SCOLD THE ELECTORATE WELL: "A boundless sea of novel ideas!"

MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019

Charles Mann versus The Scolds:
Thanksgiving Day arrives in this country virtually every year.

Along with the four-day weekend and the football games, we now get the work of the scolds.

Quite a few of the scolds haven't been overwhelmingly bright in recent years, at least in their performance of this Turkey Day assignment. They complain that Mommy and Daddy didn't tell them the truth about the so-called first Thanksgiving when they were in first grade.

In response, they construct long lists of "legends and lies," not missing such turkeys as these:

The Pilgrims didn't even refer to themselves as Pilgrims! And the first Thanksgiving wasn't a true "thanksgiving" at all—it was just a harvest celebration!

The Pilgrims—and remember, they didn't call themselves Pilgrims—(allegedly) didn't even bring the bulk of the food!

These scolds today! They compose nonsensical work for Fortune magazine—and two years later, the New York Times reprints the passage, failing to notice the awkward fact that it makes no sense on its face:
BLOW (11/28/19: As Grace Donnelly wrote in a 2017 piece for Fortune:

The celebration in 1621 did not mark a friendly turning point and did not become an annual event. Relations between the Wampanoag and the settlers deteriorated, leading to the Pequot War. In 1637, in retaliation for the murder of a man the settlers believed the Wampanoags killed, they burned a nearby village, killing as many as 500 men, women, and children. Following the massacre, William Bradford, the Governor of Plymouth, wrote that for “the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.”

Just 16 years after the Wampanoag shared that meal, they were massacred.
We're sorry, but no. Sensibly enough, the Pequot War was waged against the Pequots, not against the Wampanoags. And obviously, Governor Bradford, one of the original Plymouth settlers, never made a statement describing what occurred "for the next hundred years" after the Pequot War, a period extending through 1757.

That passage made no sense, on its face, when it appeared in Fortune. But given the way modern "journalism" works, it was close enough for inclusion in a Turkey Day takedown there—and two years later, it was close enough for the Times' Charles Blow to republish.

At even less accomplished sites, journalists have been capable of seeming to think that the Wampanoags had once built a settlement right on Plymouth Rock! In this and a hundred other ways, the spectacular dumbnification of American culture proceeds apace in this, the age of Trump.

Into this wilderness, two Thursday ago, wandered Professor Silverman. He too was concerned about "Americans’ grade school Thanksgiving pageants." But to our ear, he highlighted dogmatic ideological scolding over the simpler pleasures of dumbness alone. Headline included, his column started like this:
SILVERMAN (11/28/19): The Vicious Reality Behind the Thanksgiving Myth

Generations of Americans have told themselves a patriotic story of the supposed first Thanksgiving
that misrepresents colonization as consensual and bloodless.

The story goes like this: English Pilgrims cram aboard the Mayflower and brave the stormy Atlantic to seek religious freedom in America. They disembark at Plymouth Rock and enter the howling wilderness equipped with their proto-Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, and the confidence that they are God’s chosen people. Yet sickness and starvation halve their population during the first winter and challenges their faith.

Meanwhile, the neighboring Indians (rarely identified by tribe), with whom the English desperately wish to trade for food, keep a wary distance. Just when Plymouth seems destined to become another lost colony, miraculously, the Natives make contact through the interpreters Samoset and Squanto (the story sidesteps how these figures learned English, nor does it explain why the Indians suddenly became so friendly). The sachem (or chief), Ousamequin (whom the English know, from his title, as “Massasoit”), even agrees to a treaty of alliance with Plymouth.

Over the spring and summer, the Indians feed the Pilgrims and teach them how to plant corn; the colony begins to thrive. In the fall, the two parties seal their friendship with the first Thanksgiving. The subsequent 50-year peace allows colonial New England and, by extension, the United States to become a citadel of freedom, democracy, Christianity and plenty.

As for what happens to the Indians next, this story has nothing to say. The Indians’ legacy is to present America as a gift to white people—or in other words, to concede to colonialism...
According to the professor, what was wrong with that "patriotic story" about the supposed first Thanksgiving? It didn't include an account of what happened fifty years later!

The professor's sarcastic tone is evident from the start. In his rendering, the dumbness belongs to those "generations of Americans" who told themselves that "patriotic story" of the supposed first Thanksgiving without even identifying the Indians at the first Thanksgiving by the name of their tribe!

The professor performs side-eye with respect to traditional themes of the search for religious freedom, even at the traditional idea that these settlers could be seen as "brave" in some possible way. And their peace treaty only lasted fifty years! For the record, that's how long wars were running in the Europe they abandoned at that benighted point in time.(According to the leading authority, the Pilgrims decided to leave Holland, in part, because "the truce was faltering in the Eighty Years' War, and there was fear over what the attitudes of Spain might be toward them.")

In Silverman's column, we get to roll our eyes at the Pilgrims' laughable 17th century religious understandings which we, in our astonishing brightness, have moved so far beyond. Good liberals will also know that we're rolling our eyes at the idea that the subsequent nation, the United States, emerged as "a citadel of freedom, democracy, Christianity and plenty," a silly set of popular understandings our tribe has moved far past.

These elements of the column involve the professor's capacity for tedious, tired old snark. The dogma emerges with his scolding remarks about colonialism.

Just to be perfectly honest, colonialism wasn't fully explained in most second grade pageants. As part of his amazing erudition, Professor Silverman knows more about this unfortunate topic than generations of Americans were willing to tell second-graders.

That said, no one advocates colonialism today. Everyone understands the fact that, to borrow from Frost, "the deed of gift was many deeds of war" as English settlement of this "new world" proceeded.

Everybody understands the problems with the conduct which followed that first Thanksgiving, both in New England and elsewhere. But uh-oh! Thanks to the tiresome scolding of higher-fallutin' people like Silverman, voters decide that the liberal world really is too dogmatic in its "political correctness." They stand in line to vote for Trump, who recently declared his brave opposition to the unfolding war of Thanksgiving which he finds so vile.

Silverman's column is almost as childish as the story which was told at those second-grade pageants. This is a shame, because the history of the Americas before and after contact with Europe is a deeply fascinating story, featuring a mountain of material everyone doesn't already know.

Silverman scolds, but Charles Mann dreams, imagines, admires, ruminates, instructs. His rumination on these topics received its first full airing in his widely acclaimed 2005 book, 1491: New Revelations of The Americas Before Columbus.

Mass was a journalist at that time, not a professor. He was a bit of a "Katherine Boo type;" he was working on the most intelligent levels of American journalism before his acclaimed book appeared.

His cover report from the March 2002 Atlantic gave an inkling of the book to come. The report appeared beneath this partial synopsis:
1491
Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe...
Unfortunately, that sub-headline suggests that Mann will be engaging in invidious comparisons designed to tilt our sentiments against the Europe, and the Europeans, of those thankfully distant years.

Such childish comparisons are the stuff of our modern, flamboyantly flailing pseudo-progressive project. Mann's book takes us to a more remarkable, more intelligent place.

What was the nature of Mann's book? It placed a vast amount of erudition at the service of admiration and regret. In his review of the book for Salon, Steve Kettman lapsed fairly quickly into the inviting culture of invidious comparison. But before he did, Kettmann described the volume's vast sweep, and its power:
KETTMAN (9/29/05): As he explains in a useful preface to "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus," Mann had been waiting, at least since the early 1990s, for someone to publish a book pulling together the wealth of research conducted in recent years to redefine radically how we think of our continent's history. But no one did. He finally decided that he was going to have to write the book himself. "1491" is less a self-contained work per se and more an induction ceremony into what, for many readers, promises to be a lifelong obsession with the startling new perspective slowly opening up on this prehistory.

What's most shocking about "1491" is the feeling it induces of waking up from a long dream and slowly realizing just how thoroughly one has been duped.
We all knew there were problems with the old narrative of brave European settlers crossing the Atlantic to find an empty continent, but it's jarring to discover, as Mann tells us, that in 1491 there were almost certainly more people living in the Americas than in Europe—and that, in many ways, American civilizations of the time were as advanced as anything across the ocean.
With his complaint that we've all been "duped," Kettmann starts buying in to the realm of complaints about Mommy and Daddy, and those past second-graders, who just wouldn't tell us the truth. That really isn't Mann's game.

Mann's book is the most remarkable volume we've read in the years we've been at this site. If we were to pull one passage from his remarkable tome, it would be this one, in which Mann describes the vast cultural wealth which was lost after encounter with Europe—lost, in large part, to the savage sweep of epidemics which no one understood at the time:
MANN (page 137-138): Having grown separately for millennia, the Americas were a boundless sea of novel ideas, dreams, stories, philosophies, religions, moralities, discoveries, and all the other products of the mind. Few things are more sublime or characteristically human than the cross-fertilization of cultures. The simple discovery by Europe of the existence of the Americas caused an intellectual ferment. How much grander would have been the tumult if Indian societies had survived in full splendor!

Here and there we see clues to what might have been... [Examples follow]

Think of the fruitful impact on Europe and its descendants from contacting Asia. Imagine the effect on these places and people from a second Asia. Along with the unparalleled loss of life, that is what vanished when smallpox came ashore.
As noted above, Mann's book describes a Western Hemisphere which "was vastly more populous and sophisticated," at the time of first encounter, "than has been thought." Even now, we'd guess that this would qualify as (potentially inspiring) new information for almost everyone. Also new would be the astonishing role played by epidemic disease in what happened next.

Yes, there was "colonialism," and there were murderous "deeds of war." Impressively, Professor Silverman has seen through this way of life, along with virtually everyone else over the age of three.

But there also was the repetitive wave of epidemics which decimated native populations all through the Americas, North and South. These epidemics took whole populations and whole advanced civilizations down even before European soldiers could hope to accomplish such tasks.

The story is astonishing in a wide array of ways. In his column for the Times, Professor Silverman briefly mentions the epidemic which "took a staggering toll on [the Wampanoags'] population" from 1616 through 1619, just before the Pilgrims arrived.

To our ear, the professor floats the suggestion that this may have been deliberate on Europeans' part. Our childish tribe likes to play it in such waya. Mann describes the astonishing history of that particular epidemic in devastating detail:
MANN (page 60): Based on accounts of the symptoms, the epidemic was probably of viral hepatitis, according to a study by Arthur E. Spiess, of the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, and Bruce D. Spiess, of the Medical College of Virginia. (In their view, the strain was, like hepatitis A, probably spread by contaminated food, rather than by sexual contact, like hepatitis B or C.) Whatever the cause, the results were ruinous. The Indians “died in heapes as they lay in their houses,” the merchant Thomas Morton observed. In their panic, the healthy fled from the sick, carrying the disease with them to neighboring communities. Behind them remained the dying, “left for crows, kites, and vermin to prey upon.” Beginning in 1616, the pestilence took at least three years to exhaust itself and killed as much as 90 percent of the people in coastal New England.
Theories about the specific nature of that epidemic may have advanced since Mann's book appeared. At any rate, this devastation preceded the Pilgrims' arrival on the scene.

According to Mann, Ousamequin/Massasoit's immediate community was reduced from several thousand people to just sixty during this three-year plague. The larger confederation he ruled dropped from twenty thousand to fewer than one. Such stories played out all through the Americas, North and South, as European microbes actually moved ahead faster than explorers or soldiers could march.

Part of the unending surprise of Mann's book—of those "new revelations of the Americas before Columbus" which he reported as an extremely high-end journalist—involve what Europeans found as they encountered existing American civilizations. Tenochtitlán, today's Mexico City, was the center of the Aztec Empire. In Mann's account, this is what the Spaniards saw as they arrived on the scene:
MANN (page 140): Tenochtitlán dazzled its invaders—it was bigger than Paris, Europe's greatest metropolis. The Spaniards gaped like yokels at the wide streets, ornately carved buildings, and markets bright with goods from hundreds of miles away...Long aqueducts conveyed water from the distant mountains across the lake and into the city. Even more astounding than the great temples and immense banners and colorful promenades were the botanical gardens–none existed in Europe. The same novelty attended the force of a thousand men that kept the crowded streets immaculate. (Streets that weren't ankle-deep in sewage! The conquistadors had never conceived of such a thing.)
Again, a passage like this may seem to involve Mann in invidious comparison of the "Europe bad, Americas good" school. That isn't the tone of the book.

Did the English settlers consider themselves to be "God's chosen people?" Possibly, but Mann describes the crackpot religious beliefs and behaviors which obtained in some of these pre-encounter American societies.

When he describes the possibly unfortunate human sacrifices practiced by the Aztecs, he compares the conduct to the widespread public executions being conducted in Europe at that time. In this way, he suggests the non-childish understanding that we humans had a long way to go, all over the world, at this particular point in time.

Back to New England! What did English settlers find when they landed on those shores?

They didn't find great cities like Tenochtitlan. They did find Indian populations whose housing they envied and admired as perhaps superior to the standard housing technology in England at the time.

Among survivors of the 1616 epidemic, they found people whose diet was more nutritious than the typical European diet. (Coastal Indian diets "averaged almost 2,500 calories a day, better than those usual in famine-racked Europe.")

They found people who were larger and healthier than the typical English settler. ("Time and again Europeans described the [coastal Indian groups] as strikingly healthy specimens.")

According to Mann, "Pilgrim writers universally reported that Wampanoag families were close and loving—more so than English families, some thought." But no, it wasn't all sweetness and light. Our human race had a long way to go at that time, as it does today:
MANN (page 46): Armed conflict was frequent but brief and mild by European standards. The casus belli was usually the desire to avenge an insult or gain status, not the wish for conquest. Most battles consisted of lightning guerrilla raids by ad hoc companies in the forest...Women and children were rarely killed, though they were sometimes kidnapped and forced to join the winning group. Captured men were often tortured (they were admired, though not necessarily spared, if they endured the pain seriously). Now and then, as a sign of victory, slain foes were scalped, much as British skirmishes with the Irish sometimes finished with a parade of Irish heads on pikes. In especially large clashes, adversariess might meet in the open, as in European battlefields, though the results, Roger Williams noted, were "farre less bloudy, and devouring then the cruell Warres of Europe." Nevertheless, by Tisquantum's time defensive palisades were increasingly common, especially in the river valleys.
If you don't count the kidnappings, the torture and the scalpings, these coastal Americans were the very good people and the Pilgrims, who didn't even call themselves Pilgrims, were the very bad.

It's impossible to capture the full range of the history offered in Mann's densely-written book. But what you find in Mann's book is admiration for the civilizations which existed in the Americas before first encounter with Europeans, combined with deep regret in the face of all that was lost through the astonishing epidemics and all the "deeds of war."

Mann offers ruminations which are extremely intelligent. AS almost anyone can see, "Who brought more food to the first Thanksgiving" is just stupendously dumb. But so is the silly scolding robotically dispensed by the know-it-all professors who stand opposed to colonialism and all the word conveys.

Everybody agrees on that, and many people agree about this. Our tribe is extremely hard to like, and seems eager to re-elect Donald J. Trump, defender of Thanksgiving tradition and all other popular holidays.

Material to dream on: Here's Mann, in 2005, on the nature of "the new scholarship:"
MANN (page 29): One way to sum up the new scholarship is to say that it has begun, at last, to fill in one of the biggest blanks in history: the Western Hemisphere before 1492. It was, in the current view, a thriving, stunning diverse place, a tumult of languages, trade, and culture, a region where tens of millions of people loved and hated and worshipped as people do everywhere. Much of this world vanished after Columbus, swept away by disease and subjugation. So thorough was the erasure that within a few generations neither conqueror nor conquered knew that this world had existed. Now, though, it is returning to view. It seems incumbent on us to take a look.
It seems incumbent on us to take a look.

Or we can complain about who brought more of the food to that remarkable three-day feast in Plymouth. Because such questions are stupendously dumb, they are rushed into the New York Times as Stephen Miller cheers.

Can a modern-day nation survive this decline?

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2019

The New York Times ponders The Karens:
We'll postpone our review of Professor Silverman's Turkey Day takedown until Monday next.

On Tuesday, we'll turn to the most recent data from the PISA—more specifically, to the various things you weren't told about those international test scores.

For today, we'll direct your attention to a lengthy piece which appeared today, on line, at the New York Times. The piece appears under this dispiriting heading:
Editors' Picks
In fairness, the essay in question comes from the paper's Style desk, arguably the dumbest part of this sprawling exercise in modern-day, upper-end dumbness. More specifically, the essay hails from a subsection of Style which is packaged like this:
STYLE
Rites of Passage
Essays that explore notable life transitions and events, big, small and absurd.
This particular "essay" may be destined for inclusion in tomorrow's hard-copy editions, where it will get fullest Sunday exposure. That said, the "Editors' Pick" starts like this, on-line headlines included:
My So-Karen Life
I know Karens are hard. As a member of Gen X, I grew up surrounded by them.

While everyone is complaining about boomers, Gen Z doesn’t want you to forget to complain about Generation X, the other generation that’s significantly older than them that also sucks. This sucking is embodied by the name Karen, the young people have noticed—middle-aged white moms who are always asking for the manager and calling the police on perfectly fine pool parties and wondering why kids are so obsessed with their identities.

I am a Gen Xer, but I can only say to the Gen Zs, I feel you on the Karen thing so hard. Having a Karen as a mom must suck, but also, just imagine having thousands of Karens as your constant nemeses, for your whole life.

Here is my story.

I was born in 1969 and grew up in a small town in western Massachusetts.
I went to local public schools from kindergarten through 12th grade, and spent 1,600 hours a year with the same 65 to 70 kids. Roughly half of those people were girls. Seventy-five percent of those girls were Karens.
"Seventy-five percent of those girls were Karens," this Gen X survivor writes, referring to the highly objectionable collection of girls among whom she was consigned to live when she herself was a mere child.

The dumbness only continues from there, increasing and spreading out as it goes. Did we mention the fact that this "essay" is currently featured, on the Times' web site, as an "Editors' Pick?"

Regarding this exercise in dumbness, we'll only tell you this:

When upper-end culture becomes this dumb, the society which spawned and nurtured the dumbness is unlikely to survive.

Putting that a different way, you simply can't run a modern-day nation on this sort of fuel. You'll end up with a Trump every time.

That said, the Times has been running on this type of fuel for a very long time now. And as we've noted again and again, career "journalists" will never tell you this. The Times is simply too powerful.

We can think of three who tried: Katherine Boo, Gene Lyons, Clark Hoyt. The discussions their efforts might have started were strangled in their cribs.

Simply put, mainstream journalists will not discuss the intellectual disorder of the modern-day Times. But we will once again tell you this:

A modern society cannot survive with intellectual horizons like those which obtain at the Times. You'll end up with a version of Donald J. Trump every time.

Despondent future anthropologists have glumly told us, several times, that the mental age of the modern-day Times was something like 8 or 9. That mental age was on display in Charles Blow's recent Thanksgiving Day column. Long go, that mental age was on display when Maureen Dowd gave the world this:
DOWD (11/5/00): I Feel Pretty

I feel stunning
And entrancing,
Feel like running and dancing for joy . . .


O.K., enough gloating. Behave, Albert. Just look in the mirror now and put on your serious I only-care-about-the-issues face.

If I rub in a tad more of this mahogany-colored industrial mousse, the Spot will disappear under my Reagan pompadour...
Two days before Election Day, in November 2000, Dowd pictured Candidate Gore singing "I Feel Pretty" as he looked in a mirror pondering his bald spot.

It was something like the seventh column Dowd had chosen to build around the problematics of Candidate Gore's problematic bald spot. The dead of Iraq look up from their graves at the mental age of the Hamptons-based editors who kept putting those brain-dead columns in print—and at our sprawling, self-impressed liberal world, which wasn't bright enough to notice that something was wrong with this ridiculous work.

(Dowd's gender-based trashings of Candidate Hillary Clinton were still seven years off. Eventually, Hoyt spoke up, in a column which gave rise to crickets.)

Today, the editors want us to ponder The Karens. A modern nation can't expect to survive when its reigning elites are this dumb.

How did our reigning upper-end elites ever get this dumb? Once again, we'll recommend Kevin Drum's work on lead exposure in the years when we modern-day adults were children. But whatever the explanation may be, the gauntlet is thrown down to you:

Are you able to see this state of affairs for what it actually is? Or are we going to diddle ourselves, as always, with the latest thing Donald Trump said?

After reading part of the essay about The Karens, we decided to check the writer's background. The Google whisked us away to her Twitter account, where she had just tweeted this:
"A friend just told me she goes #2 in front of her husband. Pls send help (to me)"
Can a modern nation survive this regime? In our own nation's case, the answer is already in. We already have our Trump!

That column by Blow was equally dumb. So was the more aggressive companion piece penned by Professor Silverman. We pity the teenage students he postures before. More on that topic on Monday.

The Times has been dumbing us down since forever. Can a modern society survive this regime? In our own nation's case, is it possible that the answer's already in charge?

We're going to disagree today...

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2019

...with our favorite blogger:
We're going to disagree today with our favorite blogger.

We'll disagree with Kevin Drum when he says, of Pamela Karlan's snarky comment involving Donald Trump's 13-year-old son, "There [was] nothing wrong with saying this."

We'll agree that there was nothing criminal involved in Karlan's masterful comment. We won't say the professor's remark was evil, deranged or demonic.

That said, we'll say the remark was in the neighborhood of "wrong," in two different ways:

First, it offended against a basic bit of public etiquette on which everyone has long since agreed. Everyone has long since agreed that people shouldn't go around making public comments which involve politicians' minor children.

This is a perfectly sensible piece of public etiquette. There are good reasons for this rule; it's good that people have agreed on it.

That said, it's typical of our liberal tribe's highest elites that you can't take them out for even one day without someone stepping outside this perfectly sensible rule. As we've encouraged you to notice, our ranking elites are like this.

That said, there's a second reason why the comment was wrong. It was wrong because comments like that can only help Donald J. Trump.

Not long ago, it was our hilarious liberal movie stars who could be relied upon to make some kind of half-assed comment which worked against the Democratic nominee during close election campaigns.

Usually, they would make their inappropriate remarks at major fund-raisers. In one campaign, it was Whoopi Goldberg. The next time, it was Larry David.

Back then, when the silly news cycle moved more slowly, these ill-considered jokes at major public events really did undermine campaigns for days at a time. Karlan's remark will disappear faster today, but our liberal ranks are crammed with public figures who will be strongly inclined to make the next unhelpful, unwise public comment.

At this site, we deeply resent these pampered, largely useless people. It isn't just the stunning lack of contribution these poodles have tended to make down through the years. It's the reliable way they'll shoot off their mouths at the most inopportune times.

Karlan's remark may not change any votes. But don't worry! If she ever gets the chance to screw up worse, we can feel fairly sure that she'll take it. It's the way these dinosaurs roll.

Meanwhile, might we turn to this morning's New York Times to focus on what really matters? In today's hard-copy "The 45th President: Impeachment" section, Vanessa Friedman takes us where the rubber hits the road, headline included:
FRIEDMAN (12/6/19): Nancy Pelosi and the Persistent White Pantsuit

The white pantsuit has become, against all odds, one of the most powerful emblems in Washington, D.C.

I know, I know. You’re thinking: not again! Not another story about a white pantsuit! But there’s no escaping it. That is the point.

It has become a statement in itself, layered in meaning and nuance...
Friedman knows we don't want to hear it. But these flyweights simply can't stop.

On and on and on she goes, sitting atop the second page of today's National section. This is all these idiots know how to do. It's all they care about.

This is a substantial part of the way we got where we are. At some point, intelligent people ought to insist that that these sub-royals stop.

SCOLD THE ELECTORATE WELL: Charles Blow types the darnedest things!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2019

Childhood's (refusal to) end:
Last Thursday morning—and yes, it was Thanksgiving Day—the New York Times was schooling the nation well.

In print editions, Professor Silverman adopted a scolding tone in a scolding op-ed column. It appeared beneath a scolding headline:
The Vicious Reality Behind the Thanksgiving Myth
To our ear, a condescending tone pervaded the professor's piece from its first paragraph onward. He closed on a silly, supercilious note—one which, to our ear, defines our failing modern tribe's instincts all too well.

On line, Charles Blow offered reinforcements. His dolorous column bore this headline:
The Horrible History of Thanksgiving
Professor Silverman and columnist Blow were schooling the readership well.

Much as the professor had done, the journalist complained about "the [historically inaccurate] story" he first learned in kindergarten and believed for the bulk of his life.

The journalist wrung his hands, and writhed. His attempt at a good solid debunking of all those myths got started, rather weirdly, like this:
BLOW (11/28/19): I thought it was such a beautiful story: People reaching across race and culture to share with one another, to commune with one another. But that is not the full story of Thanksgiving. Like so much of American history, the story has had its least attractive features winnow away—white people have been centered in the narrative and all atrocity has been politely papered over.

So, let us correct that.

What is widely viewed as the first Thanksgiving was a three-day feast to which the Pilgrims had invited the local Wampanoag people
as a celebration of the harvest.

About 90 came, almost twice the number of Pilgrims. This is the first myth: that the first Thanksgiving was dominated by the Pilgrim and not the Native American. The Native Americans even provided the bulk of the food, according to the Manataka American Indian Council.
In that passage, Blow demolishes what he calls "the first myth." Ever so briefly, though, might we back up from there at this point?

Fellow citizens, can we talk? To our ear, the story of that first Thanksgiving sounds like a fascinating human story, even as Blow has told it.

Are we reading his text correctly? In November 1621, 90 members of the local Wampanoag tribe and roughly 45 English settlers came together and spent three days feasting together? In what imaginable way is that not a remarkable human story, with "people reaching across race and culture to share with one another?"

Those English settlers hadn't grown up speaking Massachusett, the language of the Wampanoags. Along the same lines, Wampanoags hadn't grown up speaking English, and the two groups of people who feasted together had grown up in vastly different cultures. (We'll highlight some basic tomorrow.)

The English settlers had already seen more than half of their original party die from disease and malnutrition. A few years earlier, the Wampanoags had been decimated by one of the epidemics which devastated native populations throughout the Americas following first contact with Europeans.

(Professor Silverman: "In 1616, a European ship conveyed an epidemic disease to the Wampanoags that over the next three years took a staggering toll on their population." Is it just our imagination, or has the professor possibly shaded his langusge in such a way as to let us imagine that this was perhaps a deliberate action on the part of the Europeans? Within our own pitiful, failing tribe, it can feel good to believe or suggest that.)

Let's return to Blow. In what way is his recitation not a remarkable human story in which "people reach across race and culture to share with one another?"

As everyone except the dolorous Blow has pretty much known for a very long while, a great deal of deeply unfortunate history was going to transpire in the decades and centuries which followed. But good lord! The story he tells in that passage strikes us as astounding—and the actual history behind this and other early encounters is as fascinating as any topic we know about at this award-winning site, a site which is actively doted on by future top anthropologists.

Blow describes a fascinating human event. But then, the modern "journalist" takes control of his brain, and we're handed the childish piddle which constitutes so much of our own tribe's failing diet.

Good God! What bothers Blow about that story? He wants to argue about which of these two human groups brought the bulk of the food! In the small, tiny mind of the modern-day Times, it's nonsense like this which will be marshaled to knock down those horrible "myths!"

Modern liberals face an existential question at this particular point. That questions goes like this:

How stupid are we willing to be in pursuit of our own tribal narratives? Because when we read the modern-day Times, we are constantly and forever "with Stupid," as the iconic t-shirt relates.

How dumb does it get at the modern-day Times? To what extent are we liberals "with Stupid" when we ingest its scribblings?

Let's move ahead to Blow's sourcing. In this case, he sources his pointless claim about who brought the food to an organization called the Manataka American Indian Council.

We'll be honest! We'd never heard of the Manataka American Indian Council, whose somewhat peculiar principle web page can be surveyed here.

As it turns out, Google has barely heard of this organization either. It isn't entirely clear whether the group, which is or was apparently based in Arkansas, is still in existence.

Let's move on from there! If you click the link which Blow provides, you're taken to these rudimentary performances of first Thanksgiving history.

We have no idea why Blow would have assumed that the representations he found at that site were actually accurate. That said, the pointless, invidious claim that "the INDIANS, possibly out of a sense of charity toward their hosts, ended up bringing the majority of the food for the feast" seems to be sourced to the Pilgrim Edward Winslow's December 1621 letter, which doesn't establish the accuracy of that claim.

We have no idea why the claim in question would actually matter to anyone, or how it would serve to debunk a Thanksgiving "myth." We have no idea why Blow would think that the rudimentary attempts at history to which he links constitute a reliable source of historical knowledge.

We don't know why an editor at the glorious Times would let such childish reasoning or such shaky sourcing stand. That said, this is the modern-day New York Times, a highly unreliable enterprise. Consider a truly ridiculous passage which Blow soon presents:
BLOW: [M]any of those native people not killed by disease would be killed by direct deed.

As Grace Donnelly wrote in a 2017 piece for Fortune:

The celebration in 1621 did not mark a friendly turning point and did not become an annual event. Relations between the Wampanoag and the settlers deteriorated, leading to the Pequot War. In 1637, in retaliation for the murder of a man the settlers believed the Wampanoags killed, they burned a nearby village, killing as many as 500 men, women, and children. Following the massacre, William Bradford, the Governor of Plymouth, wrote that for “the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.”

Just 16 years after the Wampanoag shared that meal, they were massacred.
Blow presents a long passage from Donnelly's Fortune magazine piece ("Thanksgiving Myths, Legends and Lies"). Behind that selection lies a sad, but instructive, modern-day tale.

Donnelly was one year out of college when she wrote her "lies and legends" piece (Georgia, class of 2016). Her report wasn't anywhere near as silly or incompetent as other Turkey Day debunkings have been. Inevitably, though, the lengthy passage quoted by Blow made no sense on its face.

Stating the obvious, Governor Bradford couldn't have issued the statement Donnelly attributed to him. The author of that statement is offering an opinion about what happened over the hundred years following 1637. Governor Bradford, one of the original Plymouth settlers, died in 1657.

Donnelly bungled that attribution; that was obvious from her text itself. That said, it was "close enough for Fortune magazine work," and then for the New York Times.

(If you want to discover who actually seems to have made the statement in question, we'll only say this: Good luck!)

Beyond that lies a more ridiculous error, in which Donnelly asserted that the Pequot War was waged against the Wampanpoags. As almost anyone might have guessed, the Pequot War was actually waged against the Pequots, a separate group which lived in modern-day Connecticut.

In that unfortunate conflagration,
the English were joined by the Narragansetts and the Mohegans in waging war on the Pequots. One year out of college, Donnelly apparently got confused and presented a recitation which made no sense on its face.

Still and all, her doubly-nonsensical presentation made enough sense to be published by Fortune. Two years later, Blow didn't notice that Donnelly's pair of presentations made no sense on their face, and some stumblebum New York Times editor waved his work into print, perhaps as he or she rushed out the door on his or her way to the Hamptons.

Two years after Donnelly's piece appeared, the quotation which made no sense went into the New York Times. Also, the Wampanoags were massacred in the Pequot War, trusting Times readers were told.

If it's insults to indigenous people you like; if insults to American history amuse you; if you're aroused by open insults to the intelligence of the modern New York Times reader—Friend, if these are the tides which float your boat, then Charles Blow's ridiculous, dolorous column is just the work for you.

That said, this kind of half-asped, insulting "journalism" is the modern foodstuff of the Times. We've been fed this meal for decades now. Dating to Gene Lyons' Fools For Scandal, this fact very plainly helps explain why Donald Trump lives where he does.

The Times invented the Whitewater pseudo-scandal, then spent two years inventing tall tales about Candidate Gore. The paper's crazy treatment of Hillary Clinton's emails is part of modern lore.

The "Creeping Dowdism" Katherine Boo warned us about came to us via the Times. These are ridiculous, overpaid, hapless people, and they've functioned as Donald J. Trump's top enabler over the past twenty-seven years.

(It started in 1992, five hundred years after Columbus.)

That column by Blow was classic D-minus work. Rather plainly, the piece was "all script, no research," with a genuine lack of curiosity about what has actually gone on in the world, much of which has long been known to have been thoroughly gruesome.

It was standard myth-busting piddle, written for those who continue to function with with tiny small tribalized minds.

That said, this is the way the New York Times rolls. Our tribe is unable to understand the nature of this modern disease, and decimation may await us.

Tomorrow: 2500 calories per day; plus, Silverman scolds the herd

Alyssa Rosenberg gets it right!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

We'll add to what she said:
We're happy to be making this statement:

This afternoon, at the Washington Post, Alyssa Rosenberg has gotten it right!

She starts by making an obvious point. We'll add to what she says:
ROSENBERG (12/5/19): Let us begin with the abundantly obvious, since apparently we need to do that these days: It was a bad joke and an incredibly boneheaded strategy.

For some reason, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan thought it was clever to tell the House Judiciary Committee during her Wednesday testimony that “While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.” There are more direct ways to say that even if President Trump doesn’t recognize them, there are limits on his power. There are definitely jokes to make about the president’s taste for the imperial that don’t require contorting the spelling of his youngest child’s name.

But if her aim was to hand her critics ammunition, Karlan’s decision to invoke Trump’s kid was the equivalent of backing up a dump truck’s worth of fully loaded magazines right onto the White House lawn. Her halfhearted apology—“It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that are wrong. But I do regret having said that.”—didn’t much help.
We agree with Rosenberg. What she says in that passage is abundantly obvious. Unfortunately, Karlan became the gift that gave to the Donald Trump White House.

That said, Rosenberg goes on to batter various GOP hacks for acting like the world came to an end when Karlan gave them their gift. "Because we live in an era when everything has to be as stupid and mendacious as possible, the Trump administration jumped all over the opportunity that Karlan gave it," Rosenberg said. She got that right too!

That said, we'll add one point. It's a point we made just a day or two ago:

Our several hapless liberal elites badly need to get over themselves. They never will do so, of course, and this helps explain why Donald J. Trump may win re-election.

These clueless people badly need to get over themselves. One day, they're writing headlines in which the first lady is said to look "ridiculous." The next day, they're issuing scratchy jokes about her 13-year-old son.

When criticized, they issue the kind of finger-pointing apology our tribe has complained about forever. Then they start over again.

These are terribly cosseted people—pompous, unhelpful, unwise. They're overpaid and vastly overpraised. Professor Karlan's witticism was seized upon, but trust us:

Every time Professor Feldman opened his mouth, some Trump voter got his wings!

They're a pampered, uncomprehending mess. Our team is unable to see this.

This is your brain on tribal war!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

The craziness of the Times:
Yesterday morning, we barked out an order to our eager young team of analysts.

"Who is Catie Edmondson?" we persuasively said, stating our aggressive command in the form of a question. We were asking because of the news report Edmondson authored in yesterday's New York Times.

We were stunned by the incompetence of Edmondson's report, which moved from pitiful conflations at the start on to bald-faced misstatement at the end.

Edmondson was discussing Senator Kennedy's original claim that Ukraine may have been responsible for hacking the DNC's emails during Campaign 2016.

As you may recall, Kennedy made the claim on November 24, took it back the next night. He hasn't repeated the claim since then. But so what? Yesterday's news report ended like this:
EDMONDSON (12/4/19): Mr. Kennedy, an Oxford-educated lawyer who is perhaps best known in the Senate for his folksy aphorisms and pointed grilling of judicial nominees, has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s most vigorous impeachment defenders in the Senate. He first floated the theory about Ukraine’s culpability more than a week ago on Fox News, saying that the perpetrator of the hack on a server at the Democratic National Committee “could be Ukraine.”

The next day, he told CNN that he “was wrong” and that the “only evidence” he had “is that it was Russia who tried to hack the D.N.C. computer.”

But on Sunday, he reverted to his initial claim on “Meet the Press.”
We're sorry, but no. Kennedy didn't repeat his initial claim on Sunday's Meet the Press. We're sorry, but no. It just didn't happen.

(For the Meet the Press transcript, click here.)


We were amazed by Edmondson's awful reporting. Sadly, we can't name the editor or editors who let the report go to print.

That said, our analysts returned to us with the information we'd demanded. Edmondson is in her second year out of college (Barnard, class of 2018). Routinely, our national reporting is being done by the youngest of our nation's inexperienced kids.

We thought Edmondson's report was awful—but then we read the lead editorial in today's New York Times. A masterwork of conflation, confusion and tribal attack, the editorial started like this:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (12/5/19): President Trump and his defenders simply won’t stop playing into Russia’s hands by promoting the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election in an effort to sabotage his candidacy.

On Sunday, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, was on “Meet the Press” spreading this disinformation...
We're sorry, but no. Kennedy didn't "spread the disinformation" in question on Sunday's Meet the Press.

If we're going to go with the truth, Kennedy didn't do that! But as the editorial continued, the editors made it perfectly clear that they were making this charge:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: [Kennedy] suggested on “Fox News Sunday” that, in fact, Ukraine had hacked the Democratic computer server, obtaining emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “I don’t know, nor do you, nor do any of us,” he told the host, Chris Wallace. (The next day he told CNN’s Chris Cuomo: “I was wrong. It was Russia who tried to hack the computer. I’ve seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it.” It is unclear what changed his mind. Again.)
The editors' charge is perfectly clear, and the editors' charge is just wrong. Comically, the editors linked to the Washington Post, not to Edmondson's report, to support their claim from paragraph two—their claim that Kennedy had gone on Meet the Press to "spread this disinformation" again.

As with Edmondson's report, the report in the Post was built around a hapless conflation. All across the pseudo-liberal world, the same conflation is being pimped by our tribal shamans. It's built upon the inability, or the unwillingness, to distinguish between two different claims:
Claim #1: Ukraine hacked/stole the DNC emails.

Claim #2: Ukraine interfered/intervened in the 2016 election.
Obviously, those are different claims. A person who makes Claim #2 isn't necessarily making Claim #1. Everyone is able to see that! Even people who work for the Times!

That distinction is obvious. But all across the pseudo-liberal world, we're seeing what the human brain is like on tribal war.

For our money, Chuck Todd's handling of the Meet the Press interview with Kennedy was just this side of insane. That said, at no point did Kennedy claim that Ukraine hacked the DNC emails.

That said, the human brain is extremely weak, especially when we the people are on the verge of war.

"This is your brain on drugs," a famous old TV ad said. If you want to see your brain on war, you should subscribe to the Times.

Two last questions: Why are kids right out of college doing so much of our top-end reporting? Also, where do they go when they turn 30? No jokes about Soylent Green!

SCOLD THE ELECTORATE WELL: "Journalists" say the darnedest things!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

A bit of comic relief:
What can happen when modern journalists start offering versions of the current culturally mandated "first Thanksgiving lies and legends" tale?

Before discussing Fortune and the New York Times, let's enjoy some comic relief.

Last Friday, we made a classic mistake. Puzzled by some of Charles Blow's sourcing; further puzzled by the lengthy quotation he published from Fortune, a lengthy quotation which, on its face, didn't seem to make any sense—

Puzzled by these puzzling aspects of Blow's latest puzzling column, we decided to check out the facts.

Given the way modern "journalism" works, this is almost always a mistake. In this case, we were led down the psychedelic pathways of pseudo-liberal "Thanksgiving myths" scripting, an offshoot of critical theory.

Eventually, we were offered a link to Bustle, "an online American women's magazine founded in August 2013 by Bryan Goldberg" which, by September 2016, "had 50 million monthly readers" and almost as many employees. Or so the leading authority on the Bustle phenomenon says!

In fairness, Bustle isn't the New York Times. But the Times comes amazingly close.

At any rate, we found ourselves confronted with a link to Bustle. Like teenagers in Halloween horror films who can't stop going into the basement, we robotically decided that we should click that link.

We had been offered a gateway to Bustle! Arriving at the magazine, we found ourselves looking at this:
9 Myths About Thanksgiving & The Real Facts Behind Them
By MIKA DOYLE / Nov 14, 2018
Finally! Finally, we were going to get the real facts about Thanksgiving! That said, before proceeding, let's get clear on the context:

In the dolorous column which triggered our search, Blow said this: "I spent most of my life believing a gauzy, kindergarten version of Thanksgiving." He'd been disinformed when he was six and had never caught up with the facts!

Thanks to Bryan Goldberg and Bustle, online American women wouldn't be consigned to that fate! Unfortunately, the "9 Myths" report to which we'd been taken turned out to be a crazy-quilt array of semi-coherent debunkings drawn from a wide array of weirdly misparaphrased sources.

On a journalistic basis, the Bustle piece is phantasmagorically inept. Believe it or not, this was the first "myth" the magazine's Mika Doyle debunked, along with her full revision:
Myth 1: The Pilgrims Founded A Settlement on Plymouth Rock

According to the stories you heard in history class, the Mayflower sailed to the New World and started a new life on Plymouth Rock.
What your teachers didn't tell you is that the Mayflower ended up in the wrong place, according to History. The settlers were supposed to go to Virginia, but they ended up in Massachusetts.

Not only that, Plymouth Rock originally wasn't unoccupied. Normally, when Europeans sailed to New England in the mid-1610s, it was so packed with Native American communities that there wasn't any room for new settlements, says National Geographic. But an epidemic—which is still unexplained to this day—wiped out the Native American coastal communities about three years earlier, so the settlers basically landed in a cemetery and immediately began raiding it for food and supplies, according to National Geographic.
Yes, that's what it actually said! For starters, let's start here:

Did anyone ever actually think that the Pilgrims had actually founded a settlement right on Plymouth Rock? We don't think anyone ever thought that. We don't think that was a myth!

Still, that was the very first myth Doyle set out to debunk. But uh-oh! By the start of her second paragraph, she seemed to be saying that "Plymouth Rock" had been an actual locality—a locality which had originally been occupied by Native Americans.

Full disclosure! We aren't sure how Doyle's two paragraphs were supposed to have debunked her alleged "myth." Meanwhile, just for the record, Bustle isn't a parody site. We're showing you what one of its actual journalists wrote at this time last year.

As for various other claims found within Doyle's first debunking, we'll offer a word of warning:

Do not start clicking on Doyle's various links to try to figure things out! Madness awaits you down the road on which you try to decipher her claims, including the claim that the epidemic to which she refers "is still unexplained," or the claim in which you're told, somewhat oddly, that the Pilgrims immediately began raiding a cemetery for food.

(We clicked through two layers of links to try to see where that came from. But please—don't do what we've done!)

If you value your sanity, do not try to check those claims! But as a bit of comic relief, enjoy and marvel at the fact that 50 million monthly readers were finally permitted to know that Native Americans once occupied Plymouth Rock, even though the Pilgrims didn't found a settlement on it.

Bustle's "first Thanksgiving" debunking reads like debunking on acid. And uh-oh! Inevitably, Doyle took some of her material from Fortune's 2017 debunking of various Thanksgiving "lies and legends"—the same debunking the dolorous Blow quoted at substantial, puzzling length in last week's dolorous column.

At this point, a troubling fact may start to swim into view—it isn't all that long a voyage from Bustle to the modern New York Times! With the bulk of our comic relief behind us, let's return to the questions we had when we first read Blow's column.

As we noted yesterday, Blow started with a peculiar passage in which he debunked his own "first myth" with a somewhat peculiar complaint. As you may recall, this is the passage in question:
BLOW (11/28/19): What is widely viewed as the first Thanksgiving was a three-day feast to which the Pilgrims had invited the local Wampanoag people as a celebration of the harvest.

About 90 came, almost twice the number of Pilgrims. This is the first myth: that the first Thanksgiving was dominated by the Pilgrim and not the Native American. The Native Americans even provided the bulk of the food, according to the Manataka American Indian Council.
As we noted yesterday, we have no idea why anyone is supposed to care about who provided "the bulk of the food" at the so-called first Thanksgiving. This seems like debunking for the sake of debunking, a standard element in the frequently ridiculous "lies and legends" pieces which mainly seek to annoy the public so much that they'll go out and re-elect Trump.

That said, we were puzzled by the sourcing for Blow's apparently pointless claim. The Manataka American Indian Council? Who in the world is that? And why are we supposed to assume that they would know who provided the bulk of the food at the first Thanksgiving, an event which occurred in 1621?

For today, we'll only say this. Last Friday, we fired up the Google machine and tried to puzzle that out. We also looked at the Fortune piece the dolorous Blow had quoted at great length is his dolorous column.

One year before, at Bustle, Doyle had cited that same Fortune piece. Like Blow, she transferred the ball of confusion published by Fortune to her own acid-flecked piece.

For today, we think we'll leave it there, though we'll offer a word of warning. If you decide to Google the Manataka American Indian Council, you may find yourself taken to some rather odd places.

The notion that the New York Times is treating this peculiar organization as a prime source of historical knowledge—well, you might as well try to build a journalism school right there on Plymouth Rock.

There's a major fact that's floating here, and a possible bit of despair. The despair could flow from a person's willingness the understand how spectacularly stupid so much of our "journalism" actually is.

The despair could flow from a person's willingness to see who and what the New York Times actually is, not to mention Fortune. It could flow from the transformative anthropological fact your lizard brain hopes you'll never be willing to grasp:

Our modern "liberal" elites are hapless, incompetent, tribal, inane, largely nonhuman all the way down. The Pilgrims lived in the 1620s. What's our current excuse?

Tomorrow: The Manataka American Indian Council—and that pitiful posting at Fortune

Concerning those new PISA scores!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2019

A full discussion next week:
Yesterday afternoon, we mentioned the release of the new PISA scores. We've decided to wait until next week, then stage a full discussion.

We were struck by what we read about the data in yesterday morning's Washington Post and New York Times. Then, we looked at the data ourselves.

We were even more struck by that.

Lawrence O'Donnell gets it right!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2019

Reflections on Dylan's poor immigrant:
Last evening, Lawrence O'Donnell aired an outstanding segment.

Sadly, the segment lasted just under six minutes. But during the segment, O'Donnell discussed the mental health of the sitting president with psychiatrist Lance Dodes.

O'Donnell is one of the only major media figures who has been willing to pursue this forbidden topic. We can't share as much of the discussion as we would like because MSNBC, slacking as always, hasn't yet posted a transcript.

That said, you can watch the discussion here. We were struck by this part of Dodes' remarks:
DODES (12/3/19): Well, again, this is—you have to understand, this is a man, as I said, who is running really a very simple program. I don't say that as an insult, it's just because it's true.

He can only do what he does and he is, in a way, he's limited by the limited capacity of a person with early emotional development. He doesn't have much complexity to him...
You can watch the full segment here.

We'd love to see a fuller, extremely careful discussion of this essential topic. It's also true that modern press culture is built around the headlong avoidance of facts and information and almost all relevant discourse.

We thought Lawrence got it right in staging this discussion. We were especially grateful for this part of Dodes' remarks:

"I don't say that as an insult, it's just because it's true."

As a general matter, people who are mentally ill haven't become mentally ill as a matter of choice. If Donald Trump is mentally ill in some way, that is a loss for the world over which he may have no control.

We thought the discussion was much too short. That said, we were grateful for Dodes' lack of loathing.

"I pity the poor immigrant!" So Dylan humanely (and metaphorically) said, fifty long years ago.

SCOLD THE ELECTORATE WELL: We'll admit that we made two classic mistakes!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2019

Upon first reading Blow's column:
Last Friday morning, we made two classic mistakes. The disaster went down as follows:

That morning, reading the hard-copy Times, we learned about Charles Blow's latest column. We learned about it on that day's page A3, part of which read like this:
The Conversation
FOUR OF THE MOST READ, SHARED AND DISCUSSED POSTS FROM ACROSS NYTIMES.COM

1. The Horrible History of Thanksgiving:
Thursday's most read article was this Op-Ed from Charles Blow, a columnist for The Times. Mr. Blow writes that he grew up believing the "gauzy" version on [sic] Thanksgiving: "I was blind, willfully ignorant, I suppose."
Say what? Blow had written a column headlined "The Horrible History of Thanksgiving?" And this column had been the "most read article" across the vast sweep of nytimes.com?"

The previous day, we had read Professor Silverman's scolding column, "The Vicious Reality Behind the Thanksgiving Myth," which appeared in New York Times print editions. But we didn't know that Blow, on-line, had penned a companion piece which many turkeys had read!

According to Friday's page A3, "Horrible" had outranked "Vicious" across the vast sweep of the Times! And it's then that we made our two mistakes—admittedly, mistakes we've made many times in the past.

Our mistakes went like this:
First mistake: We went home and read Blow's column. You can peruse it here.

Second mistake: Puzzled by some of Blow's sourcing and struck by a lengthy quotation which plainly didn't seem to make sense, we decided to check Blow's facts.
Readers, never do that! Never fact-check Rachel Maddow's claims about this or that! Never track a lengthy quotation which plainly doesn't make sense.

(Also, when the Post and the Times report the latest PISA scores, never examine the data yourselves. Politely believe the things you're told. Never devote one second of thought to our public schools ever again.)

Your happiness will be enhanced if you don't engage in such risky behaviors. You'll retain your sense of confidence in your tribe's journalistic sachems. You'll continue to feel sure about your tribe's various sacred fictions.

With a familiar lack of wisdom, we made those mistakes last Friday. This led us on a merry pre-Christmas chase which ended up at Bustle. But before we show you what we found there, let's quote the passages from Blow's piece which sent us on our chase.

In the course of his mournful column, Blow was shedding bitter tears about some of the horrible things he "blindly" believed when he was six or seven, but also throughout his whole life. Older and wiser, more savvy today, he knows he was wrong, oh so wrong, when he "spent most of [his] life believing a gauzy, kindergarten version of Thanksgiving."

Below, Blow began his self-flagellation—and we wondered about that source:
BLOW (12/28/19): I thought it was such a beautiful story: People reaching across race and culture to share with one another, to commune with one another. But that is not the full story of Thanksgiving. Like so much of American history, the story has had its least attractive features winnow away—white people have been centered in the narrative and all atrocity has been politely papered over.

So, let us correct that.

What is widely viewed as the first Thanksgiving was a three-day feast to which the Pilgrims had invited the local Wampanoag people as a celebration of the harvest.

About 90 came, almost twice the number of Pilgrims. This is the first myth: that the first Thanksgiving was dominated by the Pilgrim and not the Native American. The Native Americans even provided the bulk of the food, according to the Manataka American Indian Council.
Readers, tell the truth! Are you familiar with the myth which holds that "the first Thanksgiving was dominated by the Pilgrim and not the Native American?"

We're not even entirely sure what that even means. Nor do we necessarily understand why this alleged myth would be debunked simply by counting the number of people present, or by finally getting clear on the question of who provided "the bulk of the food."

Why would anyone care about that? Blow forgot to explain.

Beyond that, an obvious question. If 90 Wampanoags joined 45 Pilgrims and engaged in a three-day feast, why wouldn't that be a story in which people actually were "reaching across race and culture to share with one another?" Why wouldn't that, in and of itself, have been an upbeat event?

None of this was especially clear, but then again, this was Blow. That said, we were struck by the sourcing for that invidious claim about who managed to bring all the food:

The claim was sourced to the Manataka American Indian Council. Foolishly, we decided to check to see who the heck that was and why the heck they would care.

First, though, the rest of the column! As Blow continued, he would soon make fleeting reference to one of the most significant events in the history of the Americas—a sweeping, hemispheric set of events following contact with Europeans.

After blowing past that seminal part of human history, Blow quoted a writer from Fortune at substantial length.

Two years ago, she'd been assigned to write one of these thumb-sucker pieces about Thanksgiving "legends and lies." Inevitably, Blow had chosen to share a part of her piece which, on its face, seemed to make zero sense:
BLOW: Th[e] weakening of the native population by disease from the new arrivals’ ships created an opening for the Pilgrims.

King James’s patent called this spread of disease “a wonderfull Plague” that might help to devastate and depopulate the region. Some friends.

But many of those native people not killed by disease would be killed by direct deed.

As Grace Donnelly wrote in a 2017 piece for Fortune:

The celebration in 1621 did not mark a friendly turning point and did not become an annual event. Relations between the Wampanoag and the settlers deteriorated, leading to the Pequot War. In 1637, in retaliation for the murder of a man the settlers believed the Wampanoags killed, they burned a nearby village, killing as many as 500 men, women, and children. Following the massacre, William Bradford, the Governor of Plymouth, wrote that for “the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.”

Just 16 years after the Wampanoag shared that meal, they were massacred.
Disease played a giant role in the history of the Americas following European arrival, modern-day New England included.

The history is astounding, paradigm-shattering. We'll link you to sources concerning this widespread set of events before the week is done.

That said, inquiring minds wanted to know:

Why would that war have been called "the Pequot War" if Wampanoags were massacred? Beyond that, how could Governor Bradford, who died in 1657, possibly have authored the quoted statement describing what occurred over "the next 100 years?"

On its face, the lengthy passage from Fortune didn't seem to make sense. Admittedly, since this was the New York Times, the confusion was hardly surprising.

If we'd just been a little bit wiser, we would have simply "moved on." But as we've done so many times in the past, we decided to check it out!

Tomorrow, we'll show you what we found when we checked Blow's sources. We'll even show you what we found when we eventually got ourselves linked to this astonishing "9 Myths About Thanksgiving" piece at the human-run web site, Bustle.

On Friday, we'll move to Professor Silverman's column in which, to our ear, he scolds the electorate well. For today, we'll close with a few confessions and disclaimers:

Over the past twenty-one years, we've made these mistakes many times. Instead of leaving well enough alone, we've decided to fact-check the blither and blather—yes, the relentless "daily howlers"—one finds in the New York Times and everywhere else "news" is sold.

You'll be happier as a person if you eschew such behaviors. In fairness, our unwise conduct has produced the greatest anthropological breakthrough since Margaret Mead set sail for Samoa. In fairness, at least there's that!

The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but our tiny human brains are very badly flawed. You'll see this if you watch Fox News—or if you read the Times.

That said, every adult, except Charles Blow, moved beyond his or her kindergarten understandings a long, long time ago.

Everyone has heard about the warlike horrors which help define our national history. Everyone knows that many wars between Europeans and Native Americans/Indians/indigenous people followed, and had preceded, that so-called first Thanksgiving.

Very few people have "spent most of [their lives] believing a gauzy, kindergarten version of Thanksgiving." One wonders how the New York Times seems to be so masterful at finding the handful of people who have somehow managed to cling to such childish levels of understanding.

In our view, it was Professor Silverman who scolded the electorate well with his Thanksgiving column. We'll review the professor's supercilious, ahistorical work in Friday's report.

That said, Blow's column was written at first-grade level, and Others are able to see this. Work like this is mocked on Fox, and viewers stampede to the polls.

Tomorrow: Journalistic standards

New PISA scores are carefully culled!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019

The things you can't be told:
The latest international test scores have been released.

They come from the 2018 PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), a major test battery which is administered every three years. In the PISA, 15-year-olds from 79 "education systems" (mostly meaning "countries") are tested in reading, math and science.

The results were reported this morning, after a manner, in both the Post and the Times. For unknown reasons, this suitably gloomy news report, complete with suitably gloomy headline, appears on the front page of the hard-copy Times, but it doesn't appear in the Times' "Today's Paper" listings at all.

Go figure!

At any rate, we're not sure we've ever seen such carefully bowdlerized reporting. Starting tomorrow, we'll spend a few days showing you what sorts of things you're allowed to be told, along with the basic facts to which you won't be exposed.

There are things these papers don't want you to know. According to major anthropologists, this is the way of our species. Our species' brains were wired for this, these top major experts have said.

Remind us to see how she looks next November!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019

Melania looked "ridiculous," Post headline reports:
Might we share a pair of dirty little secrets?

First secret: Our upper-class liberal and mainstream elites just can't get over themselves.

Second secret: Those same upper-class elites are busy re-electing Donald J. Trump. We seem to be committed to death by woke.

For our latest example of these compulsions, consider the headline which appeared on line, yesterday afternoon, at the Washington Post.

As we type, the headline is still sitting there, unchanged. It sits atop a news report about Christmas decorations at the White House, which is where the president lives.

Amazingly, the headline is still sitting there, unchanged. The headline in question says this:
Melania Trump’s Christmas decorations are lovely, but that coat looks ridiculous
That's what it actually says! But let's recall that first little secret. Our upper-class liberal and mainstream elites just can't get over themselves!

Needless to say, this headline sits atop a report by Robin Givhan. Givhan may be an excellent fashion reporter, but she's spectactularly tone deaf, and dumbfoundingly clueless, when it comes to the judgments she tosses off about major political figures.

She can't quite seem to get over herself. And her editors don't seem to mind.

In this case, we'll assume that Givhan didn't compose that spectacularly tone deaf headline. That said, the word "ridiculous," applied to Melania Trump, comes directly out of her essay, which the Post is passing off as a sample from the "Critic's Notebook."

In this morning's print editions, the headline atop the pointless piece has been somewhat toned down. In hard copy, the headline says this:
From Trump, warm decor and a cold shoulder
Even that is terminally clueless, of course. At the current Washington Post, we're flirting with "death by woke."

This has been transpiring for decades with Givhan's peculiar "political" work. As we close, we'll say this:

If you yourself don't understand what's tone deaf, and deeply unwise, about that "ridiculous" headline, you may be working, day after day, to re-elect Donald Trump too!

Our tribe just can't get over itself. We clearly seem to be committed to death by too cool for the masses.

SCOLD THE ELECTORATE WELL: Finally, someone drew back the curtain...

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019

...on those second-grade Turkey Day pageants:
The New York Times is never slow to pander to its readers. Consider what we encountered on page A2 of last Friday's print editions.

The silly encomium came from Marc Lacey, the newspaper's national editor. Lacey was pandering to New York Times readers, and he was pandering hard.

Below, you see the ridiculous way the fulsome fellow started. We include Lacey's hard-copy headline. All the italics are his:
We Try to Avoid Superlatives, But Our Readers Really Are the Best

Journalists are cautious about using superlatives.
Say something is the worst and it is likely that someone somewhere will point out an even more dire example. The hottest. The deadliest. The earliest. These are all fraught terms.

But here’s an assertion that none of you will challenge: The Times is blessed with the very finest readers of any publication. They are the brightest and most erudite. They are the most compassionate and thoughtful readers around. Challenge that!

We regularly receive evidence of just how exceptional you are.
You praise our most ambitious work. You critique us when we mess things up. You offer up insightful tips, wise ideas, juicy information...
Lacey's piece continued from there. Because you think we're making this up, you can examine it here.

At any rate, no one could possibly challenge the claim that New York Times readers are best! Does American exceptionalism sometimes seem dumb? This is the localized New York Times variant!

We've referred to Lacey's foolishness as a pander, and we think we're being kind. On the other hand, it's always possible that this newspapers' frequently hapless editors really believe that twaddle.

Ever so briefly, let's proceed on that fantastical assumption.

Timesmen like Lacey really believe that New York Times readers are brightest and best! This may explain why the Times was willing to trust its readers with a pair of courageous opinion columns, on Thanksgiving Day no less.

Finally! Finally, and also at long last, someone was willing to tear the curtain back from those second-grade Thanksgiving pageants which get the real history wrong!

Finally, someone was willing to go there! The brave pathfinder was the Times, which published this hard-hitting pair of opinion columns on Thanksgiving Day (we're including the columns' sub-headlines):
The Horrible History of Thanksgiving:
Before you fill your plate, please remember why we mark this day.
November 28, 2019
Written by Charles M. Blow

The Vicious Reality Behind the Thanksgiving Myth:

If Americans continue to insist on associating the holiday with Pilgrims and Indians, the least we can do is try to get the story straight.
November 28, 2019
Written by Professor Silverman
Professor Silverman's supercilious piece appeared in last Thursday's print editions. Blow's screeching companion offering—how long until his screeching columns begin to appear in all caps?—accompanied it on line.

At any rate, finally! Finally, someone was willing to tackle this subject matter, which has always been off limits! In fact, the Times had taken the same journalistic risk just two years ago in a challenging "fact check" essay:
Everything You Learned About Thanksgiving Is Wrong
November 21, 2017
Written by Maya Salam
While we're handing our medals for journalistic courage, it should be noted that Blow presents a lengthy quotation from an earlier daring piece which appeared in Fortune:
Thanksgiving Myths, Legends and Lies: Why Settlers Really Started the Annual Feast
November 21, 2017
Written by Grace Donnelly
The lengthy quotation presented by Blow makes no sense on its face, a fact which escaped Blow himself, his New York Times editor and Donnelly's editors at Fortune. But so it goes when brave explorers set out on high seas.

(We'll examine this journalistic error tomorrow. As we'll eventually see, the journalistic clowning gets worse—gets much, much worse—elsewhere.)

At this point, a pattern begins to emerge. In fact, the debunking of Turkey Day legends and lies is one of the tedious, hackneyed conventions our American journalists seem to love.

The debunking of the lies told at second-grade pageants—and yes, Professor Silverman explicitly cites "Ameri[k]ans’ grade school Thanksgiving pageants" in his condescending remarks—normally serves as a gateway to a new Christmas-season tradition, in which scolding journalists tell us that the traditional winter song, "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is really a paean to date rape.

At the Times, Salam has already teased this tradition this year with this daring, hard-hitting piece.
John Legend Updates ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ for the #MeToo Era:
Legend and Kelly Clarkson replaced lyrics that some considered an allusion to date rape. Gone: “Say, what’s in this drink?” New: “It’s your body, and your choice.”
October 29, 2019
Written by Maya Salam
There's certainly nothing "wrong" with what Legend and Clarkson have done. But is it possible that something is wrong with our hackneyed holiday journalism, in which supercilious professors and slow-witted scribes undertake to scold the electorate well about their Amerikan traditions?

Is it possible that this sort of journalism contributes to the emerging phenomenon known as "death by woke?" It is possible that this sort of journalism will help re-elect Donald J. Trump?

Could all this sillybill scolding help re-elect Donald Trump? Just in case the answer is yes, we're forced to warn you about something we saw on Friday morning's page A3.

Sure enough! Right across from Lacey's pander on page A2, we encountered this on page A3:
The Conversation
FOUR OF THE MOST READ, SHARED AND DISCUSSED POSTS FROM ACROSS NYTIMES.COM

1. The Horrible History of Thanksgiving:

Thursday's most read article was this Op-Ed from Charles Blow, a columnist for The Times. Mr. Blow writes that he grew up believing the "gauzy" version on [sic] Thanksgiving: "I was blind, willfully ignorant, I suppose."
Blow's column was the most read article across the entire Times empire! How bright do we readers seem now?

By his own admission, Charles M. Blow was willfully ignorant when he was in second grade. One wonders what we exceptional, erudite readers thought of that peculiar confession. Also, what did we think when we encountered Blow's peculiar sourcing, including the lengthy quotation from Fortune which makes no sense on its face?

Spoiler alert! The Fortune piece was written by Donnelly when she was one year out of college. To appearances, she had as much business discussing the history of Thanksgiving as we would have being assigned to run the Bolshoi Ballet.

She composed a passage which made no sense but was "close enough for journalistic work." Two years later, it was cut-and-pasted into the Times. Most important, she and Blow had remembered to scold the electorate well.

Doe this journalistic practice help explain the success of Trump? As we explore the clownistry well, we'll suggest that it probably does.

Tomorrow: A fabulous topic spoiled

What that New York Times report said!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2019

[Some] senators briefed about hacking:
How dumb does American discourse get at this highly partisan, tribal time?

Consider a very familiar reference from yesterday's Meet the Press. Chuck Todd was conducting an exceptionally dumb discussion with Senator Kennedy. At one point, our old friend Chuck said this:
TODD (12/1/19): Were you briefed by the intelligence—

According to the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, U.S. senators were briefed after Fiona Hill's testimony that actually this entire effort to frame Ukraine for the Russian meddling of 2016, of which you, you just made this case that they've done it, that actually this is an effort of Russia propaganda, that this is a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine.

KENNEDY: Uh-huh.

TODD: They're trying to frame Ukraine. You apparently were briefed about this in the United States Senate by intelligence officials. Are you at all concerned you're doing Russian intelligence work here?
"According to the New York Times a couple of weeks ago." This has become a very familiar reference.

Let's start by noting some basic mistakes. The Times report to which Todd refers doesn't say that senators were briefed on the matter at hand "after Hill's testimony" with all that may imply. It doesn't necessarily matter, but that was a basic mistake.

Beyond that, the Times report doesn't say how many senators were briefed. Kennedy denied that he had been briefed, an assumption Todd had pulled out of thin air.

As of yesterday, Kennedy was still saying that, while it was Russia who hacked the DNC emails, some Ukrainian officials had intervened or meddled in other ways in the 2016 election. According to Todd's rather clumsy presentation, the Times had reported that senators had been briefed to the contrary.

This is the New York Times report to which Todd, and many others, have referred. The report was murkily written, but it only says that Russia was falsely trying to blame Ukraine for the way Russia hacked the DNC emails, not for anything else.

Nothing in that Times report contradicts the two-part claim Kennedy (and others) made made—the claim that Russia hacked the DNC emails while Ukrainian officials may have "meddled" or "intervened" in other ways. And despite Todd's statements, insinuations and assumptions, the report doesn't say that these other claims are being invented or pushed by the Russkies.

As everyone in this country knows, reading can be quite hard. But go ahead! Read the New York Times report! It says that "American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks" about Russian attempts to blame Ukraine for the hacking of the emails, not for anything else.

It doesn't say what Todd suggested and what quite a few others have said—that senators were told that Ukraine and/or its officials didn't "meddle" or "intervene" in the election at all.

Did Ukraine intervene or meddle? The conduct which has been criticized doesn't seem all that shocking to us. And as everyone seems to agree once they're given a chance to respond, to the extent that such a claim can be made, the alleged "meddling" by Ukraine is dwarfed by the extensive illegal conduct which the intelligence community, and Kennedy himself, have attributed to the Russkies.

That said, nothing in the Times report takes us where the current tribal stampede wants us to go. With respect to the claims and accusations made by people like Morning Joe and Todd, we liberals are being propagandized when we watch our cable channels and when we read our liberal journals.

Go ahead—read the Times report. According to the report, (some) senators were told that the Russkies were trying to frame Ukraine for Russia's hacking of the DNC emails. The report doesn't say a single word about the various Ukrainian actions which were criticized by Fiona Hill in her impeachment testimony, actions which have also been criticized by the down-home, homespun Kennedy.

Hill's remarks were instantly disappeared, helping the tribal narrative thrive. Meanwhile, people like Todd are grossly misstating what that Times report actually said. But this is the way our discourse has worked for at least three or four decades now. This seems to be the best our journalistic elites can do as we all sit "on the beach" waiting for the end.

Go ahead—read the Times report! As you do, consider the possibility of giving your lizard a couple of hours off.

NONHUMAN, ALL TOO NONHUMAN: Scarborough borrows from Tailgunner Joe!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2019

Plus, comical Thanksgiving tales:
On Saturday morning, we forced ourselves to sit before our keyboard and share a depressing tale.

The chain of events had started last Monday night, on CNN's Cuomo Prime Time. Louisiana's Senator Kennedy had appeared on the overtalk-driven show to acknowledge that he'd been wrong in something he had said.

He'd been wrong to say that it may have been Ukraine which hacked the DNC emails during Campaign 2016! So the homespun solon now said.

Senator Kennedy said he'd been wrong! As we showed you on Saturday, this was the passage in question:
CUOMO (11/25/19): I want to hear it from you. Do you really believe that it wasn't Russia?

KENNEDY: I did that interview yesterday with, with Chris Wallace. Damn good reporter. I was answering one of his questions. And he interjected a statement, and asked me to react to it.

What I heard Chris say was, he made the statement that only Russia had tried to interfere in the election. And I answered the question.

That's not what he said. I went back and looked at the transcript. He said only Russia tried to hack the DNC computer.

Now, Chris is right. I was wrong. The only evidence I have, and I think it's overwhelming, is that it was Russia who tried to hack the DNC computer. I see no—

CUOMO: That's what the consensus is.

KENNEDY: Yes. I've seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it.
"I was wrong," the solon had said. He called the evidence "overwhelming." "It was Russia who tried to hack the DNC computer," the homespun solon said.

(Full disclosure: We don't know why the strange fellow said "tried." But your lizard will urge you to go there.)

"I was wrong," the senator said. "It was Russia," he said; the evidence is "overwhelming."

Some would say that this should count as a reasonably clear statement. That wouldn't include MSNBC's Brian Williams, the disordered fellow who spent months, in 1999 and 2000, attacking Candidate Gore for the number of buttons on his suits and for his alleged psychiatric problems.

Let's be fair! Back then, the slippery, slick multimillionaire was working for the oligarch Welch. To appearances, he played "pool boy" for his owner all through that campaign.

Today, Brian is working for somebody else. And so, this past Tuesday night, he told us this about what Kennedy said, carefully forgetting to play the actual tape of Kennedy's actual statement:
WILLIAMS (11/26/19): [Kennedy] made his first comments on Fox News with Chris Wallace, attempted the cleanup last night on CNN with Chris Cuomo—a cleanup which still left the strong whiff of, "It was probably Ukraine."
Williams didn't let viewers see or hear what Kennedy actually said.

Instead, he played the Joe McCarthy card. Plainly suggesting that Kennedy was pimping Russkie propaganda, he told viewers that Kennedy's statement "still left the strong whiff" in which it was probably Ukraine which hacked the DNC emails.

(If the slackers at MSNBC ever get around to posting a transcript of Tuesday night's show, you'll be able to find it here. As of now, they're still on vacation.)

If you didn't know who and what Brian is, you might be surprised by his behavior that night. Also, if you didn't have a clear understanding of the nature of the (highly tribal, war-inclined) species to which the foppish fellow belongs.

To those who live on the slightly more rational end of our species' wading pool, Williams' behavior that night might even be viewed as heinous. In all honesty, it was fairly clear what Kennedy told Cuomo last Monday night:

He'd said that Russia hacked the DNC emails, but also that Ukraine, or at least some Ukrainian officials, had meddled in the 2016 campaign. That closely resembled what the sanctified Fiona Hill had said in the recent impeachment hearings, with her statements about those Ukrainian officials quickly disappeared.

As noted, Williams has done this sort of thing before. People are dead all over Iraq because of the way he, and more influential colleagues like Russert and Matthews, behaved during Campaign 2000.

That said, Tuesday night's demagoguery seemed extreme even for Williams. But good God! Yesterday morning, our old friend Chuck Todd staged one of the dumbest interviews we've ever seen when Kennedy appeared on Meet the Press.

We like our old friend Chuck a lot, but good God, was that interview stupid! (We'd say that three fourths of The Stupid came from Chuck, perhaps one fourth from his guest.)

That interview was stunningly unintelligent. It led to outright modern McCarthyism on today's Morning Joe.

In an overwrought opening segment, Joe kept accusing Kennedy of being a Russian tool. Periodically, Mika would offer supporting statements, such as "Wow," as Joe conducted his rant.

Eventually, Joe threw to Edward Luce, U.S. national editor at the Financial Times. When he did, Luce, a new favorite on Morning Joe, brought us right out of our chairs.

You see, Kennedy had cited various publications which had reported that Ukraine meddled or intervened in the 2016 campaign.

No, Ukraine hadn't stolen the DNC emails. But Ukrainian officials had "meddled" too, according to these publications. Or so Kennedy had told Chuck, as others had said before him.

On this morning's Morning Joe, Scarborough threw to Luce. As a representative of the Financial Times, did Luce have any idea what Kennedy was talking about?

That's what Morning Joe asked. Responding in a Maddow-reminiscent manner, Luce said that he and his editors had no idea what Kennedy could be talking about!

That's what the wonderfully dandified Luce said to Mika and Joe. Instantly, we fired up the Google machine, and within maybe 90 seconds, we were reading this report from the Financial Times.

The FT report had started like this. Headline included:
OLEARCHYK (8/28/16): Ukraine’s leaders campaign against ‘pro-Putin’ Trump

For years, Serhiy Leshchenko, a top Ukrainian anti-corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former president Viktor Yanukovich. Now, he is focusing on a new perceived pro-Russian threat to Ukraine: US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election.
Olearchyk used the word "intervene," not "meddle." Given the non-rational nature of our species, that may help explain the total puzzlement to which Luce swore allegiance today.

Did Ukraine really intervene in the U.S. election? Stating the obvious, it all depends of what the meaning of "intervene in" is!

That said, it took us maybe 90 seconds to find the article Kennedy was talking about. Beyond that, the Ken Vogel Politico piece—the piece Hill praised for its accuracy during her impeachment testimony—has also been kept from view on "corporate liberal" cable and in all such tribal venues.

Kennedy cited Politico too. That said, Hill's comments in praise of Vogel's piece have of course been disappeared.

Did Ukraine "intervene" or "meddle" in the last election? We don't regard that as a hugely important question. That said, it would be amazingly easy to report what Kennedy is talking about, and then to proceed from there.

We humans aren't wired to play it that way! In recent weeks, people like Williams, Scarborough and Luce have agreed that you must never be told what Kennedy's talking about.

This morning, the feel of the early 1950s crept from our TV machine. Morning Joe went palpably Tailgunner Joe. And as we fact-checked Luce, we thought of our tribe's Darling Rachel.

Way back when, in April 2012, she appeared on Meet the Press and made an inaccurate statement. On that day, she said, again and again, that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar, compared to men, "for doing the same work."

No specialist actually makes that claim; no specialist claims anything like that. Yes, it's sacred tribal text—but it's also bogus, and that's easy to learn.

Rachel was challenged on Meet the Press that day; she kept insisting that she was right. That sacred text had always struck us as hugely improbable on its face, but we'd never fact-checked it before—and so, that day, we did.

It took us maybe three or four minutes to see that the sacred text was ginormously bogus. But so what? The following night, Rachel went on the air and claimed that she had spent the whole day trying to figure out why she'd been challenged. She devoted at least half her program that night to this blatant charade.

Presumably, Rachel was lying to her viewers that night. Skillfully, though, she even brought an academic on her program that night to acknowledge the fact that the tribal scripture was wrong while seeming to do the opposite. In these, and in similar ways, our species plays with words.

This is the way our "human race" is actually built to function. When push comes to shove, the truth becomes clear:

In the end, we aren't "the rational animal" at all! According to expert anthropologists, we've always been something different:
Man [sic] is the highly tribal, war-inclined animal, given to tribal fictions.
With the current impeachment fight sealing Donald J. Trump's re-election, our own hapless "liberal" tribe is becoming more and more frantic. We'll examine this horrible fact all week, with reference to recent behaviors, some of which we'll try to treat as comic relief.

At the New York Times, Charles Blow's screed about Thanksgiving involves some of the most comical attempts at "journalism" we've ever seen. The screed was accompanied by Professor Silverman's screed on the same topic, a screed which brought a slightly stronger whiff of Stalinism in.

We're going to try to treat those screeds, and others like them, as comic relief. Also, though, there was the essay at The Root which called Candidate Buttigieg "a lying MF"—an essay which has been granted full tribal respect wherever our failing tribe's unhelpful loathings are sold.

Then too, the complaints about "likability." What risible creatures are we!

In the past few years, we've tried to tell you that you have to adopt a new paradigm, viewpoint or framework. You have to stop seeing other humans as "rational animals" who occasionally stray.

Instead, you need to see us as we are:
Man [sic] is the tribal, war-inclined animal given to dealing in fictions.
At present, our tribe is working to keep Trump where he is. We'll try to see the comical side of this tribal disaster all through the rest of the week.

But if we might borrow from demonic Nietzsche, our species is nonhuman, all too nonhuman! Don't believe the voice which tells you that this can't be true.

Coming next year: From the wall of the cave to "the set of all sets!" It all started with Socrates, and other high comical tales