Unheated public school, temperatures near zero!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017

Oddly disparaging remarks about Jimmy Breslin:
Has this fellow Bob Somerby "been oddly disparaging about people who say that Donald Trump is a liar?"

Frankly, we're not sure. Yesterday, our favorite blogger, Kevin Drum, leveled that harsh accusation, but he offered no examples of this ongoing odd disparagement.

He quoted a recent post which may have oddly disparaged three high-profile press figures, including Mika Brzezinski. For today, we'll move on to oddly disparaging comments about the late Jimmy Breslin, with the hope that this may start to convey the apparently mystifying idea we've offered for nineteen years.

Jimmy Breslin died this past weekend at 88 years of age. We have no overall view of his long, high-profile career.

We have been struck by some of the ways in which modern journalists have lionized his work. In a lengthy, page A1 news report of Breslin's death, the New York Times' Dan Barry employed at least one fighting word:
BARRY (3/20/17): Mr. Breslin found early escape in newspapers. As a boy, he would spread the broadsheet pages across the floor and imagine himself on a Pullman car, filing stories from baseball ports of call...

After getting a job as a sportswriter for The New York Journal-American, Mr. Breslin wrote a freshly funny book about the first season of the hapless Mets, ''Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?'' It persuaded John Hay Whitney, the publisher of The New York Herald Tribune, to hire him as a news columnist in 1963.

Soon Mr. Breslin was counted among the writers credited with inventing ''New Journalism,'' in which novelistic techniques are used to inject immediacy and narrative tension into the news. (Mr. Breslin, an admirer of sportswriters like Jimmy Cannon and Frank Graham, scoffed at this supposed contribution, saying that he and others had merely introduced Dickens-like storytelling to a new generation.)

Unleashed, Mr. Breslin issued regular dispatches that changed the craft of column writing, said the journalist and author Pete Hamill, a former colleague. ''It seemed so new and original,'' Mr. Hamill said. ''It was a very, very important moment in New York journalism, and in national journalism.''
Uh-oh! Breslin introduced "novelistic techniques" (and "storytelling") into American journalism.

And not only that! Before long, Breslin has been "unleashed." Freed from the chains of the past, he "changed the craft of column writing."

Just for today, let's be oddly disparaging about these alleged facts. Let's review Jim Dwyer's column in this morning's Times, the latest column about Jimmy Breslin.

In our general view, Dwyer tends to write good columns. As a general matter, he doesn't seem to engage in novelization to the extent that many others do.

That said, we thought we might be reading a novel at several points in Dwyer's new column. To read that column, click here.

Dwyer's headline praises Breslin for delivering "Fresh Truths, Bluntly Told." But uh-oh! When we read the passage shown below, we suspected we might be reading a novelized truth, inaccurately told:
DWYER (3/22/17): Mr. Breslin died Sunday at 88, and had been mostly out of the public eye for more than a decade...From the long arc of his public work and life, what remains are deep truths that he told bluntly, and that he saw because he stepped away from the crowd.

Before Mark Davidson and Ruben Blancovich were born, Mr. Breslin had written about the funeral of John F. Kennedy as seen by the man who dug the grave. Along the route of a voting rights march in 1965 led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. Breslin found an unheated schoolhouse for black children in “a wooden building that was a church when people in Lowndes County wore Confederate uniforms,” he wrote, noting a teacher’s remark that while it did get cold sometimes, “we hardly ever get near zero.”
Uh-oh! Let's note that, in his actual copy, Dwyer praises Breslin for telling deep truths. We'd be inclined to regard that choice of words as another warning sign, novelized storytelling v. journalism-wise.

What "deep truth" did Dwyer recall in his very next paragrapg? He said that Breslin, back in the day, had visited an unheated school for black kids in Lowndes County, state unknown.

He said Breslin had quoted a teacher making a deep remark. While it did get cold in that school, Dwyer quotes the teacher saying, "We hardly ever get near zero."

In an oddly disparaging way, warning lights flashed around here.

Why would a teacher have said that, we skillfully wondered. In how many southern states does the temperature ever get near zero?

We journeyed home from the coffee joint, determined to check this moving deep tale. Our verdict?

In this case, it seems to be Dwyer who handed us a novel in place of the actual facts.

As it turns out, the Lowndes County in question is Lowndes County, Alabama. It's not too far from Montgomery, where the average low in the coldest month is 35.7 degrees.

Set that to the side! For the essay by Breslin to which Dwyer seems to refer, you can just click here.

The teacher is question was named Josephine Jackson. In Breslin's piece, she said the school dis get cold in the winter.

That said, she tells Breslin that the schoolroom is heated, sometimes by coal and sometimes by wood. In her fuller quote, she says that the local temperature rarely goes below 25.

We're reading about a school for black kids in Alabama in 1965. If we can believe what Breslin wrote, it sounds like conditions in that school were extremely bad.

That said, something is extremely bad today in Dwyer's actual column! Perhaps in the drive to tell a "deep truth," he seems to misstate one basic fact and he selectively edits a quote.

Based on appearances, Dwyer was writing a bit of a novel. To make the truth of his novel deeper, he threw journalism away.

This made his novel more pleasing for his target audience. That said, people are dead all over the world because our journalists have long since been "unleashed" and permitted to con us this way.

It's oddly disparaging to note this fact, unless you think there's a problem with the fact that people are dead all over the world because people like Dwyer do deep things like this. That said, most of the dead aren't people like Us. So why should anyone care?

Does it "matter" that Dwyer slipped his leash and penned a short novel today? Not exactly, no. That said:

Truth to tell, we thought we might have spied a second novel floating around in his column. Tell the truth. Do you believe the following passage, with which today's column ends?
DWYER: The New York of the 1970s and 1980s was slumping into decay; Mr. Breslin, his friend Pete Hamill, and the Times columnist Francis X. Clines were among the leading voices to insist that the people of the city should not be mistaken for its wreckage.

“He went under a desk in his bedroom and brought out some of the books he has been reading,” Mr. Breslin wrote of Ruben Blancovich, then a sixth grader in Public School 206 who started in the third grade able to read some words only in Spanish and a few in English. “A paperback collection of major American poets, ‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens, the novel ‘April Morning’ by Howard Fast, and a coffee-table book, ‘Colonial Craftsmen,’ with drawings and text by Edwin Tunis.”

Mr. Blancovich, who now lives in Albany, went on to Yale and a career in banking and entrepreneurship. He was grateful for the attention Mr. Breslin gave to a school that worked well. He “was looking at things that the rest of the news wasn’t focusing on,” Mr. Blancovich said.

He still has his copy of “The Red Badge of Courage,” he said, and the clipping of Mr. Breslin’s column.
Do you believe that story? Do you believe that Ruben Blancovich, then a sixth grader in Public School 206 who started in the third grade able to read some words only in Spanish and a few in English," had actually been reading those books when Breslin came along?

Everything is possible! That said, the use of such selective examples, real or imagined, has played a deeply destructive role in our discourse about low-income schools at least since the 1960s. On the brighter side, the constant resort to stories like that has made us liberals feel good.

We liberals have always loved to be told that low-income and minority kids are secretly a bunch of geniuses who are being kept from splitting the atom only by the heinous conduct of their public schools.

Because our own IQs are low, this novel makes us feel good.

We're too dumb to understand that this famous old novel is a fantasy novel. We're too uncaring to see the way this fantasy stands in the way of serious discussion of the practices of our urban schools.

We're too lazy to see the way this construct enables the slanderous claim that low-income kids do relatively poorly at school because of their ratty teachers with their fiendish unions.

We're too dumb, too lazy, too uncaring. We like our "stories," our daily soaps. In the wake of their unleashing, people like Breslin began to supply them, replacing complexity and accuracy with a series of deep alleged truths.

"Unleashed" in the manner Barry described, our journalists began writing those "novels." More accurately, they began constructing low-IQ penny novels, novels which were built around pleasing sets of characters.

Where did this unleashing lead? In March 2000, the Washington Post's E. R. Shipp wrote a short but brilliant column about the novelization of the 2000 presidential campaign. By then, one of the candidates was being novelized by one and all as human history's weirdest, most puzzling liar.

His name was Candidate Gore. Predecessors to Drum kept sucking their thumbs as this standard mainstream novel sent Candidate Bush to the White House. To this day, the career liberal world has agreed that this can't be discussed.

People are dead all over the world. Put another way, it's oddly disparaging to note the way the life forms who pretend to be journalists continue to play this amazingly childish game.

(Most of the dead are the dead of Iraq. Can we tell the truth just once? Despite the stories we tell about ourselves, we liberals don't care about people like them. No fact could be more plain.)

Final note:

In the fall of 1999, Breslin wrote one of the stupidest columns about the vile Candidate Gore. Breslin was no longer influential at this time, but he gave amazingly sharp voice to the various loathings floating around in the columns of those who were.

Many of those columnists came from Breslin's East Coast Irish Catholic tribe. By now, Breslin was no longer in the loop. Mary McGrory, Maureen Dowd, Michael Kelly very much were.

We were raised within that same tribe, at least until 1960, when our family lit out for the territories on the west coast. Within the journalistic realm, this tribe's behavior was especially heinous during Campaign 2000, which started in March 1999 and ran a full twenty months.

Breslin had freed Chris Matthews and the rest to write their favorite "novels." Brian Williams trembled nightly about Gore's troubling clothes, which us about his flawed character.

Angry at Clinton, they novelized Gore. People are dead all over the world because of the astonishing way these silly, money-grubbing children played their destructive games.

Today, Mika plays a second grader every day of the week; others are in the same ballpark. To defenders of the faith, to the people who favored the war in Iraq, it is considered oddly disparaging to continue to notice such facts.

A tremendously stupid (regional) novel: Breslin's novel about Candidate Gore was tremendously stupid. It turned on the idea that Gore, being Southern and white, was a slobbering racist, what with "his quaint Tobacco Road customs" and all.

To read Breslin's column, click here. It appeared in October 1999.

Breslin used the old Gore-invented-Willie Horton con as his basic text. Earlier in 1999, only people like Rush Limbaugh had been playing this stupid old card, which came from the RNC.

By November of that year, mainstream journalists were standing in line to recite this novel. We're not sure if anyone else linked the tale to Tobacco Road, but everyone could see the deep truth was bigger than mere facts.

(Some of these novelists tortured the language, thus keeping their statements "technically accurate." Others couldn't even be bothered with that.)

All the silly second graders typed the pleasing novel. Thanks to the greatness of Breslin, they'd long since been unleashed.

People are dead all over the world. How odd to recall such a fact!

Heroic grandmother to good, decent person!

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017

The Post columnist's tale:
Michelle Singletary writes the nationally syndicated personal finance column, The Color of Money, which appears in The Washington Post.

Needless to say, it's an "award-winning column."

This Sunday, Singletary wrote a column which ought to be widely read. It concerns the way she and her four siblings were raised by their heroic grandmother in West Baltimore, thanks in no small part to the availability of Medicaid.

The column starts like this. It's truly must-read work:
SINGLETARY (3/19/17): When my siblings and I went to live with my grandmother, we were a sickly bunch.

There were five of us. My older sister was 8. I was 4. The sister under me was 3, and my twin brothers were 1.

We were all undernourished.
We think you should take it from there.

We taught fifth grade in West Baltimore for nine years. West Baltimore is full of world-class people like Singletary's grandmother.

The world is full of people like that. Her granddaughter's column deserves to be pondered.

Were journos exposed to too much lead?

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017

The evidence mounts:
On Saturday morning, March 4, Donald J. Trump issued the tweets heard round the world.

Was he lying when he issued his tweets? Is it possible that he really believed the things he tweeted that day?

We don't know how to answer that question. Luckily, Mika Brzezinski does. We quote her from today's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI (3/21/17): Who actually prompted this, Michael Steele? Where did this start? Did it start with those tweets on a Saturday morning that were, apparently, lies?

I think we can now actually equivocally [sic] say the president was lying on a Saturday morning when he—I don't know, was it four or five tweets?—accusing a former president of a felony.
To watch this statement, click here, skip ahead to roughly 6:50.

For the record, it was four tweets that day. From context, we'll guess Mika meant we can "un-equivocally" say that Trump was lying, though we've recorded what she actually said.

Was Donald J. Trump lying that Saturday morning? We have no idea. We find the question intriguing for two different reasons.

First, we're struck by what this topic tells us about the intellectual skills of the mainstream press corps. Let's kick that around a bit.

We don't know why Mika seems to think that we now know Trump was lying. To us, it seems entirely possible that he believed the claims he thundered that morning.

We don't mean that as a compliment. But if he believed the things he tweeted that day, that would, by normal construction, mean he wasn't "lying."

That said, the skill level of our mainstream press corps is often remarkably low. Consider David Leonhardt's blustery column on this topic in today's New York Times.

When Leonhardt appeared on the scene, he was sold to us the rubes as one of the press corps' smart guys. Today, his column reads like a parody of competent thought. This is the way he begins:
LEONHARDT (3/21/17): The ninth week of Donald Trump’s presidency began with the F.B.I. director calling him a liar.

The director, the very complicated James Comey, didn’t use the L-word
in his congressional testimony Monday. Comey serves at the pleasure of the president, after all. But his meaning was clear as could be. Trump has repeatedly accused Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones, and Comey explained there is “no information that supports” the claim.

I’ve previously argued that not every untruth deserves to be branded with the L-word, because it implies intent and somebody can state an untruth without doing so knowingly. George W. Bush didn’t lie when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Obama didn’t lie when he said people who liked their current health insurance could keep it. They made careless statements that proved false (and they deserved much of the criticism they got).

But the current president of the United States lies. He lies in ways that no American politician ever has before...
As he starts, Leonhardt says that Comey called Trump a liar without "using the L-word."

Could it be that Comey eschewed the L-word because he wasn't calling Trump a liar? Please please please don't ask.

The much more ridiculous part of that passage comes in paragraph 3, where Leonhardt says he has "previously argued that not every untruth deserves to be branded with the L-word."

It's hard to believe how dumb that statement is. You can't "argue" that some untruths aren't lies; the statement is true by definition. You might as well "argue" that some human beings aren't fifty years old, or that some married persons aren't men.

That pompous declaration by Leonhardt is eye-poppingly dumb. Meanwhile, Bush and Obama didn't lie? How does Leonhardt know that?

Whatever! As we said, the intellectual skill level of the corps is often remarkably low. In his work on lead exposure, Kevin Drum has often noted the fact that everyone over a certain age was heavily exposed in youth. When we read work like Leonhardt's column, we tend to recall what Drum has said.

Was Trump lying that Saturday morning? We have no idea.

As a general matter, is he a liar? We still aren't even real sure about that.

Is Donald J. Trump a liar? Or could an accurate diagnosis perhaps be more troubling than that? To puzzle over this second set of questions, consider this recent post by Josh Marshall.

Marshall calls Trump a liar too. As he does, he abandons an earlier possible diagnosis without explaining why he does so. This strikes us as weak, lazy, hurried work:
MARSHALL: Now we've gone to the ridiculous lengths of having actual congressional investigations. And the representatives of the President's party in Congress have said there is no evidence that this happened. They are of course hanging on this 'no evidence' locution to avoid the discomfort of calling their party's leader a liar. The press shouldn't share that loyalty.

In any other context, when we have a claim that it wildly improbable verging on impossible on its face, when no evidence is provided and when outside investigations say there is definitively no evidence whatsoever, we call those claims lies. Or the rantings of an unhinged person if we want to grant some accommodation for mental incapacity. If someone says aliens landed in their backyard and has a similar lack of any evidence whatsoever, we call that person a liar or a crazy person. We say it's not true. Full stop.

As we know, by definition, you cannot prove a negative. You can only show there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. But this isn't a seminar on philosophy and empiricism. We call these lies.
Marshall jumps around in this presentation. He starts by saying that we should call Trump a liar. In the second paragraph we've posted, he seems to offer two possible choices—Donald J. Trump may be a liar, or he may be "crazy"/"unhinged."

One paragraph later, that second possibility seems to be gone (again), with no explanation given. We get the joy of dropping an L-bomb. In the process, though, we may be getting the wrong or less significant diagnosis.

Marshall moves away from the possibility that Trump is simply "crazy" or "unhinged." For ourselves, we feel disinclined to do that.

Is it possible that Donald J. Trump truly is some version of unhinged/crazy? Sadly, we're afraid it is. Since he holds the nuclear codes, this is a much more serious possibility than the one on which Marshall seems to settle.

When Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott told Richard Nixon he had to resign, Nixon succumbed to reality. What would Trump do in a situation like that?

A mere "liar" would know it was time to go. Do you feel sure that Donald J. Trump would react like that?

We don't feel sure of that at all. What has Professor Wang said?

Regarding the reasoning there: "If someone says aliens landed in their backyard and has a similar lack of any evidence whatsoever," is it true that "we call that person a liar or a crazy person?"

Is it true that "we call these lies?"

Those statements strike us as perfect nonsense. In truth, we don't "call" such people anything at all, since there are no such people.

Just a guess: No one reading Marshall's column has ever been told, by a neighbor or friend, that aliens landed in their back yard but they can offer no evidence.

People never make such claims. For that reason, "we" don't "call them" anything.

It seems to us that Marshall basically found a way to state a preferred diagnosis. It seems to us that the ultimate truth may be much more troubling, vastly more dangerous.

TIME FOR A CHANGE: Krugman asserts that something has changed!

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017

Part 2—Tell it to Harold Hill:
Early in last evening's 8 PM hour, Anderson Cooper introduced his pundit panel.

Rather, he began to introduce his panel. The CNN anchor said this:
COOPER (3/20/17): With that, joining us now is CNN national security analyst Steve Hall. He's a former CIA senior officer and a veteran of Russian operations.

New Yorker Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza is joining us. So are CNN political analysts David Gergen and Gloria Borger.
It seemed like Cooper would referee a discussion with four pundit panelists.

But then, dear God! Suddenly, the camera showed four more souls, and Cooper just kept going:
COOPER (continuing directly): As is Trump supporter and American Spectator senior contributor Jeffrey Lord, former Obama White House communications director Jen Psaki, Democratic strategist Paul Begala and Daily Beast senior columnist Matt Lewis.
Cooper proceeded to stage a discussion involving himself and eight other contributors. Inevitably, one of the pundits was Jeffrey Lord, the hardest-working, most maddening person in show business today.

We agree with what Carl Bernstein said on Cooper's Friday night broadcast. It's time for a change in the way the press corps, especially cable, reports on Donald J. Trump.

One change would reform the ridiculous way Cooper discusses Trump. Night after night, again and again, his program devolves into a battle in which hundreds of pundits attempt to deal with the various assertions of Lord, the most insistent and most frustrating of CNN's Trump whisperers.

Again and again, a familiar pattern plays out on Cooper's program. Lord reinvents the various things Donald J. Trump has said. As he does, he paraphrases past reports in the New York Times, maybe perhaps inaccurately or implausibly.

In response, Cooper's cast of thousands try to talk Lord out of his various claims. With respect to those New York Times reports, Cooper never makes the slightest attempt to define what the newspaper actually said.

Before the week is out, we'll review a recent example of this cast-of-thousands nonsense, which routinely recurs, Groundhog Day-fashion, on Cooper's CNN show. This format provides a wonderful way to pretend to discuss the news about Trump, without establishing any facts about the claims which consume another hour.

Bernstein was right! It's time for a change in the way Cooper presents the news. But then, it's also time for a change in the way we liberals operate Over Here.

In our view, our own liberal world pretty much hit rock bottom last year. We were confronted with the craziest candidate ever nominated for the White House.

Confronted with this craziest candidate, we somehow managed to lose!

Ever since that shocking day—Professor Wang had said it couldn't happen!—we liberals have insisted on blaming that outcome on Those People, the ones found Over There. It hasn't seemed to enter our heads that November's pitiful outcome might in some way be a reflection on Us.

In line with prehistoric thinking, it can only be a reflection on Them. For an example of what we mean, just check Paul Krugman's new column.

Let's start by stating the obvious. Within the journalistic realm, Krugman has been the liberal world's MVP for a very long time.

Plainly, he's one of the liberal world's smartest, best informed players. This makes his new column even more striking.

In our view, much of what Krugman says in his column is true. We'd say it's true that Donald J. Trump seems to have a "pathological inability to accept responsibility" for his own flaming misstatements.

As far as we know, it's true that this is an outsized version of a pre-existing tendency among major figures in the conservative world.

(One example from Krugman's column: "In the aftermath of the [2008] financial crisis, a similar inability to admit error was on display among many economic commentators.")

We assume all that is true. That said, we were struck by what happened when Krugman asked our liberal team's favorite question near the end of his column.

It's something we liberals love to do! Krugman tried to understand how Those People could have voted for Trump.

We liberals love to ask that question. Here's how the column ended:
KRUGMAN (3/20/17): [W]hy did so many Americans vote for Mr. Trump, whose character flaws should have been obvious long before the election?

Catastrophic media failure and F.B.I. malfeasance played crucial roles. But my sense is that there’s also something going on in our society: Many Americans no longer seem to understand what a leader is supposed to sound like, mistaking bombast and belligerence for real toughness.

Why? Is it celebrity culture? Is it working-class despair, channeled into a desire for people who spout easy slogans?

The truth is that I don’t know. But we can at least hope that watching Mr. Trump in action will be a learning experience—not for him, because he never learns anything, but for the body politic...
We liberals always take this approach! We take it as a reflection on Them that they chose to vote for Trump, "whose character flaws should have been obvious."

We don't see it as a reflection on Us when we say, for the ten millionth time, that we don't understand why Those People chose to do that. In this case, we were especially struck by one part of Krugman's lament.

We agree with Krugman on one basic point. In our view, Donald J. Trump's "character flaws" were, in fact, completely obvious long before last November.

That said, many voters believed that Hillary Clinton's character flaws were totally obvious too. Krugman's brief reference to "media failure" may in part speak to this point.

That said, we were most struck by Krugman's claim that something has changed in the U.S.A. when people can't see through a person like Donald J. Trump.

"Many Americans no longer seem to understand what a leader is supposed to sound like," Krugman writes. By "many Americans," he plainly seems to mean the many Americans found Over There.

In our view, many voters have shown poor judgment concerning the blandishments of Donald J. Trump. (We're willing to identify our view as a matter of opinion.)

That said, uh-oh! Tomorrow, we'll discuss a few of the various hustlers and con men we liberals have failed to see through in the past twenty-five years.

Any such list would be long, of course. It speaks to Krugman's growing tribalism that he can only see this failure of judgment occurring among Those People, the stupenagels found Over There.

We liberals have failed to see through a long list of hustlers and con men too! Beyond that, we point to Krugman's puzzling suggestion that the inability to see through figures like Trump is new on the American scene.

Citizens, please! We the people have always been susceptible to swindlers and con men. Our literature is rich with such stories—stories which revolve around a natural-born human trait, a trait of good decent people.

Last night, we shot pool at Washington's Cosmos Club beneath a photo of Mark Twain, who apparently shot pool in the very same room. When he wasn't thus occupied, Twain gave us the story of the Duke and the King, the "otherwise unnamed con artists" who manage to swindle an Arkansas river town in a famous part of Huckleberry Finn.

Way back in 1962, Meredith Willson gave us another such tale. His swindler, Professor Harold Hill, was a lovable non-professor professor who was selling magical trombones.

The good, decent people of River City fell for his skilled blandishments. In the end, Marian the Librarian, who fell for his soul, was able to turn him around.

We humans have always been inclined to get taken by the hucksters! This explains why we have an FDA and three hundred similar agencies.

Those agencies were invented to protect us against our human selves. Today, though, we liberals insist that the tendency to fall for music men is something new in American life—and that this human tendency can only be found Over There.

Krugam ended yesterday's column in a tribal way. Tomorrow, we'll mention a few of the music men whose trombones we liberals have purchased.

Having said that, let us also say this:

It may be time for a change in the way Cooper sifts Trump. That said, it's also time for a change in the way we liberals imagine the world.

Why won't Those People listen to Us when we tell them who they should vote for? In part, it's because they know us for who and what we are: folk who believe that human failing only exists Over There.

"Many Americans no longer seem to understand what a leader is supposed to sound like?"

This very basic human flaw has always been part of American life. And this very human imperfection is very much found Over Here.

Tomorrow: Our previous Donald J. Trumps

Star scribe sees Trump support holding strong!

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2017

Frankly, as always, that's Rich:
We watched the House committee hearing this morning. In an hour or so, we're heading off for a chic Washington, D.C. renunion dinner with our high school classmate, Name Withheld, who lived one block over on Georgetown Avenue, just down from the Alameda.

These factors will reduce our posting today. We'll simply ask you to ponder one point by Frank Rich in this new, deeply sad piece for New York magazine.

We'll return to Rich's piece within the next few days. That said, is it time for a change Over Here in our own liberal world? No one makes this need more obvious than Rich, the dumbest star in the liberal firmament of the past twenty-five years.

His new piece for New York is extremely dumb. But that's been true of most of his oeuvre since he worked so hard to put George W. Bush in the White House. Bush and Gore were peas in a pod, he insisted again and again.

As a general matter, Rich is begging liberals, in his new piece, to Never, Ever Make the Mistake of Attempting to Speak to Those People. Please don't be polite about Them. Please maintain your loathing!

You just can't reason with Them, Rich declares. Frankly, in classic Rich fashion, he offers this as part of his evidence:
RICH (3/19/17): The most insistent message of right-wing media hasn’t changed since the Barry Goldwater era: Government is inherently worthless, if not evil, and those who preach government activism, i.e., liberals and Democrats, are subverting America. Facts on the ground, as [Arlie] Hochschild saw in Louisiana, do nothing to counter this bias...Reagan’s old dictum remains gospel on the right (Vance included): “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” In Portsmouth, Ohio, the epicenter of opiate-pill mills and of Quinones’s book, Trump won by a landslide. As he did in Ohio’s Butler County, where Vance grew up and which now ranks eighth among all American counties in the increase in the rate of drug-related deaths between 2004 (when opioid fatalities first spiked) and 2014.

As polls uniformly indicate, nothing that has happened since November 8 has shaken that support....
Please don't stop loathing Those People, Rich explicitly says in his piece. Any attempt to reason with Them will be utterly pointless!

As evidence, Rich notes that nothing has shaken the love Those People feel for Donald J. Trump. Polls uniformly show this, he says—and he can't be talking about Portsmouth, Ohio polls, since Portsmouth polls don't exist.

According to Rich, polls uniformly show that nothing has happened to Donald J. Trump's support. Except, uh-oh:

According to these Gallup data, Trump's approval/disapproval figures were basically even in late January, when he drew the largest crowd in human history to his sun-splashed inauguration. Less than two months later, he has been seventeen points in the hole, on average, over the past three days in Gallup's daily tracker.

In two months, Trump has lost almost twenty percent of his support.

To Rich, this can mean only one thing: "As polls uniformly indicate, nothing that has happened since November 8 has shaken [Trump's] support." Is it possible that Donald J. Trump is writing this stupenagel's stuff?

Good God, Rich is dumb! But so what? Despite or because of this fact, he's been a liberal icon for years. (When he appears on the Maddow Show, he's of course introduced and pandered to as "the great Frank Rich.")

Given Rich's manifest dumbness and his love of tribal loathing, nothing makes our point more clear. It's time for a change in the mainstream press—but it's also time for a big major change in the ways we proceed Over Here.

We'll return to Rich's piece in the next few days. Frankly, Rich has been peddling bullroar forever. It's high time we cancelled the sale.

TIME FOR A CHANGE: Carl Bernstein says it's time for a change!

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2017

Part 1—We see him and raise him one:
There are only two slogans in American politics:

"Happy days are here again." Also, "It's time for a change."

Last Friday night, on CNN, Carl Bernstein said it's time for a change. More specifically, he said it's time for a change in the way the press covers Donald J. Trump.

Bernstein was speaking with Anderson Cooper, who definitely needs to change the way he covers Donald J. Trump. Cooper asked about Sean Spicer's latest disordered behavior as White House press spokesman.

In reply, Bernstein said this:
BERNSTEIN (3/17/17): Anderson, this is Donald Trump's M.O., as we know, and it's quite purposeful. And the real story here—and it's time for the press to maybe change our coverage a bit and look at what the real story is here, particularly cable television.

The real story is that the President of the United States is a compulsive liar.
And along with that, that this compulsive lying is taking place at a time when Mike Rogers has just pointed out the most important fact of all, that there is an FBI investigation that is closing in on some of Donald Trump's associates.

We don't know what the result of that investigation is going to be, but those of us who have been following it closely, and trying to learn about it, know that it is accelerated. It is going to be a major piece of news regardless of what it finds. And Donald Trump is trying to deflect us by making up these fabulist tales.

We need to start covering this president and his lying as a story unto itself.
Maybe we need an hour special on presidential lying. Let's look at Bill Clinton and Lewinsky. Let's look at Richard Nixon. Let's look at president who have lied. But we are now in space with this president of the United States where we have never been, with a compulsive liar who uses untruth as a basic way of governance.
According to Bernstein, it's time for the press to change its coverage of Donald J. Trump, especially cable news. According to Bernstein, CNN needs to do maybe an hour-long special on Trump's "compulsive lying."

Compulsively, Bernstein mentioned the presidential lying of Bill Clinton with respect to Miss Lewinsky. Later in the segment, he expanded on his prescription:
BERNSTEIN: One quick other aspect is the smearing of Barack Obama. This goes along with the birtherism. This is the same person who has been doing this kind of thing. No other president that I think in our history has said the kinds of things about his predecessor that Donald Trump has now said about Barack Obama. "A sick man, a bad man," he called him. It's extraordinary.

All of this theater, and I think we have to look at this part as theater, is of a piece, which is why I'm suggesting that the press has to find a new way to cover this and look at what the real story is and what the threads are that run through it and that has to do with untruth and that also has to do with trying to deflect attention from what Mike Rogers is talking about, about this investigation.
You've now seen everything Bernstein said on Cooper's program that evening.

We agree with Bernstein's basic idea. We too think it's time for a change! We think mainstream news orgs, especially cable, needs to make some changes in the way they cover Donald J. Trump.

Especially at CNN, we don't think that an hour-long special would likely suffice. If Cooper aired an hour-long special about Donald J. Trump's "compulsive lying," Jeffrey Lord would be prominently featured as part of a 900-member pundit panel.

Inevitably, the discussion would disintegrate in precisely the way it does every night on Cooper's program. For ourselves, we don't think Bernstein was thinking quite bigly enough.

We're also not sure that "compulsive lying" is necessarily the best way to go in covering Donald J. Trump. Is Trump involved in "compulsive lying?" Or is he engaged in something else, something which could be more dangerous?

One hour later last Friday night, Fareed Zakaria told Don Lemon that he wouldn't be inclined to second Bernstein's use of the L-bomb. Zakaria diagnosed President Trump in a different unflattering way:
ZAKARIA (3/17/17): I got into trouble during the campaign saying something about the president which I still think is true. I think the president is somewhat indifferent to things that are true or false. He has spent his whole life bullshitting, he has succeeded by bullshitting, he has gotten the presidency by bullshitting. It's very hard to tell somebody at that point that bullshit doesn't work because look at results, right?

But that's what he does. He sees something, he doesn't particularly care if it's true or not. He just puts it out.

And then he puts something else out. And notice again what he did this press conference. When pushed on it, he doesn't take responsibility. "I wasn't saying that. I was just quoting somebody else." When you have the White House press secretary quote somebody to prove a point, you are endorsing that view.

[...]

LEMON: Carl Bernstein— I heard him say, on Anderson's program, that we should be doing stories on the president being a pathological liar. That's Carl Bernstein's words. Do you think the president is pathological?

ZAKARIA: I think there's clearly a pathological element to his behavior by which I mean, you know, quite strictly, that he almost can't control himself. I happen to know from having talked to some of the people around him, people have tried to stop him and he can't. So in that sense I think, I'm not going to go with the second word because, as I said, I think there is an easier explanation.

LEMON: Not a psychologist.

ZAKARIA: And in terms of the "liar," I mean.
Zakaria didn't want to go with "liar." He was inclined to go with "bullshitter." He said it provided an easier explanation for Trump's behavior.

That said, Zakaria doubled down on the powerful term "pathological." He seemed to say that Donald J. Trump can't control his own behavior. In our view, this is the more troubling aspect of Donald J. Trump's apparent profile, now that Donald J. Trump is the man in charge of the nuclear codes.

Is it time for a change in the press corps' coverage of Donald J. Trump? Zakaria offered no such suggestion. Bernstein proposed some fairly weak tea for cable news.

That said, we've been saying, for many years, that news orgs should treat it as news when major public figures mislead or misinform the public about significant matters. We've persistently said that such conduct should be treated as front-page news. That resembles what Bernstein was saying.

Is it time for a change ion the way the press covers Donald J. Trump? Since Bernstein was speaking on Cooper's program, we'll take a look this week at the Groundhog Day-flavored way that program covers Donald J. Trump on a nightly basis.

Plainly, it's time for a change on Cooper's program. But we'll also suggest that it's time for a change within our own liberal world.

It's commonly said that addicts can't start to change until they "hit rock bottom" and are able to acknowledge that fact. By our way of reckoning, we liberals hit rock bottom last year when we managed to lose an election to a disordered crackpot like Donald J. Trump.

As with the press corps, so too with us: it's time for decades of our own behavior to come under review. It's time for a change Over Here.

That said, we liberals are having a hard time acknowledging the fact that we hit rock bottom last year. In the manner of vintage tribal denial, we tend to think it's time for a change by everyone else, not so much by us.

In our view, it's time for a change in several broad spheres of American life. Before we return to Cooper's program, we'll take a quick look at Us.

Tomorrow: Paul Krugman's latest column. Also, the historical role of music men like Professor Harold Hill

BREAKING: Corporate payoffs infect journalist's work!

SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 2017

"Lurid" sex tales, "mysterious death," many embellished scandals:
BREAKING:

A major American journalist is accepting as much as $200,000 per week in cash payments from a major corporate entity.

The payouts may be intended to influence this journalist's work, driving it in a heavily tabloid direction.

Increasingly, the journalist's nightly TV show features giant amounts of wasted time; exciting reports about "lurid" sex parties; an endless array of reports about embellished "scandals;" and even one recent report about a "mysterious death."

BREAKING:

Even as this journalist was accepting as much as $200,000 per week in payments she refuses to disclose, she complained this week about the fact that former general Michael Flynn accepted $65,000 in all from three Russian entities. Her complaints about Flynn have been driven by repeated inaccurate claims about his work last year for a Danish policy org.

But first:

Yesterday, it happened again! In the Washington Post, on the front page of Style, Monica Hesse wrote a lengthy, largely mocking profile of the ridiculous Fox News morning show, Fox & Friends.

In the course of her profile, Hesse became the latest mainstream scribe to publish previously verboten remarks such as the ones we've highlighted:
HESSE (3/17/17): We increasingly live in a choose-your-own-facts society. If you are worried about your job, your health care, your safety, you might choose whichever news source made you feel the most justified in your beliefs. If you were a president whose Gallup approval rating recently dipped to 39 percent, you might do the same thing.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to watch “Fox & Friends” merely as an anthropological exercise, then what you’ll think of it is that they are masters of tone and delivery. The show is an object lesson on how you can say the darnedest things, so long as you do so in a sunny-side-up way.

“Fox & Friends” is much more pleasant to watch than MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” for example, where the host’s smirking indignation wears old and starts to feel like a stress test delivered via the television. It’s also more pleasant than CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” where opposing views are lobbed back and forth like tennis balls: Kayleigh McEnany to Van Jones to Kayleigh McEnany to—oops, the ball has gone wild and Jeffrey Lord is chasing it.

If Rachel Maddow is faux outrage, then “Fox & Friends” is faux peacemaking, wondering why the other side persists in being so mean, while casually throwing frosting-coated grenades over the fence.
Hesse neatly captured the Lord-based nonsense which now infests Cooper's CNN show. But good lord! When did it become mainstream-OK to make accurate remarks about Maddow being "cynical" (Slate) or even "faux" (the Washington Post)?

Granted, Hesse barely scratched the surface of the ridiculousness which characterizes Maddow's increasingly tabloidized show. Given Maddow's widely-acknowledged role as Fey High Regent of Pseudo-Progressive Sillybill Thought, the dumbing-down of her TV show is a dangerous, potentially destructive process.

That said: until this week, no mainstream scribe had ever dreamed of remarking on Maddow as Hesse has now done. We can't report the source of the permission slips which apparently went out this week. But suddenly, mainstream reporters feel safe in mocking Maddow, in ways which have always been avoided in the past.

The tabloidization of Maddow's show has been a thing to behold. In just the past two nights, viewers have been exposed to trademark time-kills at the start of the program; to endless embellished claims about an endless set of "scandals;" to a thrilling report about "lurid" sex parties, perhaps involving a corncob pipe (!); and even to talk of a recent "mysterious death."

Last night, Maddow aired a heavily-hyped "TRMS Special Report"—a special report which didn't start until twenty-six minutes had been burned off the start of her program. When the "Special Report" was finally delivered, it turned out to be just like a regular report from the night before, except a great deal less so.

Maddow hasn't yet suggested that Donald J. Trump murdered Vince Foster and maybe Bill Clinton's dog. But as her ridiculous program spirals down toward Tabloidsylvania, can that day be far off?

How silly has this TV show become? Very, very silly. Because transcripts aren't available yet, you'll have to watch this tape from last night's show to enjoy the corn cob-inflected report about those "lurid" sex parties with all the exciting fun.

(Spoiler alert: The parties didn't involve Governor Bentley touching his girl friend's breasts.)

For lurid sex talk, you can watch the tape. On Thursday night, this was the silly, stupenagel talk about that mysterious death:
MADDOW (3/16/17): ...the company that Vladimir Putin used to seal the deal in Guatemala City, the company that Putin used to show off what Russia could do, to fly this freaking ice rink from Russia to Central America to make a good impression for Russia`s Olympic bid, it was a Russian air cargo company called—this is the name of it.

I`m not going to pronounce this because Stephen Colbert will make fun of me if I try. I know the first word is "Volga." The second word, no idea. Pronounce it however you like that.

But that is the company Vladimir Putin picked to fly the ice rink to Guatemala. It's also a company that was at the center of one of the great modern corruption stories at the United Nations.

This year's Russian U.N. mystery is, of course, about the Russian ambassador to the U.N. dropping dead with no warning at the age of 64 last month, followed by the U.S. State Department putting out a strange statement insisting that no cause of death would be released for him because, quote, "Ambassador Churkin's diplomatic immunity survives his death."

That's—that's this year's Russia-U.N. intrigue. Before this, though, before the mysterious death of the ambassador, this year, before this intrigue, the big Russia-U.N. intrigue before that was when a bunch of their senior diplomats got nailed in a huge bribery and corruption scheme. It was a bribery scheme involving that same company, that same air cargo company that flew the ice rink to Guatemala for Vladimir Putin. A bunch of Russian diplomats, including some of the most senior diplomats they had at the U.N., were caught and arrested in conjunction with this bribery scandal.
That bullshit about Guatemala City represents the tail end of Thursday evening's opening ten minutes of time-kill. Along the way, Maddow lapsed into some standard self-reference concerning her ability to pronounce a Russian word and the celebrity she recently gained from Stephen Colbert concerning an earlier bit of clowning this week with a hard-to-pronounce Russian name.

That was standard Maddow time-kill cum standard Maddow self-reference. "I I I I I I I," our horrified analysts wailed.

Suddenly, though, we got our newest tabloid thrill concerning the "mysterious death" of the Russian ambassador, who "dropped dead with no warning" last month.

Question! How many ambassadors issue warnings before they drop dead of heart attacks? We aren't real sure, and Maddow failed to note the cause of this thrilling mysterious death, which constitutes "this year's Russian U.N. mystery," the latest case of "Russia-U.N. intrigue." Her show is getting very strange—stranger perhaps by the night.

We could go on at some length cataloguing the nonsense from this week alone. Might we note one point in closing?

Michael Flynn strikes us as a full-blown nut. That said, there is no evidence that he was "on the Turkish payroll" last year.

Simply put, that isn't what it meant when he registered as a "foreign agent" under terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In its front-page news report on this matter, the New York Times specifically noted that Flynn "did not work directly for the Turkish government." But who cares about shit like that?

Night after night this week, Maddow has continued to say and imply that Flynn did work for the Turkish government, "on the Turkish government's payroll." This has led to repetitive bungled claims about what Mike Pence was surely told about this matter, with the attendant nightly claims that Pence has been lying through his teeth about the overall incident, which Maddow keeps misdescribing.

Trump keeps making claims about wiretaps; Maddow keeps making claims about this. Have massive payouts from corporate owners led to such cword-pleasing conduct?

We can't answer your question, thoughtful as it is. That said, those "lurid" sex parties must have been thrilling and fun, what with that corncob pipe and all. (Maddow had already burned nine minutes off the start of her show when she pleasured us with the pipe.)

We liberals need to get smarter, saner, savvier, wiser. BREAKING:

Is a journalist being paid large sums to dumb us way, way down?

To what was Donald J. Trump referring?

FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2017

Answering Kevin Drum's question:
Yesterday, Kevin Drum asked some largely sensible questions. He wanted to know what Donald J. Trump was talking about in his most recent comments about the wiretap charge, his comments to Tucker Carlson.

More specifically, here's what Drum asked. We're editing out Drum's account of a failed search at the New York Times web site:
DRUM (3/16/17): Last night I read Donald Trump's comment that he had read the word "wiretap" in the New York Times on January 20, so he figured that made it OK on March 4 to accuse President Obama of wiretapping him. I vaguely wondered what article he was talking about, but it was late and life is short, so I went to bed instead of searching for it.

[...]

Does anyone have a clue what he was talking about?

And how about the Bret Baier report "the day previous where he was talking about certain very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping"?
I can't find that either.

Do either of these things exist? Or is Trump just making stuff up to cover for the fact that he read about it in a Breitbart News summary of a Mark Levin radio rant?
As Drum notes, Trump referred to a January 20 report in the New York Times, and to a Bret Baier broadcast on March 3. For various reasons, we think the answers to Drum's questions are very much worth considering.

Obviously, there's no way of knowing if Donald J. Trump actually saw any reports in the New York Times. But this is the report most people think he was citing.

On January 20, it appeared on the hard-copy Times front page. Its original headline contained the term "Wiretapped Data." A Nexis search on "Trump AND wiretap!" instantly turns it up.

That said, uh-oh! That same day, the New York Times public editor posted this provocative report. The piece appeared in the hard-copy Times on Sunday, January 22.

Spayd's report was striking. As she started, she described a vein of reporting at the Times during the fall campaign:
SPAYD (1/20/17): Late September was a frantic period for New York Times reporters covering the country’s secretive national security apparatus. Working sources at the F.B.I., the C.I.A., Capitol Hill and various intelligence agencies, the team chased several bizarre but provocative leads that, if true, could upend the presidential race. The most serious question raised by the material was this: Did a covert connection exist between Donald Trump and Russian officials trying to influence an American election?

One vein of reporting centered on a possible channel of communication between a Trump organization computer server and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin. Another source was offering The Times salacious material describing an odd cross-continental dance between Trump and Moscow.
According to Spayd, the Times decided not to publish any reports on these topics. (She seems to think that this was a bad decision.) Along the way, she referred to reports by other news orgs, reports asserting that the FBI obtained FISA warrants as part of an investigation of TrumpOrg:
SPAYD: I have spoken privately with several journalists involved in the reporting last fall, and I believe a strong case can be made that The Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had.

I appreciate the majority view that there wasn’t enough proof of a link between Trump and the Kremlin to write a hard-hitting story. But The Times knew several critical facts: the F.B.I. had a sophisticated investigation underway on Trump’s organization, possibly including FISA warrants. (Some news outlets now report that the F.B.I. did indeed have such warrants, an indication of probable cause.) Investigators had identified a mysterious communication channel, partly through a lead from anti-Trump operatives.

At one point, the F.B.I. was so serious about its investigation into the server that it asked The Times to delay publication.
She seems to be referring to the report, by several serious news orgs, that the FBI obtained a FISA warrant for a computer or computer server in Trump Tower. (She links to a report by McClatchy, whose track record has always been strong.)

That's what Baier was asking Paul Ryan about on March 3. Basically, Ryan seemed to avoid Baier's repeated questions, in which Baier kept asking if any such warrants had actually been obtained:
BAIER (3/3/17): Are you concerned, on the flip side, that the Obama administration may have been surveilling members of the Trump campaign in pretty detailed investigation during the election?

RYAN: Well, I don't, I don't—I don't think that's the case. If you recall, President Obama asked the intelligence community committee, after the election, to canvas all the intelligence and give a report to Congress on what Russia did do in all their interactions. And in that report, nobody alleged that there was a person in America, like a Trump campaign official, involved with the Russians on this. So if they would've found that, you think they would've put that in the report that they gave us in early January.

BAIER: Right, but there is a report that, June 2016, there's a FISA request by the Obama administration, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several other campaign officials. Then they re—

They get turned down. And then in October, they renew it, and they do start a wiretap at Trump Tower with some computer and Russian banks. And it doesn't show up anything, by reporting. Have you heard that?

RYAN: Well, again, and like I said, none of us in Congress or anybody I know in Congress has been presented with evidence to the contrary of what you just said.

BAIER: So you believe it to be true?

RYAN: Yes. We have seen no evidence that anybody in this campaign, or any other American, was in on it with the Russians to meddle in our elections. We know they meddled, Russia is an adversary, and that's something we have to work to counteract.

BAIER: I got it. But my point is, is that the Obama administration was pretty aggressive, a couple of FISA requests—

RYAN: No, I hear your point. I'm saying—but I have seen nothing of that. I've seen nothing come of that. That's my point.

BAIER: O.K. Let's turn to Obamacare...
To watch that exchange, click here.

To our ear, Ryan kept playing dumb all through that exchange. He kept responding to a question he hadn't been asked.

Basically, Baier kept asking if FISA warrants had actually been sought and obtained. Ryan kept saying that there's no evidence that Trump folk did anything wrong.

After three or four tries, Baier gave up and moved on. To our eye and ear, it seems like Ryan, for whatever reason, just kept avoiding his question.

That interview took place the night before Trump's tweets. It certainly could have triggered a search on his part. If so, he and/or his staff could have found serious orgs reporting that the FBI obtained FISA warrants against a computer/computer server in Trump Tower. Or they may have been responding to claims by less reliable orgs.

It's revealing that one of our smartest players didn't know any of this. Even worse is the horrible reporting found elsewhere in our increasingly bubble-like liberal world.

This recent report at TPM struck us as essentially clueless. On the brighter side, it was written by someone who's one year out of college. That's good for the bottom line!

Did the FBI obtain FISA warrants? We have no idea. But here you see an unfortunate pattern:

Bret Baier knew about the reporting concerning the FISA warrants. So did Liz Spayd at the New York Times.

Over here in the bubble of Our Own Liberal Tents, we seem to be riding along in the dark. Fox viewers had heard about this; so had Spayd's readers. Over Here, one of our brightest players said he didn't have a clue.

Increasingly, we liberals are adopting the comfortable role of the ditto-head. Rachel serves us our nightly stew. Dumbly, we gulp our stew down.

TPM? Same basic game! This way lies ruination.

Spread out over several decades, this is pretty much the way Donald J. Trump ended up where he is. Did you hear what Professor Wang said? There's no way Clinton can lose!

How do we manage to find this stuff: We pay for Nexis, out of our own pocket. Mother Jones does not.

We don't want to pay for Nexis. But it's a powerful tool.

IN SEARCH OF THE USA 9400: Memorializing a disappeared group!

FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2017

Part 4—The single-paragraph project:
Has any group ever been disappeared more completely than the USA 9400?

The important group continues to languish in almost complete obscurity. You don't read about them in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Rachel Maddow would rather stop talking about herself than discuss this key group's existence.

In yesterday's report, we posted the simple, easily-memorized numbers which define this key group. Just for the record, let's gaze on those digits again:
Per capita spending, health care, 2015
United States: $9451
Canada: $4608
France: $4407
As you can see, the USA 9400 is arguably the USA Ninety-Five Hundred! That said, our basic point is clear:

On a per person basis, we spend massively more on health care than other developed nations. As compared with France, with its outstanding health system, about $5000 disappears into the American mist every single year!

Five thousand dollars per person!

Where does all that money go? You'd almost think that American journalists would want to figure that out.

Over Here, we liberals tend to have a few tiny answers to that basic question. We tend to blame the insurance industry, then demand "Medicare for all."

We don't seem to know that Medicare is a prime example of apparent over-spending. We don't seem to know that spending by the insurance industry, however useless, constitutes a fairly small part of this rather obvious problem.

Whatever! We have our scripts and we like to recite them. After that, we tend to praise ourselves for our brilliance, then drop off to sleep.

Where does all that money go? You'd almost think that American journalists would want to answer that question.

That missing money helps explain why so many people can't afford health care, even including some people who actually have health insurance. With health care lying at the heart of the American political debate, you'd almost think that big major orgs would want to dig into those spending numbers.

If you thought that, you were wrong. Simply put, the 9400 are never mentioned by the American press, a guild composed of lucky ducks who typically have good health care.

Off and on through the years, we've suggested that liberals and progressives might want to remember this thoroughly disappeared group. We might want to explain where all that extra money is going—a giant sum which hasn't even come close to providing decent health care for all.

Granted, we liberals don't always care if some gap-toothed yokel down in coal country succumbs without medical care. Our biggest stars call those people the baggers! Why would We in the finer class actually care about Them?

That said, you'd think our impressive Ivy League grads would want to pretend to do the reporting on such a basic matter. But since that isn't likely to happen, we want to suggest a way that you, the average American shlub, can memorialize this disappeared group.

Here's how that would go down:

Every time you encounter a health care discussion, you could insert a single paragraph about the USA 9400, even if just in your head. We think you'll see that the health care discussion take on an exciting new aspect.

Let's return to the New York Times editorial with which this award-winning series began. As you may recall, the editors were stressing the high cost of health insurance. You may recall the somewhat murky way they described this very large problem:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (3/8/17): House Speaker Paul Ryan and Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, have railed against high premiums and deductibles for plans sold on the health exchanges, but that problem would only worsen under their proposal because insurers would almost certainly raise their prices as the pool of the insured shrank. Republican lawmakers seem to think that people who can't afford insurance are simply irresponsible. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, for instance, told CNN that people should invest in their health care, ''rather than getting that new iPhone.'' Word to Mr. Chaffetz: Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family; an iPhone costs a few hundred dollars.
The editors were stressing an important fact. For families with average American incomes, health insurance is very expensive. Full freaking stop!

Here's our suggestion. Next time you encounter such a report, remember the USA 9400. Even if only in your mind, insert a single paragraph.

Take the single-paragraph challenge! Just insert the basic context which should be part of all such reports, but instead never appears:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL REWRITTEN: House Speaker Paul Ryan and Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, have railed against high premiums and deductibles for plans sold on the health exchanges, but that problem would only worsen under their proposal because insurers would almost certainly raise their prices as the pool of the insured shrank. Republican lawmakers seem to think that people who can't afford insurance are simply irresponsible. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, for instance, told CNN that people should invest in their health care, ''rather than getting that new iPhone.'' Word to Mr. Chaffetz: Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family; an iPhone costs a few hundred dollars.

The high cost of insurance in this country derives from the remarkably large amount of money spent on health care each year. In the United States, an average of $9451 was spent, per person, on health care in 2015. In France, with its highly regarded health care system, only $4407 was spent per person that year. As is the case in many countries, the French system provides universal coverage, with health results equal to those in the U.S., at a much lower level of spending.
Go ahead! Imagine some such insertion! An insertion like that is highly relevant in almost all health care reports.

If that insertion appeared in every health care report, people might start to ask a key question:

Where the Sam Hill—where on Donald J. Trump's green earth—is all that extra money going? Why the Joe Hill does it cost so much to provide health care in this country, as opposed to everywhere else?

We liberals! We praise Obamacare, suggest Medicare for all. Then we take our naps.

In this way, we too disappear the 9400. Why do we keep doing that?

Concerning those two questions: In Part 1 of this award-winning series, we said the highlighted point in that editorial suggested two major questions:

Why does insurance cost so much?
Why does it cost so little?

Where does that second question come from? Thanks for asking! Here's where:

If we spend $9400 per person per year on health care, how is it possible to insure an average family for only $18,000? If we're talking about a family of four, won't it cost maybe $38,000 for their annual health care?

(According to our Arithmetical Computation Division, $9400 x 4 is almost $38,000.)

We assume we know the answer to that. Because we read the Times and watch MSNBC, we never see such questions or answers in print, or hear such discussions on cable.

CNN will discuss the Aghori sect, but it won't discuss the 9400. Do not discuss the 9400! Every good scribe knows the rule!

Several years later, a few people notice!

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2017

Big cable clown gets smacked:
Rachel Maddow has been floundering badly, and floundering strangely, for at least the past several years. To cite one bizarre example:

In the spring of 2015, she started a 13-week jihad against Fox News—a completely ridiculous nightly jihad which was about as strange as anything we've ever seen on cable.

No one in the liberal world noticed how bogus this was. Our career players are very good at averting their gaze from the weird behavior of liberals with power and status. Remember when no one noticed that Keith Olbermann was behaving so badly, misogynistically-wise?

Oops! As it turned out, it wasn't that no one had noticed. It was just that no one wanted to speak up in public. When the JournoList transcripts leaked, it turned out that quite a few major liberals had been discussing Olbermann's misogyny, even using using that word—but they had chosen to do so only in private.

We still can't see Rebecca Traister without remembering her role in that disgraceful group silence. Can you see Traister without remembering? We wonder how you do it!

Yesterday, for whatever reason, the protective shield around the increasingly ludicrous Maddow finally broke down. At Slate, Willa Paskin knocked her for her "cynical" conduct in her ludicrous Tuesday evening program about the non-1040 form 1040 form.

Last night, Stephen Colbert even mocked Maddow right there on CBS! (Warning! Not even slightly funny!)

This morning, Margaret Sullivan grabbed the baton in the Washington Post. Sullivan captured the maddening experience of watching Maddow in these, the devolution years.

Hard-copy headline included. Note the highlighted points:
SULLIVAN (3/16/17): For Trump's taxes, Maddow chose the loooong form

In journalism, it’s called “burying the lede.”

And Rachel Maddow gave a master class in just that on her MSNBC show Tuesday night.

With huge numbers of viewers tuned in because of her earlier tweet that she had obtained President Trump’s tax returns, she talked . . . and talked . . . and talked. For an eternity—or close to 20 minutes, which certainly felt like an eternity—viewers heard about everything except the actual news. We got Russian oligarchs, Cypriot banks, the firing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and much more.

[...]

About 10 minutes in, I started wondering what would have happened if Maddow, rather than David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, had been sent the “Access Hollywood” video? How long, how long, would we have waited to find out what a really famous guy can grab ’em by?
Earth to Sullivan: Rachel Maddow always talks and talks and talks. The viewer's mind is always casting about in search of relief "about 10 minutes in." Many nights, it's only then that we finally learn what Maddow's topic is!

As we noted yesterday, listening to herself talk is Maddow's second favorite pastime. As we've often noted, her favorite pastime is playing old videotape of herself, generally in an attempt to help us learn to adore her more fully.

The Maddow Show is as close to a cult of personality as cable has ever produced. You could overlook the foolishness of this if Maddow was doing good journalism. But increasingly in recent years, she's been doing terrible journalism. In the past few days, for whatever reason, some people have finally noticed.

Paskin actually noted the "cynicism" of Maddow's gong-show this Tuesday. Colbert and Sullivan focused exclusively on the massive boredom involved.

On a journalistic basis, Maddow's presentation Tuesday night was typically ridiculous. She took an extremely minor piece of news and, mainly through a pair ofmisleading promotional tweets, turned it into a Very Big Huge Cable News Event.

The tiny droplets of news she dispensed actually tended to help Donald Trump. Due to her massive self-involvement, this thought probably hadn't entered her excited noggin when she conned the twittersphere into thinking Big News was approaching.

She turned a pro-Trump nothingburger into Tuesday Night's Only Topic. In the process, she managed to blow other, serious topics completely off the air.

Maddow's 13-week jihad in 2015 was about as strange a cable episode as we've ever seen. No one noticed! Through the rest of the 2016 campaign, she specialized in ducking every dangerous topic which helped defeat Candidate Clinton.

In the past few weeks, she's been peddling silly, embellished nonsense on a nightly basis. For some reason, Tuesday night took her gong-show over the line. People began to notice.

What has happened to Rachel Maddow over the years? The same thing that happened to Elvis! As our society had shown us again and again, enormous wealth and massive fame are very hard for many people to handle.

As the cult of Maddow has grown, its figurehead has steadily sunk toward the sea—but so what? Off-camera, her sycophants still laugh at her jokes; all traces of supervision are gone. Tomorrow, we'll give you one last example of how dumb this ridiculous program has been just in the past two weeks.

This dumbness is dangerous. It's dangerous when liberals accept a cult of personality from a self-adoring intellectual leader who mugs and clowns incessantly and seems to be losing touch.

We never thought we'd see the day when someone else would be willing to challenge the manifest greatness of Maddow. Career liberals have been tremendously irresponsible over the past twenty-five years when it comes to noting ridiculous conduct by big stars within the guild.

Their careerist self-dealing put Trump where he is. Willa Paskin for president!

Tomorrow: She does this night after night

IN SEARCH OF THE USA 9400: The identity of the 9400!

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2017

Part 3—Respecting a disappeared group:
At present, you're seeing a lot of journalism about American health care.

As you parse and peruse this onslaught of babel, you'll almost never see a mention of the USA 9400. There's a very good chance that you'll never see this important group mentioned at all.

The USA 9400 are one of the modern world's least mentioned groups. Let's offer a quick comparison:

Did you think the Aghori, a cannibalistic Hindu sect, were being under-covered before Reza Aslan broke bread (ate brain) with them in the first episode of his new evergreen weekend time-killer for CNN—the embarrassing "cable news" series which settles the lingering question of whether Aslan's a music man?

(To see Aslan eat brain, just click here.)

Did you think the Aghori were being ignored in the day? Even before Aslan arrived on the scene, they were receiving saturation coverage as compared to the USA 9400, a disappeared group which eats no brain and is found right here in the homeland, though certainly not on the popular TV show of that very same name.

Who are the USA 9400? They're the descendants of the USA 5267, the rarely mentioned group identified by Paul Krugman in April 2005.

In yesterday's award-winning report, we walked you through Krugman's highly informative column from Tax Day 2005. Below, you see the passage in which he mentioned the USA 5267:
KRUGMAN (4/15/05): In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

Amazing, isn't it?
Way back in 2002, the USA 5267 were the dollars spent on health care for the average man, woman and child here in the American homeland.

Quite sensibly, Krugman noted how "amazing" it was that we were spending so much more on health care than everyone else while receiving quite average results. After thirteen years of cost controls, the numbers looked like this, or so the OECD said:
Per capita spending, health care, 2015
United States: $9451
Canada: $4608
France: $4407
Full disclosure:

We refer to "the USA 9400" as a courtesy, as a bit of a hometown call. By normal rounding procedures, we should be lamenting the under-reporting of the USA 9500, which would make our tale sound even worse!

At any rate, there you see the USA 9400, one of the least recognized groups in the world.

The Aghori, who "often dwell in charnel houses" and "have been witnessed smearing cremation ashes on their bodies, and have been known to use bones from human corpses for crafting kapalas," are getting big overage on CNN. For more information, click here.

By way of contrast, the USA 9400 continue to languish in obscurity on that well-known cable news channel, and indeed everywhere else.

Yevgeny Yevtushenko had a few thoughts about that. "If a man lived in obscurity/making his friends in that obscurity/obscurity is not uninteresting," the poet once thoughtfully said.

Yevtushenko's idealism to the side, a person might wonder if the public interest is being served by the journalistic disappearance of this most obscure of all North American groups.

In the figures we've posted above, you see an amazing number of dollars disappearing in the practice of modern American health care. France provides full coverage and good care to all, while spending just $4400 per person per year. In this country, an extra $5000 per person per year is disappearing into the ashes of our wonderfully complex health "systems."

Those ashes are remarkably like the ashes Aslan smeared on his head. And yet, CNN shows no interest in the missing five thousand dollars which forms a key part of our least understood group.

Where the heck is all that extra health care money going? For whatever reason, our news orgs have long agreed that they must never ask or answer that question. Tomorrow, we'll show you how to conduct a meditation concerning this long-standing practice.

We'll teach you how to read health care reporting and commentary in an exciting new way. Using that recent New York Times editorial as our starting point, we'll show you how health care reporting takes on a new look if we perform a simple small act:

Health care reporting takes on a new look if we perform just one simple act—if we insert even one paragraph about the 9400.

Tomorrow: A new way of reading the world

Willa Paskin for president!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017

It's been a long time coming:
We've been waiting a very long time to see a career writer say this.

The greatest fault lies with Maddow's owners, of course. Additional fault lies with the silence from the career liberal world, from the people who have been playing their own "cynical" career games for the past 25 years.

We can't believe that someone has finally said something like this. If liberals had spoken up decades ago about this flailing person's predecessors, there would be no President Trump.

We "liberals" have reaped what we've sown.

David Cay Johnston and TMI!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017

He breaks every rule in the book:
Last night, we were puzzled by the role of the Alternative Minimum Tax in the calculation of Donald J. Trump's federal taxes for 2005.

Never mind why we say that. We were also puzzled by David Cay Johnston's extended trip into the realm of TMI.

At 9:22 last night, Rachel Maddow gave us two tiny bits of information from the 1040 cover sheet Johnston had scored. In 2005, Trump's federal taxes were $38 million on $150 million in income.

She asked Johnston if the two numbers "seemed right." At that point, Johnston began to emit a bit too much information:
MADDOW (3/14/17): Do these numbers seem right to you? Obviously, the White House statement to us is reiterating the $150 million income number and the $38 million paid number.

Those numbers seem right to you?

JOHNSTON: Yes. And they fit the things we know from other public records about how Donald does business. For example, the dividends that he gets are primarily not what are called qualified dividends. That suggests they come from, not big companies like ExxonMobil, but privately held enterprises.

They show almost no tax-exempt interest, about $49,000. That would imply, at the time, maybe $900,000 of municipal bonds.

Not much. I mean, there are lots of college professors out there my age who have $900,000 in municipal bonds.
Say what? There are lots of college professors his age (68) who have $900,000 in municipal bonds? To Johnston, that counts as "not much?"

To us, that seemed like BREAKING NEWS, especially after watching Hayes and Sanders in West Virginia coal country. Did you watch that show the night before? The show with the retired coal miners?

Was Johnston revealing a bit of a societal secret about our routinely unhelpful professors? We aren't sure, but as he continued, Johnston moved even more strangely into the realm of TMI—and he broke an obvious rule:
JOHNSTON (continuing directly): What's most important about this tax return, though, Rachel, is that under the regular tax system, when we have two tax systems— Well-to-do people, you and I, file, effectively calculate our tax twice, the regular tax system and the alternative minimum tax. If we didn't have the alternative minimum tax—and Donald Trump in writing wants to end the alternative minimum tax—he would have paid taxes at a lower rate than the bottom half of taxpayers, the poor in this country who make less than $33,000.

Now think about that! $153 million almost of income, he would have paid a little over $5 million, less than 3.5 percent, less than the half of taxpayers who make under $33,000. As it is, because of the alternative minimum tax, he paid $36.5 million, not the $38 million the White House statement says. They're counting his self-employment tax, which is payroll taxes.

MADDOW: Uh-huh.

JOHNSTON: Thirty-six and a half million, he paid 24 percent. You know who pays 24 percent in this country? Married couples with two incomes, like my wife and I, who make about $400,000 a year. Donald Trump and his wife that year made $418,000 a day.
Johnston and his wife make $400,000 per year? On the one hand, he contrasted that income with Trump's much larger income.

On the other hand, he lumped himself in with Maddow as "well-to-do people, you and I." In doing so, he was breaking every known rule of corporate liberal behavior.

Do Johnston and his wife make $400,000 per year? Presumably—but the last time we saw a report, it was estimated that Maddow was being paid $7 million per year by her corporate owners. And that was three or four years ago. Presumably, if that figure was right, her haul today may be substantially larger.

What rule of decorum did Johnston break? Simple! Within the world of "corporate liberal" cable news, you aren't supposed to encourage viewers to think about matters like this. Maddow is supposed to be one of our "MSNBC friends." It's a term that she and Brian Williams have used in recent weeks.

We're supposed to think of "Rache" as one of our MSNBC friends. We aren't supposed to think of her as what she is—as a massively overpaid corporate employee.

We used to say it all the time—you can't run a middle-class democracy with a multimillionaire press corps. When the pay-outs are that large, you're encouraging the kind of behavior Maddow has increasingly displayed in the past several years.

As a general matter, people will do whatever it takes to retain "good jobs" of that type. Johnston tattled on college professors, then got way out over his skis with his remarks about Maddow.

Maddow changed the subject at this point. Might we ask one last question?

We dream of seeing a survey in which liberals are asked how much they think people like Maddow are paid. We'd love to see what people think. We suspect that most good, decent liberal leaners don't have the slightest idea.

In that regard, here's our question:

What happens to our beloved "transparency" in corporate realms like this? Maddow is eager to sift through Donald J. Trump's financial records. When will this overpaid corporate clown open the books about hers?

Back to West Virginia: On Hayes' Monday night program with Sanders, we saw people explaining what it's like to struggle in coal country.

We're so old that we can remember when Maddow spent a week and a half dropping nightly dick jokes on those strugging peoples' heads. Everyone knows that we're secretly like that.

It's one of the ways we lose elections. Everyone knows except Us.

Headlong pursuit of the nothingburger!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017

Donald Trump triumphs again:
Inevitably, last evening's stampede began with Rachel Maddow selling the car—and doing so in a misleading fashion.

At 7:36, then at 8:24, Maddow issued misleading tweets. "BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns," she said in her first exciting tweet.

"(Seriously)," she added.

In her second tweet, Maddow seemed to clarify matters a bit. "What we've got is from 2005—the President's 1040 form—details to come tonight 9PM ET, MSNBC."

That was misleading too. Maddow didn't have Donald J. Trump's full 1040 form. She only had its cover sheet. This provided very limited information concerning Trump's 2005 return. It didn't include many "details."

Whatever! Maddow's tweets touched off a stampede among two growing demographics—the highly gullible and the easily excited. The exciting discussion of Trump's 1040 was scheduled to start at 9 PM. Viewers scrambled to get in position. Across the cable dial, all other topics would soon be dropped in favor of a big plate of nothingburger.

The cover sheet had been obtained by David Cay Johnston, an experienced economics reporter who generally knows what he's talking about. How had Johnston obtained the sheet?

Eventually, Johnston would get a chance to explain. First, though, Maddow went through one of her endless song-and-dance routines. She burned 19 minutes off the start of the show with a remarkably tedious "background" discussion.

At New York magazine, Margaret Hartmann referred to this as Maddow's "interminable wind-up." In truth, it gave Maddow a chance to engage in her second favorite pastime—listening to herself talk.

Maddow listened to herself for those 19 minutes. After a commercial break, she finally began to describe the contents of the document she'd been pimping so hard, such as it was.

After misdescribing the document one last time, she finally offered the first tiny bits of information at 9:22 PM. According to Maddow, Trump "paid $38 million, looks like $38 million in taxes" in 2005. "If you add up the lines for income, he made more than $150 million in that year," she also thoughtfully said.

And that was it; basically, that was all she had! Twenty-six minutes into her hour, she finally let Johnston speak—and in their very first exchange, the gent delivered a buzzkill:
MADDOW (3/14/17): Joining us is David Cay Johnston. He's editor and founder of dcreport.org, which has posted this document as of a few moments ago. He's also the author of The Making of Donald Trump and the Pulitzer Prize-winning financial reporter who found the president's 2005 returns in his mailbox. David, thank you for being here.

JOHNSTON: Delighted.

MADDOW: First of all, congratulations on this scoop. What can you tell us about how, how you got these pages? How you got this document?

JOHNSTON: Came in the mail over the transom. And there is absolutely nothing improper about journalists, if you haven't solicited something, getting it over the transom.

And by the way, let me point out, it's entirely possible that Donald sent this to me. Donald Trump has over the years leaked all sorts of things. The very sleazy girl-on-girl pictures of the first lady in the New York Post may have come from Donald. The front pages of the state tax returns that we had, that were sent to the New York Times and the New York Daily News last fall, may have come from Donald.

Donald has a long history of leaking material about himself when he thinks it's in his interests.
Say what? Sleazy pictures to the side, why might it have been in Donald Trump's interest to leak this nothingburger?

Sadly, the answer was fairly clear:

Duh. The cover sheet showed Trump earning a lot of money in 2005—and paying a lot of taxes. Maddow had been excitedly pimping a document which seemed to knock down several unflattering claims about Trump—the claim that he maybe isn't real rich, and the claim that he doesn't pay federal taxes.

(By this morning, MSNBC was airing a graphic which showed that Trump had paid a higher percentage in taxes as compared to Mitt Romney—and as compared to Barack Obama!)

The White House also got to swing into action claiming that the form had been stolen. On Fox, Tucker Carlson—Maddow's original cable benefactor—was bellowing out the same complaint during that 9 PM hour.

Basically, though, that was all the information Maddow actually had. The rest of the evening, spreading through several hour-long shows, was devoted to avoiding what Johnston had said, and to offering silly critiques of the underwhelming document.

During the 10 PM hour, Lawrence kept insisting that the cover sheet from 2005 showed that Trump didn't pay "hundreds of millions in federal taxes," as he once had said. Finally, at 10:35 PM, two of O'Donnell's expert guests staged an intervention.

They told him that Trump's remark didn't necessarily mean that he paid that much in taxes every year. Thus rebuked on live TV, Lawrence mercifully stopped.

At 11 PM, Brian Williams seemed a bit annoyed with the whole shebang. He began to mention the unmentionable—the possibility that the big scoop perhaps did serve Trump's interests.

Williams began to hint at something we haven't mentioned. The stampede about the nothingburger had wiped a wide range of weightier topics from last night's cable air:

Gone was discussion of the GOP health plan, which had been imploding. Gone was discussion of the expectation that information would drop today about Trump's wiretapping claims.

Gone, long gone, was Donald J. Trump and Russia. Instead, we had our silliest cable star pimping a tiny bit of information which basically seemed to serve the interests of Donald J. Trump.

It's very hard for liberals to see what a self-adoring circus clown Maddow has become. Last night, she staged a giant stampede over the latest shiny object—over a nothingburger.

Is it possible that Donald J. Trump leaked the shiny object himself? In the very first words out of his mouth, that's what Johnston had said.

Final point:

Also gone from last night's air was any discussion of Chris Hayes' trip to West Virginia. The trip had produced an hour of powerful politics only one night before.

Hayes' trip was potential political dynamite, pointing the way toward a more successful future. By way of contrast, Maddow's overblown nothingburger was a big bag of hot air.

We think of the enduring drama enacted by Laurel and Hardy:

In Laurel and Hardy's beautiful work, the little guy with a hint of a clue is always too meek and mild and decent to speak up. In part for that reason, the big blowhard who's full of hot air always ends up in charge.

So it goes in human life. So it goes in cable news, especially where our own self-adoring circus clown is involved.

We hate to say this but: Yesterday, before the stampede, we decided to take another shot at Maddow's very strange presentation from last Tuesday, March 7.

We keep thinking we must have misunderstood what she said that night. Yesterday, we finally decided. Before the week is through, we'll show you what Our Own Rhodes Scholar said.

As we noted yesterday, liberals think they're being "informed" by Maddow's devolving program. When we put our clueless wonders in charge, it's dangerous for the rest of the world.

It's bad for progressive interests.

IN SEARCH OF THE USA 9400: Paul Krugman in 2005!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017

Part 2—Sadly, a futile attempt:
Except on nights like last night, when cable news got totally hijacked, you'll hear a lot, in the next few weeks, about American health care.

You won't hear about the USA 9400, a very important group whose very existence is constantly disappeared.

That USA 9400! They're disappeared on "cable news" and in the New York Times. They were missing from the Times editorial we quoted in yesterday's report—the editorial which cited the very high cost of insurance for the average American family.

You aren't allowed to know that the 9400 exist. Sic semper contemporary pseudo-journalists! Also, manufactured consent!

Who are the USA 9400? How are they relevant to the ongoing pseudo-discussion? To answer your thoughtful questions, we're going to take you back to 2005, when Paul Krugman, perhaps naively, published a series of columns.

At this point, we're going to take a guess. Even as late as 2005, Paul Krugman may have believed that it's possible to introduce information into the mainstream discourse.

We'll guess he knows much better now. Back then, perfectly sensibly, he may have been a believer.

At any rate, Krugman published a series of columns about American health care. More precisely, he discussed the level of spending in American health care, as compared to the level of spending in other developed nations.

Uh-oh! In his series of columns, Krugman reported a very important fact. Our Here in our exceptional nation, we were spending much more on health care, on a per person basis, as compared to other nations whose health care systems were as good as ours, or perhaps even better. Over here in our struggling but self-impressed nation, a very large amount of money seemed to be missing in action.

Krugman's nugget column appeared on April 15, 2005, the very day when modern presidents refuse to report their taxes. The column bore this headline:

"The Medical Money Pit"

Uh-oh! Krugman planned to compare American health care spending to that in other nations. Early on, he issued a sensible note of caution:
KRUGMAN (4/15/05): Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: somebody is sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system, which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.

In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation—especially for lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.

But in any case, Britain isn't the country we want to look at, because its health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only 40 percent as high as ours.

The countries that have something to teach us are the nations that don't pinch pennies to the same extent—like France, Germany or Canada
—but still spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they're much shorter than Britain's—and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France and Germany don't have a waiting list problem.)
Say what? Per capita health care spending in Great Britain was only forty percent as large as ours?

Already, that sounded like a rather remarkable fact. Still, Krugman said the more important comparison would be to countries like Canada, Germany, France. He seemed to say that those countries had better health care systems than Great Britain, "but still spend far less than we do" on a per capita basis.

How much less were those countries spending as compared to us? At this point, Krugman turned to the numbers—to the types of numbers our modern news orgs and big cable stars constantly disappear:
KRUGMAN (continuing directly): Let me rattle off some numbers.

In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government spends more on health care than the governments of other advanced countries, even though the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
Say what? In the most recent year available, France and Canada had spent roughly half as much on health care, per person, as we had spent over here?

For our money, Krugman complicated the issue a tad when he broke that spending down into private and government spending.
But yes! Unless we Americans were receiving much better health care, those spending numbers did seem somewhat "amazing."

Were we getting much better health care? Sadly, no, Krugman said:
KRUGMAN (continuing directly): What do we get for all that money? Not much.

Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries.
It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.

A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services—we have lots of M.R.I.'s—but on more prosaic measures, like the number of doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only average, or even below average. There's also direct evidence that identical procedures cost far more in the U.S. than in other advanced countries.

The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than their counterparts abroad—but that they don't actually receive more care. The title of their article? ''It's the Prices, Stupid.''
Uh-oh! According to Krugman, we Americans were spending much more on health care than our peers in other developed nations. But despite our (roughly) double spending, we weren't receiving more or better health care.

Where was all that extra money going? In that nugget column, Krugman offered a few quick ideas, then said he'd discuss the question in a later column. But way back then, twelve years ago, he'd described a remarkable state of affairs:

We were spending twice as much as our peers, but receiving no extra health care!

As you may have noticed, the USA 9400 didn't appear in that column. There was a very good reason for that:

The USA 9400 didn't exist at that time.

Today, that disappeared group does exist—and you'll see them disappeared from every report you read about health care. They weren't mentioned in the Times editorial we quoted in yesterday's report. Rachel would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she'd interrupt her corporate clowning with news of this very key group.

Who are the USA 9400? Tomorrow, we'll remind you. They were glancingly mentioned by Bernie Sander's in Chris Hayes' brilliant hour from West Virginia on Monday night—a program whose power was wiped away as cable news dumbly agreed to chase a shiny nothingburger last night.

Twelve years ago, Krugman wrote a series of column designed to help us grasp the current role of the USA 9400. At that time, he may have believed that information could be injected into our discourse.

Sadly, we'll guess he knows better now. Today, as our big news orgs pretend to conduct a discussion of health care, the 9400's very existence is almost completely unknown.

Tomorrow: Meet the 9400

Molly Ball, daughter of two professors!

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2017

The way we liberals are seen by the rest of the world:
Molly Ball, daughter of two professors, was profiling Kellyanne Conway.

Her profile appears in the April edition of the Atlantic. In paragraph 3, the daughter of the two professors did the liberal world a favor.

What favor did Molly Ball bestow? The talented daughter of two professors gave us a chance to understand the way we seem to everyone else in the world:
BALL (4/17): Conway flashed a wicked grin. We were sitting in her spacious office in the West Wing of the White House, less than a week after the inauguration. Just a year ago, she was a knockabout GOP pollster and talking head, a casino worker’s daughter who’s never quite shaken her South Jersey accent. But she’d understood something about the electorate that others had missed, and now here she was: perhaps the most powerful woman in America, a senior counselor to the president of the United States, member of Donald Trump’s core team of top advisers.
According to the daughter of the two professors who herself graduated from Yale, Conway is "a casino worker’s daughter who’s never quite shaken her South Jersey accent."

(A year ago, Conway had been "a knockabout pollster.")

In this way, Molly Ball, daughter of the professors, let us liberals understand the way we're seen by pretty much everyone else.

In this thoughtful interview, the daughter of the two professors gives us a further look at our own liberal culture. "Inside The Atlantic, we refer to things as 'Atlantic-y,' " she thoughtfully says. "You know it when you see it."

In this case, the professors' daughter knew it when she heard it—when she heard Conway's casino-y accent. Everyone else knew what they were seeing when they read what the star daughter wrote.

"Thus, then, did they celebrate the funeral of Hector, tamer of horses." That's the way Homer decided to end his most famous book.

"Thus spake Ball, daughter of professors." The point could hardly have been more clear had the editors at the Atlantic chosen to write this themselves.