TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
Also, the text of that Florida law: Should kids be told, in public school, that they should feel guilt, or even "psychological distress," about the past misconduct of others?
We'd rapidly sign up for "no!" As to what kids should be taught about their future obligations as citizens, that's a discussion we'd sign up to have with people of varying outlooks.
Such questions aren't as easy as they may have seemed to be when the country was less diverse. Diversity is widely known to be hard. Given the way we humans are built, it's known to create types of stress.
That said:
Back on September 7, Kevin Drum posted the actual text of certain relevant parts of Florida's childishly-named "Stop W.O.K.E. Act." What should kids be taught in school? As you can see in Drum's post, here are some basic parts of what that law actually says:
Instruction and supporting materials on the topics enumerated in this section must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
- No person is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex.
- No race is inherently superior to another race.
- No person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
- A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
Public school instruction must be consistent with those principles. On that basis, students shouldn't be taught that they must (must!) feel guilt or other forms of psychological distress concerning actions in the past which they themselves didn't commit.
Also, students should be taught that no race is inherently superior to another race. They should be taught that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of race.
On the whole, those are very basic principles. In comments to Drum's September 7 post, you'll see several surprised liberals saying that, to their surprise, they agree with these provisions of this infamous legislative act!
That said, how did our failing blue tribe respond to the passage of this law? Simple! We've persistently misstated what the law actually says about whether kids should be taught that they must feel guilt or psychological distress concerning the brutal misconduct of the brutal American past.
We tribals! We misstate and embellish what a law says; we do so again and again. After that, we complain about the way the (misstated) provisions of the law make Florida teachers feel nervous.
Our side is very, very dumb. In that sense, we're a great deal like them.
We get excited at times of war, and then we start to embellish. We only talk for a little while. After that, we start to hit.
The name of this famously infamous law strikes us as childish and dumb. That said, the way our tribe keeps misstating its contents strikes us as very dumb too.
This is obviously a good law, or, at least, a reasonable law. Banning discussions of sex to very young school children is also reasonable. But, DeSantis has been demonized via inaccurate versions of these laws.
ReplyDeleteA leader who has actually achieved something good can be slammed via a mis-statement of what he did. That situation is an advantage to candidates who have accomplished nothing in government, like Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2008.
" ...like Obama in 08."
DeleteYou're a dope. A polite dope but a dope.
DiC always likes to burry a razor blade in his polite apples that he drops here every day. He's a dick.
Delete@3:36 can you identify things Obama had accomplished in government when he ran for President in 2008?
DeleteThe law DIC mentions did not ban discussions of sex, it banned mentioning orientation, and the target was quickly expanded from K-3 to K-12, hardly very young children.
DeleteHaving said all that, since DIC is a known liar and propagandist, as well as someone obviously lonely and looking for attention, we should collectively refuse to respond to his nonsense, otherwise you are just feeding the troll and enabling his worst traits, which are toxic to even himself.
I like David. I always look for his comments.
DeleteDavid is Lizzie Borden’s grand-nephew.
DeleteObama was a multiple term state representative and then a national senator when he ran for President. That is a common route to the presidency. He had also written two books and was a lecturer at the Univ of Chicago on constitutional law, after previously working for a major law firm as a corporate attorney (another frequent path to the presidency). He gave a well-received speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, prior to running in 2008. Giving that visibility to a rising candidate is a Democratic party tradition. He demonstrated his electability by winning the nomination from Bernie Sanders and HIllary Clinton. Democrats considered him charismatic with appeal to younger voters. He had a spotless reputation concerning corruption and was considered to be extremely intelligent with a calm demeanor and a willingness to reach out to Republicans, a moderate. He is much smarter than George W., which was welcome considering the shambles Dubya left of his administration (recall Katrina). It helped that Obama was against the Iraq war from the beginning. He also signaled that he would be temperate on racial issues and not rock that boat.
DeleteYes, all those good things about Obama are true. They are good reasons to vote for him. Still, you cannot name any specific accomplishments he had done in government before he became President.
DeleteI named several and they are the same as other people who decide to run for president.
DeleteIf anyone is hugely unqualified to be president, it is Trump.
Obama did a lot of stuff in the Illinois Senate and then in the United States Senate.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
You responded to DIC in good faith, which does not make sense, since he never comments in good faith; his sole goal is to trigger you into responding to his nonsense. You’re just making the discourse worse, regardless how you try to justify responding to DIC.
Delete“DiC always likes to burry a razor blade in his polite apples…”
Delete“Razor blade”?
Ah. Razor blade- A point of contention with an anonymouse.
A razor blade could represent the astounding amount of White Americans that commit suicide every year. It dwarfs even the phony crime stats DIC likes to repeat, even after being debunked every time.
DeleteDIC is hardly “polite”, but I do think suicide is a concern with respect to DIC, considering how painfully lonely he obviously is; he may get a momentary buzz from getting responses to his ridiculous comments but that just puts him on a roller coaster where the dips will get deeper and deeper, leading him to despair. He needs professional help, not comment responses that only enable his worst traits.
Anonymouse 4:36am, that thing about accusations being confessions is excruciatingly trite and specious, but in your case, it rings like a fire alarm.
DeleteI agree with 4:36, DiC's little polite act is getting old. He's a passive aggressive bitchy little troll disrespectful to those who try to respond to the bullshit he litters this blog with. He is an ideologue impervious to rational discussion.
DeleteTargeting David and trying to run him off the blog is an exercise in troll ego. Why can't you trolls focus on the discussion instead of the people?
DeleteSince you want to use psychology as a weapon, trolls like you generally have what is called the black triad of personality disorders: Sociopathy, Narcissism and Machiavellianism. Those terms mean you are nasty, self-centered people who live to stroke their own egos and don't care who they hurt (may even take pleasure in hurting others). The reinforcement involved in trolling consists of seeing your own words on a screen.
There is a discussion ongoing. Join it or get lost. No one cares what you think of David and flinging poo just fills up the comment section annoying the serious commenters discussing Somerby's essays.
10:50,
DeleteWhat if I don't have any bad faith arguments? Am I welcome to the discussion too?
@3:59pm - Google is your friend. Do your own homework.
Delete10:50, I don't see anybody trying to run DiC off the blog. If you enjoy debating with a broken record impervious to any facts, knock yourself out.
DeleteI personally dislike being lied to to or being misled via an invalid argument. Many years ago, I used to watch Hannity. I stopped because his reasoning was often inaccurate, even when I agreed with position.
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed in the comments in the prior post. I don't recall seeing comments from people who thanked Bob for setting them straight and who criticized their news source for misleading them. On the contrary I found a number of bad arguments supporting the misreporting.
Just in yesterday's post? You come hear all the time. Surely you've noticed they defend the MSM and the establishment left every day here.
DeleteThey never give Bob an inch on anything he writes. In fact, the most prolific, insane one attempts to criticize each and every sentence Bob writes. Even when there's nothing to work with.
You expect good arguments from someone like that? Like Mom used to say, if you keep being disappointed, consider lowering your expectations.
>come hear all the time
DeleteDarnit, meant "here". Typo.
No one here criticizes "every sentence" that Somerby writes.
Delete"I personally dislike being lied to to or being misled via an invalid argument.'
DeleteI personally think you're delusional, since the only thing god about Republican politicians is the way they play Republican voters (like you) for fools.
One class of bad arguments is that the law might have some bad unintended consequences. It might be misinterpreted or misapplied in some way. The trouble with all these arguments is that there's no evidence that what they fear is happening. Any law could be misapplied but that's not a valid criticism of this particular law. Get back to me when the thing they fear is actually happening.
ReplyDeleteWe have been arguing that the bad consequences are intended. Are you denying that teachers have been suspended, books taken off shelves, teachers leaving FL because of these laws? It has been reported in the news that this has occurred.
DeleteThere's nothing unintended about getting prison reform when you toss white-collar felons in general population prison cells.
Delete@3:17, what do you mean by "these laws"? I thought we were discussing one particular law.
DeleteCan you cite the teachers who were suspended?
How many teachers left Florida? Who are they. Why should we care if these teachers left Florida? Are there not other teachers to replace them?
Why is it a problem if certain books were removed from school libraries? Were these books appropriate or inappropriate for a school library?
Yes, use google. I found a teacher who was suspended pending investigation for showing the disney film Strange World (an animated sci-fi film with a gay character). Another teacher was fired for circulating a video showing empty library bookshelves following DeSantis's order that books needed to be reviewed. A teacher was fired for having a BLM flag outside her classroom. Another was fired for having an informal discussion with students about different sexuality during pride week.
DeleteBooks that have been removed include Arthur (a children's book), Shakespeare, a nature book where a penguin has two daddies (two male penguins raising a chick), a biography of Roberto Clemente, plus any book with a black author or a gay author or character. You can find news articles about these as easily as I can.
https://www.floridabulldog.org/2023/04/desantis-war-on-woke-leads-to-faculty-brain-drain-at-florida-public-universities/
DeleteThanks for the link, @4:30. What a terrible article! It would take too much space to thoroughly fisk it, but here are a few flaws that come to mind
Delete1. Attributes DeSantis's bills to Presidential ambition, with no basis
2. Support for allegation being a professor who says he's "hearing about it all over." No specifics.
3. A union head describe the reduction in job applicants based on hypothetical numbers. No specific facts to support his allegation.
4. Says "A five-minute walk around any campus would disprove” "faculty being these far-left Marxists indoctrinating students." Huh?
5. Bills would prohibit teaching " theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political and economic inequities.” Good. These theories are false and racially divisive IMO.
Universities do job searches every year. They have their own past history to compare new numbers against. #4 means you can drop into any class and disprove that idea.
DeleteYou tend to rely on your own opinions a bit too much, about things you have no expertise on (such as CRT, sociology and other social science). There is nothing inherently wrong with controversy or divisiveness. This is a smoke screen for wanting to suppress ideas you disagree with.
DeSantis is running for president. It is obvious that these bills and other stunts, such as relocating immigrants to blue states, are politically motivated. The proof is that he has declared war on "woke." He is being a demagogue on these issues.
When I was young, liberals advocated the "melting pot", which is defined as "a place where a variety of peoples, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole" Today, some institutions want to focus on peoples' differences rather than what they have in common. I think that's destructive and wrong. That's why I support the Florida laws against racially divisive teaching.
Delete@3:10, you say there's nothing wrong with divisiveness. I don't agree. If children are taught to look down on people of another race, i think that's terrible. IMO it shouldn't require a law to prevent this kind of teaching. Unfortunately, this principle is a tenet of a certain type of teaching, so the law is needed.
Think of the melting pot without blending into one homogenous group. A stew with intact carrots and beef instead of a blended featureless smoothie tastes better. You can recognize both differences and commonalities instead of insisting everyone relinquish culture, identity, unique strengths. Difference doesn’t mean you look down on anyone. Why would you think that?
DeleteInteresting point, @8:14. Another principle that I should have mentioned is "color-blindness" -- treating people the same regardless of their race.. As a wise man accurately said, if you believed in color-blindness in the 1940's, you were a radical. That belief in the 1960's would make you a liberal. In the current time, that belief make you a conservative.
DeleteThat aphorism describes me. In the 1960's I was a liberal who believed in color blindness. Today I'm a conservative who still believes in color blindness. I understand that many people disagree with me. Many liberals believe blacks should should get preferential treatment. I suspect that some of today's bigots still believe that whites should get preferential treatment, although they know they generally keep quiet about that belief.
I don’t believe in color-blindness. I find that an odd idea, akin to expecting women in business to act like men. I think your continual misinterpretation of affirmative action as preferential treatment is insulting. White people continue to get preferential treatment too often (but not always). Affirmative action corrects that.
DeleteWhen I had an opening for an Assistant Actuary and my boss ordered me to hire a black person, that was indeed preferential treatment. When blacks got accepted at colleges with academic records far below white and Asian applicants,. that's preferential treatment. When Scott Adams (at two different companies) was told that he couldn't have a particular promotion, because that spot was reserved for a black employee, that's preferential treatment.
DeleteYou are right that in some circumstances white people get preferential treatment. Does that justify giving preferences to blacks in certain other circumstances? I don't know. They say, two wrongs don't make a right.
I don’t believe anything Scott Adams says. In my work experience at IBM and several universities, we were not allowed to know demographic info before screening qualifications and developing a short list to invite for interview. Race only became a consideration if qualifications were otherwise equal. No one ever told us to hire a person of a specific race or sex because that is illegal. A person of a minority race or other diversity brings an advantage when their perspective is underrepresented. That is a qualification.
DeleteYou are telling me that employers are breaking the law, but you are not blaming them but the candidates and affirmative action itself, which is not telling employees which race to hire, as you describe. Perhaps your firm needed training in how to hire legally and fairly. You might have brought that up with your employer. In my career, I have chosen not to work in unethical organizations. Not everyone has that job flexibility, but you ate blaming the wrong people.
When I had the opening for an Assistant Actuary, my boss told me to hire a "minority". I understood him to means I should try to do so. That's because he felt that there was some sort of pressure to have more black employees. As it turned out, I didn't have a single black applicant. I hired a Chinese-American woman, who was the best candidate. My boss then criticized me, saying that she wasn't the kind of minority he was talking about.
DeleteHow pleasing it must be in retrospect to have hired someone from a demographic with a higher IQ than that of caucasians. Doubly so, since your favorite economist has argued that, being female, there was ample reason to have paid her less.
DeleteThe idea that no black applicants exist is silly. You are confessing that you didn't know how to look for them.
DeleteThe existence of parts of a law that are unobjectionable or that you agree with does not make the entire law acceptable. The parts that are problematic can make the law unacceptable despite the good parts. Somerby has not acknowledged or discussed the bad parts that are causing problems for teachers and schools.
ReplyDeleteBased on this law, no one should object to Coates book, yet there is trouble in SC, which modeled its laws on FL. Why?
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point. When I read Coates's book, I didn't think is asserted that blacks are morally superior to whites. OTOH I wasn't particularly impressed with the book. It's no loss to remove it from the class syllabus IMO.
DeleteStill, @3:19 has a valid argument that the Florida law might be applied more broadly than the specific words would say.
You do not get to decide what should be on a syllabus based on your personal reading tastes.
DeleteThis is an AP course where the students will later be tested by the AP (not the state of FL). The AP helps teachers design a syllabus that will give students a good chance of passing the AP exam, should they want to pursue college credit. To that end, they suggest materials and those materials include excerpts from African American authors, because black people are part of the literature of this country. Omitting black authors will handicap students on the AP exam, not to mention deprive them of understanding about black families, history and literature, customs and culture. This kind of knowledge helps ALL students live more comfortably in a multicultural society.
Somerby has repeatedly suggested that multiculturalism may be too difficult to attain (diversity is hard, he says). He hasn't said what the alternative might be, but he has hinted that segregation might be an approach, especially earlier on when he used to remind us of the turmoil over school desegregation in Boston and other places.
One argument against boys schools or girls schools is that it deprives the children who attend them of the chance to learn about and feel comfortable with the opposite sex, at work, in romantic relationships, at play and in competitive situations. Those who attend gender integrated schools have greater success in later life when dealing with the opposite sex. In a gender-pluralistic society, encountering those who are a minority will help children with a more diverse schooling to feel comfortable with a wider variety of people, which will benefit them and those who are in a minority. That is a worthwhile goal and much more practical than simply excluding anyone you feel weird around.
4:38 I think you’re misreading DIC. He does not state it directly, but it’s pretty clear from the context, that his intent is to provoke and trigger you into engaging with him; this is likely due to his own personal issues that we can not help with, so the best we can do to help lost souls like DIC is to not enable his worst traits, achieved by not engaging with his nonsense.
DeleteMy fantasy is that something I might say in a comment would be read by a lurker who can benefit from thinking about it.
DeleteSurely, you can accomplish such an admirable goal by publishing your own comment without responding to DIC, which likely more interferes with your goal than supporting it.
DeleteI have no problem with DIC commenting here. I dislike vendettas to drive people out of comment sections, regardless of who is targeted. DIC is usually civil and thus I believe he has earned the right to be taken more seriously than Cecelia, the fan-boys and useless trolls who waste space here. I agree that his purpose here is not to seek info or discuss anything, but to spread right wing disinformation. But as long as he behaves well, he has as much right to do that here as Somerby does.
Delete“Behaving well” in discourse would mean commenting in good faith, DIC makes up nonsense (he’s not an actuary, he’s not Lizzie’s cousin, he didn’t go to high school with fill in the blank, he didn’t hire anybody much less a minority, he never was a “liberal”, he didn’t read Coates’ book, etc.) and his goal is not to spread right wing disinformation - he’s not delusional, he’s lonely, his goal is to trigger you into paying attention to him.
DeleteHe behaves worse than many of the fanboys and trolls, who often at least straightforwardly push a right wing agenda, whereas DIC invents phony backstory anecdotes to lure suckers into responding to his zombie claims that have been debunked directly to him on multiple occasions.
I’m not out to persuade you, you may be past that point as far as DIC goes, I’m just providing edification for those so inclined to have an open mind and those that empathize with others being victimized by a pernicious con man such as DIC.
In comments at Drum's site, Somerby posted this:
ReplyDelete"Also the great god Anonymous, who helps us feel free to say whatever dumb thing we like."
Drum, however, doesn't seem to allow Anonymice in his comments, so I think Somerby was referring to commenters on this site. So I'm wondering: Why does Somerby allow Anonymice here?
Everyone at Drum's site can be anonymous. They are required to have a nym, but that doesn't mean anyone knows who anyone else is.
DeleteHow do you force anyone to use their real name anywhere on the internet?
DeleteCalling anonymous posters "mice" is partly why people decide to post anonymously. Look at what happened during Gamergate. No one wants to be hounded in real life by the crowd of haters on the right who spread death threats and dox people's home addresses and call their employers over internet arguments. I have had that happen to me, so I am always going to be anonymous anywhere online. The way the Somerby fanboys already pursue the anonymous commenters for disagreeing with them, doesn't suggest they would behave well if they knew the names of anyone they oppose.
Calling people rodents is a bad start if you want to assure anyone you would be civil under other circumstances.
Something called Dogface George complains about comment names. LOL!
DeleteSomerby not only reads the comments here, but has active sock puppets.
DeleteOh, I’m sorry, did you not think we knew?
My real name is John D Rockefeller, Sr.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:40pm, calling anonymices “anonymouse” had no influence whatsoever on your desire to be just one more anonymous. Anonymices have been bitching and moaning about the perils of having a nym since Deadrat used to chide you over it.
DeleteYou don’t choose to have a nym because it makes you accountable for being consistent from day to day and because a page full of anonymous after anonymous is off-putting and uninspiring to people who might otherwise follow the blog and comment.
The ratio of reasonable comments made by those with nyms to reasonable comments made by those without nyms approaches infinity.
DeleteNo, as I have explained, I don’t choose a nym because I do not want to be stalked by anti-social assholes on or off the internet. Why facilitate your harassment?
Delete7:06 Fuck you asshole. Your perceptions about reality are ALL WRONG.
DeleteAnon 7:37 - Are you actively trying to prove my point?
DeleteStop messing with people and either discuss something real or go watch TV.
DeleteCecelia makes two excellent points, and I'd hope that those who post as "Anonymous" would consider her points seriously:
Delete1. Although you remain anonymous with a nym, you still have a reputation to protect, which leads to better-considered comments.
2. When readers see a sea of Anonymouses in the comments, it discourages them from participating.
Irony. I forgot to say my nym in the last post: Dogface George.
DeleteSome of us read comments for what they say, not who wrote them.
DeleteThe trolls keep people from participating.
Anonymouse 8:10pm, to anonymices, those are the reasons FOR staying anonymous.
DeleteThe least considered comments are made by those with monikers, in part because they are here for their ego, not for discourse.
DeleteA fine example was deadrat. I say “was” because I fondly remember running him off after he got so badly embarrassed when he lost trying to debate me about the cold blooded killer Zimmerman. I say “fondly” because he was bad for discourse, bizarrely trying to assert his dominance in a blog comment section, instead of engaging with ideas.
Anonymouse 3:58am, how would you engage in ideas on this blog if Bob Somerby’s given name happened to be “anonymous”?
DeleteHmmm, I see.
DeleteYou’ve got me there, there’s really no response to such a nonsensical question.
At least I’m gracious in defeat.
Anonymouse 4:39am, ok. How would we do discussion if we all took the nym of “Bob”?
DeleteYou cannot force people to use nyms here. Drop it and move on.
DeleteYou can't force people to use nyms. But perhaps we can persuade a few that it is courteous to do so.
DeleteWhat is courteous about calling people rodents?
DeleteAnonymouse 10:19, I was replying to the anonymouse who engaged me.
DeleteIf you don’t care for a particular discussion, move on.
Anonymouse 1:42pm, it takes you from being nobody to being a fury little scamp.
DeleteYou’re welcome.
Don't try to confuse anyone with the facts.
ReplyDeleteI’m old enough to remember when Somerby railed against those that used “facts” to mislead, now he engages in that very behavior.
DeleteYou’ve come a long way, baby.
There, 4:44, is the rub. I first became aware of Somerby's work back in the days when congressional Republicans tried to bamboozle the public with claims that they were proposing an *increase* in medicare funding, not a cut.
DeleteOur host courageously and thoroughly dissected those false claims. It was literally true that congressional Republicans were proposing to allocate more dollars to funding medicare--but the rate of their increases would fall short of keeping up with inflation.
The Howler incomparably swung into action! Although the plain words of Republicans were undeniably true--six IS more than five!--our host saw through the ruse and boldly called them out for being liars and hucksters.
Sadly, many years later, state legislatures controlled by Republicans are pulling similar stunts. Do their new laws say that lessons may not make a student experience discomfort or shame? They don't! The say only that students may not be instructed that they *must* feel ashamed.
At the same time, these new laws provide students and parents with new-found power to rain hell on any teacher who introduces a lesson that includes work by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Or Toni Morrison. Or Ibrahim Kendi. In fact, the law provides an easy path for anyone at all to complain about any work in any subject the complainant finds objectionable.
Are these laws working as indended? Is this what the authors of these laws wanted all along? Opinions differ! But let's not talk about that now. We need more time to fret about our dumb tribe.
Well said.
DeleteI wrote a long post with links illustrating what has happened in FL as the result of these laws. It immediately disappeared. It was too long for me to bother recreating it, but google and you will see for yourself that numerous books have been banned and several teachers fired or suspend for showing Disney films or teaching certain books. This is not the benign law Somerby portrays it as.
ReplyDeleteAlso noted was the fact that DeSantis has lied about how many books have been banned (he said none) and that FL is having serious trouble recruiting teachers during a shortage that has been exacerbated by these laws.
Quick tip, copy your comments before hitting the publish button, this site does “glitch” a lot.
DeleteThx
DeleteTeaching is a profession that requires an education. Rather that was the case until recently, in Florida. DeSantis and his legislature, recognizing a public teacher shortage they helped create, enacted statue allowing veterans to teach in public schools without fulfilling any of the usual educational criteria.A large number of the enlisted do so out of high school, not requiring any academic credentials.So these often less than mediocre high school graduates can at some point complete their military obligations and be entitled to teach in Florida public schools. Makes perfect sense.
DeleteAlso making perfect sense: A governor who rails against the straw man of institutionalized sexual grooming of elementary school children, especially in the context of homosexual behaviors, is a member of the Roman Catholic church.
Somerby pretends to conflate defense with aggression, and vice versa, pretends to not understand the difference.
ReplyDeleteAggression is a driving trait of right wingers, and is toxic for society, used to promote dominance and oppression.
Defense - broadly-speaking, supporting those oppressed and victims of aggression, is a noble trait embraced by the left.
Not to be simplistic, but this is the difference in stance taken by the right wing with regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, whereas the left is largely supporting the efforts of Ukraine to repel Russia. The stance of the US Government under Biden is to defend against Russian aggression, whereas the extreme right mostly urges alliance with Russia against Ukraine.
DeleteThat's because those Republican Congresspeople are under Kompromat.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:15pm and Anonymouse 5:30pm, so complex and sophisticated.
DeleteNow which people are all the good people and which people have cooties?
If you can’t tell, it’s probably youwith the cooties.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:14pm, not the Mickey Anonymouse Club.
Delete"They'd believed the things they read in our major newspapers. They'd believed what they heard, from our favorite reporters and friends, on our tribe's favorite "cable news" shows!"
ReplyDeleteWhen a commenter says they are surprised by something Drum said, as has occurred more often recently at Drum's website, they mean that there is a discordance between his previous work as a blogger and writer for Mother Jones, a liberal publication, and his current work at his personal blog, no longer affiliated with the left.
I have been following Drum for decades. I have never considered him particularly left wing but he was previously reasonable. Lately, he has been posting graphs without the chops to interpret what they mean, and has been less willing or able to do the research to support competing interpretations of the data. I have complained about that in comments. He also knows a lot less about social science methodology and sometimes raises inappropriate criticisms of methods that are ignorant and incorrect. Other comments have corrected those mistakes, not just me. The latest was the blunder he made about the MS NAEP score improvements. To his credit, he backtracked on that, but Somerby didn't.
Major newspapers and cable news sources do make errors, but they are our best and most reliable source of information. When Somerby tries to drive people away from consuming such news, he is working for the right wing. Notice that he criticizes the media with one voice then suggests we listen more to Fox News with another. His criticisms of the mainstream media are specious, not the ones that a left winger might raise, such as that the media is once again giving Trump too much favorable free publicity and is being too bothsiderist while covering right wing wrongdoing. Somerby does nothing to balance those flaws, in fact never talks about them at all. Instead he nitpicks reports, complains about the college degrees of reporters, claims media hosts make too much money (Maddow made $21 million/year while Tucker made $27 million) and is frequently wrong when he attempts a technical or statistical correction.
People who do not follow politics closely will not go far wrong by following the mainstream media's reporting. They will fall down a rabbit-hole into cult indoctrinaton if they follow Fox or worse right wing sources. Levin is horrible.
I would prefer that everyone learn how to consume alternative media sources to the mainstream cable news and newspapers, but that takes more time and education than most people have. I consider the mainstream media the lesser of evils. And it makes me very suspicious when people criticism that media while ignore the worse travesties on the right, as Somerby routinely does, after a pro forma statement to the effect that Tucker is an excitable boy or Hegstreth is not as bad as Levin. Undermining the mainstream media as corporatist (as certain trolls keep claiming) is doing the same job for the same people as Somerby does.
So good for the casual readers who believe the mainstream media ahead of Fox. They are making the best choice, in my experience.
Well said and agree with most, although what is currently considered “mainstream media” is corporate media, which I frequently point out since it is pertinent, and I typically make distinctions between CNN and MSNBC, and Fox News at the same time. As a leftist, not only am I realistic about the importance of lesser evil (CNN is preferable over Fox), I also want to encourage people to engage with alternate media outlets that inform better than corporate media.
DeleteA major impediment to progress is how those on the right, which includes a broad spectrum - including neoliberals, purposefully try to muddy the discourse, by making it unclear what “left” and “right” even mean, making it easier for those wanting to misinform and manufacture ignorance.
Yet again, we cover familiar ground without acknowledging an obvious follow up question: How does this law--and others like it in other states--affect students and teachers in schools?
ReplyDeleteSomerby cites one example from the Washington Post. A teacher assigned a reading from a controversial work and two students complained, resulting in a reprimand from her school and an order to stop the offending lesson immediately.
The teacher in question worked in South Carolina, not Florida, but the recently-passed laws in the two states are similar.
Did this teacher tell either or any of her (white) students that they *must* feel shame for anything done in the past by other white people? There's no evidence she did so. All the same, the complaints of white students and parents won her a swift reprimand and an order to cut it out, now!
No, the law doesn't say that a lesson plan can't be controversial. It doesn't say that the lesson may not cause any student to feel ashamed. Yes, it DOES say the teacher may not tell students they must feel ashamed.
By all indications, the teacher's lesson was safely within the guidance of the new state law. Nevertheless, a complaint by a few students and parents brought a swift discipline to bear. What's more, a member of the South Carolina state legislature denounced her lesson as an example of "CRT" and therefore an "illegal" exercise by the teacher.
If we're to take the language of the law literally, the teacher did nothing wrong. Yet, the new law allowed a few complainers to marshall the influence of the school, the school board, and at least one member of the state's legislative body to force her to stop her offending lessons.
So what went wrong? The teacher stayed within the strictures of law and found herself in hot water all the same. Could it be that what went wrong was...nothing? That this is exactly what the authors of the new law intended all along?
We won't know from the discussion here! We're too busy being reminded that we dumb libs keep forgetting the word "must" in the law's text.
Maybe a better title for this entry, rather than "Should kids feel guilty..." would be "Are Snowflakes Always White?". I don't recall being taught anything in the context of American history that triggered shame or guilt. Somehow the invariably right wing segment of our society has conditioned their progeny into the reflexive posture of self recrimination every time someone suggests taking down a statue of Andrew Jackson. Maybe the retired drill sergeants Ron DeSantis deems fit to teach third graders can whip their lilly white butts into shape and make little men out of them. But first we're going to have to deal with their aggressively offended parents at school board meetings presided over by wannabe daughters of the American Revolution. They're all whipped up into a frenzy by non issues that Somerby likes to highlight for the blue tribe, as if it is our problem.
ReplyDeleteYes. You might as well create a law to prevent public stoning of those who say “Merry Christmas.”
Delete7:59 A regular Fox viewer could be excused for assuming that such a law is already in the books.
Delete“Failing Blue Tribe?” Maybe Somerby IS Trump! At any rate, Cassidy Hutchinson must be sending Bob up the walls, coming on top of his boy getting slaughtered in Court AGAIN. How can Bob degrade and belittle this brave woman? He is going to have to search very hard for an angle, phoning it in won’t do this time. I give him a week.
ReplyDelete