TRUST AND THE RATIONAL ANIMAL: Rational animal's magical plan!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2018

Moral, intellectual limits:
"Bigotry," the columnist said, right in his opening sentence.

He never explained who the bigots were! That said, everyone knows who the bigots are:

The bigots are The Others, of course.

This very morning, atop the fold on page A1, that columnist's newspaper offered a startling news report—a report about a magical plan which has failed.

The craziness of the magical plan is occasionally matched by the oddness of the reporting. In light of this newspaper's endless bomb-throwing, the report betrays the moral and intellectual squalor of a "human" tribe which has failed.

The report concerns a magical plan concocted by Mayor de Blasio. It was one of his several magical plans concerning New York's public schools.

Within the past year, we've discussed the absurdity of the mayor's various "desegregation" plans. Like "bigotry" and its many first cousins, "desegregation" is a talismanic term the tribe which reads the New York Times very much likes to toss around.

The magical plan in today's news report wasn't a "desegregation" plan. In hard copy, these headlines sit atop Eliza Shapiro's front-page report:
New York Kept Children in Schools Likely to Fail
A $773 Million Rescue Program That Has Achieved Little
The top line in that headline makes no particular sense. People at this self-impressed newspaper care so little about low-income kids that, even after all these years, they remain unaware of such facts.

Judged by normal national standards, almost all of New York's public schools are in fact "likely to fail." That said, Mayor de Blasio conjured a plan, and Shapiro's report starts like this:
SHAPIRO (10/26/18): Mayor Bill de Blasio promised to “shake the foundations of New York City education” in 2014 with a new program called Renewal, a signature effort to improve the city’s 94 poorest-performing schools by showering them with millions of dollars in social services and teacher training.

A year later, aides raised a confidential alarm: About a third of those schools were likely to fail. The schools were not meeting goals that the city set for higher test scores, increased graduation rates and other academic measures—and probably never would, staff members in the Department of Education warned in an internal memo prepared for the mayor.

“In order for these schools to reach their targets for 2017, the interventions would need to produce truly exceptional improvements,” read the December 2015 memo, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “Historically, it has been quite rare for schools to improve that much in two years.”

Mr. de Blasio kept most of the schools open. Now, after sending thousands of children into classrooms that staff members suspected were doomed from the start, the administration appears ready to give up on Renewal. Its cost: $773 million by the end of this school year.
We're sorry to be the ones to tell you. but so it typically goes with the "education plans" of our self-impressed, name-calling tribe.

No, really—good God! As of 2014, after five decades of such under-cooked efforts, who could possibly have thought that this alleged "plan" would "succeed" in the manner predicted? Who could have thought that New York City's "poorest-performing schools" would magically produce high test scores if you simply "shower[ed] them with millions of dollars in social services and teacher training?"

Who in the world could have thought that? Should we possibly drop our R- and B-bombs on de Blasio, who had apparently paid so little attention to the lives of low-income kids that he could have dreamed such a thing?

Should Kristof call him a bigot too? Should we call Kristof a bigot?

Full disclosure:

We were alerted to Shapiro's report by future anthropologists huddled in caves—the caves to which they were forced to repair in the aftermath of Mister Trump's War. (We've described this situation before.)

They came to us, as they sometimes do, in one of the startling nocturnal visits which may resemble traditional dreams or invasions by intensely skilled trick-or-treaters. They said today's ludicrous news report betrayed the moral and intellectual failure of the vastly self-impressed "liberal" tribe, the tribe which had always been so sure of its racial greatness in the years during which they helped elect and sustain Mister Trump.

"Be sure you're seated when you read this report," one mournful scholar advised us. And indeed, who could possibly be so daft as to devise a plan of this type, predicting it would “shake the foundations of New York City education?”

Who could be as dumb as that? Who could be so uncaring? Who could be so completely clueless about the actual lives and interests of low-income black and Hispanic kids in our nation's public schools?

Mayor de Blasio is one such critter! Shapiro continues like this:
SHAPIRO (continuing directly): Cheryl Watson-Harris, the top deputy to the schools chancellor, revealed at a meeting with principals last month that the city is poised to end Renewal, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by The Times. Eric F. Phillips, a spokesman for Mr. de Blasio, said a final decision had not been made.

It would be a disappointing end to a program that Mr. de Blasio had hoped would be a national model for fixing broken schools and a political rebuke to former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who closed more than 100 schools, sometimes with punitive rhetoric that angered the city’s teachers’ union and parents.
A national model for fixing schools! Who could possibly be that clueless, that uncaring? With a rebuke to Bloomberg to boot!

We won't reproduce this whole report, remarkable though it is. We do want to address one obvious question:

Even if this plan was clueless, why do we call it uncaring? Isn't it fair to assume that de Blasio acted in good faith? Isn't it fair to assume that he had good intentions?

On balance, we're forced to say no. This takes us back to that "bigotry."

Plans of this type have been tried, and have failed, since the mid-1960s. At this late date, a man this clueless must be seen as a man who doesn't much care—a man who hasn't cared enough to have the first freaking clue about the needs and interests of low-income children.

We've urged you to view Gotham's "desegregation" plans in much the same light. These plans makes no apparent sense, except to the extent that they let our tribe deploy our favorite bombs.

Last evening, the future scholars implored us to understand human limitations.

We simply aren't the "rational animals" we enjoy pretending to be, these scholars thoughtfully told us. When we describe ourselves that way, we may be "seeing ourselves from afar," they said. But that doesn't make us evil.

In the end, we strongly agree. But you must understand the way our conduct makes us look to Others.

The Others see us as perpetually posturing moral frauds. We'd say they have a strong point.

We like to call The Others names. We like to pretend that We're engaged in high moral activities in the area of race, such as the "desegregation" of a sprawling school system which is 15% percent white.

This posturing is silly and stupid and morally empty. That said, the New York Times has been throwing black kids under the bus for a large number of years.

(They do so from parties in the Hamptons. This is one way our tribe works.)

Eliza Shapiro is very young and very new to the Times. She seems to be six years out of college (Columbia 2012). We very much hope that she will improve the Times.

Much of the history which prefigured this nonsense happened before Shapiro was born. Over the summer, she joined a newspaper which likes to posture about matters of race, while producing god-awful education reporting every step of the way.

Today, Shapiro writes respectfully about a remarkable gong show. This gong show helps us liberals see who and what we actually are.

For ourselves, we first encountered magical planning like this in the early 1970s. We were told about the failure of a magical plan by two Baltimore public school teachers who were older and more experienced than we were.

These teachers worked in an elementary school which was part of the federal "Model Cities" program. As part of this well-intentioned experimental program, their school had unusually small class sizes; teaching assistants in every class; and a wealth of classroom supplies. (There may have been other federal infusions.)

Apparently, these infusions weren't working well enough. A representative from the federal program came to the school for a faculty meeting. At this meeting, he told the teachers what they had to do to get their test scores up.

Otherwise, federal funding would be stopped. Or so we were told he said.

These teacher described the comical cheating which followed the bureaucrat's visit. This comical cheating produced comically impossible test scores, whose comical impossibility we eventually described in the Baltimore Sun.

Roughly forty years later, the "mainstream press corps" finally noticed the existence of widespread cheating on standardized testing programs. Needless to say, it wasn't the Times which figured this out. It was USA Today and the Atlanta newspaper.

That early program was well-intentioned, then resorted to fraud. More than forty years later, a gong-show like this could still occur:
SHAPIRO: Mr. de Blasio announced the Renewal plan at an East Harlem school less than a year after he took office. Its goals were ambitious and its methods, by the mayor’s own admission, untested.

“We’re going to do something that, bluntly, has rarely been tried,” the mayor said. He explained how the city would consider closing schools only “as a last resort.”

New York City has never found a universal solution to transform its most troubled schools, but Mr. Bloomberg’s plan to replace large failing high schools with small schools was showing results when it was halted in favor of Renewal...

In interviews, about a dozen researchers who study failing schools—some of whom have publicly criticized Renewal in the past—said the theory behind the program was not based on evidence...
For some reason, we always flash on Wilfred Owen when we read such gruesome accounts. ("Bent double, like old beggars under sacks/Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge...")

Meanwhile, "New York City has never found a universal solution to transform its most troubled schools!" It's hard to say that's wrong!

The Others are bigots, the columnist said. But how odd! All through the columnist's newspaper, the people who posture and preen about race routinely turn out to be Us!

The Others frequently see Us this way. As our society starts to expire, can we say that they're wrong?

Next week: Many loose ends remain, including Rachel's fourth accuser and the New York Times' latest attack on Candidate Hillary Clinton

Tomorrow: The data you never get shown

BREAKING: Horizons of our smartest newspaper!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2018

Rational animals wallow:
In a moment of pique, we said that we were going to do this. With our vast moral greatness, we will.

Warning! What follows is coming to you, live and direct, from the "reimagined" Page A3 in today's New York Times. (Hard copy editions only.)

What are the cultural horizons of our tribe's smartest newspaper? Yesterday brought some troubling news. But on Page A3 of this morning's Times, this was the Quote of the Day:
Quote of the Day
“I don’t mind someone having a snack. A full-on subway meal or a roast chicken, leaving the bones all over the place, isn’t acceptable.”

ANDY BYFORD, president of the New York City Transit Authority, on the limits of eating on the go.
That was yesterday's top quote! For full background, click here.

That was Page A3's key quote. At the top of the page, in the Of Interest feature, the editors listed seven "noteworthy facts."

Below, you see the first three entries. Not a word has been changed:
Of Interest
NOTEWORTHY FACTS FROM TODAY'S PAPER

A headless ghost of a worker decapitated during the Brooklyn Bridge’s construction is also said to haunt the area. (No word on sightings of the five gray aliens that a woman said abducted her nearby in 1989.)

As we age, muscles and other supportive tissues around the eye relax. That, paired with waning elasticity in the skin, causes fat that was once at deeper levels to migrate to the surface, causing eyelid bags.

The messaging app WhatsApp says that there are six people in the average group.
You're right! However those facts might be described, they don't seem highly "noteworthy." Nor did it get much better from there. This was the seventh such fact:
Of Interest
NOTEWORTHY FACTS FROM TODAY'S PAPER

[...]

In a report this summer, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that “there is no evidence that large fences have been effective for the containment of wild suids,” using a word for the pig animal family.
As presented, that might qualify as a slightly mystifying fact.

(For the record, today's Of Interest feature contains a cartoon. We don't know which of the seven facts it's intended to illustrate.)

We'll close you out with today's Spotlight feature. This is what it says:
Spotlight
STORIES FROM OUR READERS

Tiny Love Stories, a new Modern Love project, asks contributors to share their epic love stories in 100 words or less. This week's batch of micro-nonfiction includes five tales of separate vacations, public-transit aficionados and other romantic gains and losses. Read one here:
There follows a photograph and a Tiny Love Story. (The writer's last name is "Bliss.") It comes to us as part of a new Modern Love project!

In this, our liberal tribe's greatest newspaper, the wars against the Clintons and Gore began in early 1992 in a series of bungled, front-page Whitewater "news reports."

Those wars have never ended. Michelle Cottle continued the war against Hillary Clinton in her recent Sunday Review recitation. (More on that still to come.)

As of now, these endless journalistic wars have served to elect George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald J. Trump in 2016, with perhaps one more term to follow.

Children are dead all over Iraq just from this paper's ugly, monstrously stupid behavior in 1999 and 2000. When you find yourself discussing how dumb The Others so amazingly are, try to remember that our own admittedly brilliant tribe has endlessly swallowed this mountain of cant from these high-ranking rational animals for the past 26 years.

"Creeping Dowdism," Katherine Boo said. We self-impressed, highly rational animals chose to just keep on truckin'.

TRUST AND THE RATIONAL ANIMAL: Nicholas Kristof drops a bomb!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2018

Their various shapes and sizes:
Why don't more of The Others trust Us? Why aren't they willing to think and act in the ways we liberals prescribe?

We're willing to tell them how to think and what to believe. Why won't They just fall in line?

You're asking some very good questions! In our view, today's op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof helps us supply an answer.

There's a great deal to ponder in Kristof's piece. But the gentleman starts like this:
KRISTOF (10/25/18): It’s not about immigration. It’s about bigotry.
There! Just like that, in his opening paragraph, Kristof takes steps to ensure that The Others won't listen to a single word he says. He doe this by dropping our team;s favorite bomb. from which he then runs away.

Bombs come in various shapes and sizes. In the past few days, real bombs from the material world have arrived at selected addresses.

Idiotic reactions have been churned Over There. Then too, we have Our Own Tribe.

Our world also contains the metaphorical "bombs" we've often discussed at this site. Kristof opens with one of those rather destructive bombs, then never explains why he did.

"It’s not about immigration," he says. "It’s about bigotry." He says that right at the very start of his piece. But he never explains who the "bigots" are. This means that the bigots are Them.

Over Here, in our liberal tents, we thrill to cold opens like that. We're reminded that we're the decent, good people—which, fairly often, we aren't, depending on grading standards.

Kristof opened with a bomb, then made no attempt to explain it. He never explained why the bomb had appeared. But don't worry—every liberal knows.

So do all The Others.

In the rest of his column, Kristof presents some interesting facts about problems facing America. Early on, though, he also makes it a point to mock Donald Trump's spelling.

That's another type of tribal bomb. (As we've noted in the past, it's a Brian Williams favorite.) We've been dropping these bombs for decades. The Others all understand them.

Kristof offers important observations about the use of fear in demagogic, unhelpful campaigns. This use of fear is quite unhelpful.

So is the dropping of bombs.

At the end of his unhelpful column, Kristof describes an actual state of affairs. We think he's right in most of what he says in this final passage:
KRISTOF: I fear that we in the media have become Trump’s puppets, letting him manipulate us to project issues like the caravan onto the agenda.

Trump is right that, although there’s no evidence of it, “there could very well be” Middle Easterners hiding in the caravan. It’s equally true that the Easter Bunny “could very well be” in the caravan. Speaking of Easter, Jesus Christ “could very well be” in the caravan.

So let’s stop freaking out about what “could very well be” and focus on facts. Here are two: First, the Caravan won’t make a bit of difference to America. Second, we have other problems to focus on, from drugs to homelessness to health care, that genuinely constitute a “National Emergy.”
That's the end of his column.

Kristof wants his fellow citizens "to stop freaking out about" nonsensical, demagogic claims. Instead, he wants us to "focus on facts."

In principle, this is a very good idea. But the state of play is this:

We liberals can focus on various facts as much as we like. If we can't get Others to listen to Us as we offer these facts, our facts will fall on deaf ears.

As he closes, Kristof identifies three states of affairs which he regards as major problems. But as he finishes his plea, he turns again to Trump's spelling problem.

(Earth to Kristof: Donald J. Trump is likely "dyslexic." Stating the obvious, this is the least of his deeply dangerous problems.)

(For the record, Williams, who loves to play the bad spelling card, got himself fired from Nightly News for making us Songs of Himself. That was after he spent two years trashing the craziness of Candidate Gore's deeply troubling wardrobe selection. This sent George W. Bush to the White House and Iraqi children to death.)

Kristof closes with Trump's bad spelling. Everybody Over There knows what such jibes suggest. According to major anthropologists, we liberals have always played this game, and we always will.

"Who Do You Trust?" Johnny Carson once asked. The unexplained bomb with which Kristof begins helps explain why They don't trust Us.

Your lizard is saying that this is all wrong. We should all throw our lizards away.

Opposite Kristof today: Opposite Kristof's column, Gail Collins is complaining, in her usual rollicking way, about the stupid things Trump says. Funny that! We still remember the stupid things she used to say, in 1999 and 2000.

Children died because of Collins, who's been phoning it in for years. That said, this is the way of the New York Times, brightest known light of our own self-assured liberal tribe.

Gore, who was impossibly boring with all his proposals, reminded her of "the underside of a swan." Those were truly the good old days, except for the children we've mentioned.

Still coming later today: This morning's astonishing "Noteworthy Facts" from the brightest light of Our Tribe.

TRUST AND THE RATIONAL ANIMAL: Professor Hochschild discusses The Others!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2018

Why don't The Others trust Us?:
It's a major question in American politics:

Why won't The Others trust Us?

We liberals keep telling The Others how they should speak, think and vote. Granted, we frequently start by telling Them what horrible terrible people they are. Still, we're willing to share our advice. Why won't The Others listen?

This became a large problem in 2016 when enough of The Others cast their votes for Donald J. Trump instead of for Hillary Clinton. (Starting in 1992, we'd sat around twiddling our thumbs while people like Chris Matthews conducted the wars on her person which continue to this very day.)

Despite losing the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, Trump ended up in the White House. Why hadn't The Others been willing to trust us when we told them how they should vote?

This is a major political question. Last night, we received a bit of an answer as we watched the first fifteen minutes of Tucker Carlson's Fox News show.

Overstating but also telling the truth, Carlson played tape of our various cable news stars and explained why The Other should hate them. We caught this segment at midnight Eastern. Minutes before, we'd watched Don Lemon lead a typically arrogant, unintelligent discussion in which The Others had been instructed in how they should think, speak and be.

Luckily, most people don't watch Lemon's show. This means that Dems may still have a chance to win the House next month.

Why don't The Others trust Us? If you've watched us in action and you aren't too far gone, you may have have some idea. If not, you might consider a book review from Sunday's Washington Post, in which Arlie Russell Hochschild discusses Ben Bradlee Jr.'s new book, The Forgotten: How the People of One Pennsylvania County Elected Donald Trump and Changed America.

Oof! Professor Hochschild made a substantial mistake right in her opening paragraph. We'll go ahead and produce the paragraph as it appeared in the hard copy Post:
HOCHSCHILD (10/21/18): A month after the 2016 election, Ben Bradlee Jr. began interviewing voters in Luzerne County, Pa. , where Donald Trump won 77 percent of the vote. The county, a working-class Democratic stronghold, hadn’t voted for a Republican president since 1988. Pennsylvania was one of three historically Democratic Rust Belt states that unexpectedly swung the election to Trump. By July 2018, Bradlee, a longtime reporter and editor for the Boston Globe, had talked to nearly 100 voters, most of whom felt that government and the Democratic Party had forgotten them. They had.
Say what? Luzerne County, a working-class Democratic stronghold, hadn't voted Republican since 1988, but Trump won 77 percent of the vote? This did sound like an amazing political story.

For better or worse, the story was false. As we learn in a formal correction, Trump won 77 percent of Luzerne County's vote in the 2016 Republican primary. That represents a very big win, but Clinton wasn't directly involved.

That said, Trump did win 58 percent of the vote in the general election. Hochschild went on to describe Bradlee's basic take on this state of affairs.

Why did Luzerne County flip? According to Bradlee, Luzerne's flip might help Democrats and liberals contemplate the reason for many lost votes:
HOCHSCHILD (continuing directly): Among the flood of books explaining how we got Trump, “The Forgotten” serves as an unintended companion volume to Thomas Frank’s “Listen Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” Bradlee focuses on the impact of the growing income gap. If we ignore the taxes the government collects and benefits it distributes, from the middle of the Great Depression through 1980, the top 10 percent of Americans received 30 percent of the nation’s income growth, and the other 90 percent took in 70 percent of it. But from 1997 to the present, the top 10 percent took in all of the U.S. income growth, and the bottom 90 percent got none. This shift occurred partly under the watch of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and Trump surged into the void claiming leadership of what he called “the forgotten people,” Bradlee writes. “Trump connected strongly to his aggrieved constituency,” and nowhere more than in Luzerne County. Trump won the general vote in part because he captured Pennsylvania, with strong support in its northeastern corner. And within that region, Luzerne County led the way.

“It is not a stretch to say,” Bradlee writes, “that this single county won Trump Pennsylvania—and perhaps the presidency.”
It would of course be an absolute stretch—in the most literal sense, a falsehood—to say that Luzerne County "won Trump Pennsylvania, and perhaps the presidency." (Trump would still have won the electoral vote had Clinton won Pennsylvania.)

Beyond that, we're not sure why you'd want to "ignore the taxes the government collects and benefits it distributes" in making the type of income assessment Hochschild describes in that passage.

For our money, that's a lot of mistakes and peculiarities for the first three grafs of a book review. Still, Hochschild goes on to describe Bradlee doing The Thing Which Must Never Be Done:

She describes Bradlee trying to learn what The Others think about contemporary politics and government! In some circles, this has now been declared a subversive act.

Also, in what way have The Others in question possibly been "forgotten?" According to Hochschild, Bradlee tries to explore such important political and human questions in his book.

What did The Others think in Luzerne? Why did they cast so many votes for Trump, despite the advice we were willing to give them?

On cable, our corporate stars pleasure us with our standard answer to that question. But uh-oh! After describing a working-class county in headlong decline, Hochschild offers this assessment, presumably drawn from Bradlee's book:
HOCHSCHILD: During the 2016 campaign Hillary Clinton seemed deaf to the hardships of Hazleton. Residents wanted realistic hope, but what they got from the Democratic Party was suggested by its choice of a campaign theme song—the cheery Pharrell Williams tune “Happy” from the soundtrack of the animated film “Despicable Me 2.”

Clinton lost women like hairdresser Donna Kowalczyk, a crime-fighting activist whose mother worked in cigar and sewing factories. Her father was a disabled alcoholic, and her husband maintained the grounds of a local university. “I used to be the most liberal person you could imagine, fighting for everyone else’s rights,” she told Bradlee. Her neighborhood fell under the blight of drug dealers, car thieves and prostitutes. This lifelong Democrat was now very unhappy. She “switched parties to vote for Donald Trump,” Bradlee writes.
According to this assessment, Kowalczyk once "fought for everyone else’s rights.” Now, in deciding to vote for Trump, she apparently felt she was fighting for her own.

That, of course, was only one vote. Clinjton, who won the popular vote, lost the three states which cost her the race by some 78,000 votes. No author can account for all those decisions, even though cable stars can.

In a fairly brief review, Hochschild offers several other portraits of Luzerne County votes lost to Trump. She ends by offering this assessment, again drawn from Bradlee's book:
HOCHSCHILD: “The Forgotten” reveals the political impact not so much of poverty as of decline—and not simply decline in wages but in well-being and self-respect, especially among white blue-collar men. Research shows that these men have also become more socially isolated, less likely to go to church and to marry. They experience what Princeton professors Angus Deaton and Anne Case identify as “deaths of despair” from suicide, drugs and alcohol at a greater level than blacks and Hispanics of the same age. Along with their loss of self-respect has come a loss of faith that government run by either mainstream party could help them recover it. This is not a big-thesis book, nor a deep dive into new facts or ideas. But whatever the Russians did or the Koch brothers funded, this searing portrait shines a light on the disheartened voters the Democratic Party forgot.
In that passage, Hochschild explains why many white blue-collar men refused to take Our advice. Rribal leaders told them how to vote, but it looks like they just didn't trust us.

Are the "deaths of despair" of these blue-collar Others worth our tribe's attention? Bradlee seems to suggest that they are, and that the Democratic Party has brushed these "deaths" aside.

Have liberals and Democrats brushed them aside? If you watched Tucker Carlson last night, you saw that argument being made in real time, before your eyes. We'll suggest that you also saw that rejection being enacted if you watched the latest of Lemon's discussion, with the arrogance and condescension being quite hard to miss.

The Others are constantly told not to trust Us, especially over on Fox. On Monday night, without naming her name, Laura Ingraham explained why they can't trust you-know-who, a giant star Over Here.

Tomorrow: Our Rhodes scholar sells a fourth charge

TRUST AND THE RATIONAL ANIMAL: Bruni makes it hurt!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2018

Who do we liberals trust:
Starting in the late 1950s, Who Do You Trust? was a popular afternoon game show.

Johnny Carson was the host. He went on to larger things. But that basic question—who do you trust?—now lies at the heart of our politics.

The Others seem to trust Donald J. Trump, even as he makes endless wild misstatements.That said, there's also the question of who we liberals trust, along with the question of who we liberals have trusted in the past.

On Sunday, in the New York Times, Frank Bruni made it hurt. In the main, he lamented the way The Others tend to trust Donald J. Trump. Along the way, in glancing fashion, he mournfully thought about some people we liberals trusted in the past:
BRUNI (10/21/18): Trump enjoys a kind and degree of immunity that few if any politicians in my lifetime have been given. His own exhaustively established indecency inoculates him. As a result, all manner of ugliness slips by—unnoticed, barely noticed or noticed and accepted as Trump being Trump.

His interview last week with The Associated Press was a doozy that didn’t get its due. His bragging was off the charts: He said that no president had ever exerted the kind of positive effect on his party’s midterm prospects that he was exerting. He called the current economy the best in the country’s entire history.

And we once got worked up about Al Gore’s exaggerations?

In that A.P. interview, Trump also cast himself as an expert on climate change by noting that an uncle of his was an M.I.T. professor. So, he explained, “I have a natural instinct for science.”
We included the part about climate change as a tragic irony, given Bruni's fleeting reference to Candidate Gore.

In one large way, Bruni's column didn't make much sense. Right from the start, he seems to imply that "journalists" and "the media" don't criticize Donald J. Trump for his endless howlers. This is the way he started:
BRUNI: Elizabeth Warren screwed up. That’s clear. Her big confirmation of Native American blood offended some Native Americans, did nothing to muffle or muzzle Donald Trump and left many journalists—me included—questioning her tactical smarts.

But the media focus on her misjudgment, her character and whether she had the right stuff for the White House underscores the absurdity of our current politics, in terms of the advantage it confers on the president. We expect much of anyone stepping forward to challenge him. We expect absolutely nothing of him.
That's how Bruni started. He seems to imply that "the media" focus exclusively on misstatements and misjudgments by everyone else, while giving Trump a free pass.

That notion is plainly absurd. Donald J. Trump is called a liar all day long, then on into the night. But many of The Others don't seem to trust the big stars of the mainstream press, the folk giving voice to this judgment.

The issue here turns on the question of who The Others trust. Then too, there's the question of who we liberals trust. Also, there's the question of who we were foolish enough to trust in the not-too-distant past—in the years when people like Bruni pretended that Gore was the world's biggest liar, like his boss, Bill Clinton.

Back then, mainstream figures spent twenty months inventing Gore as the person Donald Trump actually is. We liberals trusted those mainstream figures when they staged that destructive war. If we were better people, we might recall how foolish we were when we see Others putting their trust in the crazy things stated by Trump.

We liberals believed the stupid things we heard from people like Bruni. We swallowed the things we heard from Maureen Dowd. In the most astonishing case, we even swallowed the crazy things we kept hearing from Chris Matthews—the crazy things he kept saying about Gore, the ugly things he said, for ten years, about Hillary Clinton.

The Rebecca Traisters swallowed it down when Olbermann was putting his misogyny on display on a regular basis. As it turned out, the Traisters were discussing this is private, but they refused to speak up.

Today, we liberals rush to trust the true belief of Traister. We find her very hard to watch due to this horrible past.

We want you to note one point about what Bruni said. Ironically, he makes a key point about Trump v. Gore, while keeping an old tale alive:
BRUNI: [Trump's] interview last week with The Associated Press was a doozy that didn’t get its due. His bragging was off the charts: He said that no president had ever exerted the kind of positive effect on his party’s midterm prospects that he was exerting. He called the current economy the best in the country’s entire history.

And we once got worked up about Al Gore’s exaggerations?
Implicitly, Bruni is saying that Gore's exaggerations don't hold a candle to the crazy misstatements of Trump. Implicitly, he's saying that "we journalists" were perhaps a little bit daft to get so worked up about them.

He's certainly right about the way his guild failed the world from March 1999 through November 2000. But even now, he isn't going to tell the full truth—that the "exaggerations" to which he refers were basically inventions of a runaway mainstream press corps.

Even today, people like Bruni won't discuss that fact. People are dead all over the world because of what Bruni and the rest of them did, but they'll never take a step back to review the past and offer a full confession.

As for us liberals, we were dumb enough to trust Bruni and Matthews and Seelye and Connolly and Williams and Rich and Dowd. We were dumb enough to trust them back then. We remain dumb enough to trust such people now.

Today, those corporate players are attacking Trump for his endless howlers. But many of The Others are inclined to put their trust in Trump rather than in them.

In our view, The Others have misplaced their trust. But it isn't like this isn't something We Ourselves, in all our imagined brilliance and greatness, have also foolishly done, with disastrous and deadly results.

We liberals! Like all tribal groups, we're strongly disinclined to see how dumb we are. We're strongly convinced that The Others are dumb, especially in the question of who they choose to trust.

(They're also racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, deplorable and irredeemable. So the tale has always been told within the world's tribal tents.)

Why don't The Others trust the people We trust? We'll examine this important question all week.

Tomorrow, we'll start with a very slimy thing Laura Ingraham did last night. Ingraham did make a slimy play, aimed at Cory Booker. But quite correctly, she took down one of our own Most Trusted Figures as she mucked around.

We hope to tie up some loose threads this week. Along the way, we hope to help you better imagine how We may look to The Others.

It's a very important question. Why won't The Others trust Us?

Tomorrow: Overt misconduct, by ours

Bruni makes it hurt: When he refers to "Gore's exaggerations," Bruni links to an analysis piece from the Los Angeles Times.

The analysis piece appeared on September 22, 2000, just as the mainstream press was inventing two new lies by Candidate Gore. (We refer to the "lies" about the union lullaby and the doggy arthritis pills.)

Excitement over Gore's new "lies" wiped away a ten-point lead he'd amassed over Bush in the polls. The piece began like this:
GERSTENZANG (9/22/00): Which of these statements did Al Gore make?

A) I invented the Internet.

B) I discovered Love Canal.

He said neither. But in popular mythology, he said both. Therein lies a problem for the vice president...
That's the way the piece began. But at this point, Gerstenzang turned on a dime. He blamed "the mythology" on Candidate Gore, then quoted Leon Panetta seeming to say that Gore needed to see a psychiatrist.

Gerstenzang went on to offer novelized, misleading accounts of Gore's various "lies." This was required by law in that day.

So it went as the people we trusted struggled, fought, maneuvered and schemed to spread death around the planet. The Brunis will never discuss this history. We make one final point:

In Gerstenzang's piece, he discusses the efforts of a web site, The Daily Howler, "to counter some of the stories circulating about" Gore. Included on line is a formal "correction" by the Times (we'd be inclined to call it an amplification) concerning Gerstenzang's description of that particular site.

We lost that twenty-month fight; many people died as a result, and global politics changed. The war continued against Hillary Clinton. In November 2016, it sent Donald J. Trump to the White House.

That war was a war of the mainstream press. It was conducted by people we liberals trusted and continue to trust to this day.

We're very dumb about who we trust! It isn't simply the clueless Others, the deplorable folk Over There.

Connectivity gods relent!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2018

Connectivity restored:
Yesterday morning, the gods of connectivity struck, obliterating services to our sprawling campus.

Late last night, as the neighborhood slept, connectivity was restored. Depending on the whims of the gods, we'll be posting later this morning.


BREAKING: What we read on our autumn vacation!

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2018

The latest academic hoax v. the western canon:
What did we read on our autumn vacation? At long last, thank you for asking!

Good lord! We dug out of a musty old box our copy—actual, our two copies—of Norman Malcolm's slender yet once definitive volume, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir With a Biographical Sketch by Georg Hendrik Von Wright.

(This slender volume is still on sale through the Oxford University Press.)

Memories came flooding back, especially memories of NAME WITHHELD. Did Proust ever scarf down a whole sack of madeleines? If so, that's what it was like.

Malcolm met Wittgenstein in 1938, across the pond, at Cambridge. Malcolm was a graduate student on loan from god-like Harvard. Wittgenstein was developing the puzzling, admittedly muddled work which would eventually define "the later Wittgenstein" in his 1953 book, Philosophical Investigations.

Malcolm's memoir was first published in 1958. In Von Wright's biographical sketch of Wittgenstein, we encountered a peculiar passage concerning the definitive work of the early Wittgenstein, the catchily titled Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921).

Quickly, a bit of background:

Wittgenstein wrote the Tractatus when he was still in his twenties. As Von Wright explains. "The author of the Tractatus thought he had solved all philosophical problems. It was consistent with this view that he should give up philosophy."

Had the early Wittgenstein really solved all philosophical problems? In accord with that somewhat peculiar idea, Wittgenstein quit philosophy after writing the Tractatus. Later, though, he returned to the field, throwing the work of "the early Wittgenstein" pretty much under the bus.

He was involved in this re-evaluation when he met Malcolm.

Whatever! As we read Von Wright's biographical sketch, we were struck by an almost comical passage rather early on. In this passage, Von Wright describes the way the early Wittgenstein hit upon one of his most seminal ideas while serving in the Austro-Hungarian army during World War I:
VON WRIGHT (page 7): The oldest parts of the Tractatus are those dealing with logic. Wittgenstein had formed his principal thoughts on these matters before the outbreak of the war in 1914, and thus before his twenty-sixth year. Later he became engrossed in a new problem. It was the question of the nature of the significant proposition. Wittgenstein told me how the idea of language as a picture of reality occurred to him. It was in the autumn of 1914, on the East front. Wittgenstein was reading a magazine in which there was a schematic picture depicting the possible sequence of events in an automobile accident. The picture there served as a proposition; that is, as a description of a possible state of affairs. It had this function owing to a correspondence between the parts of the picture and things in reality. It now occurred to Wittgenstein that one might reverse the analogy and say that a proposition serves as a picture, by virtue of a similar correspondence between its parts and the world. The way in which the parts of the proposition are combined—the structure of the proposition—depicts a possible combination of elements in reality, a possible state of affairs.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus may be called a synthesis of the theory of truth-functions and the idea that language is a picture of reality. Out of this synthesis arises a third main ingredient of the book, its doctrine of that which cannot be said, only shown.
In that passage, Von Wright describes "how the idea of language as a picture of reality occurred to [Wittgenstein]." We're told that this idea—the idea that language is a picture of reality—formed a basic part of the book which made its author a famous part of the philosophical establishment of the day.

Here's why that passage strikes us as almost comical, in an all-too-familiar, perhaps instructive way:

First, Von Wright pictures Wittgenstein making an observation any 6-year-old could have made. While serving on the Eastern front, Wittgenstein suddenly realizes that the various parts of a schematic picture of an automobile accident "serve as a proposition; that is, as a description of a possible state of affairs."

This observation or insight is so obvious that any child could make it. The pictures of two cars in an accident serve as a description of the accident itself!

This observation, thought or idea seems to be blindingly obvious. From there, we move directly to a claim which is so vaguely described that it has no particular meaning at all, at least as Von Wright presents it:

"It now occurred to Wittgenstein that one might...say that a proposition serves as a picture, by virtue of a similar correspondence between its parts and the world. The way in which the parts of the proposition are combined—the structure of the proposition—depicts a possible combination of elements in reality, a possible state of affairs."

Might a proposition "depict a possible state of affairs?" Since something like that happens all day long every single day of the year, this seems fairly obvious too, if perhaps a bit hazily defined.

Let's move on! Might "the way in which the parts of [a] proposition are combined—the structure of the proposition—depict a possible combination of elements in reality, a possible state of affairs?"

Presumably, yes, that could happen! But from this extremely hazy account, do you have any idea why this isn't the most fatuous idea in all of human history? Do you have any idea how this idea—"the idea that language is a picture of reality"—could possibly lay at the heart of a celebrated book, one whose author thought he had solved all philosophical problems?

Youngsters who study "philosophy" are expected to swallow this type of guff on a regular basis. Many are willing to do so. Others will occasionally note that the work of upper-end practitioners in the field may often seem to make no earthly sense.

Many metaphorical madeleines died as we reread Von Wright's biographical sketch and Malcolm's memoir. Upon our return to our sprawling campus, we reviewed our musty copy of Professor Kenny's 1973 book, Wittgenstein, in which the professor explains, or attempts or pretends to explain, "the famous picture theory of meaning," which he describes as "the central doctrine" of the Tractatus.

(Needless to say, the dust jacket says this: "Dr. Kenny's book will be of value not only to students of philosophy but also to general readers with no special knowledge of the subject." According to the publisher, Kenny made Wittgenstein easy!)

Alas! Kenny's explanation of "the famous picture theory of meaning" reads like something The Onion discarded as too absurdly fatuous to serve as winning satire. That said, this is the sort of thing the philosophy student is asked to dunk in tea and swallow whole, preferably without any chewing, pretty much all the time.

So it goes with the highest level work of the otherwise absent logicians of us, Aristotle's rational animal. We expect to return to such ruminations in the weeks to come.

Meanwhile, ponder this:

Just before our autumn vacation, we read Professor Egginton's New York Times column about the recent academic hoax. Lustily, the analysts cheered as Egginton lamented the way "overly specialized scholars...read and exchange ideas in hermetic academic bubbles, in very much the same way that the public has increasingly tended to read and exchange ideas in hermetic news bubbles."

The analysts cheered Egginton on. "Hang on, though, professor," one of the youngsters thoughtfully cried. "Is it possible that the history of western philosophy is a long, perhaps slightly dumb example of this very phenomenon?"

That youngster spoke out of turn, and was suitably punished. Still, our logicians have completely, totally failed us over the course of the past thirty years.

People are dead all over the world because of the silence of these highly specialized lambs. Did this youngster perhaps come close to explaining how we all got to our current degraded and dangerous place?

We recommend Egginton's column! On Monday, though, we'll be forced to continue our current rumination, to the all-too-familiar tune of The Baby Elephant Walk.

Michelle Cottle was working on dating issues, then moved to the Times editorial board! Last week, she sounded off on the only topic these hopelessly cosseted, hermetically sealed life-forms care about.

People are read all over the world because the children have endlessly played it this way. If we might borrow from sacred Hawthorne:

"Rappaccini! Rappaccini! And is this the upshot of your experiment?"

THE RATIONAL ANIMAL WALK: The one thing the animals care about!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2018

Galloping Cottleism:
Early yesterday morning, to the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk, we read Michelle Cottle's Editorial Observer piece in our hard-copy New York Times.

Cottle joined the Times editorial board on June 1 of this year. The appointment was her reward for a quarter century of saying nothing of interest or importance from the highest platforms offered by contemporary pseudo-liberal pseudo-journalism.

The editors, signing with first names only, explained the appointment as shown below. We'll highlight a few key points:
THE EDITORS (5/22/18): We’re delighted to announce that Michelle Cottle will join the editorial board June 1 as our lead opinion writer on national politics.

Michelle has been covering Washington and national politics with passion, nuance and wit since the Clinton administration, and we look forward very much to the sense of history and proportion, along with the gimlet eye, that she will bring to bear on the Trump era. (punctuation as shown)

She arrives from The Atlantic, where she’s been covering the culture and politics of the nation’s capital as a contributing editor. Before that, she was a senior writer at National Journal, specializing in in-depth profiles. From 2010 to 2014, she served as a Washington correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. She’s also been a longtime senior editor at The New Republic and an editor of The Washington Monthly, as well as a frequent television and radio commentator.

Among many other gems, her recent work has included (politely) nudging Hillary Clinton toward the exit, dissecting the #MeToo era in state government and sticking up for unpaid interns—all the while, digging into today’s dating scene as a Date Lab columnist for The Washington Post.

Michelle grew up in Alabama and Tennessee, with stints in Georgia and Mississippi—in other words, she was, as she puts it, reared “red state to the core.” She now lives in Maryland with her husband, children and dogs.

Michelle will be based in the Washington bureau. Please join us in welcoming her.

—James, Katie and Jim
There's only one word for that: Sad.

Among other accomplishments, Cottle had recently been "digging into today’s dating scene as a Date Lab columnist for The Washington Post." This is the sort of performance which signals to lifeforms like James and Katie, and even to Jim, that the gimlet-eyed writer in question needs to be on the board.

To the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk, we thought of the famous paraphrased claim which is now being called "Aristotle's error" within the international expert community. That paraphrased claim would be this:
Man [sic] is the rational animal.
We humans are the rational animal! Could anyone survey Cottle's career and draw any such conclusion? Just consider her Editorial Observer piece, along with other such detritus from yesterday's Times.

Sad! At lest for us pseudo-liberals, the New York Times is branded as our smartest national newspaper. The paper pleasures us with incessant suggestions that we subscribers are cognizant, super-sharp, morally good, even smart.

Yesterday, in hard copy, Cottle's Editorial Observer piece sat in the real estate normally occupied by the Times' unsigned editorials. Meanwhile. on the paper's "reimagined" page A3 (hard copy only), readers were shown a collection of seven "Noteworthy Facts" from that day's edition.

Three such facts looked like this—and sadly, we kid you not:
Of Interest
NOTEWORTHY FACTS FROM TODAY'S PAPER

Big Bird, the "Sesame Street" character, is 8 feet, 2 inches tall.

Adult acne overwhelmingly occurs in women.

Sample questions from the Certification of Astrological Proficiency exam include: What is the harmonic of a quintile aspect, and how many degrees is it? How how often are Mercury and Venus trine?
The other facts which some editor listed weren't a lot more noteworthy. Meanwhile, this:

In the Spotlight section, on the same page (ADDITIONAL REPORTAGE AND REPARTEE FROM OUR JOURNALISTS), the Times presented four photos taken by Viggo Mortensen, "one of the six cover subjects of [T Magazine's] annual Greats issue."

(T Magazine is the Times' reliably vacuous, eleven times yearly "style magazine." Mortensen isn't a New York Times journalist, but his photos had been taken by a Hollywood celebrity. On this basis, inclusion of these pointless photos was, in the traditional phrase, "close enough for New York Times work.")

On the same page A3, yesterday's Quote of the Day concerned the way Canadians can now "smoke pot without worrying police are going to arrest us." Below that, in the Here to Help section, the Times was helping readers out in the following way:
Here to Help
A RECIPE FOR MARK BITTMAN'S APPLE CRISP
"I don't know why anyone would make a pie instead of a crisp." So Bittman helpfully said as he helpfully started out.

So it increasingly goes as the Times no longer attempts to hide its orange-shoed downward spiral. Meanwhile, on page A22, Cottle's lengthy Editorial Observer piece sat in the place where the newspaper's editorials normally reside.

Recently, Cottle was "digging into today’s dating scene as a Date Lab columnist." Apparently, this convinced James, Katie and Jim that the time had come to add her asp to the editorial board.

It was that, plus "the gimlet eye that she will bring to bear on the Trump era!" For the record, "gimlet eye" is a gendered term which is only applied, within the realm of pseudo-liberalism, to female pseudo-journalists whose fatuous work is designed to maintain the culture which Katherine Boo prophetically denounced, long ago, as Creeping Dowdism.

Cottle has said and done nothing of interest over the past thirty years. Because she had proven herself in that way, the Times had finally come to see that she belonged on the board.

Warning! "Among many other gems, [Cottle's] recent work has included (politely) nudging Hillary Clinton toward the exit." While dropping any need for politeness, it was to this favorite subject that Cottle turned her "gimlet eye" in yesterday's Observer piece.

For the record, we agree with Cottle's first point—with the idea that Clinton's recent interviews are likely to be unhelpful to Democrats in next month's elections. But after five paragraphs of that, Cottle produced a longer discussion of her real interest—of the only topic on which boys and girls like Cottle have been able to focus in the past 26 years.

We read Cottle's piece to the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk. We'll turn to the content of what she wrote as our award-winning series continues.

To the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk, we thought about the way people like Cottle have curried favor at the Times over the past many years. We also thought of the many people, all over the world, who lie dead in the shadow of this destructive behavior.

Inevitably, we also thought of the consensus view of the international expert community. We humans are the rational animal? That assessment should be seen as "Aristotle's error," these seers have now widely said.

Our view? You can't understand our failing culture till you grasp what these experts have told us.

Tomorrow: Pre-rational all the way down

Still to come: You-Know-Who's fourth accuser

THE RATIONAL ANIMAL WALK: Avenatti supplied five names!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2018

What happened when NBC asked:
"You can't fix stupid," the columnist said.

Because "stupid" generally reads as an insult, we decided to clean up his comment. Yesterday, we skillfully said that he really meant:

Simply put, you can't fix human. There is no cure for that.

Today, we'll admit that even we succumbed, in recent weeks, to the temptation of human. We did so when the Kavanaugh clash led us away from our earlier, high-minded pledge—from our pledge to examine certain "philosophical" topics, while leaving the world of the American public discourse behind.

The blinding stupidity of liberal discourse had made that previous effort pointless. Or so we said, until the dumbness of the Kavanaugh clash drew us in again.

In fairness to us, our own tribe's spectacular dumbness had been both transplendent and general. For one example, consider what Chris Hayes reported, ever-so-briefly but still to his credit, back on October 1.

Michael Avenatti, an obvious con man, had become a liberal god through his representation of Stormy "Stephanie Clifford" Daniels, another fairly obvious hustler and all-around fraudster. Just as conservatives can't see through ridiculous people like Rush and Sean, we liberals can't seem to see through ridiculous hustlers like Avenatti and Clifford.

Avenatti had become a god through his representation of Clifford. Now, he had produced the latest accuser of Kavanaugh!

Her name was Julie Swetnick. Her accusations were thrilling, but were her claims actually true?

NBC News asked Barrister Bluster if his client had any corroboration for her admittedly thrilling claims. To Hayes' credit, he ever-so-briefly let us know what happened when NBC asked:
HAYES (10/1/18): So far, three women have stepped forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh, on the record, of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. And one of those women, Julie Swetnick, has now given her first interview to NBC News senior national correspondent Kate Snow.

Swetnick does not accuse Kavanaugh himself of sexual assaulting her, but of being present at a party where she says she was gang raped.

Tonight, NBC News has not been able to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims. When we asked her attorney, Michael Avenatti, for any witnesses who could back up Swetnick's account, he provided four names of friends Swetnick says went to parties with her. One of them says he does recall anyone named Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends is deceased.

NBC News has reached out to the other two and has not heard back. Swetnick's mother's name was also provided, but she too is deceased.
By now, Swetnick was accusing Kavanaugh "of being present at a party where she says she was gang raped." As Hayes and Snow went on to note, Swetnick had walked back the original thrilling claims in her original sworn statement, which Avenatti had thrillingly produced.

By now, "Swetnick [did] not accuse Kavanaugh himself of sexual assaulting her," Hayes was willing to note. That said, the pathetic part of Hayes' remarks involve what happened when NBC News asked Barrister Bluster "for any witnesses who could back up Swetnick's account" of the parties at which she now said wasn't assaulted by Kavanaugh.

Avenatti provided five names. Pitifully, let's re-post Hayes' account of what happened next:
HAYES: NBC News has not been able to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims. When we asked her attorney, Michael Avenatti, for any witnesses who could back up Swetnick's account, he provided four names of friends Swetnick says went to parties with her. One of them says he does recall anyone named Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends is deceased.

NBC News has reached out to the other two and has not heard back. Swetnick's mother's name was also provided, but she too is deceased.
According to Hayes, our most brilliant liberal god had given NBC News five names. Two of these corroborating witnesses turned out to be dead.

A third of Avenatti's corroborators said that he or she can't recall anyone named Julie Swetnick. The other two didn't call back.

So it went when Barrister Bullroar gave NBC five names. On the one hand, this was just the latest gong show from the ridiculous Avenatti. But in truth, this kind of embarrassing, pre-rational nonsense has been general all through our liberal world in recent weeks, and in the past thirty years.

Avenatti supplied the names of at least two witnesses who are dead. To Hayes' credit, he did report this pitiful fact, though very much in passing.

Elsewhere, we liberals were kept from hearing about Avenatti's latest gong show. Almost surely, he'll soon be back on the air with Lawrence, with Lawrence staring at him in such rapt admiration that the analysts will surely shout that they need to go rent a room!

To his limited credit, Hayes briefly reported this tribal idiot's latest pathetic gong show. Elsewhere, we liberals have been spared the pain of knowing that this occurred.

Over on Fox, by way of contrast, viewers have heard all about this sort of thing from Avenatti. It's one more example of a fairly recent phenomenon, in which Fox viewers actually receive more information about various matters than we bottle-fed liberals do.

You can't fix [human], that columnist said. Beyond that, you plainly can't fix tribal.

In recent weeks, as in the past thirty years, we liberals have plainly established that we're extremely "human." Over those previous years, we helped build the world which has given us Trump in the White House. As the world has become more tribal, our "human" impulses have surfaced to an even greater degree.

When we went on our autumn vacation last weekend, we listened to Krista Tippett's weekly NPR program. We've long admired Tippett's sensibility, but we actually found this last program inspiring.

That said, the program aired in the midst of a vast sea of tribal stupidity. It drew us away from our earlier resolve—away from from the loftier story to which we expect to return next week

To his limited credit, Hayes ever-so-briefly let us know about Avenatti's latest folly. Aside from that, we liberals have been kept in the dark about Barrister Bluster, while our counterparts who watch Fox News are being more fully informed.

This is happening more and more often. You can't fix stupid, one columnist said. Also, you can't fix blindingly tribal (and corporate) to the point of dishonest, a point we'll consider tomorrow.

Today's report should be read to the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk. Baby elephants can be lots of fun. Our own species' Rational Animal Walk can, of course, be more destructive.

Tomorrow: Our Own Rhodes Scholar played us again. But then, what else is new?

THE RATIONAL ANIMAL WALK: "No cure for human," top columnist says!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2018

Warren sets out to prove it:
In a new column concerning the Saudis, the New York Times' Thomas Friedman offers a key assessment.

"You can't fix stupid," the famous scrivener says.

Because "stupid" is seen as an insulting term, we'll rephrase what Friedman means. On balance, we'd say that the fellow means this:

In the end, you can't fix human. There's no known cure for that!

To evaluate Friedman's thoughts on the Saudis, you can read his piece. Concerning his larger assessment of us humans, we'll suggest that you consider what Elizabeth Warren just did.

Warren may be the most tone-deaf human ever to hold major office. On Monday, she released results of a genetic test which suggests that she had a Native American ancestor, somewhere between 6 and 10 generations back.

This means that, genetically speaking, Warren may be as much as one percent Native American! Or it may be more like one-tenth of one percent. Or maybe less than that!

A person has to be stunningly tone-deaf to think this speaks to the questions which have been raised about Warren's past claims to Cherokee ancestry. That said, in the best manner of The Age of Trump, Warren has adjusted for the sheer inanity of her statistical claim by adopting this grievance on behalf of her mother:

“Now the president likes to call my mother a liar. What do the facts say?”

Good God! Even in all his foolishness, Donald J. Trump hasn't been calling Warren's mother a liar. This wallowing in victimhood is the latest example of Friedman's extremely strong point:

We humans are irrepressibly dumb. There's simply no cure for us.

Rational animals, please! For all his lunacies, Donald J. Trump hasn't been calling Warren's mother a liar! On Monday's Tucker Carlson program, Fox viewers actually heard a clearer account of the actual state of play.

Carlson spoke with Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson. Even as we pitiful liberals were getting played by our "thought leaders," Fox viewers got to hear a clear account of the actual charge against Warren:
CARLSON (10/15/18): The Boston Globe told me a little while back that claiming to be the first non-white female Harvard Law School professor had no effect at all on her ascent within Harvard Law School. She didn't get any benefit from that. Is that true?

JACOBSON: Well, we don't know that because Harvard has never released her complete hiring file. What The Boston Globe had were documents Elizabeth Warren provided to her [UNINTELLIGIBLE], documents a few other people provided to, to them. But to my knowledge, and I specifically asked their reporter this question and never got an answer, her complete hiring file was never released.

So yes, there's—there may be nothing there. But does it really matter whether she benefited? She tried to benefit. She tried to get an advantage over other people by claiming a status to which she's not entitled. It's the worst form of cultural appropriation or misappropriation, which is a very hot topic in progressive circles.

She tried to misappropriate the identity of one of the most victimized people in history or, at least, in recent history, which is Native Americans—

CARLSON: It's a great point.

JACOBSON: —and progressives seem not to care.
Is that true? Did Warren try to benefit by identifying as Native American in the past?

Did Warren try to benefit? We have no idea! But that's the relevant, ongoing charge—and only the world's most tone-deaf rational animal would think this charge could be resolved by releasing data which says she may be one one-thousandth Native American, according to DNA.

The cluelessness there is astounding. And there's no known cure for this human trait—not even Over Here, within our deeply self-impressed liberal tribe.

How dumb does a person have to be to release those DNA results? How dumb, and how blindly self-righteous?

A person has to be deeply tone-deaf to address this matter this way. On CNN, that very same night, Kirsten Powers gave a much more sensible account of what Warren should have done.

Powers has long been sharper than the average cable news bear. Speaking to Anderson Cooper, she offered this perfectly sensible thought about what Warren should have done:
POWERS (10/15/18): The way this originally came up is, it came up during her Senate campaign, and it was actually unearthed by reporters. And she did mishandle it, and she's really gotten a lot of criticism since then and including today from Native American leaders and from indigenous people who are saying that she's misappropriating their heritage and that she—this DNA test actually doesn't prove that she's part Cherokee because that's actually a tribe, it's not something that a DNA test is going to prove.

So I think it would have been better if she would have just originally said, "You know what, family lore, this is what I thought. I made a mistake." You know, as Michael said, actually I don't think she probably has much more, you know, of this, you know, in her DNA than most Americans.

So just—you know, we all hear stories in our families and you say, "I heard it wrong." And she said something about her grandfather, great-grandfather having high cheek bones, which is a race stereotype. And so I think she actually has legitimately handled this badly.
This Monday, Warren specifically said that her DNA test didn't make her a Cherokee. (This will count as one of the most obvious statements any human has ever made.)

As of Monday evening, Powers didn't seem to be clear about this. But Powers has long been sharper than the average cable bear. She offered more good sound advice when Cooper asked about the timing of Warren's data dump:
COOPER: Obviously, she feels for her political future that she needs to address it. Is this the right time and the right way?

POWERS: No, it's a very strange time to bring it up, and I'm actually not sure that she did need to address it. I don't know that many Democratic voters or independent voters who weren't going to vote for her over this.

And like I said, if you're going to address it, there's another way to address it. Just say you made a mistake. Don't do a DNA test and tell everybody that you have, you know, this heritage that you don't have.

So, I mean, it's just kind of bizarre to me. It's like the DNA test actually didn't prove the point that she says that it's proving...

So I think that, you know, if I were her, I would have just admitted that I made a mistake in the first place. But, that's not something that politicians typically do. And so she's gotten herself kind of backed into this corner, and I think a lot of people are saying, "Oh, this wasn't so smart of her to do."
On CNN, Powers said Warren should have said that she simply messed up. She had believed an old family story, but she wasn't seeking advantage.

Meanwhile, over on Fox, viewers were getting an accurate account of the actual charge which remains against Warren. Stating the obvious, there's no way to prove, through that DNA test, that the actual charge isn't true.

Is the charge accurate? We have no idea! But on our own liberal channel, we were being told, this same night, about how racist racist racist racist Trump's attacks have been. Meanwhile, we were being told, by Warren herself, that Trump has been calling her mother a liar, a claim that's silly, dumb, stupid, untrue.

That silly claim is also quite human. Plainly, there's no current cure for that condition, certainly not at the highest ranks within our own failing tribe.

Our team had played the game this way for at least the past thirty years. This falls within the context of the sweeping claim which the international expert community is increasingly describing as "Aristotle's error."

All our reports this week are meant to be sung to the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk. "Rational animals" within our own tribe have helped put Trump in office.

Starting with the associate professors, our deeply benighted intellectual leaders just can't seem to curtail their highly destructive "rational" conduct. On balance, we in the rank and file are too human to see how this works.

Tomorrow: As usual, our pundits are shocked, just shocked

THE RATIONAL ANIMAL WALK: We've been insulting The Others for a very long time!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2018

We seem to be blind to this fact:
What did we see on our autumn vacation? To the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk, let's start with an irony which was scattered through Saturday's New York Times.

On the op-ed page, Bret Stephens gloomily said that American liberalism had "pierced its own tongue" (had shot itself in the foot) as November's elections approach.

Stephens, a conservative NeverTrumper, has been rooting for a blue tidal wave as a reproach to Trump. In his column, he listed various ways in which, or so he said, American liberalism has recently made that outcome less likely.

He didn't skip the Kavanaugh hearings. Stephens included these remarks (about "American liberalism"):
STEPHENS (10/13/18): It [shot itself in the foot] when The New Yorker violated normal journalistic standards by reporting Deborah Ramirez’s uncorroborated allegation against Kavanaugh, and much of the rest of the media gave credence to Julie Swetnick’s lurid one. The pile-on wound up doing more to stiffen Republican spines against an apparent witch hunt than it did to weaken their resolve in the face of Blasey’s powerful accusation.

It [shot itself in the foot] when Susan Collins and other female Republicans who supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation were denounced as “gender traitors” in an eye-opening op-ed in this newspaper. Approximately 30 million women voted for Trump in 2016, and many of them (along with at least a few Clinton supporters) surely felt just as Collins did. Are they all “traitors,” too?
Stephens had a decent point about the treatment of the Ramirez and Swetnick claims. That said, the denunciation of all those "gender traitors" takes us to the front page of that same day's Times, where Matt Flegenheimer offered a somewhat peculiar analysis piece.

According to Flegenheimer, many liberals are wondering if we've been "going high" too often and too long. ("When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama famously said and prescribed.)

Have we liberals been "going high" too long? It amazed us to think that anyone really believes that we've actually "gone high" at all.

Consider a piece from the next day's Sunday Review. After that, we'll return to Saturday's Times.

On the front page of the Sunday Review, the Times' editor on gender issues, Susan Chira, examined a major mystery. How in the world could any woman ever have voted for Donald J. Trump? How could women have sided with the Kavanaugh nomination?

How could any woman have taken these stances? As she started, Chira seemed to strike a sensible pose. She too cited the recent claim about "gender traitors:":
CHIRA (10/14/18): What are those women thinking?

The ones who cheered President Trump’s mockery of Christine Blasey Ford at a rally in Mississippi, tweeted #HimToo in support of their sons who might one day be, in their eyes, unfairly accused of assault?

On the left, they’re being reviled as gender traitors, depicted as betraying the sisterhood and acting against their own best interests. The Democrats’ hope for a blue wave rests on female voters coming out to register their displeasure with the president’s party. Women will be acting as a political force.

But women don’t automatically ally with other women, as Senator Susan Collins’s vote to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court demonstrated. Sisterhood doesn’t override partisanship or deeply held moral views. Victims of sexual harassment didn’t all believe Christine Blasey Ford. Women don’t act as one.

The question is why so many people are still surprised that they don’t, even after the election of 2016.
"Women don’t act as one," Chira sensibly noted. She then struck another sensible pose. In effect, she wondered why so many of us clueless liberals are still surprised by this blindingly obvious fact.

What makes us liberals so clueless? Whatever the answer may be, we thought of Flegenheimer's front page report as Chira turned to the associate professors to explain the evil and the craziness of The Others—of the women who refuse to react and vote in the ways we liberals are nice enough to prescribe.

Have we liberals been going too high all these years? When Chira turned to Associate Professor Cassese, a flood of name-calling ensued, with Cassese and Associate Professor Barnes giving us several new bombs to drop on the heads of our neighbors.

Apparently, it's no longer enough to denounce The Others, including Other women, as mere "sexists." Thanks to the high-minded work of the associate professors, we now understand that some of these women are "benevolent sexists" while most are "hostile sexists."

That said, everyone has to be some kind of sexist! It's one of the ways we go high!

(Amusingly, Chira writes this at one point: "No one is saying that being a Republican woman means being a sexist." She doesn't seem to realize that that is precisely the impression that she, and her associate professors, are conveying in her piece.)

We liberals! Even as we imagine ourselves going high, we love to drop our many bombs on the heads of our various neighbors. We've been doing it for a very long time. Consider the Loudon Wainwright piece which appeared in Saturday's New York Times.

At one time, Wainwright was married to the late Kate McGarrigle. In our view, she and her sister, Anna McGarrigle, performed as the most wickedly funny feminist writers of all time.

They also performed as lovers of life and of living things. As we read Saturday's Times, we were struck by one selection in Wainwright's list of his "top ten protest songs:"
WAINWRIGHT (10/13/18): “Little Boxes:" In 1963, Pete Seeger had a folk hit with this Malvina Reynolds composition. It’s nursery-rhyme-like melody offers a tinkly condemnation of what used to be called middle-class conformity. Tom Lehrer considered it “the most sanctimonious song ever written,” but I like it. Kate and Anna McGarrigle recorded a fine French version, “Petites Boîtes,” in 2001.
Say it isn't so! Our favorite duo recorded Little Boxes?

Little Boxes wasn't a classic "protest song." That said, it was, and is, a classic "liberal superiority" song.

It satirized an every-house-the-same housing development in Daly City, California, just south of San Francisco. Rather quickly, the lyrics offer this uplifting assessment of our friends and neighbors:
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All went to the university
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same
And there's doctors and lawyers
And business executives
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.
Those Others! They were all made out of ticky-tacky and they all looked just the same!

This song was written in 1962. Already, we liberals were "going high" through popular lyrics like these.

True story! Two years earlier, at the age of 12, we had stayed in one of those little, fog-smothered houses in Daly City with our aunt and uncle as our family looked for a house after moving to California.

Were our aunt and our uncle, and our younger cousin, all made out of ticky-tacky too? In fairness, they hadn't gone to the university, so maybe they weren't included in this very typical high liberal "insult song."

(Just a guess. There weren't a lot of doctors, lawyers and business executives living in that modest, fog-smothered development. Those little boxes were very small. Did we mention that they were fog-smothered?)

We liberals! We've been insulting our lessers, The Others, for a very long time (and in an assortment of ways). But to the tune of The Baby Elephant Walk, we rational animals Over Here seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that we routinely do this.

We can see the dumb things The Others do. We can't seem to see the things we frequently do Over Here.

That said, The Others are able to hear the various things we say! To the tune of The Rational Animal Walk, this is one of the obvious ways we've managed to create our current debased situation.

What did we do on our autumn vacation? We also listened to NPR's Krista Tippett, whose sensibility we've admired for years.

Tippett's new episode was called Relationship Across Rupture. To the tune of The Potentially Educable Liberal Walk, let's start there tomorrow.

Also this: Wainwright wrote The Swimming Song. The McGarrigles perform it here.

A mission of national import!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2018

No fish today:
We're off on a mission of national import. We'll have no fish today.

We expect to post tomorrow or Monday. We return to full service on Tuesday.

BREAKING: What did Capito, Scott and Rubio think?

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2018

You saw no journalist ask:
Is it true, what sacred Aristotle is frequently said to have said? Can his paraphrased statement be true:

"Man [sic] is the rational animal?"

In fairness, it's hard to know what Aristotle meant by whatever it is he said. For all his greatness, he never learned English, and he lived at a different time and in a different place.

This means that even his most storied statements are subject to the vagaries of translation and to the misunderstandings endemic to cultural difference.

Sometimes, Aristotle made mistakes, as in his controversial statement about what all matter is made of. In this instance, we may not know what he actually meant by whatever it is he said. but we do know how the famous remark has been taken, at least in the western world.

Man [sic] is the rational animal! We humans have found a hundred ways to distinguish ourselves from the lesser animals, who either lack consciousness, or lack a soul, or just aren't as smart as we are.

The idea that we humans are "the rational animal" is part of this sweeping self-affirmation—though it increasingly seems that, in imagining ourselves this way, we're "seeing ourselves from afar."

Are we humans the rational animal? If we might borrow from NAME WITHHELD, in a sense, but not as such! What kind of animal are we really? We would suggest these ideas:
Homo sapiens, observed in the wild:
Man [sic] is the animal which divides itself into groups.
Man [sic] is the animal which invents and repeats tribal script.
How we love to do these things! Consider this morning's newspapers.

In this morning's Washington Post, Christine Emba complains about these all-too-human impulses. She discusses our love of tribal script in terms of thE recent academic hoax in which deliberately silly papers got published, and in terms of the recent fight over Christine Blasey Ford's charge against Brett Kavanaugh.

We can't say that we agree with all of Emba's assessments. In this passage, it seems to us that a category error may be lurking::
EMBA (10/11/12): In the battle over Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, two tribes organized around closely held identities that relied on narrow preoccupations (liberals: “Believe women!”; conservatives: “Roe v. Wade!”). The dysfunction that followed was the result of straining to buttress those positions rather than seeking an actual common good—which is what, so I’ve heard, politics is actually for.
In this passage, Emba criticizes liberals for tilting toward an emerging tribal dogma which basically doesn't make sense. (Stating the obvious, there is no category of people who should be believed in every instance. Just consider Kathleen Willey, who pundits hailed as incredibly credible when she first appeared.)

Somewhat fuzzily, Emba pairs this emerging dogma with conservatives' devotion to a certain position regarding abortion. We're conventionally pro-choice ourselves, but strong adherence to a position on an issue would seem to differ from the adoption of an irrational dogma.

In that passage, we thought Emba was perhaps a bit unfair to conservatives. In this passage, she seems to tilt things the other way:
EMBA: [In the case of the academic hoax], supposedly rigorous journals on the left proved all too willing to accept any nonsense that aligned with their obsessions. Meanwhile, the researchers, attacking from the right, were willing to act unethically to get their “point” across. The end result? No truth gathered, no new knowledge shared. An exercise in cynicism rather than creation, sowing doubt about the academic enterprise in an era when truth and education are already under attack.
Emba assumes the hoaxers came "from the right," a claim they seem to dispute. She then says they acted unethically, and she says that, for this reason, no learning emerged from their work.

This strikes us as wrong in several ways. Regarding the hoax, we'd say a lot of knowledge emerged, as you can see from reading the first half of Emba's column!

We don't agree with elements of Emba's analysis, but we think she's squarely on target in her major point. She's describing our failed human nature, in which we tend to divide ourselves, in unhelpful, invidious ways, into unreasoning, warring tribes.

Do we humans really do such things? It's easy to see The Others when they engage in such conduct! If you want to see our own liberal tribe behaving this way, we'll suggest that you read an op-ed column in today's New York Times.

Online, the headlines say this:
Maybe Girls Will Save Us
They’ve eclipsed boys in political participation and shown incredible moral clarity.
That headline strikes us as amazingly dumb, and as deeply unwise in the political sense. But dear God! How we humans love love love to split ourselves into Us and Them, often on fairly narrow statistical distinctions drawn from certain selected studies.

Girls aren't going to save us! That said, if girls or any other group ever planned to do any such thing, they should have started in early 1992, when the New York Times launched a 26-year journalistic war with the first of its front-page Whitewater hoax reports.

Girls aren't going to save us! As long as we keep dividing ourselves in invidious ways, neither will anyone else.

It's also true that no particular group of people can always be believed. Meanwhile, we liberals are making The Others mad when we adopt such invidious attitudes and such dull-witted tribal beliefs.

In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation, the New York Times "asked women across the country to tell us how they were reacting." For background, see yesterday's report.

The Times received 40,000 reactions. On some basis which went unexplained, the newspaper published eleven.

On a statistical basis, those eleven published reactions are representative of nothing. That said, we were struck by the several reactions in which women complained about the way our liberal tribe divides us up, in invidious ways, on the basis of gender and race and region and age and anything else we can find.

We'd have to say that those women have a point. Consider the way our corporate hacks behaved on corporate cable.

Again and again and again and again, our own tribe's corporate hacks on our own "corporate liberal" TV complained about the "old white men" who supported Kavanaugh in spite of Blasey Ford's accusation.

They also wondered about how Collins and Murkowski would be voting. They asked about this again and again and again and again. After that, they asked about it again, then they asked about it some more.

Members of our extremely prehuman tribe knew how to snark and complain about "old white men." They never asked about Senator Scott, a 53-year old Republican man who is socially defined as black. They never asked about Senators Rubio and Cruz, who are defined as Hispanic (each is 47).

They never asked about Senators Capito, Ernst, Hyde-Smith and Fischer, four other Republican women (average age: 59.5). They never asked about Senator Sasse (age 46), who spends a lot of time defining himself as a type of free-thinking free thinker.

All those Republican senators voted for confirmation. What did they think about Blasey Ford's claims? We never saw anyone ask!

Did they think Blasey Ford was lying? Did they think she was mistaken in the statement she advanced with 100 percent certainty? Did they think the march of time meant that her charge didn't matter even if true?

What exactly did they think? Nobody ever asked!

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we humans just aren't very sharp. We've extremely good at praising ourselves and our own select groups, less skilled at everything else.

As we finish today's deep thoughts, let's add to our earlier definitions:

"Man" is the animal which divides into groups and plays it dumb all the way down!

Still coming: What did The Others actually think concerning Blasey Ford?

BREAKING: What does Collins actually think?

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2018

You'll see no journalist ask:
In today's hard-copy New York Times, subscribers are treated to a fairly typical non-discussion discussion.

The entertaining non-discussion consumes the top half of page A11. Hard-copy headline included, Kelly Virella introduces the feature like this:
VIRELLA (10/10/18): How Did People React to the Kavanaugh Confirmation? 40,000 Told Us

After the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on Saturday, we asked women across the country to tell us how they were reacting.

We heard from 40,000 people.

Many of the women—lawyers, teachers, home-schoolers, military spouses—expressed anger and bitterness over the nomination fight and those on the other side of the political divide. They also told us what lessons from this confirmation they will pass down to the next generation.

We asked, If you were to pass down one lesson to your son or daughter from the Kavanaugh nomination and hearings, what would it be? Here is a selection of their responses, edited and condensed for clarity.
The Times provides eleven of the 40,000 reactions. In truth, the eleven reactions were "edited and condensed" for near-perfect uselessness.

On balance, the feature is a standard journalistic non-presentation presentation. Nothing of value can be learned from a big pile of piffle like this.

Yes, a presentation of this type can be fun for browsing purposes. But it tells us nothing of value. Primarily, it serves an entertainment purpose.

In this feature, the Times presents reactions from eleven women, out of 40,000 such respondents. (These women are identified in the hard-copy headline as "people.")

For what it's worth, two of the women seem to say, in so many words, that they think Christine Blasey Ford was lying in her allegation against Brett Kavanaugh and Mike Judge.

We wonder how those women reached that conclusion—but needless to say, they weren't asked. This is largely an entertainment feature. It isn't a search for the logic of a situation, and it isn't a search for the likely or probable truth.

It isn't a search for the actual thinking of actual voters. On the whole, it's a pile of journalistic pretense.

Why did the women from Texas and Arkansas seem to say that Blasey Ford was lying? The New York Times didn't ask! But then, someone else will never be asked to explain her conclusion about what Blasey Ford said.

That person is Susan Collins. For reasons which won't be pursued any further, Collins said the following in her speech on the Senate floor:
COLLINS (10/5/18): Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.
Collins says she found Blasey Ford's testimony to be be sincere. Presumably, that means that Collins doesn't believe that Blasey Ford was lying.

It's also important to understand this—Collins didn't say that she thinks Blasey Ford's allegation is false. She seems to have said that the allegation actually could be true.

Collins merely said that the accusation can't meet a reasonable standard of proof. After rattling off a pile of remarkably thin "evidence," Collins went on to say this:
COLLINS: Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of "more likely than not" as our standard.

The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.
Translated, that seems to mean this:

According to Collins, it's possible that Blasey Ford actually was assaulted "that night." (No night was ever specified.) It's also possible that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh and Judge, just as she said. It's just that the allegation can't meet the threshold of being "more likely than not."

Does Collins' presentation make sense? In her testimony, Blasey Ford made her claim against Kavanaugh with a "degree of certainty" of "one hundred percent," and Collins believes that the claim is sincere. That said:

If Collins believes Blasey Ford isn't lying, in what other way could her claim be untrue? Presumably, Collins believes that Blasey Ford may have misidentified her attackers. She says it's more likely than not!

Is that what Senator Collins believes? Amazingly but predictably, no one is going to ask!

No one is going to ask about that because that's not what our journalists do. Rational animals though they may be, they tend, like Hughes, to keep it simple, and they tend to defer to authority figures and to power structures.

If Collins believes Blasey Ford is sincere, on what possible basis does she doubt the truth of her charge? No one is going to ask about that! Tomorrow, we'll discuss many other questions which didn't get asked as the rational animals in our upper-end press corps pretended to sort out this charge.

The Times burned the top half of today's page A11 with some fairly typical piffle. It's there so we can enjoy a good browsing session, in which we hate some people for their remarks while falling in love with some others.

What do Republican senators think about what Blasey Ford said? Ten thousand questions went unasked in this, the biggest recent public discussion in this, our rational world.

Tomorrow: What do Republican senators think? Why didn't journalists ask?