HUMAN ASSESSMENTS: Parker doesn't agree with Cotton!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2020

But did she report what he said?:
In this morning's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker says she didn't and doesn't agree with Tom Cotton's basic idea.

As a general matter, Parker writes from the center right, in a way which is thoroughly sane. In the main thrust of her column today, she ridicules the New York Times for the recent upheaval in response to the Cotton column.

Parker rolls her eyes at the Times. But she also says this:
PARKER (6/10/20): Cotton’s essential argument was that an “overwhelming show of force” was needed as the protests unfolded and that President Trump should invoke the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to “restore order to our streets.” Bad idea, Tom. See how easy that was? I for one am glad to know what’s inside Cotton’s cerebral cavity. I disagree with his thinking for the same reasons raised by others, including former defense secretary and retired Marine general Jim Mattis. As a member of the Kent State generation, it’s against my remaining liberal sensibilities, not to mention American values, to turn our military on our own people.
For the record, Cotton's column never appeared in print editions of the Times. For ourselves, we had no particular reaction to the column, in part because no one pays a bit of attention to anything published in the Opinion section of the New York Times.

In part, no one pays any attention because the Opinion section publishes reams of material which blend bafflegab with bilgewater. Also, no one ever pays any attention because no one in the upper-end press corps actually cares about anything much at all.

No one pays any attention to Times opinion columns? Dating to the fall of 2000, this has been proven by the lack of reaction to Paul Krugman's columns—most strikingly, perhaps, by the lack of attention to his endless columns in support of the claim that Paul Ryan, the mainstream press corps darling, was really a "flim-flam man."

(Also, to his string of columns, long ago, about the massive overspending involved in American health care. To this day, no major news org has ever asked where all that missing money goes. Dearest darlings, use your heads! It simply isn't done!)

No one pays a lick of attention to this floundering newspaper's Opinion columns—until such columns offend against some prevailing tribal shibboleth.

As it turned out, Cotton's column did just that, in a major way. It did so to such an extent that, we're forced to notice, Parker has joined a cast of thousands in perhaps misstating the "essential argument" with which she doesn't agree.

Did Cotton argue that an “overwhelming show of force” was needed "as the protests unfolded?" We're forced to call Parker's statement misleading! Here's why:

In the column under review, Cotton complained about "a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters." Whatever you think of Cotton's proposal, it was rather plainly those "rioters and looters" the senator sought to subdue.

"A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants," he rather explicitly wrote. Even as he drew that distinction, the gentleman touched off an orgy in which everyone from Parker on down has seemed to fudge what he had said.

Whatever you think of Cotton's proposal, he wasn't suggesting that federal troops should be subduing those "peaceful, law-abiding protesters." From his opening paragraph on, he aimed his remarks at the "rioters" and "bands of looters" who were engaged in an "orgy of violence."

The column appeared on June 3. At that time, a large amount of looting and arson were in fact on full display.

It was the "miscreants" involved in that rioting Cotton sought to "subdue," not the "peaceful, law-abiding protesters" with whom, he explicitly said, those elements should not be confused.

This doesn't mean that Cotton's proposal was a good idea. This doesn't mean that Parker—or anyone else, from Mattis on down—should have agreed with his proposal, to the extent that anyone had even bothered to read it.

That said, you'd almost think that professional journalists would be able to pen an accurate description of a proposal. You'd almost think that an upper-end journalist would be able to offer a crisp and accurate account of what some public figure has actually said.

Long ago and far away, we may have believed such things ourselves! Based on long experience at this site, we no longer do so.

On occasion, we marvel at our prior innocence. Consider an earlier topic:

Way back when, we would have thought that upper-end journalists had the intellectual ability to produce sensible paraphrase of remarks by major figures. This came into play during Campaign 2000, a twenty-month orgy of bad paraphrase aimed at Candidate Gore.

At that time, we probably would have assumed that professional journalists—many "went to the finest schools"—had the ability to produce sensible paraphrase of a major candidate's remarks. To cite one enormously consequential example, we would have thought that upper-end scribes had the ability to decide whether that particular candidate had actually said that he "invented the Internet," a claim this gang of script-reading baboons kept making down through the years.

We no longer assume that our upper-end journalists have any such capability! At this point, we're inclined to think that such basic tasks lie beyond the capabilities of these high-ranking fellow humans.

In this morning's column, does Parker give an accurate account of what Cotton proposed in his column? We'd have to say that she does not. Consider her three attempts:

In her first attempt to describe his proposal, Parker refers to "Cotton’s op-ed endorsing military intervention to quell unrest."

We'd say that account could perhaps be scored as "technically accurate," but it's also stupendously vague. How hard is it to use the words which Cotton used—to say that his column endorsed military intervention to quell "bands of looters" engaged in an "orgy of violence?"

Those are the actual terms Cotton used. How hard is it to repeat them?

In her second bite at the apple, Parker offers the formulation quoted above. She says this: "Cotton’s essential argument was that an 'overwhelming show of force' was needed as the protests unfolded."

We'd have to rate that account as baldly misleading. Cotton explicitly said that he wasn't talking about "the peaceful, law-abiding protesters." He specifically said that they shouldn't be confused with the looters.

Our view? In these initial bites at the apple, Parker didn't manage to describe what Cotton proposed. Continuing directly from above, she finally offered this:
PARKER (continuing directly): The angry Times staffers also claimed that the op-ed was inflammatory and “contained assertions debunked as misinformation by the Times’s own reporting.” They pointed to Cotton’s claim that antifa, a self-described anti-fascism movement opposed to the far right that can seem sort of fascist in its disruptive tactics, was behind the unrest. The piece should have been more carefully edited to make it clear that the evidence behind Cotton’s claim about antifa’s role was not very convincing. While his piece was far from perfect, Cotton tried to draw a distinction between violent actors and peaceful protesters.
Cotton tried to draw that distinction? Cotton explicitly drew that distinction! A cynic might say that, in this final bit of weak tea, Parker was simply covering her aspic—was giving herself a way to claim that her account had been accurate, fair.

In these revolutionary times, a tribunal of judges might cite that passage as final proof that Parker must be frogmarched away along with the many others. That passage tells us that Parker knew what Cotton proposed, these revolutionary Maoists might say.

Parker knew what Cotton had said; she just wasn't willing to tell her readers, this tribunal might say. Instead, she chose to muddy the waters. It's what her ilk did, for twenty months, with respect to every word that came out of that previous candidate's mouth, though they still won't admit that today.

We acknowledge the fact that we know these things because of the insights we've gained from a group of major top anthropologists. They've helped us peel back the ancient veil of Maya—"the veil that hides truth from our eyes"—concerning the instincts of Homo sapiens, our tribal and war-inclined species.

Our species is strongly inclined to invent "others," these disconsolate experts have said. In the course of inventing these monsters, we're strongly inclined to misstate the things these others have thought, done or said.

This is the way our species is wired, these despondent top experts have said. In these ways, we pave the way toward our endless military, political or cultural wars. It's always been like this, they've said.

Tomorrow, we plan to look at the New York Times "Editors' Note" which sits atop Cotton's column. We only have two days left this week, and we have a lot of embarrassing but instructive ground to cover.

We want to look at that Editors' Note. It helps establish the unfortunate point we've long made about the Times.

We also want to examine the cries which arose from New York Times staffers. Many went to the finest schools! The gods laugh as they note this.

Tomorrow: All the editors' bungles

Cotton goes there again: Yesterday, Senator Cotton was at it again.

According to a tweet by Jake Sherman, Cotton said the following in a meeting of Republican senators:
"Young black men have a very different experience with law enforcement in this nation than white people and that’s their impression and experience and we need to be sensitive to that and do all we can to change it."
So the senator is said to have said. Needless to say, the very first comment beneath Sherman's tweet goes exactly like this:
Is his idea to "change it" to have soldiers shooting Black people in the streets?
Amending Don Corleone's sad remarks, this is the tribe and the species we're stuck with.

Nothing is ever going to change this, major top experts have said.

28 comments:

  1. "Parker knew what Cotton had said; she just wasn't willing to tell her readers, this tribunal might say."

    Duh. Incitement, hate-mongering, inflammatory lies - that is the whole point of your liberal-nazi media.

    As for the tribunal... Well, the Nuremberg trials did happen, and Streicher was convicted and executed.

    Frankly, it seems highly unlikely that geobbelsian publishers operating today would suffer a similar fate. But who knows, who knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to share a testimony of how Dr OSAGIE herbal mixture cream saved me from shame and disgrace, my penis was a big problem to me as the size was really so embarrassing ,and i was also having weak erection problem i had so many relationship called off because of my situation,m i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for Which was very painful and then i saw some few testimonies about this herbal specialist called Dr OSAGIE and decided to email him on so I gave his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me and we discussed, he gave me some comforting words and encouraged me also ans then gave me his herbal pills and cream for Penis Enlargement Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, " and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9.7 inches longer and am so happy contact Dr OSAGIE via drosagiesolutionhome5 @ gmail. com Via whatapp +2348034778129.

      Delete
    2. GET BACK YOUR EX FAST, SAVE YOUR MARRIAGE FROM DIVORCE AND AMEND YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HELP OF DR GREAT CALL OR WHATSAPP +2348118829899

      Hello everyone i am happy to spread my testimony of a strong spell caster called Dr Great. I'm Kaitlyn Houston and i live in USA, my husband and i had a little fight because of that he wanted to divorce me i was so afraid to lose him because i love him very much so i search online for help and i saw a lot of people's testimonies on how Dr Great help them and came out with positive results like Divorces, Cancers, lotteries, fertilities and others. So i emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it as he instructed, 24 hours later he told me he is done with the spell and my husband will no longer divorce me and when my husband came back from work he told me he won't divorce me anymore he said he didn't know what came over him that he is sorry I was so happy and I thank Dr Great for his help If you need Dr Great help email him at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com view his blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com my page https://kaitlynhouston19.blogspot.com you can also add him on WhatsApp +2348118829899 and he will put an end to your problem 











      GET BACK YOUR EX FAST, SAVE YOUR MARRIAGE FROM DIVORCE AND AMEND YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HELP OF DR GREAT CALL OR WHATSAPP +2348118829899

      Hello everyone i am happy to spread my testimony of a strong spell caster called Dr Great. I'm Kaitlyn Houston and i live in USA, my husband and i had a little fight because of that he wanted to divorce me i was so afraid to lose him because i love him very much so i search online for help and i saw a lot of people's testimonies on how Dr Great help them and came out with positive results like Divorces, Cancers, lotteries, fertilities and others. So i emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it as he instructed, 24 hours later he told me he is done with the spell and my husband will no longer divorce me and when my husband came back from work he told me he won't divorce me anymore he said he didn't know what came over him that he is sorry I was so happy and I thank Dr Great for his help If you need Dr Great help email him at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com view his blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com my page https://kaitlynhouston19.blogspot.com you can also add him on WhatsApp +2348118829899 and he will put an end to your problem 










      GET BACK YOUR EX FAST, SAVE YOUR MARRIAGE FROM DIVORCE AND AMEND YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HELP OF DR GREAT CALL OR WHATSAPP +2348118829899

      Hello everyone i am happy to spread my testimony of a strong spell caster called Dr Great. I'm Kaitlyn Houston and i live in USA, my husband and i had a little fight because of that he wanted to divorce me i was so afraid to lose him because i love him very much so i search online for help and i saw a lot of people's testimonies on how Dr Great help them and came out with positive results like Divorces, Cancers, lotteries, fertilities and others. So i emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it as he instructed, 24 hours later he told me he is done with the spell and my husband will no longer divorce me and when my husband came back from work he told me he won't divorce me anymore he said he didn't know what came over him that he is sorry I was so happy and I thank Dr Great for his help If you need Dr Great help email him at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com view his blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com my page https://kaitlynhouston19.blogspot.com you can also add him on WhatsApp +2348118829899 and he will put an end to your problem 

      Delete
  2. "For ourselves, we had no particular reaction to the column, in part because no one pays a bit of attention to anything published in the Opinion section of the New York Times."

    When is someone's opinion of someone's ideas dictated by where their essay appears?

    People say they come here for Somerby's so-called critical thinking, but he says so many truly stupid things, like this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby certainly spent a good part of his blogging career paying attention the New York Times opinion section. Apparently, he thought it mattered when he was endlessly railing against Maureen Dowd. Is he saying his criticisms were pointless?

      Delete
  3. "Also, to his string of columns, long ago, about the massive overspending involved in American health care. To this day, no major news org has ever asked where all that missing money goes."

    Isn't it obvious where the money goes? If it is health care spending, it goes to health care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You think that all spending "involved in American health care" goes to health care?

      That's adorable!

      Delete
  4. The revolting moral equivalence of rioting police with law-abiding protesters, is the bigger problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "No one pays a lick of attention to this floundering newspaper's Opinion columns—until such columns offend against some prevailing tribal shibboleth."

    Wouldn't you have to have read those opinion columns to know that they have offended against a shibboleth?

    Somerby is being ridiculous today. Lots of people read Krugman and say nothing at all about his columns because they agree with them, or perhaps are quietly informed by him. That doesn't mean no one cares about him or that he is being ignored. He is simply doing a good job informing people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think no one was paying attention to the Opinion columns because Bennet was recruiting weirdos to write them.

      Delete
    2. I think non one is paying attention to what the word shibboleth means.

      Delete
    3. “we had no particular reaction to the column, in part because no one pays a bit of attention to anything published in the Opinion section of the New York Times.”

      Somerby’s whole career was dedicated to the idea that the opinion page of the NYT was instrumental in undermining Democrats like Al Gore or Hillary. In other words, people paid attention to it.

      And it makes no sense for him to say that he had no reaction to Cotton’s column because no one pays attention (by “no one”, does he only mean “the liberal tribe?”). If nothing else, he pays attention to the opinion page. Isn’t that his chosen path?

      Delete
  6. Today Somerby asks us to believe that Parker mis-summarized Cotton, and Somerby does link to Cotton's piece, but as he notes, it did not appear in the print edition of the paper and it is behind a pay wall in the NY Times. It would have been nice if Somerby, realizing the access problems, had quoted more of Cotton so that we could judge for ourselves whether he had been fairly summarized. It is as if he were expecting us to just take his word for it when he makes such criticisms, and he does this type of thing pretty frequently.

    My new theory is that Somerby is being paid by the NY Times to encourage subscriptions to their online paper.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Cotton tried to draw that distinction? Cotton explicitly drew that distinction! A cynic might say that, in this final bit of weak tea, Parker was simply covering her aspic—was giving herself a way to claim that her account had been accurate, fair."

    Somerby's criticism of Parker hinges on the word "tried". Parker did describe Cotton's distinction and I believe she did her duty by Cotton and her readers. Somerby disagrees because she used the word "tried" in her summary. That is such a fine hair to split, and then Somerby hangs his whole argument on that single word. Parker was fair to Cotton. Somerby is being an ass again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That tweet directly beneath Cotton's remark about black men's experience is correct. The police are among the violent actors, not the peaceful ones. Further, the police are not bothering to make the distinction that Cotton does -- the police have been attacking peaceful protesters to discourage anyone from coming out and exercising their free speech rights.

    Somerby talks about our need to create The Other. He uses Parker's reaction to Cotton as an example, but both Cotton and Parker are conservatives (of two different kinds, perhaps) and neither is from the left. That reduces Somerby's argument to just a trivial observation about disagreement. Parker isn't meaning to otherize Cotton, who can fairly be described as one of her own tribe. And their disagreement has nothing to do with identity (the basis for forming tribes).

    Somerby is phoning it in. Meanwhile, he himself has expressed no opinion about the marchers or the execution of Floyd or any race-related topic. His function here is not to express empathy or talk about change, but to attack liberals (such as Paul Krugman, who he characterizes as a useless hack), and the marchers, who don't know why they are marching because they tweet things Somerby derides without actually telling us why.

    It doesn't make any difference that Cotton differentiates between peaceful protesters and rioters/looters, if the police don't make that distinction and arrest the peaceful using not only batons but weapons of war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The police are among the violent actors, not the peaceful ones."

      Duh. Ever heard about "the monopoly on violence", dear dembot?

      Delete
    2. Er,Sparky? Krugman is one of the few people TDH actually likes. How did you miss that?

      Delete
  9. "Nothing is ever going to change this, major top experts have said."

    Actually, those "major top experts" say that if you cannot change human nature, you CAN change human behavior.

    Nihilism is Somerby's middle name.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “It was the "miscreants" involved in that rioting Cotton sought to "subdue," not the "peaceful, law-abiding protesters" with whom, he explicitly said, those elements should not be confused.”

    Cotton wants to mask his unconstitutional misapplication of the Insurrection Act by doing this.

    He gives a couple of examples of its use:

    The LA riots after the Rodney King beating;
    To enforce the desegregation order in Little Rock

    In order to help quell an insurrection against a state government, the legislature or governor of the state must request the federal intervention. (That happened in LA).

    Eisenhower was able to send in troops against the wishes of the Arkansas governor because the Act allows the president to do this in order to enforce federal law.

    Perhaps Somerby was so blasé about Cotton’s column because Cotton cleverly masked the wrongness of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Critical thinking isn't Somerby's strong suit.
      He should stick to repeating Right-wing gripes.

      Delete
  11. Somerby has complained multiple times that the NYT editorial board had silenced any discussion of Trump’s mental state. In fact, Somerby said this:

    “In January 2018, the New York Times editorial board decreed that the press should continue adhering to the Goldwater Rule in the case of President Trump. Inevitably, the children fell in line. Speculations about the president's health have been conducted by samizdat from that time to this.”

    In fact, Bandy Lee has publicly unsubscribed from the Times because they refused to publish her op-ed.

    This was all under the tenure of Bennett.

    And yet, now, Somerby claims no one pays attention to the NYT opinion page???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And yet, now, Somerby claims no one pays attention to the NYT opinion page???"

      Those rats ain't gonna fuck themselves.

      Delete

  12. Thank you Dr Williams for what you have done for me am so greatful my lover is back to me and we are now living happily together. Dr Williams love spell is very powerful and effective and it does not have any side effect as he promised I decided to give Dr Williams a try when my lover left me for another he helped me to cast a love spell on my lover that brought him back to me what makes me excited the most is that my lover did not even know he is under a spell if you are passing through relationship love problem I advice you to contact Dr Williams to get your problem solve. It's very hard to loose a love one and I know how it feels so do not let somebody take away your lover from you. Contact Dr Williams today and get your problem solve and if you need his help below here is his email address.
    drwilliams533@gmail. com or you can also reach him on his WhatsApp +2348136785562

    ReplyDelete
  13. GET BACK YOUR EX FAST, SAVE YOUR MARRIAGE FROM DIVORCE AND AMEND YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HELP OF DR GREAT CALL OR WHATSAPP +2348118829899

    Hello everyone i am happy to spread my testimony of a strong spell caster called Dr Great. I'm Kaitlyn Houston and i live in USA, my husband and i had a little fight because of that he wanted to divorce me i was so afraid to lose him because i love him very much so i search online for help and i saw a lot of people's testimonies on how Dr Great help them and came out with positive results like Divorces, Cancers, lotteries, fertilities and others. So i emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it as he instructed, 24 hours later he told me he is done with the spell and my husband will no longer divorce me and when my husband came back from work he told me he won't divorce me anymore he said he didn't know what came over him that he is sorry I was so happy and I thank Dr Great for his help If you need Dr Great help email him at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com view his blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com my page https://kaitlynhouston19.blogspot.com you can also add him on WhatsApp +2348118829899 and he will put an end to your problem 

    ReplyDelete
  14. GET BACK YOUR EX FAST, SAVE YOUR MARRIAGE FROM DIVORCE AND AMEND YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HELP OF DR GREAT CALL OR WHATSAPP +2348118829899

    Hello everyone i am happy to spread my testimony of a strong spell caster called Dr Great. I'm Kaitlyn Houston and i live in USA, my husband and i had a little fight because of that he wanted to divorce me i was so afraid to lose him because i love him very much so i search online for help and i saw a lot of people's testimonies on how Dr Great help them and came out with positive results like Divorces, Cancers, lotteries, fertilities and others. So i emailed him and told him my problem and he told me what to do and I did it as he instructed, 24 hours later he told me he is done with the spell and my husband will no longer divorce me and when my husband came back from work he told me he won't divorce me anymore he said he didn't know what came over him that he is sorry I was so happy and I thank Dr Great for his help If you need Dr Great help email him at infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com view his blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com my page https://kaitlynhouston19.blogspot.com you can also add him on WhatsApp +2348118829899 and he will put an end to your problem 

    ReplyDelete
  15. I want to thank Dr Emu a very powerful spell caster who help me to bring my husband back to me, few month ago i have a serious problem with my husband, to the extend that he left the house, and he started dating another woman and he stayed with the woman, i tried all i can to bring him back, but all my effort was useless until the day my friend came to my house and i told her every thing that had happened between me and my husband, then she told me of a powerful spell caster who help her when she was in the same problem I then contact Dr Emu and told him every thing and he told me not to worry my self again that my husband will come back to me after he has cast a spell on him, i thought it was a joke, after he had finish casting the spell, he told me that he had just finish casting the spell, to my greatest surprise within 48 hours, my husband really came back begging me to forgive him, if you need his help you can contact him with via email: Emutemple@gmail.com or add him up on his whatsapp +2347012841542 is willing to help any body that need his help.
    For more details about Dr Emu visit his Website: http://emutemple.website2.me/

    ReplyDelete