BLUE SKILL LEVELS VERY LOW: Blow explains why he writes...

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2021

...but also, his dinner near Hef: Will Casey Parks' lengthy report generate a discussion?

Actually no, it won't. You've seen it mentioned nowhere but here, and you're going to see it mentioned nowhere ever again.

Her report connects to no prior discussion. The fact is, nobody cares about the topic Parks explored in last Sunday's lengthy, detailed report.

No one has cared about that topic for a good long time. More specifically, no one has cared about that topic here in our own blue towns. 

Within our blue political tribe, our journalists care about which kids will go to Stuyvesant High (or to Thomas Jefferson in Virginia), with a chance to advance to Yale. There's no other part of this topic to which our tribe is known to respond.

Charles Blow's son does (or did) go to Yale. Stating the obvious, there's no reason why he shouldn't. 

Blow himself doesn't write about the general topic addressed by Parks' visit to the Holmes County schools in the Mississippi Delta. That said, this Monday he offered an inspiring column under the headline, "Why I Write."

The column was filled with words of self-praise. Headline included, the column started like this:

BLOW (9/13/21): Why I Write 

One of my favorite aunts was desperately poor, like many people I knew in rural north Louisiana. I don’t know how much money she had or made. I only know the shadow of need that stalked her. She seemed, like many members of my family, one paycheck or severe injury away from insolvency.

Blow described the desperate poverty of the rural South. Eventually, he fell to the task of explaining why he writes. 

Blow described the conditions he found when he visited his aunt "when my [his] children were young." The poverty he described was extreme. In the passage, he described his thoughts and his reactions:

BLOW: I sat there thinking about the great divide among us, about how far removed I now was from this life, but also about how very connected I was, spiritually, to it.

And I was conflicted. How much could I or should I help? I have had long talks with my mother about this. Other than a little money in greeting cards, there wasn’t much that I could do for all the people I knew in need.

The problem was not about personal generosity, but rather public policy and indifference. The best thing I could do was to advocate for all.

When I visited my aunt, I was working at The New York Times. I had been poor, but I no longer was. And yet, it was important to me then, and remains important to me now, that I remained connected to that poverty, so that I could write about it from a genuine place.

Already, Blow was working for the Times. He was no longer poor, but he wanted to remain connected to that desperate poverty, so that he could write about it from a genuine place. 

According to Blow's column, this is why he writes. As he continued, the song of self became more explicit and perhaps a tiny bit maudlin. 

BLOW: There were two bits of advice I remember receiving when I first became a columnist, although I don’t recall from whom they came.

One was to write what you know. Write about some of your most intimate experiences, the things that you can’t stop thinking about no matter how hard you try.

The other was that columnists should be like an orchestra, each playing a different instrument, but together making music.

I decided that in that orchestra I was going to play the banjo. I was not a big-city writer. I was a small-town country boy from the South. I had not grown up with wealth and privilege. I had struggled, and at times, my family had barely scraped by. I had not gone to fancy prep schools or Ivy League colleges, but a small high school that had served Black students since the late 1800s and to a historically Black college, Grambling State University, the closest university to my hometown.

Others can be all fancy and such. He has decided to play the banjo! That's who he is and was.

Apparently, if there's one person who hates the wealth and the privilege, it has to be Charles Blow. In the closing paragraph of his column, he links himself to Maya Angelou, so great is his devotion to these heartfelt themes:

BLOW: Maya Angelou once said that whenever she embarked on a project, she brought everyone who had ever been kind to her with her, not physically, but spiritually. In the same way, whenever I sit down to write, everyone who has ever struggled as I have sits down with me.

As with Steinbeck's Preacher Casey—no known relation—so too here!

For the record, it may well be that Blow does "hate the wealth and the privilege" in some manner or other. We'll only say that he doesn't seem to write about institutional disasters like those which Journalist Casey described in the Holmes County schools. 

Nor does he write about the kids who attend low-income schools right there in New York City. In fairness, no one in the upper-class press corps writes about such topics either. 

In reality, no one cares about those kids here within our self-impressed tribe, and this fact has been apparent for a very long time.

As a general matter, columnists don't bare their souls in heartfelt columns like the one Blow wrote. To our ear, it didn't necessarily ring entirely true.

In general, though, blue commenters loved it. The first two offered these remarks:

COMMENTER FROM YONKERS: A beautifully expressed and written tour-de-soul. I am reminded of the words of Invictus ... [quotation deleted]

COMMENTER FROM WASHINGTON STATE: ...You write for me.  And for all of us who hunt for your columns and re-read most of them.  You write for the voiceless, and for the marginalized and for those who need to listen to your stories because their lived experience is so far removed from yours.  You write to be certain the banjo is heard in the great orchestra of opinions and reporting.  You write to bring compassion and reason and balance and perspective to counterbalance the noise of right-wing media and ignorant pundits.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Some commenters did offer dissents, including some from a conservative direction. But one blue reader after another thanked Blow, a national treasure, for baring his soul in this way.

Why did Blow write this somewhat unusual column that day? We can't answer your question. 

We did think of his previous column, and of some pushback he had received. In print editions, it had been published two days before and it stirred unrest in the ranks.

Blow's previous column was a rumination on 9/11. Many liberal commenters were puzzled by the column, which bore this slightly odd headline:

Our Children Will Never Know the Innocence We Knew

Blow's thesis was that the 9/11 attacks "changed us, fundamentally," removing our previous innocence. He closed by saying this:

BLOW (9/11/21): People of my generation will never know again what my children’s generation only tasted: an innocence and obliviousness about threat and danger. I am—we all are—covered forever with a bit of the ash from those towers.

His children's generation had "tasted an innocence and obliviousness about threat and danger," an innocence and obliviousness which was blown away that day? His own generation had apparently known that innocence over a much longer period.

Taken literally, this struck us as a peculiar statement. In part, it seemed to contradict a prevailing tribal theme about racial danger—a tribal theme which has the advantage of being largely accurate. Many readers took it that way and roasted Blow in comments.

Two day later, Blow was out with "Why I Write." As we read it, we thought of another possible oddity in the 9/11 column—a possible oddity which fewer commenters mentioned.

We had been struck by the point at the time. The passage in question was this:

BLOW: A couple of weeks after the attack, I went to dinner at a restaurant in the Meatpacking District, just a mile or two from ground zero, where the massive mound of rubble where the twin towers once stood was still simmering. You could smell the metal in the air.

Hugh Hefner was also at the restaurant that night, surrounded by a group of women who looked remarkably similar. Other women occasionally made their way from their tables to his, smiling and laughing and posing for pictures.

I thought for a moment: Could there be a shoulder shrug any more symbolic and uniquely American than Hefner hamming it up in a banquette full of blondes? Was this what “not letting the terrorists win” looked like?

No, it wasn’t. This whole battle of optics was a fiction. Of course the terrorists had achieved their goal of forever altering us. I, like most Americans, would have to admit that I, too, was irrevocably changed.

We were surprised by that passage. In some ways, it surprised us to think that Blow was dining out within weeks of 9/11 at all. Mainly, though, it surprised us to learn that, as far back as 2001, he was dining in a restaurant which sounded a bit like an upper-end Manhattan celebrity joint.

Several commenters mentioned that very point. Two days later, to the applause of the crowd, Blow explained who he actually is, but also why he writes.

One blue commenter after another swallowed that second column whole. Anthropologists say that we humans tend to be like that—that we tend to believe the things our anointed tribal leaders tell us, especially at times of partisan war.

(According those same experts, we shouldn't reflexively trust tribal leaders. Red and blue alike, however, we humans tend to underperform with respect to this very key skill.)

At any rate, no one has written about Parks' report, and no one ever will. Manifestly, no one cares about the kids who attend those horrific Holmes County schools, or about their parents and aunts, some of whom, to this day, are struggling with rural deep poverty.

Your lizard may say that our assessment is wrong. But Parks' essay connects to no ongoing discussion, and you will never see her essay mentioned ever again.

You'll never see it mentioned! At the Times, they worry about who might get to go to Yale, and they worry about no one else. These are blindingly obvious facts, except to the tribally blinded. 

In closing, two disclosures:

"Hef" may have been dining at Arby's that night!  We don't know where Blow chose to dine that night, or who else might have chosen to dine there.

Also, we don't know the state of Charles Blow's soul. We assume he's a good, decent person, but he mainly produces tribal stock about loathing The Very Bad Others, and he never writes about the type of deep rural poverty which afflicts the Holmes County schools.

In fairness, neither does anyone else. Here in our tribe, as everyone knows, we simply don't care about topics like that, except as a matter of theory.

Also this: As David Brooks notes today, Orwell wrote a famous essay entitled, "Why I Write." 

Blow is aligned with Angelou. Is he aligned with Orwell too?


22 comments:

  1. "No one has cared about that topic for a good long time. More specifically, no one has cared about that topic here in our own blue towns."

    Biden cares: https://joebiden.com/rural-plan/

    The Clinton Foundation cares about such schools globally:
    https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/1001-schools-rural-community-program

    Hillary Clinton cared and this was her plan: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/k-12-education/

    "In cities and rural communities across America, there are public schools that are falling apart—schools where students are learning in classrooms with rodents and mold. That’s unacceptable, and it has to change. That’s why Hillary will build on the highly successful Build America Bonds program to provide cities and towns the capital they need to rebuild their schools. These “Modernize Every School Bonds” will double the Build America Bonds subsidy for efforts to fix and modernize America’s classrooms—from increasing energy efficiency and tackling asbestos to upgrading science labs and high-speed broadband."

    But Somerby didn't support Hillary.

    The Connected Rural Schools Act had bipartisan support. Apparently Manchin (D) cares about rural schools:

    https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cortez-masto-romney-boozman-manchin-introduce-legislation-to-improve-broadband-access-for-rural-students-

    The gap between urban and rural schools closed between 2000 and 2015. I'm sure Somerby knows what happened under Betsy DeVos:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/07/education-deserts-across-rural-america/593071/

    Given that the Republican base is both less educated and less supportive of education, while right-wing pundits attack higher education and are now storming school boards over both covid and CRT, how can Somerby argue that it is the left who doesn't care about rural education?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Given that the Republican base is both less educated and less supportive of education, while right-wing pundits attack higher education and are now storming school boards over both covid and CRT, how can Somerby argue that it is the left who doesn't care about rural education?'

      Because Somerby is a lying, hypocritical Trumptard.

      Delete
    2. Mobile phone is capable of making millions if you are smart enough to invest in Stock/bitcoin through the help of an Expert, Mrs Mary, she will help you on how to invest and make good profits. I invested $5,000 with her help and I was able to make $32,000 within the period of intensive trading. How many hours a day do you spend on your phone and how productive are those hours? Contact her today to gain financial freedom. Email: maryreeltradings@gmail.com

      Delete
  2. "Already, Blow was working for the Times. He was no longer poor, but he wanted to remain connected to that desperate poverty, so that he could write about it from a genuine place. "

    Here Somerby repeats what Blow had said, immediately following the quote in which he said it. Why? Is he mocking Blow? Does Somerby find something wrong with what Blow said? I get it that he wishes to emphasize Blow's words, but for what purpose? It seems like an entirely reasonable thing to say.

    In the 60s, as many of us moved from poverty into high paying jobs requiring an education that put distance between us and our relatives, we too vowed not to forget our early circumstances and to try to work for better conditions for others. It was a time of the War on Poverty, among other movements. We did care then and many of us still do. But Somerby mocks Blow for holding those same values? This makes Somerby a huge asshole, in my opinion.

    There are many non-profit organizations and agencies working to help improve people's lives. Who does Somerby think supports them? Not Republicans. Their charitable giving is confined to church, alma maters, and sometimes health research.

    Somerby's attempt to recast the left as uncaring is a massive lie without any empirical support. Who does he think he is fooling with this shit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Who does he think he is fooling with this shit?"

      Mao, Leroy, Cecelia, AC/ MA, David in Cal.
      You know, the ones who desperately want to be fooled.

      Delete
  3. "As he continued, the song of self became more explicit..."

    The essay is entitled "Why I Write". Who else would it be about but himself? This is like blaming someone because their autobiography is excessively personal. Or blaming a political candidate for talking about himself during an election speech. Somerby is being ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...he never writes about the type of deep rural poverty which afflicts the Holmes County schools."

    And yet, we wouldn't know that Blow has a poor aunt living in rural Louisiana, if Blow hadn't written about it.

    Somerby writes the words that contradict his own assertion within his own essay. But he finds Blow inconsistent because he ate out weeks after 9/11. Does Somerby know that there are New Yorkers whose kitchens have never been used? Not everyone cooks at home and Somerby, or course, has no idea what Blow's lifestyle is like (or was like 20 years ago). But he is ever willing to judge others for trivial deviations from his own expectations. His not very subtle insinuation that Blow should have rescued all of his poor relations from poverty or he has no business caring about it, is ridiculous and stinks. It is unfair to in one breath complain that Blow never mentions poverty, then blame him for not giving away his own salary when he does write about it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, in Somerby's world.

    Somerby, who gave up teaching to become a stand-up comedian on TV. He is no saint and that gives him no standing to accuse Blow of hypocrisy (or whatever). Why as Somerby not plucked those pears from his backyard tree and handed them out to the kids with no lunches in Baltimore's desperately poor schools? He must not care much himself. Perhaps that is why he assumes no one else does, especially not the notoriously do-gooders on the left who, like Blow, seem to embarrass him with their efforts to address society's ills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't, in Somerby's world.'

      Unless you are Trump or a minion like Roy Moore, Ron Johnson, Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz. In that case, Somerby will defend you his entire ability (fortunately, that ability is pathetic).

      Delete
  5. In the US, Americans had not previously had the experience of being frightened of terrorists while engaging in routine activities in public places. That happened in Great Britain during the Troubles, or in Israel, and now in France and the Netherlands, but it hadn't happened here.

    Any fool knows that this is what Blow means. It happened most recently for me in my own neighborhood, at the KingSoopers market where shoppers were targeted. And I think of it every time I visit that store, but I still have to buy my groceries. If Somerby doesn't get it, perhaps he has been fortunate but perhaps he is also lacking in the empathy or imagination to understand what this is like for the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These acts are called terrorism for a reason.

      It isn't wrong to resume normal life after a tragedy. Somerby doesn't get to dictate how much fear is right to feel, how long someone must grieve.

      He seems too eager to tell us what we do and do not feel, what we do and do not care about.

      Delete
  6. "I had not gone to fancy prep schools or Ivy League colleges..." like Somerby did, with his incessant talk of Wittgenstein. How dare Blow talk about his own poverty!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Anthropologists say that we humans tend to be like that—that we tend to believe the things our anointed tribal leaders tell us, especially at times of partisan war."

    No, dear Bob, we humyns are NOT like that. Not at all. In fact, we humyns don't have any "tribal leaders".

    Anyhow: as always, thank you for documenting liberal cult's atrocities.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "We'll only say that he doesn't seem to write about institutional disasters like those which Journalist Casey described in the Holmes County schools."

    Somerby again demonstrates his ignorance of journalism. Blows job is different than Casey's. Casey, an investigative journalist, wrote a feature article. Blow is a columnist -- that is a different role. If Blow were a reporter, he would not be musing about the impact of 9/11 or writing essays on "why I write." He would be giving facts and figures, as Casey does.

    This is like blaming Kamala Harris because she is not Secretary of the Treasury or a school principal for not knowing the details of algebra. You evaluate a performance against a worker's job description. Blow's job is not the same as Casey's.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And these words from Orwell can be used to defend Blow:

    "I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer’s motives without knowing something of his early development. His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in...but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write."

    Orwell lists four reasons for writing: (1) egoism, (2) aesthetic enthusiasm, (3) historical impulse, (4) political purpose – "using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people’s idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. "

    Blow claims 1 and 4. It is difficult to see how Somerby might condemn Blow on the basis of Orwell's essay, but perhaps he will tell us tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This book review is a good analysis of your liberal cult, dear Bob, and how it relates to the so-called 'poor' - the working class:
    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/does-america-hate-the-poorly-educated

    But you should read the whole thing, dear Bob, so send him 50 bucks, will ya? You are not 'poor', dear Bob, right? Of course aren't, dear Bob, otherwise you wouldn't be a liberal...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Blow says this: “I had not grown up with wealth and privilege.”

    Somerby says “Apparently, if there's one person who hates the wealth and the privilege, it has to be Charles Blow. “

    Then, the “hate” magically migrates inside quote marks: ‘For the record, it may well be that Blow does "hate the wealth and the privilege" in some manner or other. ‘

    Does Somerby think this a quote of what Blow said? Because it isn’t.

    He clearly says that he is making music with his Ivy League colleagues:
    “columnists should be like an orchestra, each playing a different instrument, but together making music.”

    He rather plainly doesn’t hate them for their privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A new loss of innocence? I don't think so.

    In first grade, I was taught to get under my desk in case of a Russian nuclear attack?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, me too, but that attack never came.

      Delete
    2. Blow is too young for those drills.

      Delete
  13. 'At any rate, no one has written about Parks' report, and no one ever will. Manifestly, no one cares about the kids who attend those horrific Holmes County schools, or about their parents and aunts, some of whom, to this day, are struggling with rural deep poverty.'

    And Somerby only mentioned the report to bash it for a claimed statistical flaw. Somerby, of course, doesn't understand %ages, let alone stats. Somerby doesn't care about rural poverty either.

    Somerby complains that Blow doesn't write about rural poverty. But why doesn't Somerby write about it if he cares that much ? I know -- Somerby is too busy defending Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Ron Johnson, Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz.

    In short, Somerby is a hard core, malevolent, hypocritical, lying Trumptard.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'Nor does he write about the kids who attend low-income schools right there in New York City. In fairness, no one in the upper-class press corps writes about such topics either. '

    Actually, the NYT writes about NYT schools all the time. Somerby is a liar, a fabulist so moronic that he thinks people will believe him, when he is obviously a Trumptard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mobile phone is capable of making millions if you are smart enough to invest in Stock/bitcoin through the help of an Expert, Mrs Mary, she will help you on how to invest and make good profits. I invested $5,000 with her help and I was able to make $32,000 within the period of intensive trading. How many hours a day do you spend on your phone and how productive are those hours? Contact her today to gain financial freedom. Email: maryreeltradings@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete