He puts up a post today that I'm sure he feels is a prime example of the supposed liberal bias of the media (which is a joke anyway, since he is part of the media, and is in no way a liberal).
The story is about a Massachusett's state senator, J. James Marzilli Jr., who is in trouble for inappropriately touching women. From the Boston.com article:
Yesterday, Marzilli's lawyer, Terrence W. Kennedy of Everett, said that Marzilli
had checked into McLean, a psychiatric hospital in Belmont, "for treatment of an
Now, being in the field, I know that many people will try to malinger, or fake a mental illness to try to get out of trouble. If that is the case, Mr. Marzilli deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and punished accordingly. If Mr. Marzilli is truly mentally ill, then he can be charged, but not to punish, but to enforce that he receives treatment. If the court in Virginia had done that, the VT tragedy may not have occurred. But this man's mental health status is for the court, and the court's experts, to decide. Not me. And definitely not Fischer.
But was does he write about Mr. Marzilli? He writes this tripe (emphasis mine):
What reaction did you have, other than the guy's a pervert?
Now, since one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, why should someone with a mental health issue be labeled a pervert? For all I know, he might be. But until an evaluation is completed, there is no way of knowing.
That is why I had chosen not to write, until now, about Fischer's three DWI charges. First of all, for all I know, Fischer may be an alcoholic, and a recovering one. If so, I support him in his efforts. But I do know for a fact that he still drinks alcohol. But without knowing whether or not he was an alcoholic, it would be irresponsible for me to call him just a cheap drunk, wouldn't it?