The New York Times ponders The Karens: We'll postpone our review of Professor Silverman's Turkey Day takedown until Monday next.
On Tuesday, we'll turn to the most recent data from the PISA—more specifically, to the various things you weren't told about those international test scores.
For today, we'll direct your attention to a lengthy piece which appeared today, on line, at the New York Times. The piece appears under this dispiriting heading:
Editors' PicksIn fairness, the essay in question comes from the paper's Style desk, arguably the dumbest part of this sprawling exercise in modern-day, upper-end dumbness. More specifically, the essay hails from a subsection of Style which is packaged like this:
STYLEThis particular "essay" may be destined for inclusion in tomorrow's hard-copy editions, where it will get fullest Sunday exposure. That said, the "Editors' Pick" starts like this, on-line headlines included:
Rites of Passage
Essays that explore notable life transitions and events, big, small and absurd.
My So-Karen Life"Seventy-five percent of those girls were Karens," this Gen X survivor writes, referring to the highly objectionable collection of girls among whom she was consigned to live when she herself was a mere child.
I know Karens are hard. As a member of Gen X, I grew up surrounded by them.
While everyone is complaining about boomers, Gen Z doesn’t want you to forget to complain about Generation X, the other generation that’s significantly older than them that also sucks. This sucking is embodied by the name Karen, the young people have noticed—middle-aged white moms who are always asking for the manager and calling the police on perfectly fine pool parties and wondering why kids are so obsessed with their identities.
I am a Gen Xer, but I can only say to the Gen Zs, I feel you on the Karen thing so hard. Having a Karen as a mom must suck, but also, just imagine having thousands of Karens as your constant nemeses, for your whole life.
Here is my story.
I was born in 1969 and grew up in a small town in western Massachusetts. I went to local public schools from kindergarten through 12th grade, and spent 1,600 hours a year with the same 65 to 70 kids. Roughly half of those people were girls. Seventy-five percent of those girls were Karens.
The dumbness only continues from there, increasing and spreading out as it goes. Did we mention the fact that this "essay" is currently featured, on the Times' web site, as an "Editors' Pick?"
Regarding this exercise in dumbness, we'll only tell you this:
When upper-end culture becomes this dumb, the society which spawned and nurtured the dumbness is unlikely to survive.
Putting that a different way, you simply can't run a modern-day nation on this sort of fuel. You'll end up with a Trump every time.
That said, the Times has been running on this type of fuel for a very long time now. And as we've noted again and again, career "journalists" will never tell you this. The Times is simply too powerful.
We can think of three who tried: Katherine Boo, Gene Lyons, Clark Hoyt. The discussions their efforts might have started were strangled in their cribs.
Simply put, mainstream journalists will not discuss the intellectual disorder of the modern-day Times. But we will once again tell you this:
A modern society cannot survive with intellectual horizons like those which obtain at the Times. You'll end up with a version of Donald J. Trump every time.
Despondent future anthropologists have glumly told us, several times, that the mental age of the modern-day Times was something like 8 or 9. That mental age was on display in Charles Blow's recent Thanksgiving Day column. Long go, that mental age was on display when Maureen Dowd gave the world this:
DOWD (11/5/00): I Feel PrettyTwo days before Election Day, in November 2000, Dowd pictured Candidate Gore singing "I Feel Pretty" as he looked in a mirror pondering his bald spot.
I feel stunning
Feel like running and dancing for joy . . .
O.K., enough gloating. Behave, Albert. Just look in the mirror now and put on your serious I only-care-about-the-issues face.
If I rub in a tad more of this mahogany-colored industrial mousse, the Spot will disappear under my Reagan pompadour...
It was something like the seventh column Dowd had chosen to build around the problematics of Candidate Gore's problematic bald spot. The dead of Iraq look up from their graves at the mental age of the Hamptons-based editors who kept putting those brain-dead columns in print—and at our sprawling, self-impressed liberal world, which wasn't bright enough to notice that something was wrong with this ridiculous work.
(Dowd's gender-based trashings of Candidate Hillary Clinton were still seven years off. Eventually, Hoyt spoke up, in a column which gave rise to crickets.)
Today, the editors want us to ponder The Karens. A modern nation can't expect to survive when its reigning elites are this dumb.
How did our reigning upper-end elites ever get this dumb? Once again, we'll recommend Kevin Drum's work on lead exposure in the years when we modern-day adults were children. But whatever the explanation may be, the gauntlet is thrown down to you:
Are you able to see this state of affairs for what it actually is? Or are we going to diddle ourselves, as always, with the latest thing Donald Trump said?
After reading part of the essay about The Karens, we decided to check the writer's background. The Google whisked us away to her Twitter account, where she had just tweeted this:
"A friend just told me she goes #2 in front of her husband. Pls send help (to me)"Can a modern nation survive this regime? In our own nation's case, the answer is already in. We already have our Trump!
That column by Blow was equally dumb. So was the more aggressive companion piece penned by Professor Silverman. We pity the teenage students he postures before. More on that topic on Monday.
The Times has been dumbing us down since forever. Can a modern society survive this regime? In our own nation's case, is it possible that the answer's already in charge?