STARTING TOMORROW: Experts away!

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2023

The silence of the elites: In the end, it has come down to this. It has come down to those four (4) letters in yesterday's New York Times.

The letters appear beneath the heading shown below. The letters appear in service to long-standing, vastly-preferred, lazy elite Storyline:

Mississippi’s Many Education Lessons

The letters appear in response to Nicholas Kristof's June 1 essay about the current state of Mississippi's public schools. To read the four letters, click here.

For the record, Nicholas Kristof is not an educational expert. It may seem, to the average Times reader, like yesterday's first letter writer is:

Mississippi’s Many Education Lessons

Re “Mississippi Is Offering Lessons for America on Education,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, “How America Heals” series, June 1):

Mississippi schools prove that all the reasons for the failure of children to learn how to read and excel have been excuses. Critics will no doubt claim that its success is an aberration, but the evidence is clear. The only question now is whether its approach is scalable.

Walt Gardner / Los Angeles

The writer taught for 28 years in the Los Angeles Unified School District and was a lecturer in the U.C.L.A. Graduate School of Education.

The writer may seem to qualify as an educational expert. In support of the claims in Kristof's essay, he says that Mississippi's public schools now prove "that all the reasons for the failure of children to learn how to read and excel have been excuses."

In fairness to Gardner, that's a perfectly reasonable summary of the claims in Kristof's essay. Kristof isn't an educational expert, but along the way in his lengthy piece he quoted someone who allegedly is:

KRISTOF (6/1/23): In the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a series of nationwide tests better known as NAEP, Mississippi has moved from near the bottom to the middle for most of the exams—and near the top when adjusted for demographics. Among just children in poverty, Mississippi fourth graders now are tied for best performers in the nation in NAEP reading tests and rank second in math.

[...]

“Mississippi is a huge success story and very exciting,” David Deming, a Harvard economist and education expert, told me. What’s so significant, he said, is that while Mississippi hasn’t overcome poverty or racism, it still manages to get kids to read and excel.

“You cannot use poverty as an excuse. That’s the most important lesson,” Deming added. “It’s so important, I want to shout it from the mountaintop.” What Mississippi teaches, he said, is that “we shouldn’t be giving up on children.”

There you see the heart of Kristof's claim. When you adjust for demographics—for family income, for race and ethnicity—Mississippi's kids are performing "near the top" of the nation, at least on the Naep's Grade 4 reading test.

That might look like a "Mississippi miracle," to cite the phrase the AP used in its earlier, May 17 report. To review that report, click here

Colorful language to the side, Kristof was making an impressive assertion about Mississippi's schools. Right on cue, we were handed a full-fledged "education expert," advancing these latest pleasing claims about educational success among the nation's many deserving low-income kids.

In Kristof's essay, we were explicitly told that Deming is an educational expert. Plainly, Deming has no qualms concerning the claims which are being advanced about Mississippi's schools.

Yesterday morning, the Times finally published four letters about the Kristof essay. Gardner is cast in the role of the apparent educational expert. 

The other three writers, though wholly sincere, are not education experts. That said, none of the four disagree, in any way, with Kristof's basic statistical claims, or with the conclusions he draws from those Grade 4 reading scores.

This is a pattern as old as the hills. Journalistically, it reeks of human indifference.

In the 1960s, the liberal world began to concern itself with the educational disparities which had emerged from centuries of racial brutality. 

It soon became clear that it wouldn't be easy to erase our nation's deep-seated achievement gaps. At that point, liberal journalistic elites fell back on the practice of offering high-minded accounts of the occasional low-income "Schools That Work."

Again and again, it turned out that these pleasing accounts were built on statistical fraud and deception. In the current case of Mississippi, this basic Storyline is back, with the story of the occasional Schools That Work bumped up in this manner:

The Little Low-Income State That Could

The Little Low-Income State That Could! That where preferred elite Storyline currently takes us, with experts suggesting that other states could match Mississippi if they'd just work equally hard.

What follows this week will be an anthropology lesson about modern American culture, such as it actually is.

We'll walk you through the Naep scores recorded by Mississippi's good, decent lower-income kids in both Grade 4 and Grade 8. Especially after considering the likely statical effects of Mississippi's third grade retention policy, we'll show why there's much less to be thrilled about there than may seem to meet the eye. 

To their vast credit, many people are working hard in Mississippi's public schools. By way of contrast, this nation's educational experts hardly seem to be working at all.

These lofty losers have been missing in action—have been reliably silent—every single step of the way over the past fifty years. That said, the nation's journalistic elites have been missing in action too.

Long ago, these sets of elites walked off their posts. At present, that includes Kristof himself, and any such editors may have reviewed his essay.

We got lucky long ago, starting in the fall of 1969. We got to spend nine full years as a classroom teacher to nine different arrays of Baltimore's lower-income black kids.

We were exposed to some very good kids. They were being badly served at that point in time.

Today, other kids are badly served by the likes of Kristof and Deming. For today, we'll explain it like this:

A detailed look at Mississippi's Naep scores puts Kristod's thesis in doubt. It has now been a month since that AP report appeared, and none of our educational experts has sallied forth to say that.

They're missing in action on leafy campuses, where the ivy seems to blow in the wind. Yesterday, pretending to close the book on that upbeat essay by Kristof, the Times presented letters from four readers.

None of them, Gardner included, seems to have the slightest idea how to assess Kristof's statistics-based basic claims. None of the four seems to be an educational expert in any relevant sense.

Citizens, can we talk? No one cares about low-income kids, and no one ever has. More specifically, no one cares enough to speak up about Kristof's shaky claims, whether on our Ivy campuses or at the uncaring Times.

There may be delays in our reporting in the days to come. We're dealing with the after effects of a June 7 surgical procedure, and we're losing large chunks of time.

That said, the world is full of good, decent kids like the kids we once taught. It's also full of lazy, indifferent, incompetent experts and elites who seem to love good Storyline more than life itself.

Long ago, our experts walked off their posts. In thrall to pleasing Storyline, they've wandered far away.

Tomorrow: We may not be able to post tomorrow, although we'll dang sure try.


84 comments:

  1. Speaking of silence, Somerby noted that yesterday was a glorious day, but he didn't say a word about the holiday itself, just like who? That's right, Trump and DeSantis and all of the other Republican candidates for president, except Tim Scott and Asa Hutchinson. On the other hand, most liberals with blogs featured Juneteenth essays about the meaning of the holiday to our nation.

    Somerby is stuck arguing about those MS reading scores. He is right that no one cares, but he is wrong that liberals and journalists don't care about poor black children in MS and elsewhere. We are tired of Somerby's attacks on those who are trying to help black kids in MS learn to read. There can be no harm in such efforts and there may be considerable good -- so why is Somerby continuing to denigrate what has been happening in MS, to the point that he is mocking letters to the editor from actual education experts? Is Somerby so vested in black failure that he cannot stomach any report of progress?

    Somerby wonders why no education experts have "wandered out" to contest Kristof's latest editorial. They are busy doing their actual jobs and no one considers Kristof an expert on education or anything else, so why waste the time debating him -- even when he is saying innocuous things about reading in MS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I ain’t no educational expert, but I know what works: Phonics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are an object lesson to children everywhere. If you don't learn to read you will be limited to writing one-word comments saying only "phonics" or "digby". If you "ain't" no expert, why should anyone listen to you?

      If phonics work so well, why did some kids fail to learn to read using the phonics-based method they implemented in MS and require the services of a reading specialist to come up to grade level? How does phonics address the need to learn reading comprehension skills in order to move on to more difficult reading material?

      Delete
    2. Phonics is the key to the skill of reading. It doesn’t give deep understanding. Like learning simple arithmetic doesn’t bring knowledge of calculus.

      I don’t know why some kids didn’t learn with phonics, and I hope the specialist helped them.

      Delete
    3. My point is that phonics may be the key to reading for some kids. Others will learn without phonics, and still others need more help besides phonics. The MS reading program assessed the problems of the kids who were struggling and had specialists available to help them, and they gave those kids extra time in 3rd grade to come up to grade level, which they did. This means that phonics alone is not the answer but that it may be helpful as part of a program, as occurred in MS where phonics was included.

      Delete
    4. Obviously phonics alone isn’t enough. But it is necessary, because English is written in an alphabetic script. Kids who read without formal instruction in phonics learn it in some other way.

      To read unfamiliar words, you have to know what the letters, and combinations of letters, represent. I learned most of that at home, most kids learn it in school, but they have to learn it somewhere.

      That’s how you read unfamiliar words without pictures or context to guide you.

      Delete
    5. You do not have any idea what people do when they are reading, especially if they learn without formal instruction. For example, what is the role of mental imagery?

      Delete
    6. I don’t know anything about mental imagery, but I do know how the English language is written.

      Phonics, baby, phonics!

      Delete
    7. When people read words they form a mental image of what they are reading. They picture what is happening. Being able to do that makes reading more satisfying and is most common among those who read for pleasure and those who become writers. Phonics has nothing to do with that, since it deals with sounds not images.

      I'm sure you've heard of imagination. It helps to have some when you are learning to read. This is another way that phonics is not everything in reading instruction, and why picture books have both pictures and words. There are some books for toddlers that are read along, with a soundtrack that reads the words to the child as he turns the pages. Such books also have pictures.

      Delete
    8. There are individual differences in the ability to visualize and the extent to which people think in images versus language (words, speech). Some children may have trouble learning to read using a specific instruction system (such as phonics) compared to children who think differently. That's why a system that accommodates different ways of processing experience may help a wider variety of children. Otherwise, the approach in MS of detecting problems early and assigning a reading specialist to try alternative approaches is needed. The belief that one approach will fit all is wrong. That's why the fanaticism over mandating phonics is troubling. We do not all think alike.

      At the extremes of individual difference is what we are now calling neurodiversity (people who were previously called autistic and other labels). There are a lot of ways of being divergent cognitively. Those who study how people think frequently find college students with sometimes severe cognitive deficits who were entirely unaware they were different. One frequent example is color-blindness, but there have been examples of students who cannot copy line drawings (with the image in front of them) or who do not visualize at all). Because no one has access to another person's inner experience, there is no way of knowing what other people see in their mind's eye, so they think their way of thinking is normal and the way everyone thinks. That is far from true across the range of human diversity.

      Delete
  3. "We got lucky long ago, starting in the fall of 1969. We got to spend nine full years as a classroom teacher to nine different arrays of Baltimore's lower-income black kids.

    We were exposed to some very good kids. They were being badly served at that point in time."

    Hear hear, those kids WERE being badly served. They shoved an untrained teacher like Somerby into a classroom that deserved better.

    Oddly, Somerby's teaching tenure changes from year to year. I've seen him say he taught for 10 years, 12 years and even 13 years. Today he says 9 years. He has admitted to teaching with Teach for America in order to avoid the draft. Teach for America has been criticized for providing no training other than a 6-week summer course that mainly indoctrinated their enrollees about the evils of standard teaching methods, before placing them in inner city schools. Their premise was that well-educated, bright Ivy League grads only need idealism and enthusiasm to help inner city kids, no actual teaching skills needed.

    The Brookings Institute said about Teach for America:

    "TFA has long attracted its share of criticism for its operational model, with allegations that it reinforces disadvantaged students' low access to qualified teachers and accelerates staff turnover in settings that need stability."

    In contrast, MS approached the needs of its struggling students by training reading specialists in effective methods and placing them in every school, then identifying the failing students and giving them early intervention to bring them up to grade level by grade 3. That produced obvious improvement which Somerby has been disparaging for several weeks now. Why is Somerby so motivated to prove that black kids cannot learn, even with increased funding and better instruction early on? It is almost as if Somerby is protecting his own ego, under the belief that if he couldn't help his own students read, then no one can, especially not in MS with their legislatively mandated extra attention to poor readers. So it must all be a fraud and he will prove it tomorrow by showing us that not ALL of the poor black kids were able to meet some criterion of Somerby's choosing, partial success be damned.

    It clearly sucks to be Somerby. I hope no one in the educational community listens to anything he says. It is better for them to continue addressing the needs of black kids as they are doing, than to give up because every child is not equally affected by their current programs. Somerby then claims no one cares about black children -- in the face of a large effort to improve reading in MS. How is that conclusion possible given what they have actually done in that state -- but Somerby says we are not permitted to notice, because why? Actually, I'm not sure what his beef is, except that clearly many people care and it seems like it is Somerby who doesn't want to encourage them to continue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He thought teaching was better than killing.

      Delete
    2. Then he should have done some.

      Delete
    3. 11:57: As did many others who didn’t have Somerby’s choice.

      Delete
    4. Somerby should have killed so they wouldn’t have to.

      Delete
    5. That’s not how the draft worked, 3:16. Those who were sent over mostly weren’t privileged Harvard grads offered the chance to be faux teachers.

      Delete
    6. He shirked his duty to kill.

      Delete
    7. He's been making up for shirking his duties to kill, since 2015.

      Delete
  4. "None of the four seems to be an educational expert in any relevant sense."

    Somerby dismisses the credentials of all four letter writers, and yet:

    "Walt Gardner / Los Angeles

    The writer taught for 28 years in the Los Angeles Unified School District and was a lecturer in the U.C.L.A. Graduate School of Education."

    Compare this to Somerby's 9 years in a Baltimore classroom back in 1969. Does that make Somerby qualified to assess the credentials of any of these four letter writers? I don't think so, since his criterion seems to be whether he agrees with what they said or not. And a week or so ago, he was dismissing Diane Ravitch, who IS an education expert.

    Katherine Murphy from Falls Church, VA says: "As a teacher for 30 years, including 17 in a low-income, minority school, I was interested in learning how Mississippi raised test scores."

    That sounds like more direct experience than Somerby himself claims.

    Mary Meland from Minneapolis is has training in early childhood development that Somerby lacks:

    "The writer is a retired pediatrician and a member of the advocacy group Doctors for Early Childhood."

    Yet Somerby dismisses her expertise too. Barbara Barran states no background in education or early learning, but the she is discussing the funding of the program, not its success or importance to children in MS.

    Dismissing the expertise of a letter writer is a way to dismiss their comments without having to address the substance of what they said. But it seems to me that three of these four letter writers are better qualified than Somerby to express an opinion on the MS editorial written by Kristof. And yes, Kristof is no expert at all, but it is easier for Somerby to attack him than to deal with the substance of the original AP article or the background of what was actually done in MS. Somerby's retreat to the safety of NAEP score disaggregation shows that he isn't even able to use statistics appropriately, other than to create a smokescreen that permits him to disparage teaching efforts in a state that has seen improvement over a decade.

    It is time for Somerby to move on to another subject. Or perhaps, given his health, move on to a different leisure activity. He is doing nothing to help those black kids he claims to care about, by discouraging efforts to help them learn to read sooner in their classrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A speedy recovery and all the best you, Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby has a condition called old age. You don't recover from that -- it is always terminal. As we get older, medical visits are part of our lives. It isn't the same as when a young person has tennis elbow. Tell him you hope he feels better, since medical procedures in old age are aimed at maintaining optimal quality of life in the remaining years, not "recovery" much less "speedy recovery."

      Delete
    2. And all the best you, Cecelia.

      Delete
    3. Thanks and back at ya, anonymouse 11:59am.

      Delete
    4. Cecelia, I wish you a speedy recovery. But I respect you too much offer false optimism. Once a young person is over exposed to “The Fountainhead” or such libertarian balderdash, their ego is warped, few recover. Terminal idiocy has no known cure.

      Delete
    5. Ohhh…ok, Anonymouse 4:12pm.

      All the best to you too, honey baby.

      Delete
    6. You know you're old when younger people start calling you terms of endearment, such as sweetie. Younger people can be patronizing but we are safe in the knowledge that they'll get theirs later on.

      Delete
  6. "Again and again, it turned out that these pleasing accounts were built on statistical fraud and deception. In the current case of Mississippi, this basic Storyline is back, with experts suggesting that other states could match Mississippi if they'd just work equally hard."

    There has been no accusation of statistical fraud or deception, much less cheating, by anyone except Somerby. The scores upon which claims of improvement have been based are from NAEP, which is the test that no one cheats on. Somerby himself has said he does not know that there was any cheating in MS.

    But he insists that we ignore ALL reports of school improvement because of a few prior instances of cheating on high stakes tests determining school funding under NCLB and value-added teacher evaluation.

    Why couldn't other states improve their reading scores if they did what MS did? They created state legislation that mandated funding for reading instruction, specified training for reading specialists and teachers in early grades, and set a requirement that all kids be able to read by the end of 3rd grade, holding back those kids who could not. They specified that reading problems be assessed and addressed by those reading specialists in all schools, and then they spent 10 years training all of their elementary school teachers in reading instruction and implementing a reading program based on phonics. That is clearly a lot of work and an investment in helping their kids succeed in reading. Why wouldn't any state show improvement if it made a similar investment in proven methods and the training of its teachers, then applied those methods seriously to make sure kids didn't fall through the cracks?

    That is a lot of work. Teachers, of all people, are vested in the idea that with effort comes learning. If students are incapable of learning despite effort coupled with the right materials and teacher support, they are not able to benefit from schooling and perhaps need to be assessed for special education or other types of intervention to help them with life skills and self-care. Or is Somerby hinting that black kids are just too stupid to show improvement of the kind observed in MS? That conclusion is not supported by Somerby's NAEP scores, even when disaggregated. Because all groups showed improvement from their own baselines of scores before the program started.

    Is Somerby seriously planning to suggest that black kids should not be helped, because they don't close the gap and catch up with the white kids? What matters to each child is reading better than when they started. As noted, those kids held back did pass the test after repeating the 3rd grade, and that is success for them and much better than if they had not had this program at all, in terms of each child's personal outcomes.

    If Somerby is planning to argue that these results are deceptive because of the retention policy or any other statistical complaint, he is not helping kids anywhere. And that leads me to wonder what exactly Somerby cares about. It clearly isn't black disadvantaged kids in any state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob notes that the retention policy may have had statical effects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I posted data weeks ago to show that it did not in the case of Mississippi. Somerby has not reviewed any of the actual data.

      Delete
    2. Don’t confuse statical with statistical.

      Delete
  8. The movie Stand and Deliver was about a suspicious academic improvement that proved to be entirely valid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it was a movie.

      Delete
    2. It is based on the life of Jaime Escalante, a real person, who quit his job as an aerospace engineer to teach calculus and other math at Garfield High School in East LA (a Hispanic neighborhood). The events depicted are what happened.

      Delete
    3. Are you sure the film was accurate?

      Delete
    4. Yes, there was discussion about that when it came out. It left out controversy over his teaching methods. Some teachers felt he asked too much of his students, pressured them. But there is a little of that in the film.

      Delete
  9. Above commend from David in California.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Once again, I must salute with a modest awe those who managed to get through and opine on this post. Dubious the first time, fingernails on the blackboard recycled for the forth or fifth time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It’s worth noting here Morning Joe went on a big tirade about abuse of Bill Clinton during his Presidency. He mentioned Jerry Falwell and Vince Foster, just as Bob still does once in a blue moon. It was odd, given his performance on such things before.For a moment I thought he might mention pathological liar Juanita Broaddrick and her weird attacks on woman who claim Trump sexually assaulted her.
    Morning Joe is no hero on these issues. But Bill Clinton may get a better shake from Joe now than Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 2:12am, Bob isn’t working for MSNBC.

      Delete
    2. Your comment makes no sense Cecelia.

      Delete
    3. Cecelia uses various substances.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 9:04am, Bob doesn’t have to suck up the the current simplistic polemical narrative on MSNBC (nor to the one at Fox).

      He can call things as he sees them.

      Delete
    5. “Morning Joe is no hero on these issues. But Bill Clinton may get a better shake from Joe now than Bob.”

      Unless Anonymouse 2:12am watched Joe Scarborough talking about Bob Somerby on MoJoe, that was not the anonymouse’s point.

      Delete
    6. This seems to be your first time on the Howler Rodeo, little lady. “May” is speculation, now they are at the same place. One can imagine that when Bob points out the Press’s abuse of Clinton/Gore (once his main deal) you just ignored it. Perhaps still the case?

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 12:37, I’m aware that in real time TDH was all up in the Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment thing from the side that did not revere Ken Starr.

      Anonymouse 2:12am, said that Joe Scarborough has had a change of heart as to who were the sheep and the goats back in the day, and would likely defend Bill more painstakingly than Bob.

      Coincidentally, MSNBC has changed from those days, as well. Joe’s transformation has kept pace with his paychecks. Bob’s a free agent.

      Delete
    8. "Bob’s a free agent."

      How exactly do you know that?

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 1:10pm, because I don’t wear your blinkers.

      Delete
    10. You are a conservative troll, most likely paid by the same oligarch.

      Delete
    11. Really? Im think you underestimate oligarchs.

      Delete
    12. Underestimate oligarchs? You mean a self-respecting oligarch would pay much more than you’re currently getting?

      Delete
  12. Replies
    1. Don't encourage trolling, Cecelia. This is someone who knows nothing much about reading or phonics but thinks the word phonics will annoy liberals, so he is repeating it now every day and twice when he gets bored. Please don't encourage this kind of cluttering of the comments.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 12:46pm, pull your panties out of your crack.

      You’ll feel better.

      Delete
    3. This is the way an anti-social person responds to a request to help the community (other readers here). Vulgar as usual.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 1:12pm, you’re not a community. You’re a pushy gang who wants to usurp TDH turf.

      Delete
    5. TDH never comments here.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 1:42pm, go up to the very top of the page and look down.

      Delete
    7. Then you are a bot. All humans have a crack.

      Delete
    8. By crack I mean the cleft of the vulva.

      Delete
  13. "Romance novels have been around for centuries, but they have evolved over the years. According to Guardian opinion writer Arwa Mahdawi, some "right-wing culture warriors" are raging against a trend in the genre: male characters they believe aren't "alpha" or macho enough.

    On June 2, Publisher Weekly's Pooja Makhijani reported a heavy demand for "cinnamon rolls" in romance novels. A "cinnamon roll," Makhijani noted, is the type of "sweet, supportive and kind hero" that authors are depicting and publishers are promoting.

    In her June 21 column, Mahdawi writes, "I wouldn't read too much into one trend piece, but it does look as if there is a sizeable market out there for mild-mannered men. While that sounds like great character development to me, not everyone agrees. There is, you may have noticed, a cohort of right-wing culture warriors perpetually looking for an excuse to get offended, and it appears some of them read Publishers Weekly. The New York Post just put out a disgusted article about how woke women are flocking to novels featuring 'squishy-centered men.'"

    There was also an article about RFK's idea that plastic in the environment is turning men squishy, even trans. Unfortunately, the science doesn't agree with his theory, not even for frogs. It does increase birth defects and decrease birth weights, so it is not good for people, but there is no change in the birth rate or in fertility, so it doesn't turn men into girls, which is the unmanly fear of certain men who tan their balls. For such men, there is nothing worse in life than being female.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 1:01pm, I just clicked on this two days ago.

      https://youtu.be/2H6CC1RnaBE

      The only thing I could offer this woman is something from my own experience.

      That is if my husband and I heard strange noises in the house at night, he would never let me lead the way in investigating. And no matter how much he insisted, I would NEVER be anywhere but looking right over his shoulder.

      Find THAT guy.

      Delete
    2. If there are never strange noises, what other qualities might be important?

      Delete
    3. I’ll tell you when you’re older.

      Delete
    4. Looking over his shoulder? So the quality to look for in a man is shortness.

      Delete
  14. For our friends who don't yet realize the Ukraine war is the start of WWIII:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/20/china-negotiating-with-havana-about-joint-military-training-facility-in-cuba-00102636

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too many trolls here.

      Delete
    2. Bob is reluctant to delete comments. But he did delete one of mine, when I called Cecelia a male chimpanzee.

      Delete
    3. I think he’s deleted several comments of mine.

      Anyway, some of mine have disappeared in the past.

      It’s his blog, I want him to do as he wishes, but I wouldn’t have deleted your comment.

      Ostensively, it’s your means of trying to make me feel like a trans person who is misgendered. However, you’d use the same excuse for misgendering a trans person who was a conservative.

      With anonymices it’s always about control.

      Delete
    4. How do we feel about Biden letting China waltz right into to Cuba to train their military? Awesome right?

      Anyone have any idea why he hasn't been able.to prevent them from moving forward with this plan?

      What, Digby didn't write about it???

      Delete
    5. Cuba is a sovereign country. It can work with China if it wants. Like South Korea and China can work with us, if they want.

      Delete
    6. Cecelia, I was joking. I know you’re not a chimpanzee.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 4:49pm, and I know you’re not an lntellect.

      Delete
    8. Joe Biden, the Democrat war-mongerer, doesn't want to challenge China?
      Turns-out, it's Right-wingers, not Democrats, who never met a war they wouldn't want their doorman's kid to fight.

      Delete
    9. He can't challenge them because we did to Russia what they are doing to us.

      Biden and the Democratic war party has started World War Three.

      Sounds like a party!!!

      Delete
    10. At 4:48 I meant to say South Korea and Japan can work with us.

      Delete
    11. I am not an lntellect.

      Delete
    12. I ain't no lntellect, neither. But I can spell intellect. And I know the difference between I and l. Also 1.

      Delete
  15. Cecelia, do your panties actually get stuck in your crack?

    ReplyDelete