How should news orgs cover this war?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2023

How should they cover vast suffering? How should this nation's major news orgs cover the vast amounts of suffering involved in this current war?

In this morning's Washington Post, Will Sommer (no relation) ponders one form of that question. In print editions, the headline on his report says this:

Contributor to N.Y. Times criticizes its Gaza coverage

In this case, the contributor isn't just any contributor. The contributor is Mona Chalabi, who recent won a Pulitzer Price for that very same New York Times.

Chalabi has lodged a complaint about the way the Times has covered the war. For the record, she may be right, or she may be wrong. Headline included, Sommer's report starts like this:

Contributor to N.Y. Times criticizes its Gaza coverage

As journalist and illustrator Mona Chalabi sat through the ceremony last month where she would officially receive her Pulitzer Prize, she leaned over to her editor, Jake Silverstein of the New York Times, to show him her latest work.

It was a chart she had posted on Instagram, presenting data to suggest that the Times devotes less attention to Palestinian deaths than Israeli deaths in the ongoing Gaza conflict—and calling out the Times for “bias.”

She told The Washington Post that she was late to the ceremony because she was rushing to post the chart first.

“Before I sat next to my editor at the New York Times to accept this prize, I wanted to publish this critique of the New York Times,” Chalabi said.

There have already been many deaths, and a great deal of suffering, in this six-week-old war. Chalabi seems to think that the Times has been paying more attention to the deaths of Israelis than to the deaths of the Palestinians who live right next door.

According to Sommer, she describes this as a form of "bias." Sommer's report continues as shown:

This week, in the latest flare-up of newsroom tensions over the Israel-Gaza war, the freelance contributor to the Times ramped up her criticism of the newspaper for which she won journalism’s biggest prize, in interviews and social media posts saying she believes the Times coverage of the war has favored the Israeli perspective over the Palestinian. She also took aim at the Pulitzers, saying she felt as if the plight of Palestinian journalists and civilians was overlooked during speeches.

On Thursday, Chalabi announced on Instagram, where she has more than 468,000 followers, that she donated the $15,000 that came with her Pulitzer win to a Palestinian journalists group to help fight what she sees as an “asymmetry” that elevates Israeli voices over Palestinian ones in the media.

Has the Times "favored the Israeli perspective over the Palestinian" perspective? Has the Times "elevated Israeli voices over Palestinian" voices? 

We have no particular view on that.

Is it possible that the Times should favor the Israeli perspective over the Palestinian perspective? Given the circumstances of this particular war, is it possible that the Times should "devote less attention to Palestinian deaths?"

Trust us! Given the understandable depth of feeling involved in the matter at hand, various people will almost surely have different reactions to such questions as those.

For ourselves, we've admired the fact that the PBS NewsHour has devoted detailed segments to Israeli suffering and death, but also to Palestinian suffering and death. We've stated our basic framework before:

We'd like to see Palestinians and Israelis—Israelis and Palestinians—able to live in peace and prosperity. We'd like to see them able to do that, whether they do so together or in those famous "two states." After that, we'd like to see their winning example inspire other populations around the world.

Is the death of the toddler in Gaza City equivalent to the death of the toddler who was murdered by Hamas on October 7? Are they all just a bunch of kids?

Depending on their pre-existing affiliations and depending on their predispositions, many people will have a hard time agreeing to such propositions. It's natural that people will have intense feelings with regard to a matter like this.

Should toddlers of various groups get the chance to grow up in peace and prosperity? We'd be inclined to say yes. In our view, people who want to help should try to state that goal every time, at the start of each discussion.

There has been suffering on various side, but how do we get to tomorrow? Also, is Chalabi right in what she has said?

We have no real idea about that. She could be right—but she could be wrong. As with many things in this life, it may not be easy to tell.

HEARING OTHERS: Why would College Kids adopt such a stance?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2023

Some stars say they have no idea: Over the weekend, "a new arrival on the front became the topic of general conversation."

The new arrival was a new poll about next year's election—a poll from NBC News. 

Next year's election is one year away! Still and all, on Meet the Press, Kristin Welker said this:

WELKER (11/19/23): As the war between Israel and Hamas rages on, it is having a transformative impact in our politics. We have a brand-new NBC News poll out this morning, which shows the toll it is taking on the president. 

I'm joined now by National Political Correspondent Steve Kornacki to take us through the numbers. Steve, some real stunning highlights here in this poll.

"Yeah, absolutely," Kornacki said. "And I think you're right to set it up that way."

(To watch this entire program, click here. For the full transcript, click this.)

In Kornacki's view, the "stunning highlights" in the new poll involved public disapproval of Biden's handling of the Isarel-Hamas war. 

On the screen, Kornacki showed the polling figures for Biden's handling of that particular matter. Overall, the approval figure was very low—34 percent. 

That's a very low overall number. But Kornacki went on to say this:

KORNACKI: I think this jumps out at you too: Overall, this is the handling of the Israel-Hamas war. And again, it kind of measures overall with Biden's foreign policy approval.

But look at this: Among the oldest group of voters, 65-plus, there's a majority who approve of how Biden's handling this. That's plus 12. Look at the youngest group of voters. 20% approve, 70% disapprove. 

He is 50 points underwater with the youngest group of voters [ages 18-34]. That is a 62-point net swing between youngest and oldest on this topic of Israel-Hamas.

(To watch that brief exchange about this matter, you can just click this.)

Those numbers could always be wrong, of course. But that's what Kornacki said.

Eventually, Welker went where the rubber met the road. Next year's election is a full year away, but here's the way respondents said they would vote:

KORNACKI: So if we are heading towards Trump-Biden, a rematch in 2024, how does that look in our polling right now? Here it is.

WELKER: Wow.

KORNACKI: Donald Trump we have at 46%, Biden, 44%.

WELKER: And this is significant because this is the first time in the history of our poll that former President Trump beats President Biden. Still within the margin of error but still significant.

Are any such numbers "significant" a full year before an election? Not necessarily, no.

But NBC's survey aligns with others which have Biden losing ground and running behind. And of course, there's always this:

Given the realities of the electoral college, Democratic candidates may have to run several points ahead in the nationwide popular vote to have any serious chance of prevailing in the electoral college.

On this morning's Morning Joe, the gang was in Full Advocacy / Reassurance Mode, as they constantly are. Viewers were reassured about the way Biden would surely win next year, despite those new NBC numbers. 

(Over on Fox & Friends, the friends were pushing these new numbers too. As you might imagine, they were pushing a different perspective on what those numbers meant.)

Will President Biden be able to win a Biden-Trump rematch? There's no way to know at this time—which means, of course, that he could actually lose.

That said, we were struck by the way Welker and Kornacki tied the recent drop in Biden's "approvals" to his handling of the Israel-Hamas war:

In the new poll, older respondents approved of the way Biden has addressed this challenge. By a startling margin, younger respondents—ages 18 to 34—very much didn't.

That could be a statistical artefact—a measure of rather small "N's" with subgroups of respondents. Or it could reflect a genuine obstacle to Biden's chances next year.

For ourselves, we'd connect it to our blue tribe's occasional inability to hear the voices of others. Consider the way the Isarel-Hamas War is being discussed on cable.

A recent post by Kevin Drum offers this headline:

Antisemitism is going mainstream on the right

In his post, Kevin cites a couple of far-right players, For ourselves, we've been watching the things they're now saying on Fox.

On Fox News programs, tremendous effort is being made to accuse "the left" of antisemitism! On Fox, this alleged antisemitism is rather plainly being used as a possible way to pull Jewish voters away from "the Democrat [sic] Party."

Somewhat remarkably, we've seen conversations on MSNBC which aren't gigantically different. These conversations have focused on the allegedly inexplicable way These (Lefty) College Students Today have sometimes adopted a pro-Palestinian viewpoint.

Major figures seem to say they have no idea why anyone could possibly hold some such view. The answer is obvious, they say—it's just the latest manifestation of worldwide antisemitism.

Antisemitism is worldwide, of course. Down through the annals of time, it's been a very ugly, and very stupid, worldwide mental disorder.

That said, it's easy to understand why college students and other younger voters might be sympathetic to the Palestinian people. We're amazed by the way some major stars on blue tribe cable can't seem to grasp this blindingly obvious fact.

As noted, no one has to agree with the overall assessments of these younger people. If college students had perfect judgment, there would be no obvious reason for them to be college students.

That said, it represents a major intellectual breakdown when big stars on blue tribe cable seem to say there's no possible explanation for a pro-Palestinian stance—no possible explanation other than antisemitism.

Our blue tribe loves to call Others names—racist, homophobe, misogynist, etc. 

On Fox, the stars are now calling our tribe names! On Fox, they're now accusing elements of our own blue tribe of ugly antisemitism.

Our tribe has often had a very hard time hearing the voices of others. In the case of Israel and Hamas, the instant accusation of ugly motives is now being directed, rather loudly, at elements of our own blue tribe.

As usual, our stars can imagine only one reason why Those Kids would feel that way! In the face of those numbers among younger respondents, we'll discuss this problem this week.

Tomorrow: Deadline: White House, Morning Joe

"This War Did Not Start a Month Ago!"

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2023

Let's go way, way back: This morning's New York Times features a "guest essay" by Dalia Hatuqa. The essay carries a headline whose accuracy can't be denied:

This War Did Not Start a Month Ago

This War Did Not Start a Month Ago, the headline says. But when exactly did the war start? 

Commenters to this essay make one point abundantly clear. This war can have started wherever you want this war to have started, depending on the advantage you may want to gain for one of its principal sides.

Hatuqa is a widely published and highly respected journalist. The identity line of her essay describes here in this manner:

Ms. Hatuqa is an independent journalist who specializes in Palestinian-Israeli affairs. She wrote from Ramallah, West Bank.

Hatuqa wrote from the West Bank. As best we can tell, that's where she principally lives. 

Hatuqa isn't writing from a neutral site on the dark side of Neptune. Her general frame of reference might seem to be fairly clear in this early part of her essay:

HATUQA (11/18/23): To many inside and outside this war, the brutality of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks was unthinkable, as have been the scale and ferocity of Israel’s reprisal. But Palestinians have been subject to a steady stream of unfathomable violence—as well as the creeping annexation of their land by Israel and Israeli settlers—for generations.

If people are going to understand this latest conflict and see a path forward for everyone, we need to be more honest, nuanced and comprehensive about the recent decades of history in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank, particularly the impact of occupation and violence on the Palestinians. This story is measured in decades, not weeks; it is not one war, but a continuum of destruction, revenge and trauma.

The highlighted statement is certainly true! If we want to understand this latest conflict and see a path forward for everyone, "we need to be more honest, nuanced and comprehensive about the recent decades of history in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank."

That much is certainly true. It's also true that Hatuqa is placing her emphasis on the violence which has been experienced by Palestinians. Obviously, readers are free to dispute her assessments. Some did so in comments. 

We may return to Hatuqa's column next week as we look at some of the conversations we've watched on blue tribe cable since October 7. For today, we thought we'd offer this suggestion:

The much longer and much larger war of which this war is only a part may be found in Hatuqa's own life story.

Dalia Hatuqa is a widely respected, widely published international journalist. Way back when, she offered a version of "my story" for the Times Literary Supplement, a London publication. 

Here's part of the story she tells:

My father was born in Rihaniyeh in the Upper Galilee, one of two villages settled by Circassians, the indigenous people of the North Caucasus who met a cruel fate at the hand of tsarist Russia in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Around 1 million Circassians were killed and 1.5 million others expelled, making my ancestors "one of the first stateless peoples in modern history," according to Walter Richmond in The Circassian Genocide (2013).

In 1864 my great-grandfather, Zakaria, and his brother, Kol, fled their home in what is now the Black Sea resort of Sochi—then the Circassian capital—and eventually ended up in a small Palestinian village called Rihaniyeh. Growing up, I never learned the Northwest Caucasian dialect of our Abzakh tribe, but my siblings and I were taught about our homeland by my father. Of course we learned that we were Palestinians, but we also learned about Circassia, about how the twelve stars on our green flag represented the Circassian tribes, and how our people tenaciously resisted the imperial Russian army's takeover of the Caucasus region for a hundred years.

Approximately 90 per cent of the Circassian population now lives outside modern-day Russia...

Have you ever heard of Circassia itself, let alone of the Circassian genocide? For those who want an overview of the latter, the leading authority on the topic offers this thumbnail account:

Circassian genocide

The Circassian genocide, or Tsitsekun, was the Russian Empire's systematic mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and expulsion of 95–97% of the Circassian population, resulting in 1 to 1.5 million deaths during the final stages of Russo-Circassian War. The peoples planned for extermination were mainly the Muslim Circassians, but other Muslim peoples of the Caucasus were also affected. Killing methods used by Russian forces during the genocide included impaling and tearing the bellies of pregnant women as means of intimidation of the Circassian population. Russian generals such as Grigory Zass described the Circassians as "subhuman filth", and glorified the mass murder of Circassian civilians, justified their use in scientific experiments, and allowed their soldiers to rape women.

During the Russo-Circassian War, the Russian Empire employed a genocidal strategy of massacring Circassian civilians. Only a small percentage who accepted Russification and resettlement within the Russian Empire were completely spared. The remaining Circassian population who refused were variously dispersed or killed en masse. Circassian villages would be located and burnt, systematically starved, or their entire population massacred. Leo Tolstoy reported that Russian soldiers would attack village houses at night. William Palgrave, a British diplomat who witnessed the events, adds that "their only crime was not being Russian." In 1864, "A Petition from Circassian leaders to Her Majesty Queen Victoria" was signed by the Circassians requesting humanitarian aid from the British Empire. In the same year, mass deportation was launched against the surviving population before the end of the war in 1864 and it was mostly completed by 1867. Some died from epidemics or starvation among the crowds of deportees and were reportedly eaten by dogs after their death. Others died when the ships underway sank during storms.

There's much more information at the link we've provided.

According to Hatuqa's account of her family history, her great-grandfather fled the scene of this genocide and ended up in a small Palestinian village. Her father was born in that same village. She and her siblings grew up knowing that they were Palestinian, but also that they were part of the Circassian people.

Hatuqa's essay in the Times focuses on Israel, Gaza and the West Bank over the past several dozen years. It includes the kinds of information and claims you may not see discussed on blue or red cable shows. 

As a general matter, American onlookers aren't asked to make assessments about the fairness of presentations like Hatuqa's. Quite often, we've never heard about the kinds of conduct Hatuqa describes in "the recent decades of history in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank," and we've certainly never seen such claims debated in respectful fashion by well-informed interlocutors.

Hatuqa's essay focuses on Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Her family history is part of a much larger, wider story. It's also a partial history of our war-inclined species.

Human history didn't start a month ago, or even in 1948. Certain patterns emerge again and again. Sensible people will try to remember this:

There's no perfect way to describe the events of any particular episode. 

There's no such thing as perfect assessment. Fair assessment is itself very, very hard.

Statistics can be unbelievably hard!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2023

How many non-"whites" in the Senate? The Washington Post's Dan Balz has had a long and extremely sane journalistic career.

We met him once, up in New Hampshire, during the week of the 2000 primary. We were introduced by Mary Matalin as part of an impossibly chic Manchester, New Hampshire bar scene.

Balz quickly expressed a bit of annoyance with the Daily Howler. "We don't think we've ever criticized you," we quickly and skillfully said.

The scribe acknowledged the truth of that statement. Later, we occasionally did criticize some of his work, but the incidences have been few and far between.

As of this morning, Balz and two colleagues have offered a weirdly complex analysis of who does and doesn't get represented in the United States Senate. The lengthy "Imperfect Union" piece appears beneath these dual headlines:

The hidden biases at play in the U.S. Senate
People of color get significantly less representation than White voters. And that’s not the only way the Senate is skewed.

The essay starts by noting one well-known way that the U.S. Senate is "skewed." We refer to the way the very small (population) states get the same two (2) senators that the very big states do.

California gets two U.S. senators, and so does Wyoming! Given current geographic demography—at present, the smaller states tend to be red—this gives the Republican Party a major advantage in the biannual search for control of the Senate.

This fact has become fairly well known within the blue tribe world over the past twenty years. We were puzzled when Balz et al. moved on to a second topic—the topic of representation in the Senate on the basis of race.

Statistics can be hard! We were puzzled, in several ways, just when we came upon this:

BALZ ET AL (11/17/23): America was hardly a diverse nation when it was founded in the late 18th century, certainly not in the way we think of it today. According to the 1790 census, the population numbered 3.9 million people, 81 percent of them White. Enslaved Blacks counted as only three-fifths of a citizen and had no right to vote. Women could not vote. Indigenous people at the time lived as semi-independent nations.

We were struck by the various ways that presentation was fuzzy. Consider:

In 1790, the population was 3.9 million people, 81 percent of whom were white. Presumably, that means that 19 percent of the population wasn't white.

That said:

Were native Americans ("indigenous people") counted in that 3.9 million and in that 19 percent? It sounds like they weren't, but the presentation isn't completely clear on that point.

Meanwhile, how about "enslaved Blacks?" Presumably, they were included in that 3.9 million, and in that 19 percent. But were they counted as whole people, or (imaginably) only as three-fifths? 

It seemed to us that that presentation was unnecessarily fuzzy. That said, we were completely baffled by the presentation which came next:

BALZ ET AL (continuing directly): Today, in a country of more than 330 million people, Whites, at 59 percent, remain in the majority. But the demographic composition of the country is changing, with non-White groups growing faster than the White population. By 2044, according to estimates, America will be a majority-minority nation.

And the most populous states, with few exceptions, also happen to be the most diverse. California is 40 percent Hispanic, 34 percent White, 16 percent Asian and 6.5 percent Black, according to the 2020 census. Wyoming is 83 percent White. This racial disparity between the most and least populous states has created a dramatic imbalance in terms of who is represented in the Senate.

White Americans are significantly overrepresented in the Senate today—by 14 percent, according to The Post’s analysis. An examination of the nation’s most and least populous states helps explain why: Whites make up 46 percent of the population of the five most populous states, but they account for 78 percent of the population of the five least populous states. Similarly, Hispanics make up 31 percent of the population in the five most populous states but 5 percent in the five least populous states.

We haven't made any deletions. Here's what we don't get:

According to that passage, "white" Americans are currently 59 percent of the population. That said, such people are "significantly overrepresented in the Senate today—by 14 percent."

We have no idea what that means. In the most simple-minded sense, it would seem to mean that 73 percent of the Senate is white, with 27 percent non-white.

Plainly, that would seem to be wildly inaccurate. In February 2021, Axios counted eleven non-white members of the Senate. Scrolling through the list of current members, that number seems unchanged today.

(For whatever it may be worth, it's possible that some Hispanic members of the Senate may also identify as white.)

Over-representation of the small population states is a major element in present-day Senate politics. It also might be interesting to examine the under-representation of various racial and ethnic groups within the modern-day Senate.

That said, Balz and his colleagues ran these topics together in a fairly bewildering, highly complicated report. Most strikingly, what did they mean when they said that white people are over-represented in the Senate by 14 percent?

We don't have the slightest idea—and no, we don't see where they explain the claim. Even at the top of the mainstream press corps, statistics can be very hard!

As best we can tell—and employing the standard demographic categories—white Americans are 59 percent of the population, but 89 percent of the Senate. 

What did the journalists mean by their alternate claim? Go ahead—be our guest! Maybe you'll be able to puzzle it out!

(For the record, Dan Balz has had a long and very sane career. The Granite State primary to which we've referred was won by Candidates Gore and McCain.)

PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: "Bilateral slaughter," Kristof said!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2023

Many Gazans, UN staffers killed: Nicholas Kristof could have been criticized right out of the gate.

Those in the grip of a certain passion could have said that he needed a sign—a sign just like the astonishing yard sign assigned to Barack Obama.

In yesterday morning's New York Times, Kristof offered his latest column about the Israel-Hamas war, and about the events which produced it. 

Kristof's columns on this topic have included in-person reporting from right there on the ground. That said, he could have been that he needed a sign as soon as he started his column this way, hard-copy headline included:

Three Myths of the Middle East

With the bilateral slaughter in the Middle East unleashing poisons that are worsening hatred worldwide, let me outline what I see as three myths inflaming the debate:

The first myth is that in the conflict in the Middle East there is right on one side and wrong on the other (even if people disagree about which is which).

Life isn’t that neat. The tragedy of the Middle East is that this is a clash of right versus right. That does not excuse Hamas’s massacre and savagery or Israel’s leveling of entire neighborhoods in Gaza, but underlying the conflict are certain legitimate aspirations that deserve to be fulfilled.

That's the way the column started. Just like that, right out of the gate, those in the grip of a certain passion might have said that Kristof should be issued a sign—the same sign Obama should have in his yard.

To people with one view of this matter, Kristof has perhaps engaged in disgraceful behavior. He has committed the sin known as "moral equivalency," and he's done so in several ways:

In his first few words, he refers to a "bilateral slaughter"—to a slaughter conducted by two different sides—and he quickly spells out what he means. 

In his third paragraph, he links Israel's military incursion into Gaza with the October 7 "massacre" committed by Hamas. Plainly, he's describing each of these events as "a slaughter." Our question:

If Obama was guilty of "moral equivalency" with his recent "absolutely disgusting" remarks, what might a passionate person say about this formulation?

Speaking for ourselves, a person might say that Kristof could perhaps have been more careful in the crafting of these opening comments. 

Does he mean to say that Israel's "leveling of entire neighborhoods" actually is a "massacre"—actually is a "slaughter" in the way the October 7 slaughter was? 

If that's what he means to say, we'd suggest that he should have said so more directly. For ourselves, we wouldn't have put it the way Kristof does—though we think that Kristof's writing from Israel and from the West Bank has been one of the most constructive bodies of work to emerge from this latest disaster.

Has Israel's response to October 7 really been a massacre—a slaughter? Kristof uses some highly evocative language in those opening paragraphs—the kind of language that could very easily get him issued a sign.

We refer, of course, to the kind of yard sign which was recently assigned to Barack Obama. For today, we won't repeat what that astonishing yard sign would have said. Over the past two weeks, we've repeated the words on that imaginary sign many times. 

We've repeated those words enough. 

In our view, the yard sign handed to Obama was the product of an extremely unhelpful type of intensity. Once again, we'll repeat the famous way the poet Yeats once limned it:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

Today, "the worst" are full of passionate intensity—or at least, we'd say that's true of certain people who seems to be (severely) mentally ill. 

Some of those people now speak about vermin. Others who aren't among "the worst" may issue Obama a sign, or they may say that the former president has been "lying through his teeth" about the current situation in Israel.

Personally, we wouldn't have started a column in the way Kristof did. At times like these, it seems to us that our most valuable observers should be extremely careful about the language they use—should speak as clearly and directly as they possibly can.

In our view, Kristof was perhaps a bit casual with some of his words at the start of this latest column. In fairness, he proceeded to offer a more upbeat type of equivalency—an equivalency which looks like this:

...The tragedy of the Middle East is that this is a clash of right versus right. That does not excuse Hamas’s massacre and savagery or Israel’s leveling of entire neighborhoods in Gaza, but underlying the conflict are certain legitimate aspirations that deserve to be fulfilled.

Israelis deserve their country, forged by refugees in the shadow of the Holocaust, and they have built a high-tech economy that largely empowers women and respects gay people, while giving its Palestinian citizens more rights than most Arab nations give their citizens. Israel’s courts, media freedom and civil society are models for the region, and there is something of a double standard: Critics pounce on Israeli abuses while often ignoring prolonged brutality against Muslims from Yemen to Syria, Western Sahara to Xinjiang.

Likewise, Palestinians deserve a country, freedom and dignity—and they shouldn’t be subjected to collective punishment...

Israelis deserve to have their country, and they deserve to be free of selective criticism. That said, Palestinians deserve a country too—and they deserve freedom and dignity.

Not everyone will agree with the assessments offered in those passages. Indeed, the most passionate among us will find plenty to disagree with in those passages too.

That said, Kristof provides a further service as his column continues. As he continues, he provides the type of information which might tend to get swept under the rug as these tragic events get discussed on our nation's TV shows or in our opinion columns:

Likewise, Palestinians deserve a country, freedom and dignity—and they shouldn’t be subjected to collective punishment. We’ve reached a searing milestone: In just five weeks of war, half of 1 percent of Gaza’s population has been killed. To put it in perspective, that’s more than the share of the American population that was killed in all of World War II—over the course of four years.

A great majority of those killed have been women and children, according to Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry, and one gauge of the ferocity and indiscriminate nature of some airstrikes is that more than 100 United Nations staffers have been killed, which the U.N. says is more than in any conflict since its founding. Perhaps that’s because, as an Israeli military spokesman put it early in the conflict, “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”

“We are normal people, trying to live,” an engineer in Gaza told me by phone. He despises Hamas and would like to see it removed from power, but he says that Hamas fighters are safe in tunnels while he and his children are the ones most at risk: “We’re the civilians paying the price.”

Whichever side you are more inclined toward, remember that the other includes desperate human beings merely hoping that their children can live freely and thrive in their own nation.

Depending on "which side you are more inclined toward," you can find a lot to challenge or criticize—or to disregard or disappear—in those highlighted passages. In the end, the question is this:

To what extent can you respond to statements with which you may disagree without letting your "passionate intensity" hand Obama a sign? To what extent can you respond to such statements without claiming that when Obama said the October 7 slaughter was "horrific," he was actually saying or suggesting that it was "not so bad?"

As every experienced person knows, passions can sweep observers away on all sides of every aisle. For reasons which are perfectly understandable, high-end journalists in this country are more likely to be "inclined toward" the Israeli side in the current disaster—but that may mean that information about Palestinian suffering, past and present, may tend to be go unstated.

In the passage we've just cited, Kristof offers somewhat unverifiable figures about the extent of death and destruction as the IDF engages in the "leveling of entire neighborhoods in Gaza."

Is that very formulation a fair account of Israel's current military actions? Many people may feel that it isn't—but can they say such things without going on Fox and loudly handing out signs?

In the past two weeks, we've discussed some comments which were made on a pair of Fox cable programs. On Monday, we may move on to discuss some presentations we've seen on MSNBC.

The passions have possibly been a bit less intense at that blue tribe site. But have the discussions made good sense, even over there? 

Public discussions rarely do! Our human brains aren't wired for that, despondent top experts have said.

"Bilateral slaughter," Kristof said. We think his work has been invaluable. Still, we leave you with a pair of questions:

Bilateral slaughter. In your carefully considered opinion, was that a good choice of words? Also, can you state your view, whatever it is, without handing Others a sign?

The Times refers to that blockade!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2023

And to an occupation: Last Saturday, it appeared as a front-page report in the New York Times. 

In their report, Hartocollis and Saul sifted through a war of words which is currently being fought on some college campuses. Online, their report appears beneath these dual headlines:

After Antisemitic Attacks, Colleges Debate What Kind of Speech Is Out of Bounds
Pro-Palestinian students say that they are speaking up for an oppressed people, but critics say that their rhetoric is deeply offensive.

What sorts of claims are antisemitic? What sorts of claims are not? The reporters tried to puzzle that out. Along the way, they wrote this:

HARTOCOLLIS AND SAUL (11/11/23): Pro-Palestinian supporters are quick to push back, asking whether any criticism of Israel and Zionism is acceptable.

They say that the cries of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle speech and divert attention from a 16-year blockade of Gaza by Israel, backed by Egypt, that has devastated the lives of Palestinians...

Stating the obvious, a great deal of "criticism of Israel" is routinely taken to be acceptable, as is completely appropriate. But how about that term "blockade?" Does the Times regard that as a reasonable description of ongoing Israeli policy with respect to Gaza? Or was that simply an account of what the "pro-Palestinian supporters" had said?

The reporters provided a link, and so we decided to click it. It took us to a second news report by the Times—a news report which appeared online in the immediate aftermath of the slaughters of October 7.

The report didn't appear in print editions. Also, the report was rather brief. 

That said, it may have signaled a certain semantic decision on the part of the Times. Where Barack Obama recently referred to an "occupation," the Times seemed willing to go with "blockade" in the case of Gaza:

Gaza Has Suffered Under 16-Year Blockade
Held in place by Israel and Egypt, the blockade restricts imports to the region and prevents most people from leaving.

For some Gazans, Saturday morning’s surprise Palestinian attack into southern Israel seemed a justified response to a 16-year Israeli blockade. Others worried that the coordinated attack would only add to Gaza’s misery as the tiny enclave braced for a large-scale response from Israel.

The Palestinian territory of Gaza has been under a suffocating Israeli blockade, backed by Egypt, since Hamas seized control of the coastal strip in 2007. The blockade restricts the import of goods, including electronic and computer equipment, that could be used to make weapons and prevents most people from leaving the territory.

More than two million Palestinians live in Gaza. The tiny, crowded coastal enclave has a nearly 50 percent unemployment rate, and Gaza’s living conditions, health system and infrastructure have all deteriorated under the blockade.

Israel says the blockade is necessary to stop the flow of arms into the territory, but Palestinians and aid groups say it is collective punishment and exacerbates dire economic and social conditions.

In this brief report, Raja Abdulrahim freely refers to the "blockade" of Gaza—an action Israel says "is necessary to stop the flow of arms into the territory."

Abdulrahim doesn't refer to an "occupation" of Gaza. In other news reports, the New York Times, rightly or wrongly, has routinely referred to the West Bank as being occupied by Israel. But we haven't found a news report in which the Times refers to a current or ongoing "occupation" of Gaza.

We mention this because of Professor Dershowitz's recent passionate meltdown.  He said there's no "occupation" at all—not in Gaza, not in the West Bank—and he said that Barack Obama had been "lying through his teeth" when he used that term.

As we noted this morning, different people, and different organizations, have different views on this particular semantic and legal matter. Also, discussion becomes impossible when people are swept away by the passionate intensities they may understandably feel.

By the way, has that 16-year blockade been necessary? That's the position of Israeli's government. Discussion, debate and the search for solutions must proceed from there.

"There is no occupation," the passionate professor said. He voiced that judgment about both Gaza and the West Bank.

The professor has every right to give voice to that view. But then, he began to shout and yell and to call decent people names. 

Despondently, top experts say that we human beings are inclined to behave in such ways. "The adults are frequently worse than the kids," one sad expert declared.

PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: Some say it's an occupation!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2023

Some say it's a blockade: We don't think that the people we'll name are actually "the worst."

In our view, their behavior has been astoundingly dumb and extremely unhelpful. But according to experts, this is the way we humans are inclined to behave at times of passionate intensity—at deeply challenging times like these.

Once again, here's the way Yeats famously limned it in the aftermath of the first world war:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

The worst are full of passionate intensity? In our view, so were Batya Ungar-Sargon and Alan Dershowitz as they made remarkable statements on a pair of Fox "cable news" shows.

Yesterday, we focused on the very first thing the Harvard professor said. 

To his credit, he didn't say that Barack Obama needs a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews." That was the Newsweek editor's astonishing statement or suggestion when she appeared on Fox & Friends. 

As for Dershowitz, when he appeared on Mornings with Maria, he started his lecture as shown:

BARTIROMO: (11/10/23): I want to get you to tell me more about what exactly Obama said that was—he did have moral equivalency between, you know, the terrorists of Hamas and Israel!

DERSHOWITZ: Well first, he said that the occupation is unbearable. He just lied through his teeth.

There is no occupation of Gaza. In 2005, and if life is unbearable in Gaza, it's because Hamas has been in control—the kleptocracy. People have stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian aid for their own bank accts in Qatar.

As far as the occupation of the West Bank, he's been to Ramallah. He knows Ramallah—there's no occupation. It's a beautiful city, as nice as Jerusalem, except a lot safer, because there's no terrorism.

And to compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it's just obscene and despicable. And what it does is it lends support to those students, basically, who are saying, "Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad. It was in response to the occupation."

The professor disputed Obama's use of one key word. That key word was "occupation." 

There is no occupation, the irate professor said. Indeed, Obama had been "lying through his teeth" when he used that key word.

The professor went to say that Obama had finally revealed his "deep hatred of Israel." There was no mention of a sign, but his presentation had been "obscene and despicable."

As he started, the professor focused on that one key word. And in fact, as part of a multi-faceted statement, Barack Obama had said such things as these:

[W]hat Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. 

And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.

"The occupation is unbearable," Obama had plainly said! As the professor spouted and fumed, the passion took over from there.

By the time the professor was through, Obama had actually said or suggested that the mass slaughter performed by Hamas was actually "not so bad!" Mainly, though, the professor was appalled by Obama's use of that one key word:

There is no occupation, he said. The fact that Oabam had used that word showed that he was "lying through his teeth."

What's in a word? the sages have long asked. In this instance, let' walk through a partial answer to that age-old question.

Did Gaza lay under an "occupation" as of October 7? For the record, some have said the answer is yes. Others have chosen to opt for a different key term.

In the aftermath of October 7, some news orgs offered background information about the situation. Under the headline shown below, CNBC offered this thumbnail account on October 17:

What is the Gaza Strip? What you need to know about the territory at the heart of the Israel-Hamas war

[...]

Following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war, Israel seized land from the Palestinian Arab-allocated state and ended up with 77% of the total territory. More than half of the Palestinian Arab population was expelled or fled as refugees to Gaza, the West Bank and neighboring countries.

Gaza was under the control of Egypt from 1948 until 1967. Israel subsequently gained control of and occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank following its victory in the 1967 Six-Day War against Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The United Nations classifies Israel as an occupier state over the Palestinian territories.

Say what? The United Nations classified the existing state of play as an "occupation?" 

Just because the U.N. says it, that doesn't mean that it's right! At any rate, CNBC might have been wrong about that matter—but the more blue-friendly NBC News had already offered this:

Gaza Strip explained: Who controls it and what to know

[...]

In 2005, under international and domestic pressure, Israel withdrew around 9,000 Israeli settlers and its military forces from Gaza, leaving the enclave to be governed by the Palestinian Authority, which also controlled parts of the occupied West Bank.

Today, with over 2 million Palestinians living within roughly 140 square miles, it is “one of the world’s most densely populated territories,” according to Gisha, an Israeli nongovernmental organization. Half of Palestinians living in Gaza are under age 19, but they have few to no prospects for socioeconomic growth and limited access to the outside world.

Hamas, which has clashed repeatedly with the Palestinian leaders in the West Bank who negotiated the Oslo Peace Accords, is a militant Palestinian nationalist movement currently led by Ismail Haniyeh. It took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held.

Despite pleas from the United Nations and human rights groups, Israel has maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 that has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians. Israel says the blockade, which gives it control of Gaza's borders and is also enforced by Egypt, is necessary to protect Israeli citizens from Hamas.

The International Committee of the Red Cross considers the blockade illegal and says it violates the Geneva Convention, a charge Israeli officials deny. The U.N., various human rights groups and legal scholars, citing the blockade, consider Gaza to still be under military occupation by Israel. 

According to that report, it isn't just the United Nations. It's also "various human rights groups and legal scholars" who still considered Gaza to be under occupation.

For the record, yes! The International Committee of the Red Cross is one of those groups. That doesn't mean that its view is correct. But Obama has a fair amount of company in the use of that one key word.

Meanwhile, notice this! In that report by NBC News, a new term has appeared. 

That new term is "blockade." According to some observers, Gaza hadn't been suffering from an "occupation." It had been suffering from a "blockade."

According to NBC News, Israel has (rightly or wrongly) "maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007." 

Also according to NBC News, that blockade "has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians." For its part, Israel says the blockade "is necessary to protect Israeli citizens from Hamas."

Who is "right" in all of this? Different people will answer that question in a wide array of ways. But suppose Obama had made the statement shown below. Would that statement have been acceptable to the furious professor?

[W]hat Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. 

And what is also true is that the blockade, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.

Would Obama have been "lying through his teeth" if he'd simply gone with "blockade?" Would he still have been revealing his long-hidden "deep hatred of Israel?"

We don't know what the professor would have said if Obama had chosen that alternate word. But had the existing state of affairs really been "unbearable" for Palestinians in Gaza? 

For the professor, "unbearable" seemed to be another forbidden term. But for the record, that CNBC report had included this call of the roll:

Between 2008 and 2023 before the current conflict, Israeli airstrikes had killed 6,407 Palestinians in the occupied territories, 5,360 of whom were in Gaza, according to the U.N. Over the same period, 308 Israelis were killed.

That doesn't mean that the airstrikes in question were "wrong." That said, this is the kind of information which has rarely been cited as cable news stars have shouted and yelled in the course of saying that they can't imagine why These College Kids Today may adopt a view concerning this matter which differs from their own infallible view.

Let's return to that NBC News report. "Half of Palestinians living in Gaza are under age 19," the report said, "but they have few to no prospects for socioeconomic growth and limited access to the outside world."

Could a person have that sort of thing in mind when he calls the situation "unbearable?" Could that person have made a fairer presentation by choosing a softer term?

Obama needs a sign, the lady said to the cable news friends. Barack Obama needs a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."

According to experts, that is the astonishing way we human beings may behave when the intensity of our passion grips us on "cable news" programs.

To his credit, the Harvard professor didn't say that—but was what he said much wiser, much more helpful? We can't really say that it was. 

In our view, it's unfortunate when college students exercise what may be limited judgment. In our view, when their famous professors spout and fume, the center may struggle to hold. 

The situation in Gaza has gone on for many years. It's very, very, very hard to untangle the right and the wrong of various actions which have been taken down through the many long years by the various parties.

Moral and mental breakdowns on cable don't help us move toward better understanding. Instead, they may show what Yeats was talking about. They may also show that the kind of spinouts he was citing aren't restricted to "the worst."

For ourselves, we'd like to see peace and prosperity come to the people of Israel and to the people of Palestine. We'd like to see their winning example spread elsewhere in the world.

Tomorrow, we'll riddle this a bit further. For this morning, though, we leave you with a question:

Who do you prefer, the lady or the tiger? Which key word would make everything right—occupation or blockade?

Tomorrow: Nicholas Kristof

This afternoon: A New York Times formulation concerning these key words

How many people showed up in D.C.?

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2023

How many do you want? The first number we heard today we heard on Fox & Friends.

Three hundred thousand people had attended yesterday's demonstration, the friends said again and again.

That was a very big number! Then we consulted the New York Times, and the Times bumped the number down:

Jewish Groups Rally for Israel on National Mall

[...]

The march was arranged in a matter of days by the Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Schools, synagogues and community centers sent buses of attendees. By the time speeches began, the Mall was crowded with people from Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, Boston, Philadelphia and other places around the country, waving American and Israeli flags and holding signs declaring support.

Over the course of the event, tens of thousands of people had converged on the Mall, the national park that sits between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument. The U.S. Park Police, which has jurisdiction, does not provide official crowd estimates, nor does the city’s Metropolitan Police Department.

The Times put the number at "tens of thousands." And even that was only "over the course of the event!"

At least the Times had placed the report at the very top of its web site. (In print editions, the report appeared on page A21.) Then we went to the Washington Post, hoping for the final word on the actual size of the crowd.

For whatever reason, the report about the demonstration had been buried in the Post's local section.  Online, that section, and with it that report, appeared a bit more than halfway down the paper's endless front page. 

In fact, it appeared just below the Post's SPORTS section. In fact, that's where the report still sits as we type. To us, that placement seems strikingly odd.

Placement issues to the side, how many people were at the demonstration? "Thousands of demonstrators" were there, the Post report quickly said.

This made us think of a little-known joke which we learned long ago. The joke is known as Goldberg's Law, or at least so we were told:

The man with one watch always knows the time. The man with two watches is never quite sure.

We know that old joke as "Goldberg's Law." We learned it, four decades ago, from an extremely decent person—Paul Reiser.

It was a bit like that with respect to yesterday's demonstration. Fox was running a very large number, but reports went downhill from there.

What might the actual number have been? Because we consulted three separate sources, we're left with no clear idea!

PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: There's no occupation of Gaza, he said!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2023

Nor of the West Bank: With apologies for the repetition, you might remember the very first things Barack Obama said.

We refer to the first things Obama said on a certain videotape. His comments produced a wave of reaction from observers on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Channel—observers who may perhaps have been swept away by their "passionate intensity."

What were the first things Obama said on the videotape? Once again, the presentation started like this:

OBAMA: If there’s any chance of us being able to act constructively to do something, it will require an admission of complexity and maintaining what on the surface may seem contradictory ideas:

That what Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. 

And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.

And what is also true is that there is a history of the Jewish people that may be dismissed unless your grandparents, or your great-grandparents, or your uncle or your aunt, tell you stories about the madness of antisemitism.

And what is true is that there are people right now who are dying, who have nothing to do with what Hamas did.

For the text of Obama's full statement, you can just click here.

At any rate, that's the way the taped statement began. Rather quickly, these remarks seemed to trigger "passionate intensity" on the part of several observers.

First, Newsweek editor Batya Ungar-Sargon told viewers of Fox & Friends Weekend that Obama's remarks were "absolutely disgusting." 

He had engaged in "moral equivalency," the Berkeley Ph.D. said. Also, she seemed to say that Barack Obama needed a sign—a new sign out in his yard, a yard sign which said, "Kill the Jews."

It's astonishing that someone can say that on a major "news" show without a single word of comment from this nation's major news orgs. Soon, though, along came Professor Dershowitz, and he was passionate too.

He was especially passionate about Obama's use of a certain key word. As we noted yesterday, his interview on the Fox Business Channel started exactly like this:

BARTIROMO: (11/10/23): I want to get you to tell me more about what exactly Obama said that was—he did have moral equivalency between, you know, the terrorists of Hamas and Israel!

DERSHOWITZ: Well first, he said that the occupation is unbearable. He just lied through his teeth.

There is no occupation of Gaza. In 2005, and if life is unbearable in Gaza, it's because Hamas has been in control—the kleptocracy. People have stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian aid for their own bank accts in Qatar.

As far as the occupation of the West Bank, he's been to Ramallah. He knows Ramallah—there's no occupation. It's a beautiful city, as nice as Jerusalem, except a lot safer, because there's no terrorism.

And to compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it's just obscene and despicable. And what it does is it lends support to those students, basically, who are saying, "Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad. It was in response to the occupation."

Although he said that the attacks by Hamas are not justifiable, he made them justifiable, because if life really is unbearable, as it's not, then you can do anything you want to make it bearable.

The professor spoke with the routinely hapless Maria Bartiromo. She quickly played the "equivalency" card, possibly not knowing what else to say.

As for the outraged professor, he started with a key word. 

Obama had used the word "occupation," he noted. The use of that word showed that Obama had been "lying through his teeth."

The professor went on to draw some key conclusions. To his credit, he didn't say that Obama heeds a sign—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."

Authoring a minor bit of grace, the professor didn't say that!

He did go on to draw some conclusions on the basis of what Obama had said. Obama had been "lying through his teeth," the professor hotly said. Also, Obama had finally revealed an ugly fact:

Obama had finally revealed the fact that he has always had "a deep hatred of Israel in his heart."

Obama had always hidden this hatred, the passionate professor now said, but now it had been revealed. "He should be ashamed of himself," the professor said. "He should apologize, but he won't."  

The Berkeley Ph.D. had said that Obama's remarks were "absolutely disgusting." The Harvard professor may have topped her:

"Obscene and despicable," the professor aggressively said.

In our view, the transparent lunacy of these presentations can't be dwelled on often enough. For today, though, we want to focus on the first thing the passionate professor said:

We want to direct you to the way he started out with that one key word. 

Obama had used the word "occupation," the acerbic academic said. But there is no occupation, the professor now said. The fact that Obama had used that word revealed his long-standing "deep hatred." 

As a minor point of fairness, let us say this. As the professor spouted and fumed, it wasn't entirely clear what he had actually said.

Rather clearly, he started by saying that there is no occupation of Gaza. But as you can see if you watch the tape, the emphasis he placed on that last word may have seemed to suggest the possibility that there may be an occupation somewhere else.

He then almost seemed to say that there actually is an occupation of the West Bank—but then, he rather quickly seemed to say that there actually isn't. Obama has been to Ramallah, he said—and there's no occupation there.

(For the record, Ramallah is a city in the West Bank. The professor didn't explain this fact, and most viewers didn't know that.)

In the passage we have posted, the professor went on to fashion a form of the "equivalency" framework. Indeed, as the professor spouted and fumed, he managed to produce a remarkable change in the weather:

In fact, Obama had said the killings and kidnappings by Hamas had been "horrific." But by the time the professor's fuming was done, it turned out that Obama had actually said that the killings really "weren't so bad."

According to major experts, this is the way we humans are inclined to behave at times of war and great upheaval, at times of group conflict and stress. 

At such times, we may be strongly inclined to be swept away by our passions. We may end up saying that Barack Obama needs a new sign. Within a matter of moments, we may be able to turn "horrific" into "not so bad."

A bit like Hawthorne's Rappaccini, Bartiromo's guest let us see that even the most exalted professors can sometimes have limited judgment.  In this case, even the most exalted professors can perhaps be swept away by their passions at moments of high intensity. 

Having said that, what's in a word? What's in that key word—"occupation"—the word which triggered Professor Dershowitz, sent him off on his rant?

"Horrific" turned into "not so bad." But also, there was that key word!

Did Obama's use of the word "occupation" show us that he was lying through his teeth? Tomorrow, we'll take a quick walk through existing uses of that word within the context of these recent horrific events.

Does an "occupation" exist in Gaza? How about in the West Bank? Also, how about a "blockade?" What about that word?

What lies behind the use of such locutions? Also, is it possible that the Professor Dershowitz, swept up in the intensity of his passion, might himself be eligible for some sort of a sign?

Tomorrow: Occupation / blockade

Full disclosure: When people start talking about who needs a sign, we always think about our old semi-pal, the very well-liked Bill Engvall

Concerning those racist congressional maps!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2023

No one attempts to explain: Does the state of Louisianan currently have a racist congressional districting map?

According to this recent post by Kevin Drum, the answer would seem to be yes. Headline included, this is the way the Drumster's short post begins:

Louisiana ordered to redraw racist congressional map

Louisiana's latest redistricting map is so unfair to Black voters that even the hyper-conservative Fifth Circuit Court has agreed it's illegal...

According to Drum, Louisiana's latest map is unfair to black voters—so much so that it isn't merely racist, it's also illegal.

At this point, Drum links to a news report from The Guardian. According to that news report, the map in question "illegally disfranchises Black voters in the state." 

Stating the obvious, the disenfranchisement of black voters—traditionally, the refusal to allow black citizens to vote—has a long, gruesome history in various regions and states. Obviously, it should be illegal to do some such thing—to make it impossible, or deliberately hard, for black citizens to vote.

 Is that what's happening in Louisiana? Rather plainly, no. In what way, then, is the congressional map in question said to "disenfranchise" Louisiana's black voters?  Like this report in the New York Times, the Guardian offers this explanation: 

SAINATO (11/11/23): Black voters in Louisiana represent about one-third of the state’s population, but currently represent a majority in just one out of six congressional districts in the state.

Republicans have argued the current map is fair, with Democrats arguing the districts discriminate against Black voters in the state.

A lower court in June 2022 struck down Louisiana’s current congressional map. The court ruled that the map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered a new map to be drawn that includes a second congressional district with a majority of Black voters.

Roughly one third of Louisiana's population is black. But the map which has been rejected included only one majority black congressional district out of six in the state.

This is a very familiar formulation in cases of this type. The thinking seems to go like this:

If a state is one third black, one third of its congressional districts—in this case, two out of six—should be majority black. For today, our question would be this:

Is there a provision of the Voting Rights Act which makes some such declaration? Also, what's the constitutional principle which would lead to some such holding?

Our journalists rarely attempt to quote or describe the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act. It does seem clear that federal judges are operating on something like this idea:

The percentage of a state's population which is black should correspond to the percentage of congressional districts which are majority black.

That seems to be the basic idea. But what exactly does the relevant part of the Voting Rights Act actually say about this?  Also, is it a good idea to form districts that way?

For ourselves, we aren't attracted to such types of race-based reasoning. That doesn't mean that federal judges aren't correctly applying the relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

That said, what are the relevant provisions of the VRA? What do those provisions actually say?

Our journalists rarely bother with such tedious matters. Meanwhile, our analysts tend to go straight to one of our tribe's favorite bombs.

We'll offer one final point, although our one point may have parts:

On the current Louisiana map, there is one (1) congressional district which has the traditional look of a "gerrymandered" district.  We refer to the second congressional district, whose curious shape you can see just by clicking here.

That district has the traditional, serpentine shape of the classic "gerrymandered" district. And yes, it's the one majority black district on the rejected map!

By normal standards, that district was "gerrymandered" in order to make it majority black. It's even possible that a map with two (2) majority black districts would have two (2) weirdly shaped districts.

On the other hand:

According to the leading authority, that second district is 62.2% black. The Cook Partisan Voting Index rates the district as heavily Democratic—as D+25. 

Those numbers suggest the possibility that Republican mapmakers stuffed an excessive number of black voters into that one serpentine district, thereby creating "wasted votes" and keeping surrounding districts more safely Republican. These are the slippery ways modern districts are formed.

Our one last final point comes from Katie Benner's report on this matter in the New York Times:

BENNER (11/11/23): Black voters in the state have traditionally supported Democrats; a second majority Black district could tip the scale in that party’s favor and shift the balance of power in Congress, where Republicans control the House by only a slim majority.

Using the current map in last year's elections, Louisiana sent five Republicans to the House and only one Democrat. Creating a second majority-black district might turn that 5-1 split to 4-2. 

On the national level, advantage Democrats!

Machinations of this type breed cynicism among the electorate. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the joy of compact congressional districts? 

Our nation's governmental and judicial systems are endlessly complex. The endless complexity may breed a desire for simplifications. Along comes a man on a white charger—a man who may look suspiciously like former president Donald J. Trump!

At any rate, what does the Voting Rights Act actually say about the "disenfranchisement" of black voters? Also, to what extent does the current judicial consensus represent a good idea?

For the record, we can teach this matter flat or we can teach it round. For whatever reason, our upper-end journalists rarely seem inclined to try to teach it at all!

PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: The famous professor spouted and fumed!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2023

He was troubled by one key word: It's hardly surprising to see that people have been emotional, disturbed, upset—to see that many people have been "passionate"—in the aftermath of the slaughter conducted by Hamas on October 7.

It would be odd if people weren't emotional, disturbed, upset in the wake of such a mass slaughter. That said:

When we humans are upset, we may not function in thoroughly constructive ways. In a widely cited set of lines, Yeats offered a famous account of what can happen at times of vast upheaval:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

As we noted yesterday, we thought of those famous lines as we watched yesterday's Morning Joe. There's been a great deal of intensity on that show in the weeks since October 7. 

Along the way, there has also been a very large sifting of facts. Basic information may be sifted, even picked and chosen and suppressed, at times of such high passion.

Last week, we discussed a bit of intensity to which we were exposed on the red tribe "cable news" program, Fox & Friends Weekend. All last week, we discussed some of the passionate intensity which was performed on that program on Sunday morning, November 5.

The intensity led to an astonishing claim or suggestion. We refer to the claim or suggestion that Barack Obama needs a sign—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."

The person who made that claim or that suggestion almost surely isn't "the worst," though she performed a good impression of same on that astonishing program. For better or worse, passionate intensity isn't restricted to "the worst" at times of great upheaval. This brings us to something Professor Dershowitz said last Friday morning on the Fox Business Channel.

Like Batya Ungar-Sargon, Professor Dershowitz almost surely isn't "the worst." That said, he was full of passion, and full of intensity, in the appearance in question.

Last Friday, he spoke with Matia Bartiromo on her program, Mornings with Maria. As we noted on Saturday, a headline on a Fox News report captured his remarks as shown:

Alan Dershowitz calls out Obama's 'deep hatred of Israel': 'He should be ashamed'

If you'd been watching Fox & Friends Weekend, you'd been told that Obama needed that sign in his yard. Now, you were told that Obama had displayed a "deep hatred of Israel" in a recent set remarks.

Does Barack Obama need a sign in his yard—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews?" Passionate intensity can lead us humans to make such astonishing comments.

Concerning Professor Dershowitz, he was also passionate when he spoke with Bartiromo. Below, you see the way the interview began:

BARTIROMO: (11/10/23): I want to get you to tell me more about what exactly Obama said that was—he did have moral equivalency between, you know, the terrorists of Hamas and Israel!

DERSHOWITZ: Well first, he said that the occupation is unbearable. He just lied through his teeth.

There is no occupation of Gaza. In 2005, and if life is unbearable in Gaza, it's because Hamas has been in control—the kleptocracy. People have stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian aid for their own bank accts in Qatar.

As far as the occupation of the West Bank, he's been to Ramallah. He knows Ramallah—there's no occupation. It's a beautiful city, as nice as Jerusalem, except a lot safer, because there's no terrorism.

And to compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it's just obscene and despicable. And what it does is it lends support to those students, basically, who are saying, "Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad. It was in response to the occupation.’"

Although he said that the attacks by Hamas are not justifiable, he made them justifiable, because if life really is unbearable, as it's not, then you can do anything you want to make it bearable.

To watch the full tape, click here.

The interview continued from there. The professor was full of intensity on this particular morning.

Below, we'll note the professor's instant objection to Obama's use of one particular word. Already, though, he had said that Obama was "lying through his teeth" in his recent remarks about this deeply important matter. He had also said that Obama's remarks had been "obscene and despicable."

The passionate professor was full of intensity on this particular morning. "You are so spot on," Bartiromo inevitably said at this point, going on to say that Obama's remarks had been "absolutely disgusting."

Full disclosure! At this point, we haven't even reached the comments which were featured in the headline sitting atop that Fox Business news report. We refer to the comments which were quoted at the start of Kristen Altus' report:

ALTUS (11/10/23): Expressing outrage over former President Barack Obama’s call for an end to Israeli "occupation," Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz expanded on why he’s never talking to the Democratic president again.

"I think he always had a deep hatred of Israel in his heart. He hid it very well. He called me to the Oval Office and he said to me, 'Alan, you've known me for a long time. You know I have Israel's back.' I didn't realize he meant to paint a target on it," Dershowitz said Friday on "Mornings with Maria."

"He's never been supportive of Israel. And finally, his true feelings have come out now that he's no longer president and doesn't have to be elected," the professor continued. "He has contributed enormously to the problem because he is respected among young people. And if he says the occupation is unbearable and that anything can be done to stop it, he is encouraging people to engage in their antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American attitudes. He should be ashamed of himself. He should apologize, but he won't."

So began the news report, focusing on a key word. 

"Obama had always had a deep hatred of Israel in his heart," the passionate professor had said. The passionate fellow had also said that Obama had skillfully hidden his deep hatred—had done so until now.

Also this! In the current instance, Obama had been encouraging people to engage in antisemitic attitudes! Or at least, so the passionate professor had said. 

Obama should apologize, the professor had said. But, of course, he won't.

This is the sort of thing you hear if you watch Fox News / Fox Business programs. Barack Obama needs a sign which says, Kill the Jews. He's always had a deep hatred of Israel. Also, he was lying through his teeth in his recent comments.

In this case, the passionate professor spouted and fumed about Obama's alleged deep hatred. Repeatedly, caution and logic were thrown to the winds—and then too, there was that key word.

Right out of the gate, the passionate fellow had gone there. Obama had said "the occupation is unbearable," but no occupation exists!

According to the Harvard professor, it was that despicable choice of words which showed that Obama had been lying through his teeth! According to a wide array of disconsolate experts, this is the way we humans are frequently inclined to behave when things begin falling apart.

The Harvard professor spouted and fumed. Logic died a thousand deaths as he spouted and fumed for his compliant corporate host.

But what about that troubling word—the word which showed that Obama was lying? Tomorrow, we'll take a look at that key word and at one other—"blockade."

We'll try to perform a very rare function. Even as the center fails to hold., we'll try to let some tiny bits of information sneak out.

Tomorrow: Occupation, blockade

By the way: What had Obama actually said? To read his remarks, click here.

STARTING TOMORROW: Passionate intensities!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2023

Information rarely intrudes: This very morning, on Morning Joe, the gang readjusted the focus of what we'd call their passionate intensity.

Over the past few weeks, the focus of their passionate intensity had been the (unexplainable) antisemitism which is allegedly widely found on college campuses—even among presidents of major universities.

Today, the focus shifted back to Donald J. Trump. As for Donald J. Trump himself, his passionate intensity led him to comment, this very weekend, about wiping out "the vermin"—removing them from the land.

Full disclosure:

As Baltimore residents, we've been watching the Baltimore Ravens since the 2001 season. In the past few years, we've often wondered if the nation's various sports pundits have ever watched a Ravens game over the past five years.

So too this morning! We sometimes wonder if the Morning Joe gang have any real idea concerning what's being said, with passionate intensity, over there on the other side.

(On many occasions, our own blue tribe has settled on a dangerous point of pride—we shouldn't listen to what's being said by the Others! Warning: Some of what we saw on this morning's Fox & Friends makes powerful political sense, and even seems to make powerful sense on the merits.)

Full disclosure:

We aren't telling you that Yeats was a political savant. As far as we know, he wasn't.

That said, we thought of one of his famous poems as we watched various factions spout and yell this morning. The lines have been quoted again and again. The famous lines go like this:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

So begins The Second Coming. The leading authority on the famous poem thumbnails it as shown:

"The Second Coming" is a poem that was written by Irish poet W. B. Yeats in 1919, first printed in The Dial in November 1920 and included in his 1921 collection of verses Michael Robartes and the Dancer. The poem uses Christian imagery regarding the Apocalypse and Second Coming to describe allegorically the atmosphere of post-war Europe. It is considered a major work of modernist poetry and has been reprinted in several collections, including The Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry.

The poem was written in 1919 in the aftermath of the First World War and the beginning of the Irish War of Independence in January 1919, which followed the Easter Rising in April 1916, and before the British government had decided to send in the Black and Tans to Ireland. Yeats used the phrase "the second birth" instead of "the Second Coming" in his first drafts.

[...]

Phrases and lines from the poem are used in many works, in a variety of media, such as literature, motion pictures, television, and music...

In the aftermath of the First World War, Yeats thought the center wouldn't be able to hold, in part because the least constructive people were "full of passionate intensity."

So it almost seems to go in this very day, right here in our own struggling nation. Can "the center" be expected to hold given the current arrangement of our frequently clownish "news" culture?

Consider:

On Fox, viewers are told that Barack Obama has always had "a deep hatred of Israel"—with apologies, that he needs a sign in his yard, a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."

That's what red tribe viewers hear on a lazy Sunday morning, with no one on hand to question such remarkable statements. That said, in the past month, the shouting on certain blue tribe programs has tended in the same general direction. As always, the passionate intensities have tended to work like this:

Even on these blue tribe programs, the shouters say they can't imagine why any decent person's views don't perfectly align with their own. The speaker's views are perfectly right. Everyone else is a monster and, of course, a liar, or so we viewers are told.

This morning, Joe moved on from antisemitism and back to Donald J. Trump. We were back to abortion rights and "the Muslim ban," and on to Trump's newly stated intention to go after the vermin.

Do sports pundits ever watch Ravens' games? More and more in recent years, we haven't felt real sure.

So too with the various intensities which now emerge from all sides. We hear a lot of shouting and yelling. On very, very rare occasions, a tiny dribble of relevant information may be allowed to break through.

Donald J. Trump has now explicitly said that he'll take care of "the vermin." Also, it's said, with passionate intensity, that Barack Obama has always had a deep hatred, even that he needs a sign.

The intensities have been full of passion on various red and blue TV shows. Ratings are up, up, up, up, up. Though also, the polls are scary.

That said, can "the center" be expected to hold in the face of such an array of siftings? In the face of these widely performed "ceremonies of innocence?"

Tomorrow: For starters, an extremely passionate Harvard professor very much hates a key word

Concerning Obama's "deep hatred of Israel!"

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2023

Dershowitz shouts and yells: With apologies for repeating a phrase, we're going to ask the question again:

Should Barack Obama be equipped with a new yard sign—with a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews?"

As we've been noting all week, that's what Batya Ungar-Sargon either said, or strongly suggested, during her astounding performance on last Sunday's Fox & Friends. 

Before we move on to something similar which someone else has now said, let's consider one part of Ungar-Sargon's astounding performance which we've haven't specifically cited to date.

Ungar-Sargon holds a PhD in English literature from Berkeley. Today, she's an editor at the endlessly reinvented Newsweek—one of 57 such savants at the reinvented magazine.

In our view, Ungar-Sargon also a bit of a bungled logician. Once again, here's some of what the distinguished scholar and journalist said:

UNGAR-SARGON (11/5/23): Yeah, thank you so much for having me, Rachel. Thank you for your incredible courage at this time, and I also just have to say thank you to everybody at Fox News, every producer, every writer, 

You guys have been incredible in a sea of antisemitic media and bigotry. So thank you so much, from the bottom of my heart.

Speaking of signs, I was joking with a friend over Shabbat that the progressives need a new sign for their yard, right?  "Black Lives Matter, In This House We Trust Science, No Human is Illegal, and Kill the Jews," right?

I mean, that's what we're seeing. 

Professor Dershowitz is absolutely correct that the progressive movement is deeply, deeply antisemitic. Rashida Tlaib out there defending Hamas' chant, "From the river to the sea?" Why would anyone pick that as the hill to die on, I don't know. 

But even President Obama, out there with a clip yesterday with absolute moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. Absolutely disgusting stuff.

Speaking of absolutely disgusting stuff, Ungar-Sargin had said, or had strongly suggested, that Obama himself needs that sign.

Barack Obama needs a yard sign—a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews!" That's what the Berkeley scholar—and the sadly failed logician—pretty much more or less said.

In part, she made that wonderfully amusing statement in her role as master humorist. But as you can see, in her role as failed logician, the Newsweek sage also said this:

But even President Obama, out there with a clip yesterday with absolute moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel. 

Good lord! Obama hadn't simply declared "moral equivalency" between Hamas and Israel. He had declared an absolute moral equivalency between the two named parties.

At this point, we weep for the people who live in the country where flyweights of this type are given so many tools to play with, as our million-and-one academic logicians look on without saying a word. We refer here to the remarkably elastic, weaponized tool, the claim of "moral equivalency."

Starting on Tuesday, we've repeatedly shown you what Obama actually said. Our question today is this:

At any point, did Obama assert some sort of "moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel," let alone an absolute version of that nebulous form of assessment?

Rather plainly, the answer is no. To this astonishing Berkeley star, we'll offer a brief starter lesson:

There is no truck scale in the world which measures degrees of moral misconduct. 

In his statement, Obama said that what Hamas did on October 7 "was horrific, and there’s no justification for it." That said, he also said this:

"And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable."

In short, he said the October 7 killings had been horrific. He also said that "the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable."

He didn't drag these two events onto the truck scale which seems to exist in Ungar-Sanger's "highly educated" mind.  He didn't say which of these matters was morally worse. He also didn't say that they were morally equal.

It fell to Ungar-Sargon to drag out a rhetorical weapon which is now widely employed by many within our own tribe. Because Obama had voiced disapproval of two different staters of affairs, he had somehow declared them to be "morally equivalent"—absolutely so!

You have to have the mind of a child to exercise such a move on your way to that astounding statement about the sign in the yard. Ungar-Sargon, the Berkeley scholar, was willing to put that imaginary truck scale to use, then to erect that sign.

A few days ago, along came Professor Dershowitz offering similar thunder. Sadly, the headline on the Fox Business report reads exactly like this:

Alan Dershowitz calls out Obama's 'deep hatred of Israel': 'He should be ashamed'

Pathetic and silly! Sad!

Does Obama need to erect that ugly yard sign? Similarly, did Obama exhibit a "deep hatred of Israel" in what he said in that video clip?

Ungar-Sargon  went on Fox and played the fool with a weaponized turn of phrase. Coach Dershowitz called a different play from the shouter's play book—the play in which you take some comment which someone has made and you paraphrase it in the most unattractive way possible.

(Did Al Gore ever say he invented the Internet? Endlessly, for two solid years, that was preferred paraphrase!)

These are the plays of the shouters and screamers. As our nation dies beneath such discourse, our "highly educated" academic logicians refuse to offer their alleged expertise—refuse to so much as say boo about such piddling matters.

These are the plays of the shouters and screamers. Also, this is the never-ending behavior of a demographic called humans at war. 

According to experts, Ungar-Sargon's performance was a pathetic gong show and a dim bulb disgrace. According to that same array of observers, the professor was dumber and worse!

The Germans wore gray, but Ilsa wore blue!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2023

Vanessa Friedman gone wild: Has anybody actually watched the three GOP "debates?"

At the New York Times, Vanessa Friedman apparently has! Yesterday morning, on page D4, she told readers how the debates have gone:

FRIEDMAN (11/9/23): In a crowded field of Republican presidential candidates, Nikki R. Haley is starting to stand out. Such, anyway, seems to be the conclusion of pollsters, voters and donors alike, who have helped bolster her numbers since she first took to the debate stage back in August. She’s on enough of an upswing that “Saturday Night Live” has started to prep a Haley character in anticipation.

[...]

In that initial debate, surrounded by seven men in the exact same outfits—dark blue suits, white shirts, red ties, tiny flag pins, otherwise known as the political uniform of the non-debating Donald J. Trump—Ms. Haley was a beacon in a light blue bouclé skirt suit and high heels.

In the second debate, with the men in pretty much the same outfits (Tim Scott did wear a red and navy striped tie that time), there she was, in gleaming crimson silk shantung and pumps. And chances are, as the field shrinks in the third debate, such distinctions will become even more apparent.

For the record, that third debate had already taken place when this report appeared in print editions. It was an official UNBUTTONED report from the Times' "fashion director and chief fashion critic," postings Friedman has held since 2014.

Reports like this make our skin crawl, dating back to the tsunami of wardrobe-trawling which overtook Campaign 2000. Starting in the fall of 1999, Candidate Gore was trashed for every aspect of his highly revealing wardrobe.

The candidate was trashed for his boots; for his suits; for the number of buttons on his suits (three).

For his unseemly polo shirts; for the height at which he hemmed his pants; most repetitively, for the deeply troubling color of that one "earth toned" suit.

The coverage reached the level of insanity, and then it just kept going. This insanity went unmentioned by the rest of the guild. 

The fact that this lunacy went unmentioned says something about a range of academic and journalistic elites. For our money, the medals for Crazy would have gone to Matthews, Williams and Huffington, but the outfit-frisking was widely practiced, and the frisking went on for months.

In fairness, yesterday's "UNBUTTONED" analysis piece was hidden on page F4. This morning, though, Friedman is right there on A1—on the Times' front page!

Today, she's frisking what the Trumps wore to court in the exciting past week. Print edition headline included, here's how her news report starts:

Taking the Stand, the Trumps Try to Set a Uniform Tone. It’s Blue...

The New York attorney general’s office has finished presenting its case in the civil fraud trial of former President Donald J. Trump. The first act of the first episode in the extended series known as the Trump lawsuits has come to an end. (The defense begins next week, and four more criminal cases are pending.) The show, however, is only beginning.

Mr. Trump is, after all, a man who has always seen the presidency as perhaps the ultimate expression of reality TV. This stage may not be of his own choosing, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t opportunity involved—especially since his three adult children from his first marriage were also there, playing their usual parts. Down to the costumes.

Welcome to the new season of Trump family trial style. It involves a somewhat different look for the brand—one that is notably … well, blue.

All in green went my love riding, cummings once reported. According to this front-page breaking news, the Trumps were all costumed in blue:

The guest star of the week was Ivanka Trump, making a reluctant return to center stage after announcing on Instagram last year that she was stepping out of the political limelight. She was the focus of this week’s final scene, flying up from her home in Florida, emerging from the bowels of a black town car to make her entrance in a navy wool coat and navy pantsuit, a black leather tote clutched in one hand, tiny pearl studs in her ears and with her blond hair falling in soft waves around her face, the picture of gentle, pulled-together professionalism and good will.

Ivanka was the picture of professionalism? Frankly, we're glad that somebody is! Later, the front-page report lumbers on:

[Donald J.] Trump had taken the stand earlier in the week, in a navy suit, bright blue tie hanging extra long, and little flag pin. Not exactly his usual MAGA uniform of red (tie), white (shirt) and blue (suit) but a variation on the theme, perhaps in acknowledgment that the site was not the campaign trail, no matter how much he may use his legal problems to rally his troops. Besides, his pugilistic expression, made famous in his Georgia mug shot and then plastered over campaign merch, was fully present during his testimony, even if no one else was seeing red.

And his suit set the tone for his children, all of whom coordinated in matching navy for their own time on the stand, an implicit show of family unity before any words were uttered. How do we know they’re on the same page?

Just look at Mr. Trump’s sons and co-defendants Donald Jr. and Eric, both of whom testified the week before their father and sister, and both of whom were clothed as the perfect supporting cast, in matching pastel ties and shirts. Specifically, a pink tie and light blue shirt for Donald Jr. on Day 1 of his testimony and a light blue tie and powder pink shirt on Day 2, a light blue tie and white shirt for Eric, colors that would complement, rather than compete with, their father’s primary shades. Both wore matching brown lace-up shoes and carefully landscaped matching facial foliage.

Both, like their father (and sister), avoided the bright red that has become the Trump signature color and, for that matter, any overt displays of wealth through accessorizing—a pointed choice for a family that delights in the trappings of “Dynasty.” And most likely a calculated one for a trial in which the judge has already found that Mr. Trump inflated his net worth, and the question is simply about how much of that flimflam was conscious fraud.

The Daily Mail, the British newspaper that delights in pricing out Ivanka Trump’s outfits, declared that her coat was by Carolina Herrera (when asked, the brand could not confirm), her “executive tote” by Chanel, her pumps by Jimmy Choo and her suit by Trina Turk, but there was little visible branding in her clothes, little to suggest that they were anything other than an outfit meant for cooperation rather than combat.

There's always a lot of "perhaps," "most likely" and "suggest" when Friedman goes on these jags. 

"How do we know," Friedman asks, that the Trumps were all "on the same page?" 

She asks the question, but never quite answers. Nor are we allowed to know why we're supposed to care.

As noted, this piddle appears today on the Times front page. Included is a photo of Ivanka. As [NAME WITHHELD] said to us back in 1998, or at least as she said within our hearing, "It's always about the girl."

(Mournfully, she was referring to the obsessive focus on Monica.)

This piddle appears on page A1 of this morning's Times. Inside the paper, on page A11, we find this less important report:

Two Studies on Greenland Reveal Ominous Signs for Sea Level Rise
Some glaciers on the island are melting at double the rate of just a few decades ago.

Ominous, yes. But insufficiently dumb.

"I remember every detail. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."

So says Rick, speaking to Ilsa, right there in his famous gin joint, as they're first reunited.

"I put that dress away," she says. "When the Germans march out, I'll put it on again."

Why would Candidate Gore wear a three-button suit? What was he trying to signal?

It was press corps elites gone wild—and the other members of the guild all agreed not to notice or tattle.

This morning, Friedman is featured on the front page. Glaciers are melting at double the rate? Please look on page 11!