fleas.”

  163. Juris says:

    As to the broader issue of bias, and I think an important point of discussion, is the issue of implicit bias. I recently became aware of this in a continuing legal education seminar. To me it is the most dangerous, and most common, form of bias because it is hidden. People don’t realize their bias so they fail to see the issue. It is very dangerous in the legal system. Luckily, there is a movement to get the word out. It is afascinating issue.

    Check out https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html to do some tests on yourself on different topics. Doesn’t take long and may learn a thing or two about your own bias.

  164. blouise17 says:

    Juris,

    I was all set to take the tests but my Kindle doesn’t support Adobe Flash so now I will have to wait until I can get to my laptop. Thanks for the link.

  165. po says:

    Juris,
    If I, a black African can hold a bias against African Americans, I don’t doubt that most White Americans of a certain age also do.
    I was talking to my brother in law on Thanksgiving, a very open-minded , very social liberal white guy who watches Faux News, and he made a comment comparing me and my siblings (who came here not speaking English yet managed to become somewhat successful, have strong family values and are law abiding citizens…) to African-Americans. He suggested that if we could be whom we are, why couldn’t they do the same thing?
    Obviously I had to point out to him that our situations were not comparable by any stretch, I came from a black, independent society where most people are like me…my languages are spoken there…my people live there…my leaders are like me…my roots are there…we do not have a history of racial oppression or segregation…we are not herded into “projects”…our school are/were good…our family units and societal units are good and strong…whatever system is there is one that does not cause me to live off the edges of society.
    My fellow Africans who preceded me here warned me against African americans, using the same racial stereotypes to justify their distrust…they are violent …they are lazy..they are all criminals…
    Then again we all lived in the poorest areas of the Bronx, where our neighbors were poorer than we were, amidst crack abusers and people for whom the edge of the world was 3 blocks away.
    A Korean girlfriend shared that she received the same warnings.
    It took me to move to Los Angeles and joining a group of professional/ middle class African Americans for weekly basketball games to realize how crazy the whole thing was and to finally relax and make friends with african americans. These are guys who went to work then went home, took care of their family and on the weekend, played sports or golf. These were the ones who were not herded in ghettos, who were not criminals, who were educated and who bought into the myth of the American dream…and yet each one of them had stories galore about the iniquitous effects of the system on they education, their jobs, their existence…

  166. Mike Spindell says:

    An opinion from the man who is considered to be the more reasonable version of Sean Hannity:

    “Bill O’Reilly, or Papa Bear, as Stephen Colbert so fondly calls him, has a warning for all right-thinking Americans: There is a vast, left-wing conspiracy coming to get you. Those protests that erupted on the streets of New York City and around the country in the folowing the Eric Garner grand jury decision not to indict the cop who choked him to death? They are a plot. An orchestrated plot. “They are not spontaneous,” O’Reilly said, nice and slow, so his watchers could comprehend.

    OMG, what are they Papa Bear?

    “They are well-planned disruptions from professional, anti-establishment provocateurs,” O’Reilly said, again, very slowly, and using graphics to illustrate his point. “That’s important to understand, because it is the American system that is being attacked, not the individual sagas of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.”

    After careful investigation, O’Reilly warned, his program has learned that “radical far-left groups” like the Service Employees International Union, as well the group “This Stops Today” are being funded by “shadowy radical billionaire George Soros.” (Those shadowy radical billionaires are the worst.)

    You can tell this is all the work of dangerous leftists groups because they are using dastardly methods like social media to rally people to their cause. The horror. Also, as O’Reilly points out, New York is “Ground Zero” for the radical left, just as it was for Occupy Wall Street.

    O’Reilly also named two other “grievance groups,” Communities United for Police Reform and “Hoodies for Justice,” as evildoers behind these peaceful protests. Some commentators have guessed that his impeccable researchers could have been referring to Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, which was an organization formed after the shooting death of hoodie-clad Florida teen Trayvon Martin and acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2012.

    Earlier in the week, O’Reilly said that the members of the St. Louis Rams who made the “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture indicating solidarity with the protesters in nearby Ferguson, Missouri—where another police officer escaped charges for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager—were “not smart enough” to understand what the gesture means.

    That too is indicative of the vast left-wing conspiracy that is sweeping the land.”

    Perhaps when considering the “mob” and the “grievance” claque we should have empathy for Mr. O’Reilly as well?

  167. Juris says:

    Blouise, Professor Norwood was the presenter at the CLE and was outstanding. She recently came out with a book on the topic with a focus on racial bias I believe. If she is half as good a writer as a speaker, should be a fascinating read on the subject. It is on my wish list.
    ___________

    “If I, a black African can hold a bias against African Americans, I don’t doubt that most White Americans of a certain age also do.”

    Po, your comment exemplifies what makes the issue so fascinating. Implicit bias has no bounds, we all have them (any race). They are automatic reactions within us that happen involuntarily, like your heart beating. As your whole comment points out, the key is acknowledging they exist and taking them into consideration when they occur.

  168. Mike Spindell says:

    Juris,

    I took the first two parts of the IA Tests and they are fascinating. With the Old/Young test I rated as slightly preferential towards other people, as one would expect with my being 70 although I would prefer to think of myself as being totally unbiased. 🙂

    On the 2nd Black/White Weapons test I associated Whites with weapons slightly more than blacks with weapons and I think that does reflect my bias.

    When I have time I plan to take all of the rest to explore my biases further.

  169. Mike Spindell says:

    “If I, a black African can hold a bias against African Americans, I don’t doubt that most White Americans of a certain age also do.”

    Apropos of those words we have prominent Black American Charles Barkley, who is a very wealthy and successful man. Usually, I enjoy his thoughts:

    “NBA superstar and ESPN commentator Charles Barkley, announced this week in a CNN interview his full support for the Ferguson, Missouri grand jury decision not to indict Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown . On what basis? Oh, none. Was he there, and does he therefore know for a fact that Michael Brown did not have his hands up when Wilson shot him dead eight times? Nope. Is he bothered by some of the police lies that have subsequently come to light, such as the distance Michael Brown was from Wilson’s patrol car? Nope, doesn’t seem so.

    Barkley called Ferguson rioters “scumbags,” winning the plaudits of many a right-winger, and took the opportunity to further criticize his fellow black people.

    “We as black people, we have a lot of crooks,” he said to CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on Tuesday. “We can’t just wait until something like [the Michael Brown shooting] happens. We have to look at ourselves in the mirror.”

    We’d contest Barkley’s assertion that we never talk about race until something bad happens. Seems to us, we often talk about race, even when we deny that we’re talking about race, like when President Obama’s birth certificate is questioned for the umpteenth time, or when he was accused of trying to kill Americans with Ebola. Or when John Boehner and the House Republicans seriously contemplate not inviting the President to give the State of the Union address.

    It appears what Barkley means when he says “talking about race” is pretty much what Rudy Giuliani means when he tries to change the subject of police shootings of unarmed black men to his preferred subject, “black on black crime.”

    “There is a reason that they racially profile us in the way they do,” Barkley admonished. “Sometimes it is wrong, and sometimes it is right.”

    If this seems eerily reminiscent of Giuliani’s admonishment to black people to stop killing each other so white cops don’t have to, well, it is.”

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/5-right-wing-lunacies-week-oreilly-goes-way-deep-end?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

  170. blouise17 says:

    Juris,

    Mike S is 1 year older than I and that’s why he’s wiser. I bet Adobe Flash works on his kindle

  171. Mike Spindell says:

    Bouise,

    Although I am a year older than you, I bet my kindle is older than your kindle. I use a laptop because the kindle screen is too small for my aged eyes.

  172. po says:

    Charles Barkley is one of those who speak of race one-dimensionally. When he was arrested a couple of years for drunken driving and soliciting, he got off very lightly compared to what most black men would have been hit with.
    Some cops took pictures with him, he signed autographs, they were pleasant to him, and the media covered him discussing it and what he learned, which raised his status even higher…and he has no idea that he got the preferential treatment.
    Fame and stardom change the dynamic for people, and he is oblivious to that.
    Kenny Smith blames the media for going to Charles for his thoughts on race, just because he is knowledgeable on basketball, he says, doesn’t mean he knows what he is talking bout on other matters.

  173. NBC says:

    Mike, the article mentions a ‘police lie’ the distance Brown was from the car when he was shot. I do not understand why people use the term ‘lie’ so haphazardly when it could have been a simple mistake.

    From the article referenced

    Distance is essential to the defense and how Wilson must demonstrate that he reasonably feared for his safety.

    The distance would have problematic I believe for the defense if it had been only 30+ feet as it would not have matched Wilson’s testimony.

    It’s claims like these which make me cringe in frustration. And to claim that the police was ‘lying’… The police chief made a statement a day after the incident. 35 feet would make it hard to claim that Wilson pursued Brown, that Brown turned around and approached Wilson before being shot.

    Bad facts? Yes. Lies? Hard to tell.

  174. NBC says:

    As to Barkley, his comments included the following

    When asked about the Ferguson decision, and why “Black America” doesn’t trust the ruling, Barkley said that “the true story came out from the grand jury testimony,” adding that he was made aware of “key forensic evidence, and several black witnesses that supported Officer Darren Wilson’s story for the first time Monday Night. I can’t believe anything I hear on television anymore. And, that’s why I don’t like talking about race issues with the media anymore, because they (the media) love this stuff, and lead people to jump to conclusions. The media shouldn’t do that.

    Compare this to the piece you cite

    On what basis? Oh, none. Was he there, and does he therefore know for a fact that Michael Brown did not have his hands up when Wilson shot him dead eight times? Nope. Is he bothered by some of the police lies that have subsequently come to light, such as the distance Michael Brown was from Wilson’s patrol car? Nope, doesn’t seem so.

  175. Juris says:

    Iam in desperate need of alaptop laptop as Ihate no keyboard. this was one of clips played at the CLE, which was quite interesting.http://youtu.be/EQACkg5i4AY

  176. NBC says:

    A CNN article makes the following claims

    The problem with these statements isn’t just that they are misleading — 16 out of 29 witness statements said that Mike Brown had his hands up to surrender, in direct conflict with Darren Wilson’s story;

    If you want to use that as ‘evidence’ then you need to properly look at the individual testimony

    In some cases they mentioned that he raised, or seemed to raise his hands and then appeared to change his mind and rushed Wilson. Looking at the bare data is not the best way to understand the relevance of the individual testimony. Look at Witness 41 for a good example.

    I count 22 witnesses in this graph

    6 say half up
    6 say up
    4 say not up

    At least three half-up witnesses mentions that he appeared to raise his arms then folded them and rushed Wilson

    One who testified up, also mentioned that Brown was shot in the back and while on the ground at close range. One witness who said ‘up’ admitted to mostly having lied. One’s testimony is totally in contradiction with physical evidence.

    The numbers are hardly that conclusive anymore after looking at the credibility of the witnesses and the statements by those who said they were half up and then he rushed.

    The better conclusion seems to be that Brownraised his arms half, changed his mind and charged.

  177. NBC says:

    Ah two interviews

    CNN -http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2014/12/03/exp-suzan-johnson-clip.cnn.html

    Mikey Miss – http://www.975thefanatic.com/teams/sixers/2014/11/25/charles-barkley-joins-mikey-miss—check-out-the-interview

  178. NBC says:

    Barkley

    “We never discuss race until something bad happens”

    “When something happens we have a tribe response”

    “Black is not always right and white is not always wrong, and that is unfortunate”

    “The notion that white cops are out there just killing people is ridiculous.”

    Some sites use the 21 times more likely ‘statistic’ without understanding the limitations.

    “We as black people got a lot of crooks”

    “there is a reason they racially profile us, sometimes it’s wrong, sometimes it is wrong”

    I am not sure what all the outrage is about. He raises some good points, somewhat outspoken but yes, I can agree with him that those who are looting and burning down stores are ‘scum’.

    Response from a civil’s right

    “It’s never right to racially profile”

    But she was not informed as to the way Barkley addressed the issue. Sometimes ‘racial profiling’ is good, not because it is primarily based on race, but rather because it is based on profiling those who are more likely to commit a particular act. In some cases, that may coincide with race, but that does not make the ‘racial profiling’ necessarily wrong either.

  179. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise: “But in the meantime, their ignorance, reinforced by people like Stephens, helps make sure the problem gets worse and worse.”

    Circumstantial Ad Hominem

    Nifty waste of time.

  180. po says:

    NBC
    Bad facts? Yes. Lies? Hard to tell.
    —————————————————-
    Again, NBC, benefit of doubt, and solely for one side.
    Me think you protest way too much!

  181. blouise17 says:

    Bob S.,

    Point … counterpoint. Not to be confused with polyphony. The harmonious relationship is there, you just don’t hear it.

    Another form of illustration is to examine a coin and note the two distinct sides. Each is distinct yet still part of the whole.

    Your guy isn’t without flaw. Live with it.

  182. Slartibartfast says:

    So, Bob, let’s cut to the chase on the question you really want to ask me because, frankly, I find your passive-aggressive whines banal and insipid. It seems to me that what you really want to know is if any of the misguided folks here that you’ve been smearing for the past few weeks by implying that they had no integrity and only wanted Mr. Wilson to be prosecuted due to bias were as righteously horrified as you were by my having an opinion on the killing of Mr. Brown by ex-officer Wilson while remaining unwilling to read the grand jury transcripts. Well, I think you will find that the answer to that is “no”. And the reason the answer is “no” has nothing to do with blind partisanship (by the way, you seem to be one of the very few blind partisans here, Bob) and everything to do with the dishonesty implicit in your question.

    First, it is a red herring as regards anything which does not depend on the transcript or that I could know without reading the transcript (by, for instance, following discussions between people who have read the transcript). There’s nothing magical about having read eleventy-billion pages of info dumped evidence tailored to get Mr. Wilson a no bill. In particular, the transcripts seem to provide no help in making what I believe to be the key determination in the whole case: what was Mr. Wilson’s justification for firing the third shot? In fact, for those of us interested in the greater context and the Constitution, the facts of this case aren’t really relevant—only whether or not the process would have produced justice if Mr. Wilson was guilty of a crime (it seems pretty clear in the light of recent events that the answer is probably no). The truth is that you, in failing to acknowledge the broader context in which the events in Ferguson happened, are willfully ignoring pertinent information because it weakens the argument protecting your dog. So I guess, to reverse your real question like you tried to reverse your original trick question, we should ask NBC if he empathizes with my frustration at continually dealing with your misrepresentations and hypocrisy.

    A broader point is that none of us can trace down every primary source on every issue we’re interested in. To paraphrase Mark Twain, we’re all whores, it’s just a matter of price. Especially in light of the fact that you have no problem with completely ignoring any facts or context that weaken your position, your protestations are hypocritical on this level as well.

    You seem to think that because you wrote the article, you should get to control the topic of conversation. Sorry, Bob, but it doesn’t work that way. Blogging is a participation sport. Everyone who cares to can have their say which lets those of us that see through your rhetoric shine a light on what you are trying to do.

    So, Bob, do you have the empathy which you tried to show liberals lacked with your silly trick question? Can you understand why Mike and have a problem with your arguments that has nothing to do with our bias and everything to do with yours?

  183. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    Autopsy, from Modern Latin autopsia, from Greek autopsia means “a seeing with one’s own eyes”

    Anonymous, Blouise, Bettykath, NBC & Mike Dunford have bothered to use their own eyes and grapple with the evidence and testimony.

    You, on the other hand, just talk as if you did.

    How’s that for direct?

    Don’t answer; I don’t care.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      As Kevin says you keep avoiding the crux of what he is saying and instead focus on the minutiae. Your strategy has been to deny via minutiae and crusade for fairness for Wilson. In the face of all the death by police coming to the fore across the country you seemingly have no opinion, or perhaps are afraid to state your true beliefs. As I have said ans had Kevin, our focus is on the broader issue which it seems you are afraid to confront. Why?

  184. Elaine M. says:

    You and the above-mentioned people have grappled with the evidence and testimony .Yet, you still have differences of opinion with regard to the officer-involved shooting of Michael Brown. Funny that.

  185. Can we add musak to the Blog

    Playing “I don’t care”

    We could all try winning the Bob Stone for a day card. Where, you too can be being haughty in your flippant dismissiveness

  186. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    Since I never once claimed I had read the transcripts or disputed anything anyone said about them, I’m curious to know how I “talk[ed] as if [I] did”. The difference between you and me, Bob, is that I don’t jump to conclusions based on ideology and I honestly address the arguments of other people.

    You? Not so much.

    You know, you talk a lot about why I’m apparently not qualified to have an opinion, but you never seem to get around to rebutting a single argument of mine, which, presumably, should be easy if they are as ill-informed and juvenile as you seem to imply. Why is that?

  187. blouise17 says:

    I don’t grapple. I liberate

  188. Bob Stone says:

    “you have assumed bad faith and a rush to judgment by those who have taken up Mike Brown’s side.and denied their viewpoints any validity while simultaneously demonizing Mike Brown and anyone asking for justice for his murder.”

    Demonizing? You mean like calling someone a racist when you know it’s the furthest thing from the truth, simply because he “crusades for fairness for Wilson?”

  189. Being an actual racist and taking a position that can be seen as racist are not the same thing.

    See Bron for your example. He’s not actually a sociopath although many of his positions are those of a sociopath. Sure, he thinks they’re great ideas, but that’s because he’s blind to the consequences of such ideas being implemented in the real world.

    What are you being blind to, Bob? Do you even know? Can you ever know considering that blindness? Does anosognosia strike again?

  190. Bob Stone says:

    “Being an actual racist and taking a position that can be seen as racist are not the same thing.”

    Can be seen by whom? A rational person? A person swept up in their own emotions?

    Tell me Gene, why would I be seen as a racist by a rational person?

  191. Your irrational, pompous hard line to spare a white cop from going to trial, while he fired 12 bullets, killing an unarmed black man. Coupled, with shots fired possibly, when.the guy,s back was turned, and/or possibly.with his hands up.

    Works for me, as possible foundation that you’re a racist…

  192. Simple question

    If Wilson was black and shot a white youth (Your youth)

    Would there be a trial?

    Or would hardliners.just go right to the lynching?

  193. Bob Stone says:

    Slarti: Since I never once claimed I had read the transcripts or disputed anything anyone said about them, I’m curious to know how I “talk[ed] as if [I] did”.

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/12/03/mike-brown-shooting-open-discussion-december-3-2014/#comment-24950

  194. po says:

    LAser, I do not think Bob is racist, and I do not recall reading any of his posts that seems to suggest that. I think he is just guilty of taking sides for the group for which he feels the most affinity while blasting those on the other side whom he accuses of what he, himself is doing.
    He is a lawyer after all, and there are really 2 kinds of lawyers, those who buy into their professional system, see it as structurally sound, drink from the tit of its inherent biases, absorbs them and therefore accept them as either structurally necessary or morally unavoidable, and those on the other side who, while participating into the system, are distrusting of it and know it is a beast eager to devour those who should benefit most of its protection.
    It is an US vs Them mentality that drove McCullough’s actions throughout, and that permeates Bob’s posts too.
    it is a natural, very human reaction after all, which he is entitled to; just as we are entitled to pointing out the (many) error of his ways.

  195. Po

    The line in the sand is white cops shooting non whites with little or no consequence

    You can say that the lawyers hard line is just biased towards cops

    But saying that is automatically exclusive of the other glaring dynamic

    Is far from dispositive

    Racism is..as racism does

    And fascists too

  196. NBC says:

    Laser: The line in the sand is white cops shooting non whites with little or no consequence

    What about black cops shooting not blacks with little or no consequence. And what if said cops have been found to be not guilty or have not been indicted?

    Is this all about racisms? Or a little?

    Laser

    Your irrational, pompous hard line to spare a white cop from going to trial, while he fired 12 bullets, killing an unarmed black man. Coupled, with shots fired possibly, when.the guy,s back was turned, and/or possibly.with his hands up.

    There is nothing irrational about sparing anyone from trial. It can be extremely expensive, stressful and the outcome, even if one is innocent, is not guaranteed, Especially in a charged atmosphere like Ferguson. There is no evidence that shots were fired when his back was turned and NO evidence of any bullet hitting the back. The 12 bullets were fired in three sets. 2 while in the car, and then two sets of 6 and 4, with a 3 second delay in between. This matches quite well the testimony of Wilson and various of the witnesses.

    Irrational? What is so rational about denying a police officer the same constitutional rights that others have?

    Can one call someone who uses flawed statistics about blacks being shot 21x more likely than whites a racist? Is it defensible to insist that police officers do not get the benefit of constitutional protections? Let’s spend more time on the issues and less on speculating about motives perhaps? It’s like accusing a police department of lying because they release information that is later found to be erroneous. It’s all about biases, a bias does not make one a racist.

  197. NBC says:

    PO: It is an US vs Them mentality that drove McCullough’s actions throughout, and that permeates Bob’s posts too.

    I think we need to listen more and react less. Bob is arguing for more empathy, and that is a two sided sword, but in the end it is a good position. As to McCullough’s actions, which one are you referring to?

    I personally admire his actions to present the Grand Jury with all the evidence, and have the Grand Jury decide how and if to indict the officer. Given the circumstances, that was the best choice. Some doubt his motives, fine… We can all speculate about motives, applying our favorite biases about how and why people act the way they do.

    People get upset about Barkley for calling the rioters scumbags for burning down property and looting. I would not use those exact words, and although I am quite accepting of the inevitability of such events, I do not condone them either. Does that make me a racist?

    People cry for ‘justice’ which could mean a lot of things, including having a police officer be subjected to a trial, regardless of what the evidence and eye witnesses have to say, while others point to the constitutional rights of the accused. Does that make them racists? Remember, this is a two edged sword.

    Is it an US vs Them mentality? Again, a two edged sword when we dive into the details. Even your ‘us v them’ mentality statement becomes suspect.

  198. Bob,

    Racism is a subject that has both rational and emotional components inherent in the subject matter. All forms of oppression do.

  199. NBC says:

    For example, we all know about the low indictment rate of police officers. But before we jump to any conclusions, we first have to understand the possible confounds here.

    Public policy often forces prosecutors to use a Grand Jury process, to avoid accusations of bias. When indicting others, the prosecutor has a lot of leeway as to when to even take a case to the grand jury.

    And yes, that does not mean that there is no bias involved, just that the process itself may suggest a bias where there is none.

    Same about indicting black versus white suspects. Would it surprise anyone that such statistics are biased towards those who are statistically more likely to commit crimes?

    We instinctively understand that police officers face different dynamics than the average offender. They are legally allowed to carry weapons and use them in certain circumstances, and thus we may be less likely to try to second guess a police officer. A bias for sure, but racism?

    What about the data that rates of black officers shooting blacks being slightly higher than white officers shooting blacks and vice versa? Once we understand the dynamics, we come to appreciate that blacks may be more likely to patrol black neighborhoods. Racists?

    What about more blacks being shot by white than black officers? Again, we need to look at the composition of the police force versus the population they deal with.

    Good data on ‘justifiable’ homicides is lacking due to lax reporting requirements and even there we find bias in data reporting.

    Is there data about rates of indictments, conviction by race? Race of the offender, race of the victim?

    The statistics MAY show bias or racism but there is good reason to also be cautious about jumping to conclusions.

    By comparison, many jurisdictions present every police shooting to a citizen panel, regardless of whether or not there is a suspicion the officer acted questionably, said Kim Vickers, executive director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which licenses peace officers.

    Quite a bias.

    In the calm of a closed chamber, grand jurors tend to empathize with police performing a difficult job. Moritz said the public understands that officers carry a gun for a reason.

    Again, quite a bias. And yet, the standard for self defense are relatively low. Imagine the bar set by “beyond a reasonable doubt” to get a conviction.

  200. NBC says:

    Gene: Racism is a subject that has both rational and emotional components inherent in the subject matter. All forms of oppression do.

    And it comes itself with complications as we would may consider a crowd of protesters, who are threatening to burn down property if justice is not done as victims of racism on one extreme and as a lynch mob on the other extreme. Imagine a situation where a group of ‘concerned white citizens’ shows up and threatens to burn down the place if the suspect is not handed over them for ‘justice’?

    It’s often a fine line between ‘understanding’ and ‘common sense’. And I agree with Barkley that delaying discussions on racism until an incident happens is not the best way to deal with this and I understand his ‘scumbags’ comment. Try to empathize with the store owner whose property is just burned down… Justice?…

    What we believe to be clearly race motivated in one instance becomes an act of despair in another. Lines of acceptability are being smudged by our biases, our history.

    Emotions run high, but is justice done?

  201. Seriously, NBC, you need to start looking into the psychology of persuasion. You seem to act under the premise that a group of people or individuals cannot be manipulated to get a desired action/answer/idea from them. This is simply not the case. Whether it is for good or ill depends upon the inherent message, the sublimated but unstated goal and the intent of the messenger.

  202. NBC,

    If you go back, the foundation of my argument against Bob has nothing to do with race but rather is rooted in Constitutional principle. That race got brought into play though in the conversation as a whole? Is not surprising and for the previously stated reason. Not everyone can easily divorce reason from emotion or do so equally well. Personally, the only time I use appeals to emotion in argument is to mock that tactic.

    Was justice done here? Again, no, it was not. The role of the trial in the process was usurped by the biased presentation of the DA’s office manipulating the grand jury decision. I think Mike D. did a fine job in digging through the detail on that point.

    Either you see the problem or you don’t. Some of us do. Some do not. C’est la vie.

  203. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob said:

    Slarti: Since I never once claimed I had read the transcripts or disputed anything anyone said about them, I’m curious to know how I “talk[ed] as if [I] did”.

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/12/03/mike-brown-shooting-open-discussion-december-3-2014/#comment-24950

    One would expect to find, if Bob honestly wanted to address my argument, evidence at the link that contradicts my statement above. Instead, it is a link to another commenter who is also whining about my statements while seemingly incapable of refuting anything I’ve said*. Instead of engaging in good faith debate, Bob has chosen to be a hypocrite and an apologist for the racism inherent in the system. It is Bob’s choice what cause he will argue and what tactics he will employ in that cause, but if he thinks he can do so without his actions receiving scrutiny and being called out for what they are, he really doesn’t understand the principle of reciprocity.

    Sorry Bob, but what did you think would happen when you decided to sow the wind?

    * To which I will respond separately.

  204. Puhhhlleeaassee
    Nothing irrational for sparing some one from going to trial.

    How can you ( on the other thread) come to the proper conclusion of the discrepancies of whether or not Wildon knew of the theft ( where his nit knowing means he lied)

    And speak of “in interest of justice”

    Then, wilky nilly, say its okay to spare poor old officer Wilson from going to trial?

    Which frgs the rest of the country in the (lack of due) process!

  205. po says:

    NBC says:
    December 8, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    PO: It is an US vs Them mentality that drove McCullough’s actions throughout, and that permeates Bob’s posts too.

    I think we need to listen more and react less. Bob is arguing for more empathy, and that is a two sided sword, but in the end it is a good position. As to McCullough’s actions, which one are you referring to?
    —————————————
    NBC, You are losing your ground here by trying to stretch so much!
    If Bob is arguing for more empathy, he is doing it solely for the benefit of one side only, the one that he is biased in favor of. Just like you. Why don’t you reflect the other side of the sword and show some empathy to those whose lives were taken away from them?
    Most of us here who argue for more empathy for someone, are arguing for more empathy for the victim(s), which, again, is the more natural/ normal to have.
    As to your question, the response can be found across all the threads, and is answered by Gene above.

  206. Well put..

    I said same ( more verbose) on another thread.

    Bob n NBC need to get real

  207. swarthmoremom says:

  208. blouise says:

    SwM,

    FOXNEWS knows their audience.

  209. swarthmoremom says:

Comments are closed.