BREAKING: This is where the discourse goes!


Brooke Baldwin, report to the madhouse:
Yesterday's biggest event may have been what Barry McCaffrey said.

According to Brian Williams, McCaffrey "was the youngest and most heavily decorated four-star general in the history of the U.S. Army." He was also commander in chief of Southern Command, then later a U.S. drug czar.

McCaffrey is a major figure. Here's what he said on Twitter:

"Reluctantly, I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to U.S. national security. He is refusing to protect vital U.S. interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is, for some unknown reason, under the sway of Mr. Putin."

Considering who McCaffrey is, that's a remarkable statement. For that reason, Lawrence started last evening's Last Word program interviewing McCaffrey by phone.

This would have been an opportunity to flesh out McCaffrey's powerful statement, producing more fodder for public rumination about Trump's proto-treasonous conduct. But uh-oh! At 10:03 PM Eastern, before McCaffrey could finish his first statement to Lawrence, Lawrence threw him under the bus, and he never was heard from again.

Uh-oh! Jeff Sessions had just fired Andrew McCabe; Lawrence dumped McCaffrey mid-sentencefor instant discussion of about that. Presumably, this decision, which was overtly rude, was made by Lawrence's producers. They couldn't afford to show even modest respect to McCaffrey before they turned to this even newer news.

We would have liked to hear McCaffrey's analysis, then hear about the firing. Presumably, producers thought they might lose three or four viewers to CNN, so Lawrence cut McCaffrey off in mid-sentence and never mentioned him again.

So it goes when cable stars are committed to ratings and to The Chase. That said, what happenes when "cable news" commits itself to a sexual chase? For a glimpse of where that lunacy leads, consider what happened yesterday on CNN, on Brooke Baldwin's 3 PM program.

Baldwin started her closing, ten-minute segment with a "bombshell allegation." According to this allegation, Stephanie Clifford has been threatened with physical harm by someone connected to Trump. Or something like that!

Is this allegation actually true? Like you, Brooke Baldwin has no idea. But she spent large chunks of her hour talking about the allegation, then introduced her final set of guests in the following manner:
BALDWIN (3/16/18): With me now, Rick Wilson, Republican strategist, and Paris Dennard, CNN political commentator and member of the Trump advisory board.

Gentlemen, let's get to it, starting with all things Stormy.
Let's "start with all things Stormy!" This is where our discourse goes when we let these massively-paid prehumans start discussing allegations of (gasp!) consensual sex.

(To watch the whole segment, click this.)

In fact, Baldwin started and ended "with all things Stormy;" she discussed nothing else. Wilson, who's put on the air because he's unhinged and quite profane, was quickly saying this:

"I think we have to also think about Melania's prenup with him. There may be a money equation there as well that puts him at some risk."

Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay! According to Wilson, we may have to talk about Melania's prenup! There will be no avoiding this task!

This is where American discourse goes when untethered crackpots are put on the air to discuss consensual sex. As this lengthy segment proceeded, we got an unvarnished look at where the discourse goes when cable suits instruct people like Baldwin to let the boys mix it up.

Dennard suggested we maybe shouldn't be discussing alleged consensual sex from the year 2006. At this point, Wilson interrupted, offering these thoughtful words:
WILSON: Donald Trump has a long pattern, a long pattern of engagement with a variety of women to whom he is not married. Michael Cohen has long been out there doing these NDAs for these various women that Trump was involved with sexually and in other capacities. This is something that is a long pattern of behavior.

Now, are you telling me that Republicans have never once brought up the fact that Bill Clinton screwed his way through Arkansas? No. They did it all the time. It wasn't because it was before he was president that makes a difference. It's that he did it at all.
Wilson is upset by the idea that Donald J. Trump has "a long pattern of engagement with a variety of women to whom he is not married."

It isn't clear why Wilson thinks this qualifies as his business. That said, he still seems to be upset by the thought that Bill Clinton allegedly "screwed his way through Arkansas."

According to Wilson, because Republicans constantly talked about Clinton's alleged prodigious screwing, we should also talk about Donald J. Trump's adventures in conceptual sex. These are the thoughts that seize control of the discourse when we let these disordered children discuss consensual sex.

Wilson was upset by Dennard's suggestions that we shouldn't go there. Soon, he was expressing his concern in this thoughtful manner:
WILSON: If your standard is that low, if your standard is that low, and you're OK with him screwing porn stars, if you're OK with him screwing porn stars, just say the words, "I'm OK with Donald Trump screwing porn stars."

Can you say that for me, Paris?
Wilson wanted to hear Paris talk dirty! The thoughtful analyst wanted to hear him say this:

"I'm OK with Donald Trump screwing porn stars."

From there, Wilson began talking over the top of Dennard. The battle went on at some length, with Baldwin occasionally pretending that she wanted the boys to stop.

Baldwin was thoroughly faux throughout, no doubt behaving as instructed. Eventually, Wilson further expressed himself in the thoughtful ways shown below:
WILSON: You're defending Donald Trump screwing a porn star. It's OK. Embrace it. Say it Paris. Just say it. Just say, "I love that Donald Trump screwed a porn star.

You can just say it. You can just say it.

BALDWIN: Guys, no personal insults. No personal insults, please.


BALDWIN: Go ahead, Rick. I know you want to jump in. Go ahead.

WILSON: You know, the argument that Donald Trump's lifelong pattern of infidelity, adultery, shattering every vow of every one of his marriages, by his own admission, and the fact that Donald Trump screwed a porn star—

I don't think Melania Trump is going to be more embarrassed by what Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels has to say than by the fact that, a few months after she had a kid, her husband was screwing a porn star.

And that's what you're saying is OK. I get it. You accept that. That's part of your moral framework. That's part of your moral landscape. Good for you!


WILSON: You have said it's part of your moral landscape it's OK for Donald Trump to screw a porn star—it's OK for Donald Trump to screw a porn star if he's just not the president.

DENNARD: Keep saying it more and more. Keep saying it more and more. Get it out. Get it out of your system. We all know that's what you want to say.
Plainly, Dennard was right about that. Wilson did want to say, again and again, that Donald J. Trump had "screwed a porn star."

He said it again and again and again; he enjoys both the verb and the noun. Sadly, there was no sign that the exercise was "getting it out of his system," or that any such exorcism could ever occur.

Wilson wanted to say it again and again. And not only that—CNN wanted him to say it again and again. And yes, this is where the discourse goes when corporate suits decide they want to let the children discuss consensual sex.

We're going to offer these points:

First point:
Actually yes—it is OK for Trump to "screw a porn star." It isn't any of Wilson's business, nor is it any of ours.

Second point: It would also be OK if Trump "screwed" someone who wan't a "porn star." Clifford's profession seems to trouble Wilson. So it goes with disordered minds.

Third point: This is where the discourse goes when the press corps decides, as it did in 1987, that it wants to discuss consensual sex. Soon, they're discussing nothing else. That's because they're secretly overpaid corporate clowns who care about nothing else.

Inevitably, the discourse goes up in flames when the children give themselves license to do that. Consider what we learned on page A3 of today's hard-copy New York Times.

Yesterday's New York Times was full of actual news. But what did subscribers want to discuss? Below, you see what we learned on today's reimagined A3:
The Conversation


2) Vanessa Trump, Donald Trump Jr's Wife, Files for Divorce
On Facebook, the news of the president's son and daughter-in-law breaking up drew more than 4,400 comments on Facebook, many of which speculated that the Trumps' decision to opt for an uncontested divorce might signal that the split is a ploy to transfer family assets to Mrs. Trump in case of legal trouble for Mr. Trump.
Of all the reports across yesterday's Times, that's what Times readers were gabbing about. In a manner drawn straight outta Salem Village and the nearby fictional Peyton Place, they "speculated" about what "might" explain this announcement of this divorce.

The Times itself is such a rag that it responded to this display by spreading their gossip further.

This is who and what we are. Left on our own, as in Lord of the Flies, this is all we are. This is where our discourse goes when we turn our empty selves loose.

Baldwin played the fool yesterday, just as the bosses instructed. This is where the discourse goes when we start chasing Gary Hart.

Who the $%^&@# is Rick Wilson: CNN puts Wilson on the air because he behaves like that. Believe it or not, here's how the conversation started when Ana Marie Cox interviewed Wilson, two years back, for the Sunday New York Times:
COX (3/24/16): You’ve gained lots of fans on the left thanks to your vicious descriptions of Trump and his supporters. Once, on MSNBC, you called his base ‘‘childless single men who masturbate to anime.’’ That was in reference to the alt-right part of his base.

WILSON: I wish I could take credit for it being a broader smear. If one is going to insult a group of people who think that Trump is their own private postmodern Hitler, one ought to be specific.

COX: You also tweeted at Ann Coulter, asking if Trump ‘‘pays more for anal.’’ What do you think it is about Trump that drives the conversation toward sexualized language?
No, really! Cox wanted to know what it is about Donald J. Trump that makes Wilson behave as he does!

Cox, of course, is the person who went on the Maddow Show night after night back in April 2009 dropping all the "teabagger" dick jokes on Tea Party heads while Rachel pretended, night after night, to be shocked and embarrassed.

Yesterday, Baldwin was cast in that old Maddow role. This is the way we prehumans behave when the suits decide it's time to start chasing Gary Hart.

BREAKING: What kind of school would you say this is?

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2018

The struggle to keep claims alive:
Suppose your third- or fourth-grade child was attending a public school whose demographics looked like this:
Demographics of Public School A:
White kids: 35 percent
Black kids: 25 percent
Hispanic kids: 25 percent
Asian-American kids: 10 percent
Others: 5 percent
Suppose your neighborhood school looked like that. Would it even enter your head that your child had been forced to attend a "segregated school?"

In recent years, we attended schoolwide spelling bees, on two occasions, in a school whose demographics resembled those of Public School A. We didn't think we were in a segregated school. Given what we saw going on in that school, we thought we'd died and gone to heaven.

Imagine something else. Imagine that someone waved a magic wand and created a nationwide regime in which, to borrow from Garrison Keillor, the public schools were all exactly average.

According to the NCES, your child's school would now look like this:
Demographics of Public School B:
White kids: 48.1 percent
Black kids: 15.8 percent
Hispanic kids: 26.8 percent
Asian-American kids: 5.5 percent
Others: 3.8 percent
Suppose you were the parent of a black son or daughter. Would your child be better off in Public School B? How much better off?

Also this: Would your child be better off after the school creates "gifted" or "accelerated" programs, likely tilting the demographic blend within specific classrooms?

If your child would be better off in Public School B, we'll also ask you this. Would you be inclined to say that Public School A was a segregated school, while Public School B was not? Those are the findings which would result from the academic regime we considered in yesterday's post.

Would that thought ever have entered your head?

The demographics of Public School B exaclt match the demographics of the nationwide public school population as of September 2017. If someone waved a magic wand, we could have a nation of schools where, in terms of demographics, the schools were all exactly alike.

In the real world, this would never be possible, due to nationwide residential patterns. That said, we're still asking you to ponder the overpowering liberal academic desire to outfit ourselves with the ability to complain, in highly dramatic ways, about the number of kids attending "segregated schools."

Would you apply that badly fraught term to a school like Public School A? When we visited a similar school, we thought we'd died and gone to heaven.

Did we simply fail to see that it was still 1955 in that school? Also, what makes us liberals long to retain our most eye-catching claims?

Another segregated school: Consider a possible Public School C. Its demographics look like this:
Demographics of Public School C:
White kids: 33.3 percent
Black kids: 33.3 percent
Hispanic kids: 33.3 percent
That's a "segregated school" too! Would that thought have entered your head, but for The Atlantic?

We very much need to talk about the quality of our public schools. On the few occasions when we do, do we need to talk like that?

For people inclined to think in jokes: Try to work with something like this:

In the old days, it was George Wallace who said, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Now it's the year 2018, and the people who say that are Us!

WHEN STORMY MET NOBBY: Norman O. Brown saw the saga coming!

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2018

Epilogue—How civilizations end:
On the brighter side, Morning Joe has now completed a full three weeks in its quieter, gentler new mode.

The program's standard screeching and yelling have plainly been set aside. We'd love to know who made the decision to lower the decibel level on the insider chatterbox program.

More sadly, this doesn't mean that the insider program has gotten a whole lot smarter. This morning, the program began with Mika making a foolish remark about this era of Stephanie Clifford, an era which has given rise to the ongoing "Stormy saga."

At this time, we can't share those initial remarks; they may become available later. That said, Mika soon returned to the topic during the program's first half hour, authoring these remarks:
BRZEZINSKI (3/16/18): Of course, from all that international intrigue, now to the presidential porn star, Stormy.

There are new developments on Stormy Daniels' 60 Minutes appearance. Two sources tell the Washington Post that CBS will air her interview with Anderson Cooper on March 25.

Meanwhile, the lawyer representing the former porn star, Michael Avenatti, says six other women have come forward with stories that are, quote, "strikingly similar" to his client's.

He says at least two of them have nondisclosure agreements, but admits he has not yet vetted their stories to a great degree.
Mika continued from there with her remarks about "the presidential porn star, Stormy"—and yes, that's the way she said it! Stephanie Clifford is now "the presidential porn star, Stormy." No last name required!

Let's set that small oddity to the side. We were struck, as we'd been struck at the start of the program, by Mika's key revelation:

The porn star's lawyer was saying that six other women had come forward with stories strikingly similar to hers!

Pure heaven! If their similar stories pan out, we can now discuss seven women who have had fully consensual sex, at some time in the past, with President Donald J. Trump.

This is what people like Mika want. They want to sit around all day talking about people who say they've had consensual sex with some targeted politician.

People like Mika have been pushing this project for the past 31 years, dating to the bright Democratic front-runner whose campaign and career they destroyed. Despite the massive harm they've done, they want to continue their project today. Truth to tell, it's the only thing these manifest droogs want to talk about.

Could this possibly be, as Professor Norman O. Brown once mused, the place where our society and our civilization possibly reach their end?

We'll get to Professor Brown below. For now, let's establish a few basic points:

First point: The "presidential porn star, Stormy" hasn't been alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault. She's been saying that she engaged in consensual sex in 2006. More than once!

Second point: We can't imagine why any sane or decent person would want to talk about this. We especially can't imagine that when we consider the chain of destruction these prior discussions have left in their wake.

Third point: Mika is eager to talk about this; so are Josh and Digby. So are a wide range of mainstream journalists, some of whom are skilled at inventing concerns to justify the use of their long, Salem Village-style noses. It isn't the consensual sex, it's the cover-up!

Fourth point: In the past 31 years, these discussions have done enormous harm to progressive interests. To cite one minor example, people are dead all over the world because these discussions took place. That said, it's perfectly clear that leading liberals don't really care about those dead people and never much did, except as a temporary way to seek partisan advantage.

Fifth point: Michael Cohen should be awarded his nation's top civilian honors for trying to shut Clifford up. Almost surely, Clifford isn't a freedom fighter. How hard can it be to see that?

We return to our main point:

Decent people don't go around discussing other people's affairs. Intelligent people don't try to mire our public discourse in such deadbeat discussions.

Observant people understand that these discussions have caused immeasurable harm since being waved into existence in 1987. Decent people keep their big long noses out of other people's affairs.

They don't go on TV, in front of millions of people, and discuss the ways other people have been consensually "shtupping." They don't play sexy-time audiotape of other people's phone calls again and again.

That's what decent and intelligent people don't do. Then again, there's us.

Here's a basic anthropological point about creatures like us. Given the way our brains are wired, once you let us start talking about other people's consensual sex, we'll end up discussing nothing else.

In the realm of upper-end journalism, the children are constantly seeking excuses to avoid matters of substance. If you let them start discussing (consensual) sex, they'll simply never stop.

Thanks to a certain money-grubbing porn star, the children have been stampeding of late concerning Trump and sex. Despite the fact that it bores them silly, they very much want to discuss this matter. They hope to discuss nothing else.

As this stampede began gathering steam, the ghostly visage of Norman O. Brown began to murder our sleep. That one passage he wrote kept invading our dreams. It dates to 1960.

Who the heck was Norman O. Brown? Technically, he was a Wesleyan classics professor, but in 1959, he became very hot with a searching, slightly mad book, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History.

In May 1960, he went viral behind his commencement address to the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Columbia. His obscure, slightly mad address was titled "Apocalypse: The Place of Mystery in the Life of the Mind." One year later, in its May 1961 issue, Harper's magazine published the full text of the address.

You can read the full text here.
Did Paddy Chayefsky borrow from this when he invented Howard Beale, "mad prophet of the airwaves?"

We don't know how to answer that. But by now, there was no turning back.

In 1966, Brown published another slightly mad book, Love's Body. By this time, he was a major star among the emerging 60s generation.

The always observant Camille Paglia has called Love's Body "one of the most famous and influential books of my college years." We recall the era the very same way! Also this:

"Reading Brown was a little like taking drugs, only it was more likely to lead to tenure," the sociologist Alan Wolfe wrote in The New Republic in 1991. Or so it said in this lengthy New York Times obituary of Brown in 2002.

As best we can tell, Brown remained a significant figure in academic circles, but he faded from popular culture. In the past dozen years, we've often thought of that one obscure passage from that one Phi Beta Kappa address.

We can't quite say what Brown was talking about in the bulk of that famous address. But at one point, he uttered the words shown below—and those words, which we can't explain, occasionally murder our sleep.

We don't really know what the heck he was talking about. But he was describing a process through which societies and civilizations reach their end in exhaustion, then roll over and die:
BROWN (5/31/60): The sociologist Simmel sees showing and hiding, secrecy and publicity, as two poles, like yin and yang, between which societies oscillate in their historical development. I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

The power which makes all things new is magic. What our time needs is mystery; what our time needs is magic. Who would not say that only a miracle can save us?
Truly, we have no idea what Brown was talking about in that speech, which you can read here, or even in that passage. But for some reason, that image—the image of a civilization reaching its end in a state of exhaustion—has occasionally troubled our dreams in the past dozen years.

When you see people like Mika seeking the chance to discuss Donald's shtupping, can your inner mind not imagine the possibility that our society, and its civilization, are now walking off into the jungle to die?

Darlings, how delicious! Mika sits on the air each morning beside the employer she started shtupping at some point in the past ten years. Almost surely, she was still married to her former husband when all the consensual shtupping began. Indeed, in the female empowerment books she kept writing for Harvey to hide behind, she kept talking about the amazingly wonderful marriage she was enjoying thanks to her wonderful husband. Plus, her fabulous genes!

As she was writing these books for Harvey, she was presumably consensually shtupping Joe! Who can say how many others might come forward with similar stories? Is it possibly time for her to for her to discuss all the fully consensual shtuppinng she herself has excitingly done?

Nicolle Wallace's hour-long show was a rollicking clown car last Friday. All the children lounged about, telling us how much they disapproved of Donald's (consensual) shtupping.

They laughed and partied and frolicked and played. ("This is why you watch.") Eventually, Confessore issued a warning. For ourselves, we thought of what happened long ago when Norman O. Brown, the man called Nobby, may have seen all this on the way.
Did Nobby met the presidential porn star, Stormy, in his own troubled dreams? We can't be sure, but Donald J. Trump now controls our nukes, and Joe and Mika kissed his ascot all through the first year of his campaign.

Then they made a sudden flip. What that in mind, shouldn't responsible journalists push them about their shtupping?

Their man, who's nuttier by the day, may very well destroy the world. On the way to the end of our civilization, shouldn't all the prehuman corporate tools get to have some fun?

A possible public works project: If every American adult threw one dollar into the pot, we could raise $200 million to persuade Stephanie Clifford to stop talking again.

From there, we could maybe discuss Donald Trump's coming war. Until the next distraction occurs! At which point we'll discuss it!

BREAKING: Photographs of Stephanie Clifford!


A few things those photographs mean:
What does it mean when liberal journalists keep posting gigantic color photos of Stephanie Clifford? Of Clifford's remarkably large body parts?

As any progressive must surely know, such photos mean, among other things, that people who are defined as women are in fact just the sum of their body parts. Do we really not understand the message those photographs drive?

Here's one other thing those photos may mean:

They may mean that the person who's posting them thinks his or her readers will be drawn to such photos. It strikes us that any such thought is an insult to liberal readers.

It's amazing to us to see progressives posting such giant alluring photos. People distort their bodies in such ways to appeal to a range of disordered men. Over Here in the liberal world, we don't seem to know this!

How did Donald Trump get where he is? Could the answer in large part be us?

For extra credit only: How do such photographs compare to traditional racist depictions of black people? And no, we aren't linking to any!

How do those photos of Clifford's huge body parts relate to those familiar old destructive depictions? Compare and contrast. Discuss.

BREAKING: The "segregation" of public schools!


The shape of liberal discourse:
Are America's public schools "resegregating?" Are increasing numbers of our kids attending "segregated schools?"

These have become familiar talking-points in liberal circles. These claims have always struck us as annoying, unhelpful, unwise.

Here's why:

Yesterday, we perused the start of Will Stancil's new piece for The Atlantic. It appears beneath these headlines:
School Segregation Is Not a Myth
Skeptics claim that concerns over racially divided schools are false alarms—but they’re missing the full picture.
We're inclined to be one of those "skeptics!" Let us tell you what we found when we examined the start of Stancil's report.

First of all, who is Will Stancil? He's eleven years out of Wake Forest (class of 2007). Since then, he's acquired a master’s degree in modern history from Queens University Belfast, and a law degree from the University of Minnesota Law School.

Currently, he's a research fellow at UM's Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity. His work "focuses on civil rights law and policy in housing and education, with particular emphasis on affordable housing and charter schools."

Will Stancil doesn't fool around—except perhaps when it comes to claims about "segregation." Here's the early passage from his report in which he defines the heavily fraught historical term:
STANCIL (3/14/18): According to my analysis of data from the National Center on Education Statistics, the number of segregated schools (defined in this analysis as those schools where less than 40 percent of students are white), has approximately doubled between 1996 and 2016. In that same span, the percentage of children of color attending such a school rose from 59 to 66 percent. For black students, the percentage in segregated schools rose even faster, from 59 to 71 percent.
Already, we'd have to say "Yikes." According to Stancil, a school is "segregated" if fewer than 40 percent of its students are white. That strikes us as a remarkable definition, considering the historical meaning of the term.

Historically, when black kids attended a "segregated school," that school would have zero percent white students. It would have no white students at all. No white kids need apply!

"Segregated schools" were either all-white or all-black. There was no in-between at all. This regime was mandated by law. The law enforced complete total separation on the basis of "race."

According to Stancil, a black kid today is attending a "segregated school" if as many as 39 percent of its students are white. This definition strikes us as an insult to the memory of the people who fought and died to eliminate "segregated schools" from the land.

It also strikes us as an insult to human intelligence. Here's why:

The defintion seems especially strange if you consider our current public school demographics. Below, you see the state of play as described by the National Center for Education Statistics:
NCES FAST FACTS: Of the projected 50.7 million public school students entering prekindergarten through grade 12 in fall 2017, White students will account for some 24.4 million. The remaining 26.3 million will be composed of 8.0 million Black students, 13.6 million Hispanic students, 2.8 million Asian/Pacific Islander students, 0.5 million American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 1.5 million students of Two or more races.
Let us do the math! Based on those numbers, the student population, nationwide, is now 48.1 percent white. But in the world Stancil creates, a school which is 39 percent white is tagged with the ugliest, most inflammatory term our brutal history provides us.

Does this definition make any sense? We're inclined to say it makes no sense, but it illustrates and explains many things.

First, this kind of inflammatory statistical toying is all too common within the modern liberal world. We liberals are constantly playing these games to make it seem like 1) it's still 1955 out there, and 2) we modern liberals are bravely confronting Bull Connor all over again.

Except it isn't 1955, and we aren't confronting Bull Connor. Beyond that, we liberals aren't being brave; we're being silly/offensive.

Earth to liberal academics and liberals of all descriptions:

This kind of thing helps explain why so many people hate us. They hate our seamy moral preening. They hate the way we insult the public's intelligence.

The "conservative" world is full of clowns and has been for some time. Our liberal world is catching up. Each tribal group tends to have a hard time spotting its own team's offenses.

In closing, let's review:

Nationwide, our public schools are now 48.1 percent white. A school which is 39 percent white is, therefore, only slightly "unbalanced."

Such a school isn't "segregated" in any useful or meaningful sense of the term. It's an insult to our martyrs to make this childish claim.

Luckily, Virginia, no—it isn't 1955! Unlike our martyrs from that era, our current crop of liberal academics, pundits and activists don't always show spectacularly good judgment.

Other people do notice these things. We'd have to say this sort of piddle is part of the way Trump got there.

WHEN STORMY MET NOBBY: When Nicolle succumbed to the pleasures of sex!


Part 4—Confessore's warning:
On Tuesday morning, the New York Times published three letters about Stephanie Clifford, who says she engaged in various rolls in the hay with our president, Donald J. Trump, back in 2006.

It's hard to imagine why any sane person could possibly care about that. It's hard to imagine why anyone would care if Donald J. Trump paid money to Clifford to keep her trap shut about that.

That said, people care about these matters a very great deal, even the liberal Digby. Digby published a very large photo of Clifford's very large body parts this Monday. Also, a leering speculation about what Donald J. Trump may have done with this transfixing specimen, back in 2006.

As we've noted in the past, it's all anthropology now! It's silly to think that we the people are going to extricate ourselves from our current deeply dangerous mess.

As has become abundantly clear, we don't have the smarts to do it. All that's left is the scientific explanation of how we managed to get ourselves into this dangerous mess.

(We may extricate ourselves, of course. But it's silly to assume that we will.)

We managed to get here, in large part, because of the small tiny btains of people like even the liberal Digby. Also, because of the small tiny minds of people like one of those New York Times letter-writers, the one who seems to think that Stephanie Clifford is some sort of freedom fighter.

The New York Times published its letters under this stirring headline:
"The Pressure to Silence Stormy Daniels"
Various buttons were pushed! That said, it's hard to imagine why any sane person should actually care if Donald J. Trump is trying to "silence" Stephanie Clifford about their wholly consensual interactions back in 2006.

That said, how gullible can we the prehumans be? We can be extremely gullible! The person who wrote the third letter in the Times presented Clifford like this:
Hooray for Stormy Daniels. She has more guts than any of the cowards, traitors and fools who are destroying this country.

How do we manage to get that dumb? Alas! As the past years have shown quite well, it's easy for us prehumans!

The letter writer seems to think that Clifford is bravely—well, that she's bravely doing something! As published, his letter doesn't exactly say what she's doing so well.

That said, she apparently isn't one of "the cowards, traitors and fools who are destroying this country." She's trying to keep from being "silenced" in the story the Times chose to tell.

Or is she? increasingly, we in the liberal world are portraying Clifford as an heroic role model. We would suggest the she, like Putin and Gennifer Flowers, may be one of the many people who have been"attacking" our elections in deeply destructive ways.

Flowers interrupted the 1992 election, made tons of dough in the process. Clifford's history seems to go something like this:
Clifford's history as a freedom fighter:
In 2006, she had a consensual sexual relationship with Donald J. Trump. She knew that he was recently married and that his wife had just had a child. "So what?" she fearlessly said.

As of 2016, Donald J. Trump was running for president. For unknown reasons, Clifford decided she wanted to blab about her interactions with this fellow—but when she was offered a big sack of cash, she decided to take that instead.

Her acceptance of this big bag of cash, like her previous acts, was consensual.

Now, in 2018, Clifford has decided once again that she wants to share her truth about Donald Trump's sex acts. In the process, she is becoming one of the most famous people in the world. Much larger sacks of cash may lie in her future.
Is Stephanie Clifford a freedom fighter? Or is she chasing the cash?

We can't answer your question, but she is injecting herself into our discourse, like Gennifer Flowers before her. In so doing, she seeks to continue a cultural norm which has existed since 1987:

As part of this new cultural norm, we talk about politicians' sex lives. We love to talk about such drivel. In the end, when all the faking is done, it almost seems that our small tiny brains want to discuss nothing else.

Politicians have died in these culture storms—mainly Democratic politicians.

Gary Hart was the first to go. Bill Clinton got impeached.

Al Gore then died, as did Hillary Clinton. We haven't mentioned Henry Cisneros and Elliot Spitzer; these fellows were taken out too. Unless you don't yet understand that Al Gore died for Bill Clinton's sins, we'd say that Democrats may have lost three presidential campaigns thanks to our love for this topic.

How many races have Republicans lost? They've lost exactly none, but birdbrains like even the liberal Josh and Digby want to continue this culture. They're weirdly drawn to those large body parts. Prehuman, they can't help but look.

Why would anyone want to discuss what Donald J. Trump did, or may have done, with Stephanie Clifford? What he may have don with Clifford twelve years ago, back in 2006?

Don't worry! Our small tiny brains will generate answers which make us heroic too! For ourselves, we think of the famous lines from Howl, a poem we didn't write:
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the [NAME WITHHELD] streets at dawn looking for an angry fix...
Ginsberg was describing the need for a fix in the face of an addiction. We're describing the longing to which many others have now been lost—the extremely deep, prehuman desire to discuss other people's "sex lives."

The floodgates opened on this practice in 1987. One week later, Hart went down. In the years since then, this longing has harmed progressive interests again and again.

Despite this fact, we liberals are eager to stampede down that trail once again. Consider the way MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace has been sliding beneath the waves.

Wallace, of course, made her name pimping for President George W. Bush. Today, we liberals are so desperate for glory that we make seers of the people who sold Bush back in the torture days.

Good God! CNN and MSNBC crawl with the advice of Richard Painter, the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.

From 2005 to 2007, Painter was also "the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration." Today, though, he's NeverTrump, so we've made him a cable news star.

Have you ever seen anyone ask him what his ethics advice was concerning all that torture? We haven't seen that either! Also, we never will! Just as long as he's NeverTrump, we'll thrill to the slightly animatronic sound of his bold NeverTrump voice.

(Note: If Painter had sex with Stephanie Clifford, we'd almost surely want to hear all about that too. Anthropologically speaking, that's who and what we are.)

Wallace sold torture right down the line. Today, she's a liberal favorite. Last Friday, we watched her spend the bulk of her hour-long show clucking about Donald J. Trump's sex life with Stephanie Clifford.

There was plenty of laughter, good solid fun and healthy tribal enjoyment. Various cable stars took their turns saying how much they disapproved of what Donald J. Trump had done with Stephanie Clifford. Their high moral values were clears.

Something else was evident. It was obvious that the cable stars were hoping and praying that Stephanie Clifford's freedom-fighting might end up taking Trump down. At one point, Wallace made this point quite clear:
WALLACE (3/9/18): It's a tired story, but we should never normalize it.

Do you think a sustained sex scandal, like this could become,
if Stormy Daniels' case goes forward and it continues to get the kind of attention that every other sex scandal—MSNBC's airing a doc on Gary Hart—

Literally every other politician that has engaged in any sort of conduct, even in this category, has had their career ended.

[Trump] has had none of that treatment, and some of it's on us, we ignore it because we're so used to it, and some of it's on his evangelical base that has made perfectly clear they don't care.
We should never normalize the fact that Donald J. Trump had sex with someone without seeking Nicolle's permission! Fellow liberals, let's keep that in mind!

It was clear that Wallace, and everyone else, was hoping that this would be a "sex scandal ex machina"—that a "sustained sex scandal" might do what we're too inept to do ourselves, that it might bring Donald Trump down.

This was the obvious tone of the rollicking hour-long program, which featured lots of moral preening along with a whole lot of laughs. But uh-oh! At 31 minutes past the hour, one of the pundits, an actual journalist, offered some good sound advice.

The voice belonged to Nicholas Confessore, he of the New York Times. Like Nestor the seasoned charioteer who talked the headstrong Diomedes on down, he frequently offers the best advice.

On this day, he offered a buzzkill. Oof! Here's what he said:
CONFESSORE: I will point out, though—the Clinton example, how did that end?

He was impeached, and most of the country came to conclude the whole thing was a terrible waste of time and money and effort, and [that] it was a bad thing to have gone after him on sex.

It's not impossible to imagine that the country comes to the same conclusion on this
in the end: "Why are we going after this guy for an affair? We know he's sleazy, it's not the most important thing. It seems over-aggressive."

I'm not saying that will happen, but history shows that it can happen.
To watch that segment, click here.

Watching the previous half hour, it had already occurred to us that pundits like these might actually save Donald J. Trump, the most disordered person ever to serve in the White House.

Their big long noses had actually made us feel sorry for Trump. It had already entered our heads that people might feel so repelled by their stupid behavior that some could even end up supporting Trump.

We'll likely experience Donald Trump's war before votes have to be cast. Congressional elections are coming up, and in the tradition of the president Wallace and Painter proudly served, a war is now the proven way to manage an off-year election.

That said, Confessore offered the chimps some good advice. He remembered what happened the last time they started—the sympathy their big long noses generated for that earlier target.

Five years after Hart succumbed, Bill Clinton survived that stampede. In the longer run, Al Gore and then Hillary didn't.

Now, Josh and Digby are hoping and praying that we'll decide to sit around ogling Clifford's body parts and thinking how bad Donald is. It's all anthropology now, dear friends—and Cassandra has come to us very late in the night to say that we're all going down.

Tomorrow: What Norman O. Brown—"Nobby"—said

Wishin' and hopin': The liberal stars were wishin' and hopin' all through Wallace's hour.

If you click here,
then use the "any date" search, you can watch segments with these titles:
Segments from the March 9 Wallace show:
Alleged Stormy affair now a "full scale sex scandal"

Could payment to Stormy Daniels be a campaign finance violation?

"Stormy" could pose more immediate trouble for Trump than Mueller

Can the Trump base ignore the Stormy scandal?

Why the "Stormy" lawsuit could spell more trouble for Trump
The various pundits were wishin' and hopin', standing behind our new leader.

Stephanie Clifford mustn't be silenced! "Why not?" our analysts sadly asked. They all thought that Confessore had offered some good sound advice.