Should officers have shot Andrew Brown?

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021

Beachum outlines the basics: Should officers have shot Andrew Brown as he tried to escape arrest?

We can't answer that question. As a general matter, our preference would be that police officers fire their guns only when it's absolutely necessary, but it's still a bit unclear what happened in this situation. 

Then too, there's prevailing law and prevailing departmental policies.

Yesterday, Pasquotank County D.A. Andrew Womble said the officers were justified in what they did. We can't evaluate that judgment, but we thought the Washington Post's Lateshia Beachum did an unusually good job this morning laying out the elementary facts of what seems to have happened that morning.

Watching CNN's endless treatment of this incident, we were struck by the channel's lazy indifference to a basic journalistic task—the basic task of describing the basic facts  of what actually happened on the day in question. CNN stars were much more eager to move ahead to statements of opinion. 

There was little attempt to describe what actually happened. Had Brown been sitting in his car when the deputies arrived that morning? How had he maneuvered his car as he tried to flee? 

We were amazed by CNN's lazy indifference to such elementary scene-setting questions. We thought Beachum did an excellent job this morning sketching the basic outline of that morning's rapid-fire events, at least as they were outlined by Womble:

BEACHUM (5/19/21): During the news conference, Womble recounted the events of April 21: 

Brown was sitting in his dark BMW on the day officers from multiple agencies attempted to serve search and arrest warrants based on alleged drug activity. Around 8:23 a.m., a detective drove his vehicle in front of Brown’s to prevent any forward movement.

Two deputies approached Brown’s car on the driver side as two others moved toward the passenger side with guns drawn as they gave commands to Brown, according to clips of the video Womble played at the news conference.

Brown threw down his phone as officers approached closer and quickly backed his car away from officers as one had his hand on Brown’s driver door handle. That deputy was pulled over the hood of the car, according to Womble.

When Brown backed up enough to the point where he was blocked by his home, he turned his steering wheel to his left toward law enforcement officers, who were scrambling to get out of the way and yelling for him to stop, according to Womble and video footage.

The first shot was fired during this moment, piercing the front windshield of Brown’s car as his vehicle continued to move. More shots followed, hitting Brown’s passenger window and rear passenger side door while his vehicle continued to accelerate across a vacant lot toward a white van occupied by an investigator. Officers fired five additional shots, which went through Brown’s rear windshield and trunk.

The total elapsed time from the first gunshot to the last was five seconds, which conflicts with eyewitness statements shared with the public, Womble noted.

Brown was slumped over when deputies opened his driver’s side door, prompting one to call out for emergency medical services, video showed.

Beachum attributed some of these statements to Womble, some to "Womble and video footage," some to what "video showed." 

In once case, she mentioned an apparent problem with some eyewitness statements. In our experience, this was the clearest account from any journalist concerning the basics of what actually happened that day. You rarely see a modern journalist stick so closely to the old-fashioned who/what/when approach.

On CNN, they rush to hand you opinion. In fairness, it's almost always of the wholly infallible kind. 

After that, the channel's stars let us know how much they love each other. We're supposed to believe the various statements made by these giant huge stars. 


ANTHROPOLOGY UNBOUND: "Back out of all this now too much for us"...

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021

...1 + 1 meets the wage gap: As we noted yesterday, Bertrand Russell discussed the true meaning of 1 + 1 in his classic 1903 text, The Principles of Mathematics.

He did so on page 6 of the text—and the text began on page 3!

More precisely, Russell defined the true meaning of  "1 + 1 = 2." As you may recall, he said this:

1 + 1 = 2 appears neither to contain variables nor to assert an implication. But as a matter of fact, as will be shown in Part II, the true meaning of this proposition is: “If x is one and y is one, and x differs from y, then x and y are two.”  

 As he continued, he stated his point in a different way: 

Thus the above proposition may be expressed in the form: “Any unit and any other unit are two units.” 

For fuller passages from Russell's text, see yesterday's report.

It's easy to make fun of such work. Today, we'll note that Russell's pursuit of 1 + 1 continued in his later, more significant text, Principia Mathematica (1910-1913), which he co-wrote with Alfred North Whitehead. 

In 2009, the Modern Library rated the three-volume Principia #23 in its list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century. That said, the leading authority on that work displays an excerpt where Russell and Whitehead append the following comment to a rather abstruse chain of symbolic logic:

"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1 + 1 = 2."

You can see the abstruse passage in question simply by clicking this link, then scrolling down a small tad.

It's easy to make fun of such work. But was there, and is there, some actual point to such deliberations?

Frankly, we have no idea, in part because specialists in the field seem to have a very hard time offering accounts of such work which will make any sense at all to the general reader. As we've noted many times in the past, explanation is hard!

For us, these deliberations started early last week. Why did we dig out our old copy of The Principles of Mathematics, trying to see, or perhaps to recall, what Russell's endeavor was all about?

We'd gone there based on something we read in our "most interesting" book of the past twenty years. We refer to Professor Goldstein's 2005 general interest work, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel.

By our lights, Professor Goldstein's account of Russell's work, and the academic motives behind it,  was so abstruse—so incomprehensible—that we decided to go back and take a quick look for ourselves. But why were we revisiting Goldstein's book, which includes some of the most puzzling revelations we have ever encountered?

We're going to blame it on Petula Dvorak—more specifically, on her column in the Washington Post about the gender wage / pay / earnings gap. In fairness, though, it's time for a confession:

In recent weeks, we'd been finding it harder and harder to endure the banality of "cable news," or to confront the steady-state lack of analytical skill on display in Our Town's leading newspapers. 

The banality of Our Town's discourse was harder and harder to take. Then, along came Dvorak's treatment of one of the Our Town's favorite pieces of tribal dogma.

For the record, we take it as obvious that Dvorak is a good, decent person. That said, she seems to be extremely beholden to Our Town's preferred Storylines—or at least, so it seems around here.

One such treasured Storyline involves the gender wage gap, whose ontology our warriors love to misstate. With that in mind, we give Dvorka credit:

As she opened her column, she kept her claims technically accurate. When it comes to the gender wage gap, that's something Our Town's thought leaders frequently fail to do. 

Her column had a Mother's Day hook. Hard-copy headline included, here's the way it started:

DVORAK (5/7/21): The best Mother’s Day gift? Equal pay.

Flower's? Scented candles? Brunch?

Nice Mother’s Day gifts, sure. But what America’s moms really deserve—and want—is their 25 cents.

You’ve already heard about the gender wage gap, how women make 82 cents for every dollar a man makes.

But wait until you hear how insanely inequitable it is for mothers—on average, moms in the full-time, American workforce make 75 cents for every dollar a dad makes. And the coronavirus pandemic is making that gap so much worse.

Dvorak did say that this shortfall in wages in "insanely inequitable." She did say that America's moms "deserve" that 25 cents.

That said, let's give credit where due! She didn't say that women were paid 82 cents on the dollars for doing the same (or equal) work. She didn't directly state that familiar part of the tribal talking-point.

Dvorak didn't include that extra phrase—the extra phrase Rachel Maddow included on her famous Meet the Press debacle, which she spent thirty minutes explaining away the next night. Dvorak said that women earn less than men—but she didn't claim that they encounter that 18- or 25-cent gap while doing the same or equal work.

At this site, we can teach Dvorak's omission flat or round. On the one hand, her omission of that phrase kept her statements technically accurate. Her omission of that phrase meant that her statements weren't false.

On the other hand, her avoidance of that common phrase suggests an unflattering possibility:

It suggests the possibility that she knows the facts about this treasured talking-point—that she was willing to mislead her readers, just so long as she didn't make a flatly inaccurate statement.

We can't tell you what Dvorak was thinking as she composed her column. We can tell you what came next.

In her first four grafs, she was advancing a familiar misconception without ever stating it herself. In her next paragraph, she offered a groaning pre-rebuttal rebuttal. Her column continued like this:

DVORAK (continuing directly): Hold on, men who are already pecking out their nastygrams, mansplaining that the wage gap exists because moms stay home or go part-time while they raise your spawn, so that break in employment is actually what creates the Wage Gap Gulch.

Yes and no. Even as teens, women make less than men. At the start of this year, the median weekly wage for male 16- to 19-year-olds was $511. For female teens, it was $467, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In fact, such breaks in employment are one factor, though they aren't the only factor, in creating that overall earnings gap. As she continued, Dvorak kept suggesting that women get shortchanged in some inappropriate way even when they're teens.

No, she didn't explicitly say that. But that was what she was clearly suggesting—and when we clicked to her Bureau of Labor Statistics, we quickly hit upon two explicit disclaimers saying the statistics shouldn't be used for the very type of comparison Dvorak seemed to be making.

You can find those explicit statements yourself if you choose to click. The kill shot in Dvorak's column was that pitiful pre-rebuttal aimed at those who might try to "mansplain" any such point.

Truly, that's pitiful / hopeless. But so it now endlessly goes at the major news orgs here in Our hapless Town.

At some point, the foolishness grows so deep that even we may come to see that it's time to step away from the serial nonsense. Even we may come to feel that the anthropologists have been right all along—that they've been right when they've told us this:

We humans are the tribal animal. At times of tribal division and societal stress, our brains are wired to churn Storyline while damning The Others, full and complete total stop.

Despondent top anthropologists have constantly told us that. Sometimes, the evidences becomes so comically vast that even we may come to see that there's no point in laboring on.

Dvorak was penning a tribally pleasing bit of agitprop this day. To appearances, she wasn't willing to say things which were flatly false—but she was willing to settle for "grossly misleading."

Also this:

In her mind, she could apparently hear the corrections or challenges coming! So she penned a pre-rebuttal, relying on the kind of rebuttal-by-identity group which now holds enormous sway in the sillybill streets of Our Town.

No, we didn't decide to quit just because of that column! But at some point, even the most determined guide will temporarily come to feel that the game has been lost. (We think of Plato's Seventh Letter, or of Harrison Ford in Witness.)

On cable news, the usual suspects were churning the usual pap about locking Others up. In the Washington Post, a string of columnists churned tribal dogma, though no single piece of work put us over the top.

Still, we decided it was time to turn to the loftier stuff. And a reasonable length of time had passed since we'd thumbed through Goldstein's book.

We decided to revisit our favorite passages, wondering how they'd seem. Tomorrow, we'll show you what we found there—but soon we were on to Lord Russell's work, including his ruminations on the true meaning of 1 + 1.

It's possible to imagine that there actually was a point to this strain of high-end work. That said, the later Wittgenstein finally walked away from such work:

"Back out of all this now too much for us," as Robert Frost once wrote.

Did Lord Russell's work make sense, or was the later Wittgenstein right? More strikingly, could the claims of top anthropologists possibly be correct? Is it possible that our brains weren't made for most analytical work?

Tomorrow: "The mind crashes," she strangely said. Why in the world would she say that?

Concerning the actual gender wage / pay / earnings gap: It's been explained a million times, for the most part to no avail. 

We humans cling to our Storylines! If you're interested in the apparent true state of the gender wage / pay / earnings gap, you should start noodling around.


Slate handles the Gates/French Gates divorce!

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

Elementary blocking and tackling: Exactly as we were at one time, Sofia Andrade is a sophomore in college (Harvard, class of 2023).

For whatever reason, Slate assigned Andrade to provide a news report on the Gates/French Gates divorce. Andrade is listed an intern at the devolving and occasionally comical site.

Stating the obvious, there's nothing wrong with being young, or even youngish, until such time as there may be. That said, we were struck by the way Andrade (and her unnamed editors) handled the basic blocking and tackling of her news report.

First, a bit of disclosure. We don't know anything about the marriage in question, nor are we hugely interested.  But just as a matter of basic theory, if a news org is going to list the things we've learned about some topic, they probably ought to list various things we have actually learned.

That seems to be the promise that's made at the start of Andrade's report. Here it is, headline included:

The Key Details That Have Emerged About Bill Gates’ “Irretrievably Broken” Marriage

The announcement of Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates’ split after 27 years of marriage has left many shocked, in part due to their finely crafted image of marital stability and Gates’ image as a “nerdy do-gooder.” But since then, media outlets have turned the spotlight on Gates, opening up a slew of questions surrounding the Microsoft co-founder’s behavior during what French Gates, in her petition for divorce, called an “irretrievably broken” marriage. In case you haven’t yet had time to dig through the details of the reporting that emerged this past weekend, here are the highlights of what we’ve learned so far.

Here are the highlights of what we’ve learned, Slate says; these are "the key details." Immediately, though—continuing directly—Slate proceeds to tell us this.

Shortly after the announcement, People and the Daily Beast published reports on the yearslong relationship between Gates and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The two men were first connected in 2011, three years after Epstein had been convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution. According to the Daily Beast, Gates made dozens of visits to Epstein’s New York mansion, where they allegedly discussed how the Microsoft co-founder could end what he called a “toxic” marriage, as well as Epstein’s potential involvement in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “Going to Jeffrey’s was a respite from his marriage. It was a way of getting away from Melinda,” one source told the Daily Beast, a characterization that a representative for Gates disputed as “inaccurate.”

Are those among the things we've actually "learned?" According to that passage, we've "learned" that something allegedly was discussed, according to the Daily Beast. Also, we've learned that one (1) source told the Daily Beast something—something which was then disputed by a rep for Gates.

Does Slate understand the difference between things we've learned and things which have been alleged? We ask because this is extremely basic conceptual blocking and tackling, journalism-wise. 

The general problem doesn't necessarily stop at Slate. As we've read about this topic in the New York Times, we've been struck by the  flimsy way the paper has sourced the various elements of its reporting.

It isn't just that the Times isn't naming its sources, who seem to be fairly small in number. The Times seems to be making very little or no effort to indicate their affiliations in any way at all. 

This brings us to the sentence with which Andrade closes her Slate report: 

ANDRADE: French Gates allegedly opposed the relationship between Gates and Epstein from the beginning. That relationship, the Wall Street Journal reported, ultimately led French Gates to seek out divorce lawyers as early as October 2019, when the ties between Gates and Epstein became public. In the end, as Bill Gates’ reputation reels in the wake of this reporting, one takeaway feels undeniable: French Gates has handled the fallout impressively. As journalist Sarah Jones tweeted, “nothing but respect for Melinda Gates’s PR team.”

One takeaway feels undeniable, we're now reliably told. Except hmmm. Was Jones perhaps casting some shade with her possibly snarky reference to "[French] Gates's PR team?"

Inquiring minds have no idea. That said, quite a few of Jones' commenters seemed to perhaps and possibly maybe take it that way. Tweets about gossip can be like that in the streets of everyone's towns.

Why not stick with what Slate does best?: Why not stick with what Slate does best—the eye-catching "advice" column which makes readers wonder if the personal problem being addressed is actually a confection?

As we've noted in the past, Slate columnists sometimes wonder whether they're getting played by their advice-seeking correspondents. Dan Kois didn't do so in this report, so we had to wonder for him:

Help! My Daughter Is Determined to Move Out Even if She Ends Up Homeless
BY DAN KOIS /  MAY 17, 2021 / 3:07 PM

The communication to which Kois was responding sounded perhaps a bit phony to us. That of course is part of the fun of what's left of Slate. 

College sophomores, gullible vets? Is this journalistic life in decline here in the streets of Our Town?


Good sound advice, circa '74...

 TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

...as offered by Jackson Browne: Last Saturday's report about the Boston nun with all the skulls sent out thoughts screaming back to this song by Jackson Browne.

We hadn't thought of it for a long time. Along the way, it offers some good sound advice:

Keep a fire for the human race
Let your prayers go drifting into space
You never know what will be coming down...
The song begins as a memorial for a friend who died way too young. By its midway point, it's offering that good sound advice.

Banality is all around us. How about keeping a fire for the kids born today? For the kids who are just ten years old?


ANTHROPOLOGY UNBOUND: Defining the meaning of 1 + 1!

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

Anthropologists float theory: Very frankly, we almost felt triggered. 

We'd turned to the leading authority on Bertrand Russell's 1903 classic text, The Principles of Mathematics. 

"The book presents a view of the foundations of mathematics and Meinongianism and has become a classic reference," we were quickly told.

We'll admit that we knew nothing of this Meinongianism. But when we clicked the kink we'd been provided, we were confronted with this:

[Meinong's] theory of objects, now known as "Meinongian object theory," is based around the purported empirical observation that it is possible to think about something, such as a golden mountain, even though that object does not exist. Since we can refer to such things, they must have some sort of being. Meinong thus distinguishes the "being" of a thing, in virtue of which it may be an object of thought, from a thing's "existence", which is the substantive ontological status ascribed to—for example—horses but not to unicorns. 

Since we can refer to some entity we have imagined, it must have some sort of being! 

Already, our youthful analysts felt triggered. They felt triggered even before they reached the important distinction between the "being" and the "existence" of some such imagined entity.

We understood the youngsters' deep discomfort. For ourselves, we'll have to admit, we felt divinely amused!

For now let's return to Meinong's theory of object:

Since we can discuss some entity we have imagined, it must have some sort of being! Stating the obvious, that passage traffics in a kind of conceptual madness.

In the face of such attacks on sanity, we humans will often defer to academic authority. Given the high academic source, we'll assume that there must be something of substance to the puzzling claim at hand.

In making such charitable assumptions, might we humans be wrong? 

Here at this site, we'd dug out our antique copy of Russell's text as an act of renunciation. Our Town's public discourse had reached a point of such vapidity that we found it hard to watch "cable news" or to bother with the foolishness found in our major newspapers.

In a flight from this banality, we had returned to loftier concerns, and to one favorite book—Rebecca Goldstein's Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel. That favorite book had sent us back to Russell's concerns with the "foundations of mathematics."

Soon, we were reading about Meinong's theory of objects. While the analysts were triggered by the passage we've quoted, we were filled with a type of delight.

Sometimes, you just have to laugh, a bit like the god on Olympus. As we were first told in undergraduate days, the tortured ruminations of the western world's "philosophers" may, or may not, make sense.

That said, these ruminations will often provide a type of amusement. On page 4 of Russell's classic text, we found him saying this about the state of philosophy as it had existed:

RUSSELL (page 4): The Philosophy of Mathematics has been hitherto as controversial, obscure and unprogressive as the other branches of philosophy. Although it was generally agreed that mathematics is in some sense true, philosophers disputed as to what mathematical propositions really meant: although something was true, no two people were agreed as to what it was that was true, and if something was known, no one knew what it was that was known. So long, however, as this was doubtful, it could hardly be said that any certain and exact knowledge was to be obtained in mathematics. We find, accordingly, that idealists have tended more and more to regard all mathematics as dealing with mere appearance, while empiricists have held everything mathematical to be approximation to some exact truth about which they had nothing to tell us. This state of things, it must be confessed, was thoroughly unsatisfactory. 

At the start of that passage, Russell seems to speak poorly of the various branches of philosophy circa 1903. The amusement begins when he describes the disputes among philosophers as to what mathematical statements mean.

"Although something was true, no two people were agreed as to what it was that was true, and if something was known, no one knew what it was that was known," Russell lamented. 

Given this state of affairs, "it could hardly be said that any certain and exact knowledge was to be obtained in mathematics," Russell  then said. "This state of things, it must be confessed, was thoroughly unsatisfactory.". 

One who is inclined to defer may assume that Russell is speaking here of some highly abstruse region of higher mathematics. 

Apparently not! Two pages later, his classic text offers this:

RUSSELL (page 6): Mathematical propositions are not only characterized by the fact that they assert implications, but also by the fact that they contain variables. The notion of the variable is one of the most difficult with which Logic has to deal, and in the present work a satisfactory theory as to its nature, in spite of much discussion, will hardly be found. For the present, I only wish to make it plain that there are variables in all mathematical propositions, even where at first sight they might seem to be absent. Elementary Arithmetic might be thought to form an exception: 1 + 1 = 2 appears neither to contain variables nor to assert an implication. But as a matter of fact, as will be shown in Part II, the true meaning of this proposition is: “If x is one and y is one, and x differs from y, then x and y are two.” 

In that passage, Russell seems to explain what 1 + 1 = 2 truly means. This simplest of all arithmetical statements actually means this:

“If x is one and y is one, and x differs from y, then x and y are two.” 

Finally, someone had said it! 

Russell said he was going to prove it in Part II of his book. Meanwhile, at the end of that paragraph, Russell takes things even further: 

RUSSELL (continuing directly): And this proposition both contains variables and asserts an implication. We shall find always, in all mathematical propositions, that the words any or some occur; and these words are the marks of a variable and a formal implication. Thus the above proposition may be expressed in the form: “Any unit and any other unit are two units.”

Any unit and any other unit are two units! 1 + 1 = 2 may be expressed in that form.

Those who are inclined to defer will assume that we're on our way to something truly significant. For ourselves, we decided to turn to the leading authority for a quick overview of Russell's classic text. 

Instantly, we were linked to Meinong's theory of objects, which—let's be perfectly clear—comes from from the realm of conceptual madness, at least as it is described.

(According to the leading authority, Russell agreed with that "theory of objects," until such time as he didn't)

Does any of this make any sense? We who defer will be inclined to assume that it simply must.

Russell occupied the western world's highest level of academic authority. It's hard to believe that the work of such intellectual giants could really have been the work of a type of madness.

That said, anthropologists have whispered to us that the gods on Olympus continue to laugh, right to the present day. According to these credentialed experts, the later Wittgenstein sits by their side, obsequiously assuring them that they had it right all along.

Within the journalistic realm, Our Town's daily discourse has reached a point of almost complete banality. The dumbness is on full display, even over here in Our Town..

Might it be, anthropologists ask, that the jumbled wiring of our human brains has produced similar manifestations on much higher levels, possibly extending all the way back to the dawn of the west? Could our journalistic incompetence be part of a larger mess?

Were the Olympians right when they laughed? In our experience, leading experts—anthropologists—glumly continue to ask.

Tomorrow: Whatever may seem to come next 


Sociologist critiques behavior Over Here!

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2021

Consulting with anthropologists?: Kelly Donohue is a bank examiner for the state of Massachusetts. 

Late last month, he went national as a three-time Jeopardy! winner. He was victorious his first three nights, was defeated his fourth time out.

In his weekly Media Equation column in this morning's New York Times, Ben Smith discusses one unfortunate part of Donohue's run of success. After watching Donohue's fourth and final appearance, a group of former Jeopardy! contestants became convinced that they'd seen him flash a three-finger "white supremacist" sign.

The other possibility is a bit more mundane—Donohue may have been displaying three fingers to signify his three wins. According to Smith, a photo of Donohue in a MAGA hat helped recommend the less flattering interpretation, at least for the Facebook group of former contestants.

Was Donohue simply showing three fingers to signify his three wins? As a review of the tapes makes clear, he had flashed two fingers the previous night, signifying his two wins to date. Also, he'd held up one finger when he was introduced on the second night, following his first win.

He flashed three fingers that last night, apparently signifying his three wins. But the former contestants became convinced that he'd flashed a white power sign.

By now, the Snopes site has judged that Donohue was unfairly charged. So has the Anti-Defamation League. 

As for Smith, he's mainly impressed by the fact that a bunch of smart former Jeopardy! contestants were willing to draw a shaky conclusion  on the basis of limited evidence:

SMITH (5/17/21): [T]he element of this story that interests me most is how the beating heart of nerdy, liberal fact-mastery can pump blood into wild social media conspiracy, and send all these smart people down the sort of rabbit hole that leads other groups of Americans to believe that children are being transported inside refrigerators. And, I wanted to know, how they could remain committed to that point of view in the absence of any solid evidence.

[...]

Mr. Donohue had tried to explain himself after the episode aired and accusations of covert white supremacy began turning up on his personal Facebook page. “That’s a 3. No more. No less,” he wrote. “There wasn’t a hidden agenda or any malice behind it.”

His fellow former contestants responded harshly in their letter to his attempt to explain himself. “Most problematic to us as a contestant community is the fact that Kelly has not publicly apologized for the ramifications of the gesture he made,” they wrote. That prompted him to “reject and condemn white supremacy” in a second statement.

[...]

I should stress again that these are smart people, who were in general more polite than the journalists who reluctantly take my calls most weeks. And that, I think, is the point here. The contestants’ investigations of Mr. Donohue had all the signal traits of a normal social media hunt gone awry—largely, that you assume your conclusion and go looking for evidence.

To Smith, these were smart, nerdy people behaving like a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theorists. They were acting as if you should reach your conclusion first, then go looking for evidence. 

To Smith, their behavior "reflect[ed] a depth of alienation among Americans, in which our warring tribes squint through the fog at one another for mysterious and abstruse signs of malice."

Is that a fair assessment of what the former contestants did? If it is, we wouldn't find such behavior hugely surprising. And good lord! When Smith cast about for a way to understand this behavior, look what one sociologist had recently written:

SMITH: The sociologist Zeynep Tufekci wrote recently about the liberal blind spot on how, to put it in her academic terminology, “polarization has eaten a lot of our brains.” In the media, she writes, “there’s been a lot of focus on misinformation over there,” among right-wingers who deny the reality of Covid-19, for instance. “But then there is the misinformation over here which is also quite persistent and also wildly wrong.”  (Tufekci's italics)

To Smith, it almost looked like we in Our Town can behave like a warring tribe too! As for Tufekci, we were struck by the language the sociologist had chosen to use in this essay last month.

We liberals tend to focus on the misinformation we can spot "over there," Tufekci wrote. But there's also a lot of misinformation "over here," she said.

We're inclined to agree! We even wondered if Tufekci has been consulting with the same credentialed anthropologists from whom we've gained so many insights over the past several years.

Our imperfect human brains are wired for such reactions, these despondent experts have persistently said. At times of tribal division and stress, we will behave in such ways Over Here, unless we're careful to check ourselves.  

In our view, Our Town behaves in such ways with depressing frequency. But just as Tufekci said, it's easy for us liberals to spot this kind of behavior when it occurs Over There. 

It's harder to see it Over Here, where the people are all above average. We humans are wired to see things that way, top major experts have said.


Starting tomorrow: ANTHROPOLOGY UNBOUND!

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2021

Commitment to our ongoing task: Over the weekend, strange as it seems, we dug out our copy of The Principles of Mathematics, Bertrand Russell's famous text.

We dug out our copy of the book and briefly applied ourselves to it. Our book had been priced at $2.95. We'd purchased the book while in college!

Why would we dig out our copy of Russell's book?. You're asking an excellent question. It's a question we'll address as the week proceeds. 

For today, we'd like to give you a quick look at some of what we found.

As some may know, The Principles of Mathematics (1903) is a separate text from Principia Mathematica, the three-volume work published by Russell and Alfred North Whitehead starting in 1910.

The Principles of Mathematics is the shorter, simpler text. But because it's difficult, at first glance, to know what Lord Russell is, or could be, talking about, we turned to the leading authority on the book for a stab at a quick overview.

We flung ourselves on that account. It started off like this:

The Principles of Mathematics is a 1903 book by Bertrand Russell, in which the author presented his famous paradox and argued his thesis that mathematics and logic are identical.

The book presents a view of the foundations of mathematics and Meinongianism and has become a classic reference. It reported on developments by Giuseppe Peano, Mario Pieri, Richard Dedekind, Georg Cantor, and others.

As we've noted in the past, Russell's "famous paradox" grew out of his tortured ruminations concerning "the set of all sets not members of themselves." For today, we're going to leave that right there.

Meanwhile, is Russell's thesis actually true? Is it true that mathematics and logic are identical?

Full disclosure: We don't have the slightest idea. In truth, don't even know what that statement might mean. 

We wouldn't even necessarily swear that the statement means anything at all in the end. We've been in this maze too long!

That said, "Meinongianism!" We'll admit we'd never heard the term, but there it was in print: According to the leading authority, Russell's text "presents a view of the foundations of mathematics and Meinongianism and has become a classic reference."

Meinongianism! Inevitably, we we clicked the link which had been provided. When we did, here's the start of what we found:

Alexius Meinong Ritter von Handschuchsheim (1853 – 1920) was an Austrian philosopher, a realist known for his unique ontology. He also made contributions to philosophy of mind and theory of value.

[...]

Meinong wrote two early essays on David Hume, the first dealing with his theory of abstraction, the second with his theory of relations, and was relatively strongly influenced by British empiricism. He is most noted, however, for his edited book Theory of Objects (full title: Investigations in Theory of Objects and Psychology, 1904), which grew out of his work on intentionality and his belief in the possibility of intending nonexistent objects. Whatever can be the target of a mental act, Meinong calls an "object."

Perhaps as part of his unique ontology, Meinong believed in "the possibility of intending nonexistent objects." Inevitably, we found ourselves being drawn in at this point. 

Still, there may have been a bit of fuzz in what we had read so far.  Hungry for knowledge, we continue to read—and this is what we found:

His theory of objects, now known as "Meinongian object theory," is based around the purported empirical observation that it is possible to think about something, such as a golden mountain, even though that object does not exist. Since we can refer to such things, they must have some sort of being. Meinong thus distinguishes the "being" of a thing, in virtue of which it may be an object of thought, from a thing's "existence", which is the substantive ontological status ascribed to—for example—horses but not to unicorns. 

Let's start at the beginning of that passage, using slightly simpler language:

According to a "purported empirical observation" which was part of Meinong's "theory of objects," it's possible to think about something—for example, a unicorn—even though it doesn't exist!

That struck us as a somewhat underwhelming "observation." Still though, we were initially intrigued by this:

"Since we can refer to such [imaginary] things, they must have some sort of being!" 

At this point, we still felt fairly sure that we were following Meinong's chain of thought. According to Meinong's theory of objects, imaginary entities have some sort of "being" even though they don't exactly "exist!"

To us, it sounded like good, solid stuff! Then we stole a glance at the faces of the youthful analysts who assist, aid and help us in everything we do.

By now, the youngsters were delivering their frozen, thousand-yard stares. They said they'd been through this sort of thing in  their college "philosophy" course—various courses which were imposed on them by various "professors."

The youngsters were recalling the pain of those earlier days. We didn't want them to know the worst, but the leading authority on Meinongianism proceeded to bring it back home::

Historically, Meinong has been treated, especially by Gilbert Ryle, as an eccentric whose theory of objects was allegedly dealt a severe blow in Bertrand Russell's essay "On Denoting" (1905). However, Russell himself thought highly of the vast majority of Meinong's work and, until formulating his theory of descriptions, held similar views about nonexistent objects.

Instructive! Until formulating his "theory of descriptions," Russell had generally agreed with Meinong's "theory of objects." The young analysts tore at their hair.

As we've noted in the past, our favorite books have always been the ones which don't make sense. With respect to the kinds of theories being discussed in the passages we've quoted, the later Wittgenstein dared to suggest that such theories may not exactly make sense.

These "theories" had come from the very top levels of the western world's intellectual establishment. When we see this kind of work coming from our culture's  highest platforms, can we really be surprised by the various forms of incoherence and clatter we encounter even now, every day, in Our Town's most respected top newspapers?

Before the week is done, we'll show you Lord Russell's elaborate proof of the claim that 1 plus 1 equals 2. As our society slides toward the sea, is it possible that work of that type carries a substantial type of anthropological significance?

Major experts say it does. Extending our great anthropological project, we'll examine their claim all week.

He proved that 1 plus 1 equals 2! No, we aren't making that up.

Tomorrow: Whatever may seem to come next


BREAKING: Silliness is as silliness does!

SATURDAY, MAY 15, 2021

Forrest Gump visits the Times: This morning's New York Times offers high-visibility personal profiles of three different people.

One profile appears on the paper's front page. The other two top the newspaper's International section. Here are the three principal headlines:

Meet the Nun Who Wants You to Remember You Will Die

Miss Universe Myanmar Arrives in Florida With a Message for the Junta

Prince Harry Shares ‘Pain and Suffering’ of Growing Up in Royal Family

Sad! Needless to say, the former punk-rocker nun with the skull on her desk was hurried to the front page. At the New York Times, sub-headlines like this sound extremely deep and intriguing.

Meet the Nun Who Wants You to Remember You Will Die
Suffering and death are facts of life: “Everyone dies, their bodies rot, and every face becomes a skull.”

Intriguing! No really, that sounds extra-deep!

For ourselves, we hadn't realized, until this very day, that Ruth Graham, a good decent person, had achieved an escape from Slate. Graham wrote the front-page profile of Sister Theresa Aletheia Noble, complete with a triggering dateline.

The profile graces the paper's front page. The profile starts like this:

BOSTON—Before she entered the Daughters of St. Paul convent in 2010, Sister Theresa Aletheia Noble read a biography of the order’s founder, an Italian priest who was born in the 1880s. He kept a ceramic skull on his desk, as a reminder of the inevitability of death. Sister Aletheia, a punk fan as a teenager, thought the morbid curio was “super punk rock,” she recalled recently. She thought vaguely about acquiring a skull for herself someday.

These days, Sister Aletheia has no shortage of skulls. People send her skull mugs and skull rosaries in the mail, and share photos of their skull tattoos. A ceramic skull from a Halloween store sits on her desk. Her Twitter name includes a skull and crossbones emoji.

That is because since 2017, she has made it her mission to revive the practice of memento mori, a Latin phrase meaning “Remember your death.” The concept is to intentionally think about your own death every day, as a means of appreciating the present and focusing on the future. It can seem radical in an era in which death—until very recently—has become easy to ignore.

At the Times, this sort of thing stacks up as thoughtful and cool.

According to the Times' front page, we live in an era "in which death—until very recently—ha[d] become easy to ignore." Before long, Graham explains what that odd statement means:

"The pandemic, of course, has made death impossible to forget."

Until the pandemic came along, were we living in an era in which death had become easy to ignore? We're prepared to say that the answer is yes, unless you had access to newspapers.

(Or unless you grew up in the Catholic church! Everywhere you look in such churches, you see images of a gruesome death, accomplished amid vast suffering.)

In our own experience, Boston nuns of the 1950s were selling that iconography to small children in  angry and negative ways. Today, the Times is intrigued by the 40-year-old nun with all the skulls, the one who's helping death make a comeback.

Had death become easy to ignore begore the pandemic came along? Not exactly! For example, children were dying in Iraq, often alongside their parents. After that, children were drowning in the Mediterranean. Some people had died in the Holocaust!

Had the nun and her followers heard about that? Did the former punk-rocker nun with the skulls and her followers care?

Today, the Times is treating the nun, with a hat tip to Arsenio Hall, as someone who makes you go oooh. Meanwhile, Miss Universe Myanmar is deeply invested in courageous behavior with respect to the dying and dead in her dangerous nation. Remarkable people of her stripe deserve every person's respect.

As for Prince Harry, he didn't ask to be born a royal. He has every right to think his situation through.

That said, does the Times have to hang on every word? Dearest darlings, use your heads! In its finer precincts, out in the Hamptons, this is the reigning culture of the fatuous, failing enterprise widely described as Our Town!

Meet the Nun Who Wants You to Remember You Will Die? In our view, Miss Universe Myanmar—Ma Thuzar Wint Lwin—shows us what a very insightful, very brave person might be willing to do after that!

Also, Greta Thunberg: Also, Greta Thunberg! She shows us what a very bright person might be willing to undertake on behalf of the young and the living.

Top report in National: Also this! The top report in the National section appears beneath this headline:

A.O.C. Had a Catchy Logo. Now Progressives Everywhere Are Copying It.

Please don't get excited! This top report doesn't focus on AOC's policy views. It covers "the slanted text in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s logo, and its break from the traditional red, white and blue color palette." 

(Presumably, no pun intended!)


Statistics can be amazingly hard!

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2021

Especially for upper-end journalists: Statistics are amazingly hard, especially for upper-end journalists.

For today, let's consider an error which doesn't matter. After that, let's consider an omission which pretty much does.

An error which doesn't much matter:

Yesterday, Jonathan Chait was having some fun with the latest report about Trump. Along the way, he made this obvious error:

CHAIT (5/13/21): We should pause the narrative to point out that getting somebody in Washington to call Donald Trump an idiot is almost a trivially simple task. This is in fact one of the most widely held opinions in the United States as a whole. (One poll found that 39 percent of Americans volunteered the description “idiot” for the President.)

We didn't even have to fact-check the highlighted claim. Even before we checked it out, it was obvious what Chait had done.

First things first! Chait provided a link in support of the highlighted claim. Unfortunately, it was a classic "link to nowhere." It took us to this report from May 2017—a report which doesn't make the highlighted claim.

That earlier report did identify the specific poll to which Chait was referring That earlier report included a classic "useless link"—a link to the Quinnipiac web site, not to the specific poll to which the report referred.

Still, we were able to locate the specific poll in question—this Quinnipiac poll from May 10, 2017. Obviously, that poll didn't "find that 39 percent of Americans volunteered the description 'idiot' for [Trump]."

Obviously, that didn't happen. Here's what happened instead:

Question #9 in that poll was a classic "first word that comes to mind" question. Here's the text  of the question, exactly as it appears in the Quinnipiac report about the poll's results:

9. What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump? (Numbers are not percentages. Figures show the number of times each response was given. This table reports only words that were mentioned at least five times.)

Which part of "numbers are not percentages" don't journalists understand? We ask because journalists constantly make the kind of mistake Chait made in this case.

As Quinnipiac reported the results of that survey question, it reported that 39 people had volunteered the word "idiot" when asked about Donald J. Trump. But that wasn't 39 percent of the survey's respondents. It was 39 people—39 people total.

For better or worse, Quinnipiac had interviewed 1,078 people in conducting this poll. That means that 3.6% of respondents had volunteered the word "idiot," not the larger 39 percent.

Why do public polling companies keep asking such "top of mind" questions? We have no idea. They always include the statement saying that the numbers posted "are not percentages," and journalists always respond by acting like they are.

It doesn't matter how often this mistake is made. The next time around, the mistake will be made again. Which part of the simple word "not" don't top scribes understand?

An omission which likely does matter:

Chait's mistake is a classic head-scratcher but no, it doesn't matter. An omission in a new report by the Washington Post pretty much does, unless we prefer unfettered Storyline to full-blown depictions of fact.

Yesterday, this new report appeared online. It hasn't yet appeared in print editions. Its dual headlines say this:

Police shootings of children spark new outcry, calls for training to deal with adolescents in crisis
A Washington Post database of fatal force incidents finds most children shot by police are minorities and less likely to be armed than adults shot by police

The report concerns the number of "children"—actually, people under age 18—who have been shot and killed by police officers since the start of 2015.

The report's data come from the Post's Fatal Force site. The report offers this overview:

KINDY ET AL (5/13/21): [Stavian Rodriguez] is one of 112 children who have been fatally shot by police between Jan. 1, 2015, and Monday, according to a Washington Post database that tracks fatal police shootings. Over the same period of time, 6,168 adults were shot by police.

[...]

The database shows that the circumstances leading up to the shootings of children are varied, with about half beginning with a robbery, a traffic stop, a stolen car or a 911 call. Most of the incidents took place during daytime hours; only one appears to have involved alcohol use by the child; and 19 of the children were experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of the shooting.

The database shows that children are frequently armed with a gun or knife during these fatal police encounters, but not as often as adults who die by police gunfire—63 percent of the time for children vs. 76 percent for adults.

Sixty-six percent of the children who died in fatal police shootings were Black, Latino, Asian or Native American compared to 44 percent of adults who were racial minorities.

Again, the word "children" in this report refers to anyone under age 18. Allowing for that bit of nomenclature, we'll focus on the (accurate) statement made right in the headline:

Most children shot by police are minorities.

Allowing for that bit of nomenclature, that statement is perfectly accurate. The specific percentage of non-white decedents is 66%, the Post's report says. That figure involves a minor statistical error on the part of the report's authors, but we'll call that number close enough for journalistic work.

It may or may not seem surprising to read that only 34% of under-18 decedents are white. At this point, though, we note a fairly basic statistical omission in the report—we note the fact that white kids are now a minority of the American public school population.

We'll guess that a lot of people are unaware that fact. This was the rundown from the National Center for Education Statistics as of September 2017:

NCES: In fall 2017, of the 50.7 million students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, 24.1 million were White, 7.7 million were Black, 13.6 million were Hispanic, 2.8 million were Asian/Pacific Islander (2.6 million were Asian and 185,000 were Pacific Islander), half a million were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 2 million were of two or more races. 

Between fall 2000 and fall 2017, the percentage of students who were White decreased from 61 to 48 percent, and the number of White students decreased from 28.9 million to 24.1 million.  Similarly, the percentage of students who were Black decreased from 17 to 15 percent, and the number of Black students decreased from 8.1 million to 7.7 million. 

In contrast, the percentage of students who were Hispanic increased from 16 to 27 percent during the same period, and the percentage of students who were Asian/Pacific Islander increased from 4 to 6 percent...

Between fall 2017 and fall 2029, the percentage of public elementary and secondary students who were White is projected to continue decreasing (from 48 to 44 percent)...

As of September 2017, the percentage of white public school students nationwide was 47.5 percent and slowly falling. 

It we use that as a starting point, the number of white youths shot and killed by police is still disproportionately low in simple statistical terms. But the disproportion may not be as large as people might be inclined to imagine or assume.

Why is there a disproportion at all? That would be a larger question, calling for careful analysis. For better or worse, we humans love our Storylines, even here in our self-impressed town.

Statistics can be very hard. They can also be misleading. 

It seems to us that the Washington Post made a significant omission in this new report. Just how large is the disproportion to which the Post may seem to be pointing? You'd think we'd all want to know that.

Where would an analysis go from there? In large part, that would depend on the extent of our love for preferred Storyline. In recent years, that love has been strong in Our Town.

That said, statistics can be amazingly hard, especially for upper-end journalists. According to international experts, Storyline is more pleasing by far. Our attraction to Storyline is hard-wired, these experts consistently tell us.

We'll say it again: Very few actual children get shot and killed by police. We'd like to see the Washington Post compare those Fatal Force numbers to the overall population of Americans aged 12-17, whatever those numbers may be.


SCRIPTED, ARROGANT, DUMB AND TOWN: Who failed Ma'Khia Bryant?

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2021

Who killed Davey Moore? It's routinely amazing to see the things which appear in the New York Times.

We're struck today by the cosmic indifference reflected in one line of Sarah Vowell's opinion column—the line in which Vowell blithely declares that Bozeman, Montana is blessed with "good schools."

We'll discuss that blithe claim below. We were also struck by this passage from a letter on today's letters page:

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (5/14/21):With respect to my own decision not to get the vaccine, I had Covid in February, and therefore almost certainly am immune to infection.

According to the letter writer, she had Covid in February. For that reason, she doesn't need to get vaccinated.

Blithely, the New York Times put that assessment in print, furthering that understanding. But is that understanding well founded?

We can't necessarily answer that question. Luckily, one major newspaper already has.

That newspaper is the New York Times. In February, the Times devoted an analysis piece to that very question. The Times report started like this:

MANDAVILLI (2/20/21): Nearly 30 million people in the United States—and probably many others whose illnesses were never diagnosed—have been infected with the coronavirus so far. Should these people still be vaccinated?

Two new studies answer that question with an emphatic yes.

Who knows? Maybe the science has changed since that time. That said, the Times report was "updated [on] April 22" and that emphatic judgment remained.

Maybe that letter is expressing sound science. But does anyone actually think that the editor who put that letter in print gave as much as a second of thought to that obvious question? Also this:

Vowell says that Bozeman boasts "good schools." That certainly could be true.

That said, what she actually means—most likely, all she actually knows—is most likely something like this: 

Bozeman's student population is almost entirely white and Asian-American. Presumably, a healthy dose of that student population is connected to highly educated parents who work at Montana State University in the small city Vowell describes as "my beloved college town."

Almost surely in part for those reasons, Bozeman's test scores exceed average scores across the state of Montana. To the dilettantes who control Our Town, this sort of thing has always been taken as a marker of "good schools." 

Full and complete total stop. In fact, these people don't care.

Such judgments betray a gruesome indifference to the question of where test scores come from. This gruesome indifference has always been screamingly evident in the way the Hamptons-based New York Times reports on the public schools. 

The truth is, the Times doesn't care about the kids who attend our public schools; almost surely, the Times never will. 

Above-average test scores = "good schools" has long been the watchword of those people in Our Town who simply don't care to give such matters a single thought. Such people dominate the major news orgs which drive the prevailing dumbness here in Our Town.

The Times is routinely uncaring about such matters as this. This observation brings us to a related question—a question concerning the late Ma'Khia Bryant, age 16 at the time ofher death, and the upbringing and the fate of her three younger siblings.

On Sunday morning. above the fold, the Times turned one of its kid reporters loose to address that important question. He opened with a passage right out of Storyline.

"Who killed Davey Moore?" the observer known as Bob Dylan once asked. In this case, the Times' "diaper dandy" pointed his finger at the state of Ohio's foster care system. His analysis went like this:

BOGEL-BURROUGHS ET AL (5/9/21): Ms. Bryant’s tragic death was also preceded by a turbulent journey through the foster care system, which had cycled Ma’Khia through at least five placements in two years—after her own mother was found to be negligent—despite efforts by their grandmother to reunite the family.

Ohio places children in foster care at a rate 10 percent higher than the national average, and child welfare officials here are considerably less likely than in the country as a whole to place children with their relatives. Black children, like Ma’Khia and her sister, account for nearly a third of children removed from homes—nearly twice their proportion in the population.

A review of Ma’Khia’s pathway through foster care shows that it failed her in critical ways.

Research has demonstrated that children fare far better when they remain with family members, a practice known as kinship care. It also shows that each successive placement causes additional trauma, further setting back a child in crisis.

“Everybody knows and the research has proven over and over and over again that the best placement for children is with their kin,” said Ronald R. Browder, the president and chief executive of the Ohio Federation for Health Equity and Social Justice. “But the focus has always been on foster care.”

Those were paragraphs 7-12 of the Times' 81-paragraph front-page report. Right off the bat, Times readers were told this:

Her grandmother had tried to reunite the family. But the Ohio foster care system failed the late Ma'Khia Bryant in various ways.

That indictment could be true, of course. Unfortunately, because we read this lengthy report in the New York Times, we have no real way of knowing.

Is there really something wrong with the rate at which Ohio banishes kids to foster care? As we noted yesterday, nothing in this young fellow's report gives a reader any way of making such an assessment.

Does Ohio consign too many kids to the Hell of foster care? We don't know how to answer that question. As we noted yesterday, judging from appearances, neither does Bogel-Burroughs.

That said, the claim that Bryant was failed by Ohio's foster care system suits modern Storyline. Rather, it allowed the Times to slide away from a more obvious source of the inadequate care which led to this young person's death.

Was Ma'Khia Bryant, age 16, failed by the gummint bureaucrats of the state of Ohio? Everything is possible! But to identify someone who plainly failed this teenaged girl, let's consider something we're finally told very late in the dandy's report.

While we're at it, let's consider an obvious question—a question which went unasked and unanswered in the diaper dandy's report.

The question which went unasked

A violent fight was underway when Ma'Khia Bryant was shot and killed in Columbus, Ohio. Her younger sister, Ja'Niah Bryant, was present at the scene, in front of the house where the two had been living in foster care.

A violent fight was underway. Early in Sunday's report, Bogel-Burroughs briefly describes it:

BOGEL-BURROUGHS ET AL: [On April 20], Ja’Niah called 911 again, telling the police that she and her older sister were being threatened by two young women who used to live at the house. Officers arrived in the middle of a melee outside the house, and one of them fatally shot Ja’Niah’s 16-year-old sister, Ma’Khia Bryant, who was lunging at one of the women, brandishing a steak knife.

Judging from the bodycam tape, the fatal shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant may have saved the life of the young woman at whom she was lunging with that knife. 

For that reason, it's been hard to blame the police officer in the case of this fatal shooting. The Ohio foster care system was quickly subbed in by the Times.

Much, much later in his report, Bogel-Burroughs adds a bit of detail to his account of that deeply unfortunate fight. Included are the names of the two young women with whom Bryant was involved in the fight.

As best we can tell, Ma'Khia Bryant never received sufficient help in the course of her young life. In the highlighted sentence, we finally get the answer to one question about that fight—the answer to a question which has largely been avoided:

BOGEL-BURROUGHS ET AL: A police officer stepped out of his car and walked toward the driveway just as Ma’Khia turned her attention to Ms. Craig-Watkins and could be heard on a video from a neighbor’s surveillance camera threatening to stab her. 
As Ma’Khia charged, Ms. Craig-Watkins tumbled to the ground, and Ma’Khia’s father tried to kick her. Ma’Khia turned to Ms. Bonner and backed her up against a car. 
Ma’Khia raised a knife, and Officer Nicholas Reardon, a white 23-year-old who was the first officer to approach the scene, shot four times at Ma’Khia, who slumped down. 
As Ma’Khia’s body lay on the ground, police officers led Ja’Niah inside Ms. Moore’s house, along with her father’s young son.

Ja’Niah turned on the television to find some cartoons for her younger [half-]brother to watch...

That passage describes the death of a teenage girl who had perhaps been failed by the people around her. In the highlighted sentence, we learn that the man who is seen kicking, or attempting to kick, that one young woman in the head was, in fact, Ma'Khia's father, Myron Hammonds, who had been called to the scene of the dispute.

Who killed Davey Moore? Let's restate the question like this:

Was Myron Hammonds, Ma'Khia's father, the family member to whom the foster care system should have assigned the Bryant sisters and their two younger siblings? 

In fact, he was the father of the four Bryant kids. But as Bogel-Burroughs had mentioned in passing, "Mr. Hammonds, Ma’Khia’s father, did not live with the family and [the children's mother] described herself as raising the children largely on her own."

Was the foster care system supposed to assign the four Bryant kids to their father? When he was called for help that day (apparently by the children's grandmother), he came to the house with a younger son and proceeded to help matters out by kicking a young woman in the head as she lay on the ground.

Was the Ohio foster care system supposed to assign the four Bryant children to him? Were they supposed to continue to assign them to the paternal grandmother, to whom they'd initially been assigned? 

Repeat! Initially, protective services had assigned the children to their grandmother. Later, as Bogel-Burroughs reports, she had become homeless, living at times in her car. At that point, the Bryant children went into foster care.

Was the foster care system supposed to tell the four Bryant kids to report to their grandmother's car? Was that the assignment which would have let the siblings "fare far better?"

These children were in the child protective system in the first place because their mother had placed them there. When the mother appeared on CNN's disgraceful Chris Cuomo show, it seemed fairly clear to us that she was intellectually or emotionally challenged in some way. 

That doesn't mean that she's a bad person. But was the Ohio system supposed to send the kids back to her?

How about the showboating cousin—the city council member in Mansfield, Ohio who kept telling the world what a fabulous kid Ma'Khia had been? 

At that time, we asked why Ma'Khia Bryant hadn't been living with him. Should Ohio's foster care system have called on this high-achieving, showboating cousin?

The Times report doesn't mention this guy. Did reporters bother to ask whether he had been willing to help?

"Who killed Davey Moore?" Bob Dylan once asked. In his song, he offered a list of people, all of whom said, "Not I."

Today, we ask a similar question:

Who failed to help Ma'Khia Bryant in the course of her sixteen years?

There seems to be a fairly obvious initial answer to that question, if the Times feels it has to be asked. It looks like the four Bryant kids didn't get the kind of help all children deserve to get, where possible, from their immediate family.

This may not have been anyone's "fault." The mother and the paternal grandmother may have done the best they could—and the problems with which they may have been struggling may reach all the way back into our nation's brutal history.

Ma'Khia's mother and her paternal grandmother may have done the best they could. But how about the New York Times? Did they do the best they could?

At the Times, they quickly fingered the foster cares system, suggesting that the Bryant kids would have "fared far better"  had they remained in the care of family members. In fact, the protective system had placed them in their grandmother's care, until the grandmother turned ended up homeless.

At that point, they went into foster care. But also, imagine this:

At no point did the Times' diaper dandy ask, or answer, an obvious question! That question would be this:

When the four children's grandmother no longer could provide care, why didn't their father step in? Why didn't the Bryant kids' father take in one or all of his kids?

As the New York Times flayed the foster care system, that question went unasked. The Times aggressively implied that the kids should have stayed in family care. But the New York Times' diaper dandy never pointed a finger at him.

It may well be that Ma'Khia's father was doing the best he could. Based on what he did on the day she died, his best doesn't look especially good. Should Ohio's foster care system should tried to rely on him?

In fact, the cub reporters at the Times were working from preferred Storyline. In the current environment, we don't discuss the shortcomings and the misbehaviors of black decedents in cases like this. We don't even discuss the shortcomings of their families.

Instead, Our Town's favorite stars go on TV and misstate basic facts about these fatal incidents. And a bright young kid one year out of college puffs himself  up and blames the Ohio foster care system, based on the flimsiest possible type of analysis.

The children would have fared far better had they been assigned to family members! That's what this vastly inexperienced kid said as the start of his piece, with the permission of his slumbering editors.

Bogel-Burroughs didn't assign himself the task of composing this unintelligent takedown. If there were such a thing as very bad people—we don't think that's a helpful way to view the world—we would say that this high-achieving diaper dandy was badly failed by his elders, a bit like Ma'Khia before him.

Who killed Davey Moore? At the routinely gruesome Times, arrows of blame had to be aimed at public servants first. The people who struggle with family situations like this don't live in the Hamptons, after all—nor are they the wretched of the earth, about whom the New York Times is now pretending to care.

Ma'Khia Bryant is dead and gone. The dysfunction into which she was born certainly wasn't her fault or her doing. In a somewhat better world, all American  kids would be born in the Hamptons, with major Timespersons for their parents. Or possibly out in Bozeman!

Meanwhile, can Our Town expect to survive this arrogant, dumb journalistic regime? Leading experts across the globe despondently say that we can't.

Who killed Davey Moore?: To hear Bob Dylan sing the song, you can just click here.

What the heck is herd immunity?

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021

Slate attempts to say: We're so old that we can remember when Slate was a smart, high-end mainstream web site.

Today, Slate largely panders. If you want to know how dumb we actually are in Our Town, you just have to visit Slate.

Slate often aims extremely low in an apparent attempt to attract and hold readers. So far today, for example, the site has offered such think pieces as these:

Pooping at the Office Again Is Going to Be Terrible
BY ANGELA LASHBROOK / MAY 13, 2021 / 5:45 AM

My Boyfriend Is Desperately Obsessed With a Pop Star
BY DANNY M. LAVERY / MAY 13, 2021 / 5:58 AM

Yesterday, some Slate readers got Schwedeled again, along with other clatter: 

Help! My Cat Caught My Friend Spying on Me Having Sex
BY DANNY M. LAVERY / MAY 12, 2021 / 11:35 AM

Help! My Ex-Husband Slept With My Mom
DEAR PRUDENCE / MAY 12, 2021 / 8:00 AM

What Trump Toilet Paper Can Tell Us About His Election Chances in 2024
BY HEATHER SCHWEDEL / MAY 12, 2021 / 5:47 AM

Some traditional articles are still scattered in, but you may be starting to get the general idea.

At certain times, Slate still tries to offer basic explanations. So it goes in today's new essay, "Most People Are Thinking of Herd Immunity All Wrong."

Readers, you've probably heard of herd immunity. But how well could you explain it?

We'll guess you couldn't explain it well. We certainly know we couldn't!

We have a rough idea of how it works, or at least we think we do. But we don't think we've ever seen anyone actually try to explain the phenomenon, and it isn't entirely clear in our mind.

For that reason, we hungrily clicked the link to the new Slate report. The report was written by a PhD scientist at Wisconsin Madison. We'd have to call her effort incoherent.

The human capacity for incoherence has been a lifelong interest of ours. A certain type of (unrecognized) incoherence was the principal concern of the later Wittgenstein, who was very hot at one time. For us, this tracks all the way back to college, back to the street-fighting days of 1969.

Certain types of incoherence are remarkably widespread. Einstein himself couldn't make Einstein easy. In the hundred years which have passed, no one else has been able to do it either, but our journalists and our academics tend to insist that various people have.

Slate's PhD. scientist writer composed a wholly jumbled mess as she tried to explain what herd immunity is, or perhaps how herd immunity works. She didn't seem to know that her essay was incoherent.  Apparently, no one else at Slate noticed the problem either.

(Go ahead—read her piece! If you think the essay makes sense, we think you should read it again!)

Concerning the piddle which keeps Slate afloat, we would ask this question:

Can a group as dumb as we have become really hope to prevail or survive? (Experts uniformly suggest that the answer is no.)

Concerning Slate's attempt to explain herd immunity, we would offer this:

Complete and total incoherence has been in the saddle and riding humankind since the dawn of the west. Naming one name, Plato almost never made a lick of sense in his "philosophical" work—but Alfred North Whitehead famously offered this assessment: 

"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Arguably sad but true!

Some Slate readers got Schwedeled again. Technological progress to the side, has it been that way all along?


SCRIPTED, ARROGANT, DUMB AND TOWN: Did Ohio's foster care system fail?

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021

Let's take a look at the "research:" Did Ohio's foster care system fail the late Ma'Khia Bryant  and her three younger siblings?

Did it fail her "in critical ways?"

We can't answer that question! In fairness, the front-page report in the New York Times didn't exactly make that claim, though it certainly seemed to make that claim. As we noted yesterday, here's what the Times report said:

BOGEL-BURROUGHS ET AL (5/9/21): Ms. Bryant’s tragic death was also preceded by a turbulent journey through the foster care system, which had cycled Ma’Khia through at least five placements in two years—after her own mother was found to be negligent—despite efforts by their grandmother to reunite the family.

Ohio places children in foster care at a rate 10 percent higher than the national average, and child welfare officials here are considerably less likely than in the country as a whole to place children with their relatives. Black children, like Ma’Khia and her sister, account for nearly a third of children removed from homes—nearly twice their proportion in the population.

A review of Ma’Khia’s pathway through foster care shows that it failed her in critical ways.

Research has demonstrated that children fare far better when they remain with family members, a practice known as kinship care. It also shows that each successive placement causes additional trauma, further setting back a child in crisis.

“Everybody knows and the research has proven over and over and over again that the best placement for children is with their kin,” said Ronald R. Browder, the president and chief executive of the Ohio Federation for Health Equity and Social Justice. “But the focus has always been on foster care.”

"Research has demonstrated that children fare far better when they remain with family members," Bogel-Burroughs and his fellow reporters said.

(Their editor or editors went unnamed.)

“Everybody knows and the research has proven over and over and over again that the best placement for children is with their kin,” one local activist was quoted saying. “But the focus has always been on foster care.”

(Was he speaking about foster care in the state of Ohio, or was he speaking about foster care nationwide? There's no way to tell from the way he's quoted. So it goes at the New York Times.)

At any rate, whatever! Despite the fact that everyone allegedly knows these things, "Ohio places children in foster care at a rate 10 percent higher than the national average," the young Timesman thoughtfully said. And not only that:

:"Black children...account for nearly a third of children removed from homes—nearly twice their proportion in the population." 

Is that in Ohio, or is that nationwide?  There's no way to tell from this front-page report, but the whole compendium sounded quite bad for Ohio.

Please note: Bogel-Burroughs never explicitly said that the Ohio system "failed [Bryant] in critical ways." He merely said that "foster care" failed her in critical ways, but he plainly seemed to be pointing the finger at the Ohio system.

Speaking very frankly, this presentation by the Times' "diaper dandies" struck us as arrogant, but also as strikingly dumb. It also struck us as scripted—as the kind of easy, Storyline-derived novelized work which spills from the soul of the Times.

Where does Storyline enter this picture? We would suggest starting here:

In the case of this fatal shooting, it was hard to blame the police officer, who arrived at the scene of a violent fight in which it seemed that Bryant was about to stab a young woman. With that avenue closed down, why not blame the foster care system, employing the kind of underfed analysis which gives Times readers an easy-reader novel but explains nothing in the end?

In our view, it's plain that Ma'Khia Bryant and her three younger siblings have all received insufficient help in their young lives—have been failed in various ways. 

Tomorrow, we'll try to sketch that story for you. But no, we won't be inclined to start with Ohio's foster care system.

That said, is something wrong, in some systematic way, with that state's foster care practices? We don't have the slightest idea, in part because we read the New York Times' front-page report.

How weak was the journalism these "dandies" provided? Let's take a look at the research!

The passage we have posted above came right at the start of the Sunday front-page report. We've posted paragraphs 7-12 of a lengthy, 81-paragraph report.

Right at the start of this front-page report, the diaper dandies take their shots at the Ohio system. But just how strong were there analytical skills? 

How strong were there analytical skills? Let's take a look at the record:

We'll start with the initial claim about the Ohio system. That initial, foundational claim goes exactly like this:

"Ohio places children in foster care at a rate 10 percent higher than the national average."

For all we know, that claim may even be accurate! That said, the intrepid Timespersons offered no source for this foundational claim, nor did they offer a link to any data source.

Meanwhile, and it ought to be said—we aren't entirely sure what that claim specifically means. 

Does it mean that, after adjusting for population, Ohio has ten percent more kids in foster care than the national average? Does it mean that, among children referred to child care services, the state sends ten percent more into foster care as compared to other states?

Whatever the claims specifically means, might we note a basic point? That particular claim, even if true, doesn't strike us as recording a mind-blowing level of difference: 

Does our nation condemn 1% of our kids to foster care, while Ohio banishes 1.1%? That would be ten percent more. Is that the magnitude of difference which we're talking about?

Meanwhile, is it possible that there could be local reasons for some such ten percent difference? As we noted in Monday's report, when the Washington Post assigned two veteran reporters to profile the Ohio system, they started by mentioning this:

CRAIG AND LUDLOW (4/30/21): Over the past decade, Ohio has been hit hard by the nationwide opioid crisis, leading to a surge in the number of foster children, officials said. The number of children in the state’s care has grown from 12,000 in 2012 to about 15,000 today.

That construction is a bit clumsy, but has Ohio been hit especially hard by the opioid crisis? If so, might that explain why the state has been exceeding the national average of banishments to foster care by ten percent, if it actually has been?

Also this:

Might other demographic factors explain the state's alleged divergence from the norm? We don't have the slightest idea, but you can make the following bet:

The diaper dandies at the Times don't have the first idea either! Almost surely, such fundamental statistical questions never entered anyone's head, including those of their editors. In one major area after another, that simply isn't the way reporting is done at the modern Times.

If Ohio exceeds the national foster care rate, does that mean it's failing its children? We don't have the slightest idea, and neither does anyone who read the Times' pleasing report.

That said, the Times report tracked familiar contemporary ground. Too many kids are being condemned, and too many of those kids are black! We can't easily blame the policeman this time, and so we'll find our scapegoat in this other available place.

In these ways, Times subscribers are reassured about their moral goodness. The Times subscriber is better, far better, than the troglodyte rustbelt types who are bungling their state's foster care in the ways the Times has described!

Ohio is condemning too many children to foster care! Indeed, "research has demonstrated that children fare far better when they remain with family members, " we're instantly told—although we aren't told whether it would have been better to leave these particular kids with their particular family members in this particular case.

At any rate, the diaper dandies did offer a link when they referred to the "research." Hungrily, we clicked the link, eager to learn what we could.

When we clicked the dandies' link, we found what we often find in such cases, given the way Our Town's biggest news orgs work. We found a single opinion column—a single column which simply says that "research" has made that demonstration.

Here is the passage in question. No further link is offered:

EPSTEIN (7/1/17): Research confirms that compared to children in nonrelative care, children in kinship homes fare better, as measured by several child well-being factors. Children in the care of relatives experience increased stability, with fewer placement changes, decreased likelihood of disruption and not as many school changes. Relatives are more likely than nonrelatives to support the child through difficult times and less likely to request removal of problematic children to whom they are related. The children themselves generally express more positive feelings about their placements and are less likely to run away.

On average, the highlighted statement may be perfectly accurate! (Or not.)

That said, we note that the passage only says that children "fare better" when they remain with family, not that they fare far better. In fairly typical fashion, the diaper dandies—or their unnamed editor—decided to spin this claim up one additional notch.

That one claim, by that one person, is the only source the dandies provide in support of their foundational claim. Again, we aren't saying the claim made by that source is wrong. We're merely saying that the dandies show no particular sign of knowing whether the claim, which someone chose to embellish, is actually correct.

That claim, about what "research confirms," may be perfectly accurate! Having said that, we'll also say this:

The opinion column to which the Times links was published by the American Bar Association. The ABA isn't a fly-by-night social media site, but we can't help noting the fact that the ABA appended this disclaimer to the opinion column:

ABA (7/1/17): The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, and accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association.

That doesn't mean that those views are wrong. But again, if those views are actually right, they're only right on average. They can't tell us whether officials in the state of Ohio made the right choice in deciding that the Bryant kids wouldn't "fare far better" if left in their family's care.

The ABA was careful to note that the views expressed in that column don't represent ABA policy. We found something far more comically awful when we fact-checked the sources of Petula Dvorak's recent claims about the gender wage gap in the Washington Post.

We expect to return to that column in Saturday morning's report. For today, let's offer the following overview about the New York Times front-page report:

We've referred to the Times' listed reporters as "diaper dandies." We've done so because Bogel-Burroughs, the lead reporter, is just completing his second year out of college, and he was joined by another reporter who's at the Times for one year as part of the program which recently replaced the paper's intern program.

These cubs were joined by Ellen Barry, a fully experienced reporter.  Helped along by their editors, the trio presented an instant critique of Ohio foster care which came straight out of clown school.

Is something wrong with Ohio's system? We have no idea. Neither does anyone who drew that conclusion from reading this front-page report.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But the dandies' critique of Ohio foster care should get any college journalism student a flat-out failing grade.

As a general matter, is something wrong with the way Ohio condemns kids to foster care? Does the number of kids so consigned suggest that something is wrong?

Does the fact that black kids get consigned to foster care at a disproportionate rate suggest that something is wrong? Under current rules,  that judgment comes close to being required! But let's leave that for tomorrow.

Also tomorrow, we'll examine the central question in this tragic case. Was the state of Ohio wrong to send Ma'Khia Bryant and her siblings into foster care? 

Who actually failed this teenaged girl, who died at age 16? Could it have been the state of Ohio, or might it have been someone else?

By the current rules of the game, only one answer was possible. 

Scripting and Storyline may have kept the diaper dandies from speaking freely to that point. For our money, though, we will say this:

The Times assigned two diaper dandies to handle this very important topic. In this way, the famous newspaper may suggest that it loves Storyline, and low labor costs, more than it actually cares about kids like Ma'Khia Bryant.

Beyond that, Times subscribers are routinely failed when this newspaper plays this way. Can Our Town survive this culture?

Major experts suggest it cannot!

Tomorrow: Who seems to have failed these kids?


The desire to lock The Others up...

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2021

...Slate and Lithwick edition: We've often commented on an unfortunate tendency of us the humans. 

We refer to the tendency to divide ourselves into tribes—and after that, to try to get The Others locked up. 

This tendency was quite pronounced in the public behaviors of former president Trump. We liberals may have a harder time spotting this ancient tendency here in the streets of Our Town.

Monday afternoon, over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick put this tendency on rather vivid display. She spoke with Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.  Their conversation was published beneath these headlines:

How Close Are We to Criminal Charges for Donald Trump?
Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on accountability, Rudy, and the death of truth.

How Close Are We to Criminal Charges for Donald J. Trump? Here in Our Town, it seems that we've been asking that question since roughly the dawn of time.

In our view, Bharara was basically sensible during his conversation with Lithwick. It seemed to us that Lithwick was perhaps a bit too involved in the desire to Lock Others Up.

Someone at Slate had posted an introduction to the interview feature. "It’s 2021, but there’s still an awful lot of stuff from 2016 onward yet to be litigated," this editor instantly said.

It's always possible that that could be true. That said, pretty much right out of the gate, Lithwick was caught saying this:

LITHWICK (5/10/21): To the extent anyone thinks about Trump anymore, it’s gleefully imagining his criminal exposure in the after times, both in New York and elsewhere in the country. I gather he’s facing what, 29 lawsuits, three criminal investigations, like a lot.

BHARARA: A whole bunch.

LITHWICK: His tax returns are in the hands of Cyrus Vance Jr., the district attorney of Manhattan. They’re working to flip folks in the Trump organization. I wonder what piece of that you’re watching or are you just watching all of it? What do you expect to see in terms of accountability and having some sense that there is some closure to any of this?

"To the extent that anyone thinks about Trump any more, it’s gleefully imagining his criminal exposure?"

Maybe that's not what she meant. It seems to us that people are still thinking about Trump a great deal of the time. Beyond that, it seems to us that there are plenty of reasons to do so.

Trump continues to involve vast numbers of people in various wild, irrational claims, including the deeply destructive claim we like to call the big lie. It seems to us that "to the extent that anyone thinks about Trump," we might be trying to think about ways to intervene in this malignant process.

That would involve thinking about Trump in terms of political communication and political persuasion. In Lithwick's mind, the only reason to think about Trump is to dream about locking him up.

That said, whatever! But in her next question for Bharara, Lithwick kept dreaming these dreams:

LITHWICK: Is there anything that you feel is urgent and exigent that should have been looked at and that should be investigated and that slipped through the cracks somehow? Do you feel as though these handful of criminal investigations and the civil suits he’s facing kind of get us there in terms of accountability?

Lithwick had already listed the three hundred different ways Trump might be facing legal exposure, whether in the realm of civil or criminal law. Now she was asking Bharara to dream that there might be something else beyond that—that there might be something more, something we've all somehow missed!

Needless to say, Lithwick also wants to lock up Rudy. Here was her question on that:

LITHWICK: Let’s get to the great, luminous, searing, scorching crazy of Rudy Giuliani. Before we dig in, can you just remind us what Giuliani is probably on the hook for, this influence campaign to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden? What’s the backstory?

"Please, please, please," she said to Bharara. "Please tell us the story again!"

For what it's worth, the dream of locking these idiots up continues to make regular appearances on Our Town's "cable news" channels. These conversations have dominated Our Town's cable diet dating back to the days when we were told, again and gain, that Saint Mueller Already Had His Tax Returns And Would Surely Be Locking Him Up.

For people like Lithwick, there can never be enough such conversations. Also, there is no other reason to talk about Donald J. Trump!

Lithwick's desire seemed carnal and strong. In fairness, we were also struck by a few things Bharara said.

In response to Lithwick's question about what the current investigations will :get us there in terms of accountability," Bharara offered the response shown below. We were struck by a famous dog which didn't bark:

BHARARA: There’s two categories of things that I think about. One is stuff we don’t know. I find it hard to believe we know the full scope and landscape of the things that Donald Trump did behind the scenes that were improper, unethical, and perhaps criminal...

Then the other stuff that’s big ticket that happened out in the open for which there was an attempt to hold him accountable: the “Big Lie” of the election, his involvement in the incitement of the riot and the insurrection on Jan. 6, the stuff he did with the interference in the election in Georgia. I don’t know if he’ll get any accountability there. I don’t know that the administration has the interest and stomach to do something there, especially when there’s an interest in moving on.

We agree with Bharara on that first point. We'll guess that Trump has engaged in all sorts of illegal financial behavior over the course of his business career. More on that point below.

Regarding Bharara's second point—his point about "big ticket [stuff] that happened out in the open"—we were struck by his failure to mention the obstruction of justice allegations we once loved in Our Town.

Those imagined obstruction allegations always struck us as a bit shaky—but at one time, they were all we had in Our Town. Now that we have the Capitol riot to dream about, it almost seemed to us that those early, less dramatic charges may have gone the way of all flesh.

When Bharara spoke about Rudy, we were a bit surprised to see him mention a possible FARA violation (Foreign Agents Registration Act). It wasn't very long ago when everyone was saying how rarely such violations have ever been charged in the past. In recent weeks, folks in Our Town have been dreaming exciting new dreams about that type of criminal charge.

Finally, Bharara said something we've often wondered about. Speaking about Trump's long career, Bharara offered this:

BHARARA: It doesn’t sound farfetched to think, “Well, when it suited him, Donald Trump inflated the value of his holdings. Otherwise he understated the value of his holdings.” Both of which can incriminate him criminally and subject him to exposure. That all sounds like it makes sense. There’s also the reporting that Michael Cohen, his former lawyer who was prosecuted by SDNY, has met with prosecutors and investigators with the DA’s office like a gazillion times.

We agree! That doesn't sound farfetched at all! It doesn't sound farfetched to think that Donald J. Trump may have engaged in illegal behavior all through his long, checkered business career.

That said, Bharara was once in charge of the Southern District of New York. Especially during the Mueller days, our cable channels crawled with self-impressed alumni of the SDNY—with alumni who endlessly boasted about how fearless and tough the SDNY has always been.

We'll guess it also wasn't farfetched to think that Trump was breaking the rules back in those earlier years, but he was never charged. Does Our Town know how it would look to see this ex-president indicted on various types of  charges now?

Bharara said he doesn't know what you do about "the death of truth." We can tell you this about that:

The death of truth will be helped along if anything but the most serious and most obvious charges are brought against this former president.

Any other types of charges will be seen as political charges. Given the way people like Lithwick have begged and pleaded for prosecutions, it will be very hard to persuade The Others that a political hunt isn't on.

Lithwick has always struck us as the world's nicest person. According to major experts, such impulses tend to go the way of all flesh when it comes time to lock Others up.

Our human brains are wired that way, these top major experts have said. We're wired for locking the Others up, not so much for political suasion.