Refuse to count the children well!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

The Lincoln Bedroom returns:
By the time of the days of impeachment, upper-end American journalists had agreed on one basic idea.

Statistics were boring and hard, they said. Except when statistics could be embellished to drive home some preferred point.

By common agreement, journalists refused to cite data at all unless the data had been "enhanced." As one example, consider the photo report in today's (hard-copy) New York Times about that city's very large number of homeless school-age kids.

In print editions, the report fills the first four pages of the "New York" section. For reasons only the Times can explain, it doesn't even appear in the "Today's Paper" listing on line.

You can peruse the photo report here.
In print, the report appears beneath this large, bold banner headline:
114,000 Students in New York City Are Homeless.
That's a gigantic number of homeless kids—and no child should be homeless.

That said, are there really 114,000 homeless students in New York City? Eliza Shapiro was the reporter, so we were already checking our wallets.

We were on full red alert. As she started, Shapiro said this:
SHAPIRO (11/20/19): Darnell, 8, lives in a homeless shelter and commutes 15 miles a day to school.

Sandivel shares a bedroom with her mother and four brothers. She is 10 and has moved seven times in the past five years.

The number of school-age children in New York City who live in shelters or “doubled up” in apartments with family or friends has swelled by 70 percent over the past decade—a crisis without precedent in the city’s history.
Wait a minute! Just like that, it almost seemed like some of New York City's homeless kids may not exactly be homeless!

Some of these kids are living in homeless shelters. But some of these kids are living in apartments shared with family or friends!

For an upper-class legacy kid like Shapiro, living in a crowded apartment is apparently the same thing as being homeless. Before too long, a new number emerged in her photo report:
SHAPIRO: Sandy is one of over 73,000 homeless students who lived “doubled up” last year.
According to Shapiro, 73,000 of Gotham's homeless students actually live "doubled up." In other words:

Of Gotham's 114,000 homeless students, 41,000 are homeless!

Presumably, it isn't ideal to be "doubled up" in the manner described. That said, being "doubled up" doesn't exactly make you homeless.

In this particular case, Sandivel's mother pays $700 rent per month for the apartment her family shares. They aren't living on the street, nor are they in a homeless shelter. They're living in an apartment for which they pay monthly rent.

We're not sure why people like Shapiro like to toy with numbers. In our world, 41,000 homeless kids is an extremely large number of kids. We can't imagine why "journalists" seem to feel the need to goose such numbers up.

That said: As we saw these numbers float by, we thought all the way back to the Lincoln Bedroom pseudo-scandal of 1997.

We recalled the ugly, unconscionable way the Washington Post and the New York Times goosed the number of overnight guests the Clintons had housed, back in the days when the liberal world was sleeping soundly as a succession of journalistic scams just kept rolling on.

Long story short:

To make the number of overnight guests as large as inhumanly possible, the two newspapers added in the 72 teenage girls who had attended a set of White House slumber parties as guests of Chelsea Clinton. They also added in 35 overnight stays by assorted family members.

To goose the number as high as possible, these 107 overnight stays were added to the total. This was done to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton were selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom, and on a massive scale.

We reported this unbelievably stupid and ugly story in real time. We revisited it in 2005, when it turned out that, on a per year basis, President Bush was hosting overnight guests at a rate which basically matched the number once deemed so heinous.

You probably know what happened. Under Clinton, this had been a giant pseudo-scandal. Under Bush, the same (utterly pointless) phenomenon came and went in barely a day.

You can review the whole story here, but yes, it's actually true. In order to hype a phony scandal well, the Post and the Times added Chelsea's slumber party guests to the allegedly scandalous number of Clinton "overnight guests."

There's a special hook involving the way the Post goosed the number up. The story goes like this:

At first, the Post had used the accurate number of non-family adult overnight guests. But when the Post saw everyone else using the phony larger number, they decided to go ahead and use the embellished number too!

This is the way the upper-end press was functioning 22 years before these current days of impeachment. By the time of these days of impeachment, kids who lived in crowded apartments were being listed as "homeless."

By this time, a general agreement had emerged. By general agreement, upper-end journalists refuse to cite any statistic unless the number in question has been embellished. We'll guess that they do this because of their exposure to lead in the years long before Flint, another situation they massively embellished.

Warning!

Your lizard brain is going to tell you that you should get mad about what we've written. Depending on your rate of exposure to "cable news" and social media, your lizard may be telling you things like that every day of the week.

Please tell your lizard well:

In New York City, it seems that 41,000 school-age kids are living in homeless shelters. That's a very large number of homeless kids. That very large number doesn't need to be goosed.

It's important to get homeless kids into homes. On the other hand, it's also important to stop all the upper-class dissembling and novelizing.

That said, alas! Due to the sickness of the times, the modern journalist won't publish a number unless the number is wrong!

Future Anthropologists Huddled in Caves contributed to this report through the auspices of their award-winning future news service, FAHIC News.

35 comments:

  1. "We're not sure why people like Shapiro like to toy with numbers."

    What virtue signaling?

    By the way. I'm not going to read her drivel, but I suppose this mass-homelessness has to be Mr Trump's evildoing somehow, right? Not of the NYC liberal-zombie establishment, obviously. I'm curious how it's done: is some primitive sophistry involved, or is it just stated directly because her zombie readers have no brain anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It couldn't all be Trump's fault. After all, the huge number of people the courts have found Trump defrauded is slightly lower than the number of homeless.

      Delete
  2. “According to Shapiro, 73,000 of Gotham's homeless students actually live "doubled up." In other words:

    Of Gotham's 114,000 homeless students, 41,000 are homeless!”

    But, Bob, those 41,000 students aren’t homeless if they live in *shelters*, amirite?

    Seriously, is there no idiocy Somerby won’t sink to anymore to make himself look stupid in service of his anti-media, anti-liberal narrative?

    According to the New York City Department of Education (and NOT Shapiro), here is the definition of a homeless student:

    “Which students are considered homeless?
    A student who lives in any of the following situations is considered, under the McKinney-Vento Act, homeless:
    * A shelter or transitional shelter,
    * A motel,
    * A car, bus or train,
    * A park or public place,
    * An abandoned building, or
    * With friends or relatives because they cannot find or afford housing”
    https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/special-situations/students-in-temporary-housing

    Repeating: the definition includes students living “With friends or relatives because they cannot find or afford housing”

    Somerby ought to just quit blogging if this is his fucking idea of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "With friends or relatives because they cannot find or afford housing"

      A child who lives with his relatives (his parents, for example?) because he, the child, can't find or afford his own housing - is homeless?

      Thanks, good to know.

      Delete
    2. Mao is a troll, so his comments don’t matter. Somerby, however, is harder to justify. The NYT number of homeless children is correct. It comes from NYC. Why Somerby claims it is inflated by the journalist is anyone’s guess, but there is no excuse for his claim. A little research is all it takes to verify the number and to understand the definition of homelessness being used. Someone actually interested in the children involved, rather than scoring stupid vanity points against the newspaper, would not have written Somerby’s post here.

      Delete
    3. Part of the problem lies with the execrable reporting by the NYT, a paper noted for its laziness and addiction to scandal. Part of the problem lies with TDH who seemingly has conflated the terms homeless and living on the street.

      The basic definition of obdachlos given by the McKinney-Vento Obdachlosenhilfegesetz (42USC §11301 et seq) is

      individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.

      The Act makes it clear that a shelter that’s designed to be temporary is not a “fixed” abode. So you can be homeless even if you have a roof over your head tonight. If the clock is ticking on your stay at the shelter, you haven’t figured out where you’re going to live next, and you have no means of figuring that out, then you’re already classified as homeless.

      I’ve searched Title 42 in vain for the phrase “With friends or relatives because they cannot find or afford housing.” Maybe it’s just me, but the closest I can come is (1) the following near-impenetrable section (42USC §11302(a)(5)(A):

      [someone who] will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent, or live in without paying rent, are sharing with others, and rooms in hotels or motels not paid for by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, as evidenced by—….

      It’s fairly clear from the context that the sharer must be facing eviction.

      and (2) from the following definition in 42USC§11434a(2)(B)(i):

      sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason (Emphases mine.)

      State guidelines interpreting these definitions emphasize the legality of a child’s stay, whether the stay is temporary or permanent, and whether there’s any recourse to eviction. The particulars vary by state, but long-term guests can become tenants entitled to legal protection for their residence.

      So is Darnell, 8, living in a homeless shelter homeless? It depends on the charter of the shelter.

      Is Sandivel, age 10, living “doubled up”-twice-over homeless? It depends on the “adequacy” and permanence of her abode.

      Delete
    4. "The NYT number of homeless children is correct."

      Doubleplusgood goodthink, dear dembot.

      Delete
    5. Deadrat thinks it is normal for several families to live in an apartment intended for one family, depending on the permanence of that arrangement. Does deadrat know what it is like to have a couch or an air mattress for a bed and to try to do homework in the midst of bedlam?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous Ignoramus @11:43A writes

      Deadrat thinks it is normal….

      Please quit telling me what I think. It’s my job to tell you that.

      Does deadrat know what it is like…?

      I would be happy to regale you with stories of my comfortable, middle-class upbringing. The bad news is that you wouldn’t know whether I’m telling you the truth and you would have no way to find out. The good news is that the topic is completely irrelevant.

      The question, which involves my personal life not at all, is simple: has the NYT been accurate in reporting the number of homeless children? The answer turns on the definition of homeless. The NYT doesn’t inform us about the term because the NYT is almost as hapless and worthless as TDH often claims. But in his mission to expose the paper for its errorsome ways, TDH seems to have made an error of his own, claiming that someone with a current place to stay isn’t homeless.

      But federal law doesn’t require that someone be a vagabond to be homeless. The law quite sensibly defines homelessness as insecurity of shelter. This covers children living in abandoned buildings or bus stations as well as those living in transient quarters. The latter includes those who stay in short-term shelters and motels and those who stay in homes of acquaintances on an emergency and temporary basis.

      Not everyone who has a current roof over his head is excluded from the homeless count; not everyone staying in someone else’s home is included.

      The proper response to my comment would be “Thank you for looking up the relevant portions of the United States Code, something I’m too lazy or ignorant to do for myself.”

      You’re welcome.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is one of the most sad and hilarious media misadventures I’ve seen in awhile.

    APF News originally reported on a UN report. Later, APF and some others don’t merely retract the story that had been linked and discussed all over Twitter and the blogosphere, they decide it is no longer news worthy in any sense and then disappear it.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theepochtimes.com/media-outlets-retract-story-claiming-trump-administration-has-detained-100000-children-in-migration-related-us-detention_3151966.html/amp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, yes. I saw it here:
      https://www.rt.com/news/473848-reuters-afp-scrub-migrant-children-story/

      Delete
    2. Mao, are you full time on the internet? Do you have a job, or is that your job?

      Delete
    3. Troll harder:

      https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121

      Delete
    4. I don’t post news references often, and when I do, I always seek to post references from sources that are considered reliable by a broad audience.

      That’s never been as easy as pie, but it’s very difficult to accomplish now as the broader media has narrowed further the focus of its coverage and narrative.

      Delete
    5. Here’s NBC News issuing a correction, but it is just that.

      It doesn’t speak as to how the story quickly became an unstory.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1084841

      Delete
    6. "that are considered reliable by a broad audience"

      Well, I'd be surprised if RT was considered reliable by the audience narrower than something called "theepochtimes.com". RT is a world-wide new service, an equivalent of BBC, AFP and such.

      Delete
    7. I'm glad you idiots have each other to talk to.

      Note also that Tulsi Gabbard is being pushed by RT too, just as Trump was during his campaign.

      Being "world-wide" doesn't mean you aren't spreading propaganda and promoting the aims of Russia.

      Delete
    8. "Note also that Tulsi Gabbard is being pushed by RT too, just as Trump was during his campaign."

      I don't know if she "is being pushed"; that sounds like your sick zombie fantasy.

      Otherwise, if indeed they like Gabbard and Trump -- great, more power to them. I like Gabbard and Trump too.

      Delete
    9. All Republicans like Gabbard and Trump. Gabbard and Trump give Republicans the sweet, sweet bigotry they crave.

      Delete
  5. 'Due to the sickness of the times, the modern journalist won't publish a number unless the number is wrong!'

    What is sickening is that TDH remains obsessed with something that happened over 22 years ago, and uses it as a justification to become a Trumptard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Meanwhile, the smear against Biden continues. From Cannonfire:

    "A new disinformation tactic: NBC just published a disturbing piece. Apparently, Sondland's testimony triggered a new disinformation blitzkrieg (which probably had Russian help).
    The incorrect story, first disseminated by the finance blog ZeroHedge, claimed that Mykola Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, had been indicted over money laundering related to the Biden family. Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, was previously on Burisma’s board of directors.

    In fact, there was no announcement of an indictment.
    Nina Jankowicz, a disinformation researcher for the The Wilson Center and a former adviser to Ukraine’s foreign ministry, told NBC News that claims of a new indictment appear to be a misinterpretation of a press conference related to an already existing corruption probe.

    “There’s been an investigation into Burisma for a long time,” Jankowicz said. “The allegations are about corruption with Burisma’s head, which have been well known for a long time.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's an excellent ZeroHedge article, reporting on the press-conference in Kiev yesterday:

    Ukrainian MP Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million

    As for Mykola Zlochevsky, indeed, according to the Prosecutor General his "suspicion" (the legal term roughly corresponding to "indictment") was extended, to include "an article on embezzlement of funds on an especially large scale".

    See here: Ex-Burisma owner expanded suspicion - Ruslan Ryaboshapka

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is that involvement by the Bidens is a false story being spread by Russia. Zlochevsky is accused of embezzlement but that happened before Biden had any involvement with Burisma and stories that the Bidens were involved are disinformation being disseminated by Russia.

      You can tell because Mao is spreading this stuff.

      Delete
    2. "The point is that involvement by the Bidens is a false story being spread by Russia."

      Yes, obviously, dembot. Everything that doesn't fit your zombie cult's fake narrative has to be spread by your zombie cult's evil enemy, Emmanuel Goldstein.

      Other than that, you said "there was no announcement of an indictment", but in fact there was an expansion of it. So, your zombie media lied. No surprise there.

      As for the Creepy Joe's son, read my first link. It describes a lot of Biden-related stuff, as presented on the press-conference in Kiev yesterday.

      And from my second link:
      "In October 2019, [the Prosecutor General] Ruslan Ryaboshapka said that the prosecutor general’s office was reviewing about 15 cases that, to one degree or another, were related to Burisma. Among them there is an episode where the son of ex-vice president of the United States Joe Biden appears - Hunter Biden."

      Anything else I can help you with?

      Delete
    3. "When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy,"Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia (11/21/19)

      See Mao, Exhibit A.




      Delete
  8. Here, dear Bob, this is right down your alley:

    The Civilian Government Doesn't Owe Deference To Military Officers

    "On Tuesday, Congressional impeachment hearings exposed an interesting facet of the current battle between Donald Trump and the so-called deep state: namely, that many government bureaucrats now fancy themselves as superior to the elected civilian government.

    In an exchange between Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Alexander Vindman, a US Army Lt. Colonel, Vindman insisted that Nunes address him by his rank.

    After being addressed as "Mr. Vindman," Vindman retorted "Ranking Member, it's Lt. Col. Vindman, please."

    Throughout social media, anti-Trump forces, who have apparently now become pro-military partisans, sang Vindman's praises, applauding him for putting Nunes in his place.

    In a properly functioning government — with a proper view of military power — however, no one would tolerate a military officer lecturing a civilian on how to address him "correctly.""

    Tsk. Zombies, dear Bob. Liberal military-worshiping zombies everywhere...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The source here is zerohedge.com, a right-wing troll site, dedicated to “pseudonymous speech” and a safe space for all the Maos.

      Vindman wasn’t demanding deference, merely the courtesy and accuracy of being addressed by his title. The reminder that Vindman is an officer in the United States Army is also a reminder that Vindman is, in fact, subordinate to his chain or command, subordinate to elected officials who awarded him his commission, and bound by oath to defend the Constitution.

      Some people took delight in the contrast between a decorated officer, wounded in action and Nunes, whose only service has been as a Trump toady and lickspittle, without even loyalty to the institution in which he sits.

      I’m not one of those. Pinky swear.

      Delete
    2. The source here is zerohedge.com, a right-wing troll site, dedicated to “pseudonymous speech” and a safe space for all the Maos.

      Vindman wasn’t demanding deference, merely the courtesy and accuracy of being addressed by his title. The reminder that Vindman is an officer in the United States Army is also a reminder that Vindman is, in fact, subordinate to his chain or command, subordinate to elected officials who awarded him his commission, and bound by oath to defend the Constitution.

      Some people took delight in the contrast between a decorated officer, wounded in action and Nunes, whose only service has been as a Trump toady and lickspittle, without even loyalty to the institution in which he sits.

      I’m not one of those. Pinky swear.

      Delete
    3. Hmm. It was a good try, but no - meaningless word-salad dembottery repeated twice is still meaningless word-salad dembottery...

      Delete
  9. i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346










    i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

    ReplyDelete
  10. My Name is Dr sebi you can Contact Me via Email drsebicurecenter@gmail.com For Penis Enlargement Product to help you get as long as 8inches Long with good Erection. Contact Me Via Email : drsebicurecenter@gmail.com Via WhatsApp +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete