Nicholas Kristof on low-income kids!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013

And our own discourse on method: Nicholas Kristof has read a new book which seems to say the same old things. Namely:

Kids who come from low-income, low-literacy backgrounds tend to be strongly disadvantaged. There may not be any books in the home. Their parents or care-givers may not read to them—may not take them to the library.

When it comes to literacy training, low-income kids are disadvantaged in many ways. At one point, Kristof tells a poignant story about someone he knew when he was a child—someone whose family wasn’t well off:
KRISTOF (1/24/13): [P]artly by necessity, working-class families often take a more hands-off attitude to child-raising...

When I was a third-grader, a friend struggling in school once went with me to the library, and my mother helped him get a library card. His grandmother then made him return it immediately, for fear that he would run up library fines.
Truly, that’s a sad story. Meanwhile, kids who come from high-literacy backgrounds live in a different world.

This Christmas, a certain 6-year-old relative of ours was reading up a storm. Last Christmas, as a kindergartner, she had been conducting a love affair with the alphabet. She had come a very long way in one year—and she was plowing onward.

Two Thanksgivings ago, when she was 4, she presented a memorable sight. We saw her sitting on her family's sofa pretending to read the New York Times. She had seen all the adults around her do it; she was pretending that she could too. Children from middle-class, literate homes receive vast early advantages and incentives.

Kristof suggests that we spend more money on early childhood programs. Our question: How well do these programs work? We were frustrated by the following passage, in a way we’ve described before:
KRISTOF (continuing directly from above): The upshot is that many low-income children never reach the starting line, and poverty becomes self-replicating.

Maybe that’s why some of the most cost-effective antipoverty programs are aimed at the earliest years. For example, the Nurse-Family Partnership has a home-visitation program that encourages new parents of at-risk children to amp up the hugging, talking and reading. It ends at age 2, yet randomized trials show that those children are less likely to be arrested as teenagers and the families require much less government assistance.

Or take Head Start. Critics have noted that the advantage its preschoolers gain in test scores fades by third grade, but scholars also have found that Head Start has important impacts on graduates, including lessening the chance that they will be convicted of a crime years later.
We’re often frustrated by passages like this. Here’s why:

According to Kristof, children involved with that Nurse-Family Partnership program “are less likely to be arrested as teenagers.” But how much less likely is it that they will be arrested?

Kristof doesn’t say. For all a reader gets to know, the effect may be quite small.

Also according to Kristof, participation in Head Start “lessens the chance that [children] will be convicted of a crime years later.” But by how much does it lessen the chance?

Kristof doesn’t say.

We’re often frustrated by this sort of thing when pundits cite studies. Routinely, we’re told that some intervention has a positive effect—but we aren’t told how large the effect is. This leaves open the possibility that the effect is small.

Note the one place where Kristof suggests the size of the alleged effect. According to Kristof, families who take part in the Nurse-Family Partnership program requite “much less government assistance” later on.

We still don’t know what “much” really means. But the word suggests that the other effects he cites in this passage are in fact rather small.

We’d love to hear about early intervention programs which actually work. But how well do such programs work?

Columnists ought to say.

Matthews: Hillary has such a beautiful voice!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013

Our latest “liberal” failure: Has anyone ever been repurposed the way Chris Matthews has?

For many years, he was the leading misogynist attack-dog against the vile Hillary Clinton (and a string of liberal women). But now, he has been reinvented.

Last night, he gushed and fawned. Thrills ran up both legs:
MATTHEWS (1/23/13): Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was at her best today, appearing before both Senate and House committees on foreign affairs. She showed acuity, eloquence, humanity and charm. To the reasonable questions, she offered candor and humility...

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. She never looked better. Venturing forth in unprotected waters today, she showed how not to be defensive, how not to sweat, also how to exhibit humanity, and yes compassion...

It was a magnificent display of smarts, I think, guts definitely, and caring.

[...]

You mentioned the fact of compassion and feeling. When she referred to the late Ambassador as Chris—happens to be my name—and constantly hearing her talk about Chris, she had a feeling of common human nature with that guy that a lot of these clowns didn’t even get near today.

[...]

She did look great...I thought she has a wonderful way of speaking. And I—and my old boss Tip used to say Ronald Reagan’s great strength was his voice. She has a beautiful voice. She knows how to speak for hours and it's not bothering anybody, the tremendous power of that beautiful voice she has.

[…]

Anyway, thank you, Howard Fineman, and thank you, Joan Walsh. I knew you’d love this one. I loved it, too.
Later, at the end of the show: “As her legions of followers like to say, Go, girl, go!”

Is that what her followers say? Chris made a very good try!

At any rate, Hillary has a beautiful voice—and she has never looked better! For one example of the types of things this horrible man used to say about Hillary Clinton, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/27/08.

Scroll down to “Trashing Clinton.” While in Jack Welch's employ, he ranted this way for years.

Whatever! By now, Matthews has been completely repurposed; he gushes and foams on our side. But Clinton’s twin sessions before the Congress represented the latest liberal failure. They showed the way our liberal leaders let the gong-show attacks against Susan Rice become a great cause in the world.

By now, the whole gang on The One True Channel stands to fight for Clinton and gush. But for months, while Rice was being slaughtered, the channel maintained complete silence. Just as “liberals” once kept their traps shut as both Clintons, then Gore, were savaged and slaughtered, so too our “liberal leaders” kept their traps shut as Rice was sent off to die.

In that sense, the mere fact of yesterday’s hearings represent a major liberal failure. In another way, it helps us see the pitiful state of our upper-end journalism. Even in today’s news report, this is the way the New York Times describes what Susan Rice said:
GORDON (1/24/13): A persistent line of questioning by Republican lawmakers concerned the initial comments from Ms. Rice that the attack might have resulted from a protest, over an anti-Islamic video, that spun out of control.

Mrs. Clinton defended Ms. Rice even as she appeared to distance herself from Ms. Rice’s comments. “I told the American people that heavily armed militants assaulted our compound, and I vowed to bring them to justice,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Really? Is that what Rice said? Did she say the Benghazi attack “resulted from” a protest which spun out of control?

Actually, no—she didn’t. After saying a million times that her information was subject to later correction, Rice said that extremists armed with heavy weapons came to the scene of a demonstration and then “hijacked events.”

That isn’t the same thing at all. But you live in an intellectual culture which can’t articulate such distinctions. Basic paraphrase is too hard for your upper-end press corps.

All last fall, Lawrence and Rachel refused to help—and the New York Times still can’t explain what Rice really said. For that reason, John McCain was back on Fox last night, still posing his stupid-ass question:
MCCAIN (1/23/13): I don't think [Rice] has many of the answers. The answers lie within the State Department, the CIA, and the White House. Who changed the talking points and why? Because the talking points, if it had included the classified information they had would have depicted a very different version of events than the ones that Ambassador Rice told the American people.

And, I guess finally, why would we ever think that people bring mortars and rocket propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations? I mean, on the face of it, this cannot be ignored, the fact that this was all in the heat of a presidential campaign, a president who was campaigning, saying bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda's on the run. We know that's not true.
Except, Rice never said that the demonstrators had rocket propelled grenades. She said a bunch of extremists brought the RPGs to a pre-existing demonstration, at which point they “hijacked events.”

John McCain’s question makes no sense. Due to the uselessness of our major elites, he has been asking his stupid-ass question for well over four months!

Final question: Are our liberal leaders just a gang of slobbering racists? After all, they now stand to defend the white woman after they let Rice rot!

Shouldn’t we get out R-bombs out? Or do we just do that to The Others?

INAUGURATE THIS: Adele Stan and the drums of war!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013

Part 3—She hears Obama name-calling: Human nature being what it is, we the liberals rarely notice how ineffective we are.

Truth to tell, we have been remarkably inept at persuading them the people in the past forty years. Consider the “gun show loophole.”

By common reckoning, about forty percent of all gun sales don’t require a background check under federal law:

You need to get a background check if you buy your gun over here. But if you buy your gun over there, no background check is required! Since we’re the ones who say we want background checks, this nonsense falls squarely on us.

This clownish state of affairs is commonly known as “the gun show loophole.” It’s almost like we passed a law saying you can’t rob banks—unless you rob the bank on Tuesdays or Thursdays or on alternate weekends.

Would you refer to such an exemption as “the bank robbery loophole?” Or would you simply regard such a law as an utterly crazy act?

The gun show loophole is utterly daft—and yet, it has been the state of federal law for a good many years. We the liberals have barely noticed. We certainly haven’t known how to get the “loophole” closed.

(Or maybe we just didn’t care.)

The reason for this clownish failure is fairly simple: We the liberals are very bad at persuading them the people to share our basic beliefs.

Despite Obama’s cheerful claims about what “we the people” believe, very large portions of the public don’t agree with our liberal beliefs. Over the past forty years, we the liberals haven’t been good at persuading them the people.

In our view, Adele Stan has given us a comical look at one possible reason for this.

In Monday’s Inaugural Address, President Obama decried the politics of name-calling—attacked name-calling by name! Basically, though, Stan heard him name-calling the other tribe all through his address.

Where Whitman heard America singing, Stan heard Obama name-calling!

In our view, Stan’s piece about Obama’s address has its definite comical side. But it may help explain why we the liberals have had so much trouble persuading them the people of even the most obvious points.

Stan wrote her piece for Alternet; it was reprinted by Salon. And good lord! As Stan watched Obama give his address, she saw the president conducting a “war” against The Other Tribe.

It was even “a war of prayer!” This is how Stan’s review started:
STAN (1/22/13): With its elegant rendering of the liberal agenda before the eyes of the American people, President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address was music to the ears of many a progressive. But to the ears of Tea Partyers and the Republican right, this inauguration speech, as well as the ceremony that surrounded it, was war—not just a war of words, but a war of prayer, a war of poetry and even, perhaps, a war of song.

Driving the message home were the hands of the Fates, who conspired to see the second inauguration of the nation’s first African-American president fall on Martin Luther King Day, the national holiday whose very creation was opposed by so many who still today comprise the Republican Party’s right wing.
In fairness, Stan doesn’t exactly say that Obama was conducting a war. She merely says that the other tribe heard his words that way.

In this way, she mind-reads tens of millions of people, telling us how (all) those people heard Obama’s address.

As she continues, Stan “recounts a dozen ways in which the president brought his fight to the right, in no uncertain terms.” As she starts, she drives home a familiar point—the other tribe is a gang of slobbering racists.

We the liberals are drawn to this claim. In Stan’s view, this is the first of the dozen ways Obama “brought his fight to the right:”
STAN: 1. Reminding the nation who won the Civil War.

On the eve of Obama’s second inauguration, civil rights leader Julian Bond addressed a crowd of progressives gathered in Washington, D.C., at the Peace Ball convened by the activist restaurateur Andy Shallal, Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” and a host of progressive entities. Bond spelled out the statistics of Obama’s 2012 victory for the crowd, noting that Mitt Romney’s voters were almost entirely white, and that the only states won by the Republican presidential candidate belonged to the old Confederacy.

“The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” the anthem of Union troops in the Civil War, long ago passed into the songbook of patriotic themes, and has been played during the inaugural parades of other presidents, sung on several different occasions by the very white Mormon Tabernacle Choir. But when the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir, in all its multicultural glory, was tapped to sing the anthem not from a parade stand, but from the ceremonial podium, a different chord was struck, thanks to its context: the invocation that preceded it, and the president’s speech, which followed it.
We’re not sure what that activist restaurateur had to do with the staging or text of Obama’s address. But in Stan’s view, the first way Obama “brought the fight to the right” was by reminding them which side won the Civil War! (The North.) He did this by having the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic—by letting the choir sing the hymn right from the ceremonial podium! (We don’t understand that part either.)

Again: According to Stan, when the Republican right saw a multicultural choir sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, this reminded them who won the Civil War. It struck them as an act of war conducted by Obama himself.

This strikes us a very uncharitable view of Obama. It strikes us a form of near-lunacy—and as a view of the world which is tinged with tribal hatred.

Stan asserts that The Others are full of hate. But to us, it seems quite clear that Stan herself is so driven.

Life-forms have always seen the world this way, of course, dating back into prehistory. The life-forms in Mountain Pass A have always felt that the life-forms in Mountain Pass B are evil in various ways.

This outlook was once a survival skill. Today, this impulse is one of the greatest problems confronting the global village.

We the liberals often bring this prehistory into the world. We’re eager to see the hate in those who dare to vote the other way. We rarely seem able to spot the hints of hate in ourselves.

Trust us. Others can!

Luckily, most of them the people won’t read Stan’s review of the speech. By the time we’d finished reading her piece, she almost had us hating Obama, so many ways had he been said to be waging that war on the others.

Stan heard Obama name-calling as he delivered his words of war. She even heard him attacking the others for being “immoral” about gay rights—as he recommended a cause he himself had opposed until May of last year!

Yes, Stan’s vision is tragically foolish, but we the haters love to hate. That said, Stan hated on the basis of race in her second item too. In that item, she said Obama brought war to the right by “reminding the nation of the history of the civil rights movement.” Also by “acknowledging the nation’s history of slavery!”

Stan’s piece is foolish, but it’s also fairly ugly:

We well recall when we were taught, as high school freshmen, to avoid “the glittering generality.” Even at the age of 14, this concept didn't seem real complex.

In those days, those generalities were most frequently aimed at blacks. We were warned to avoid this practice.

Today, the glittering generality is often aimed by us the liberals at them who don't vote as we do. At such moments, we offer very few qualifiers; within Stan’s text, everyone on the Republican right saw the use of that Brooklyn choir as an act of war. “They” felt the same way when “they” were reminded of our nation’s history of slavery.

Quite routinely, we the liberals think and speak in this and similar ways. We paint the others with a very broad brush, as life-forms like Stan have always done, all through the annals of time.

Why have we the liberals had so much trouble persuading them the people to see things our way? What has made us so politically hapless? So hapless that we haven’t even been able to defeat the gun show “loophole,” the dumbest law of all time?

We’d say there are several answers to that. But people like Stan have always made it hard for progressive outlooks and ideas to advance. In our view, the Stans help explain why they the people often don’t pay us much mind.

Did Obama call for an end to name-calling? Pshaw! Tomorrow, we’ll look at more of the name-calling in which our glorious side has engaged.

All too often, we the liberals do call the other tribe names. We even name-call them the people—and we don’t seem to hear ourselves do it.

Tomorrow: One high-profile use of the A-bomb

President Lincoln's strange flaw: In a recent Daily Beast profile, a Lincoln scholar revaled one of the flaws in this well-known president. Professor Wilson was pulling no punches:
WILSON (12/15/12): But perhaps the most significant and consequential of all the qualities Lincoln displayed in his public communications was an unwillingness to demonize his adversaries.

Brought up on bare-knuckled frontier politics, Lincoln eventually came to the belief that treating your opponent with respect rather than demeaning him was not only more becoming but improved your prospects for making points with your audience as well...
Professor Wilson goes on at some leangth about this puzzling character flaw. Despite this quirk, Lincoln is widely regarded today as one of our greatest presidents.

Virginia is for takeovers: Three cheers for the Washington Post!

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013

The Post denounces a putsch: As Digby said a bit earlier, “You have undoubtedly heard about the Virginia legislature's off-year redistricting scheme which they waited to pass until one of the State Senators was attending the inaugural.

“Yes, they actually did that. They have taken a tied legislature and gerrymandered a new one with potentially a seven vote GOP majority. They're not even pretending to follow the rules anymore.”

Last night, Rachel Maddow described these events quite clearly; Big Ed did so in murky fashion. But we say, Three cheers for the Washington Post for describing this remarkable action for what it is.

Disregarding the modern rules which forbid such allusions, the Post has called this a sneak attack—and the Post has called it “a putsch:”
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (1/23/13): In a sneak attack notable more for its deviousness than its strategic acuity, Virginia Republicans engineered a bald-faced power grab Monday that would radically redraw the state’s electoral map without so much as a “yea,” “nay” or “maybe” from anything so trivial as a voter.

Taking advantage of the absence of a single Democratic state senator, GOP lawmakers in Richmond rammed through a radically gerrymandered map designed to hand them control of the 40-member state Senate, which is now split evenly between the two parties.

They were able to do so, on a vote of 20 to 19, because one Democratic senator was in Washington to attend President Obama’s inauguration. Touche, Republicans! Count that as a new low for hyper-partisanship, dirty tricks and the unaccountable arrogance of power.

The Republican move was executed in the style of a putsch...
Three cheers for the Washington Post! In her own post, Digby ruminates on the devolving political style displayed in this action.

She asks if the voters will tolerate this. In the next few days, we will expand on that question.

Eduardo Porter gone wild about taxes!

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013

The latest discussion which will never occur: Every Wednesday, Eduardo Porter does his “Economic Scene” column in the New York Times.

Often, he strays off the reservation. This is one of those days.

In today’s column, Porter engages in heretical musing about the idea of raising everyone's taxes.

Such musings are almost never offered. They offend the spirit of Serious culture. But early on, Porter says this:
PORTER (1/23/13): To make ends meet, both parties agree, spending must be drastically cut. Under the White House budget proposal, discretionary spending on everything except the military is projected to shrink to its smallest share of the economy since the Eisenhower administration by the beginning of the next decade. Though he has resisted Republican demands to slash entitlements, President Obama remains willing to look for further savings from Medicare.

This is not, however, the only option we have. There is an alternative: raising more money from all taxpayers, including the middle class.

Nobody wants to talk about this. Republicans don’t want to raise taxes at all. “The tax issue is finished, over, completed,” declared the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. President Obama does want to raise more money, but only narrowly. His proposals for tax reform are aimed carefully at high-income taxpayers and corporations.

Yet Americans would benefit from a discussion of this possibility...
We tend to agree with that judgment. But of one thing you can feel quite certain—Porter’s column will generate no such discussion. The discussion he proposes isn’t going to happen!

Is there a case to be made for “raising everyone's taxes?” Porter is making a generally “progressive” suggestion; he's suggesting that the U.S. might want to be more like Europe. But we liberals and progressives don’t try very hard to drive such heretical discussions. We like to talk about social issues. We fail at everything else.

Would Americans be better off if we were more like Europe? You can read Porter making his case. But you won’t see it anywhere else.

By the way: In all the excitement about Obama’s “progressive” Inaugural Address, are we the only ones clinging to a faint suspicion—the suspicion that the base is being appeased with a lot of social issues, while Obama may still be planning to cut benefits in one of the major social insurance programs?

We liked the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir too—and this faint suspicion may turn out to be pure paranoia. But we liberals tend to be easy when it comes to matters like this.

We’ll offer one complaint about Porter’s budget-based piece. We still want someone to tell us where all that health care money is going—the heath care money which helps create the need for higher taxes.

As Dean Baker constantly notes, the federal government would be running surpluses if our per capita spending on health care matched that of other developed nations. (To use Baker's fiendish Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator, go ahead: Just click here.)

In theory, all those budget problems would fly if someone discovered where all that extra money is going. If we could recover that extra money, there might not even be a need for Porter's higher taxes.

But we liberals never ask about that. The truth is, we aren’t especially bright about such matters, and we aren’t especially disciplined. As long as you give us a choir from Brooklyn—a choir we liked!—we feel fairly sure that we’ve won.

“Americans would benefit from a discussion of this possibility,” Porter writes of his suggestion about higher taxes. In principle, we think he's right.

Even more, we’d like to see that discussion about the apparent looting of health care. But Baker can yap as long as he wants.

That discussion will never occur.

What Gene Robinson saw at the inauguration!

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013

Slouching toward post-racial: We thought Gene Robinson made an excellent point about the inauguration.

“The black president no longer,” the headline on his Washington Post column said. Robinson started like this:
ROBINSON (1/22/13): President Barack Hussein Obama’s second inauguration was every bit as historic as his first—not because it said so much about the nation’s long, bitter, unfinished struggle with issues of race, as was the case four years ago, but because it said so little about the subject.

Reflect for a moment: A black man stood on the Capitol steps and took the oath of office as president of the United States. For the second time. Meaning that not only did voters elect him once—which could be a fluke, a blip, an aberration, a cosmic accident—but then turned around and did it again.

[And yet...]

Reaction to the address took remarkably little notice of the fact that Obama is an African American. That seems to be old news.
Robinson grew up black in South Carolina. He was born there in 1955. The fact that we have a black president isn’t old news for him, he quite convincingly says.

But as he looked around this week, it seemed to be old news for pretty much everyone else, at least within the press corps:
ROBINSON: The truth is that it will take many years to fully assess the Obama presidency. The verdict will depend on what he accomplishes in his second term—and how his initiatives pan out in the coming decades. On health care and the long-term debt, in particular, my hunch is that Obama is taking a much longer view than his critics realize.

But here we are, talking about legacy, not race. Which is simply amazing.
We think that’s amazing too—amazing and deeply tremendous.

As Robinson semi-notes, a great deal of this transformation owes to Obama’s steady demeanor and habits. But what we’re discussing is our progress toward a “post-racial” society.

That word was much discussed and much debated around the first inauguration. What might that word really mean?

It seems to us it means this:

White society became largely “post-ethnic” a good while ago. Within white America, there was a time when you were defined by your ethnicity—and when you might be punished for it. (You might not get the job. You might not get the girl.)

Within white America, those days are largely over. People don’t get punished for their ethnicity. For the most part, they get to decide if they want to be defined by where their ancestors came from.

Some Irish Americans are heavily involved in their ethnicity. Others are not. In each case, other people don’t really care. To use an old phrase, it’s all good.

Robinson is describing a world in which Obama has ceased to be defined by his race. As Robinson looked around this week, he saw his colleagues discussing Obama's legacy, not his (so-called) race.

They were discussing Obama as a president, sometimes in ways which struck him as dumb. But they weren’t discussing Obama as a black president.

We have a long way to go before our wider society is “post-racial.” But Robinson is noticing something real. In many places, not in all, 6-year-olds are going to school with a wide of array of classmates. Their parents married the people they chose. “Race” isn’t the same freighted subject it was a few decades ago.

They're in a better America.

Robinson noted something real. We have a long way to go—but it isn’t just journalists with Obama who are learning to let "race" go.

What we ourselves saw at the Giant: A few weeks ago, in a Baltimore supermarket, we saw a sight that made us go hmmm.

We saw a young black man, maybe 30 years old. He was wearing a Baltimore Ravens jersey.

The name on the back was this: FLACCO.

Just for the record, Joe Flacco must be the whitest guy in the whole NFL. (We don’t mean that as a criticism. And suddenly, he’s a big hero.) There’s nothing charismatic about him—and the Ravens have quite a few charismatic, widely-admired black players.

They're widely admired for obvious reasons. But this guy bought the FLACCO shirt. That’s the shirt he was wearing as he went around town.

We came to Baltimore in the tragic old days, in 1969. Racial lines were hard to cross in those days, for reasons everyone understands.

We thought that young man at the Giant made a terrific sight. We tried to think: Even twenty years ago, would he have been wearing that shirt?

INAUGURATE THIS: David Brooks doesn’t believe all those things!

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013

Part 2—Is David Brooks we the people: Do “we the people” believe all those things, the way Obama said?

In his Inaugural Address, the president listed a whole bunch of things “we the people” were said to believe. But do we really believe all that stuff? And if we do, why has it been so hard, for so many years, to get legislation passed, the kind of legislation we like?

Uh-oh! Just that quickly, one alleged person stuck up his head and said he doesn’t believe all those things. He said he doesn’t believe all the things Obama said!

The person is question is David Brooks. The very next day, in the New York Times, David Brooks spouted like this:
BROOKS (1/22/13): Reinvigorating a mature nation means using government to give people the tools to compete, but then opening up a wide field so they do so raucously and creatively. It means spending more here but deregulating more there. It means facing the fact that we do have to choose between the current benefits to seniors and investments in our future, and that to pretend we don’t face that choice, as Obama did, is effectively to sacrifice the future to the past.
Say what? According to Obama's address, we the people “reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

When the choice is phrased that way, no one would want to sign up for the other team. But Brooks seemed to say that he doesn’t believe the things implied by that passage.

Is David Brooks part of “we the people?” A few inquiring liberal minds are perhaps starting to ask.

For the record, Brooks was quite complimentary about Obama’s address. In the Times, he said it “surely has to rank among the best [inaugural addresses] of the past half-century.” On the NewsHour, he said the same thing, adding this: “I thought he raised the debate.”

But uh-oh! David Brooks doesn’t believe all the things Obama listed! We the people may believe all those things. But at least one columnist doesn’t!

For us, this was the strangest part of Obama’s address. For ourselves, we tend to agree with the various things the president said and implied in his speech. For example: Until we’re shown otherwise, we tend to believe that we don’t have to choose between our grandmothers and our great nieces as we budget for the future.

Unlike Brooks, we aren’t inclined to believe we need to roll back our retirement programs in order to “invest in our future.” But for whatever reason, tens of millions of people tend to see it the way Brooks does, if not a great deal more so.

They’re part of “we the people” too, unless we liberals and pseudo-liberals have now gone totally tribal.

For us, it was the oddest part of Obama’s address, this repeated claim that “we the people” believe all sorts of things which, rather plainly, we simply don’t believe.

We the liberals believe those things. We the people don't.

Our question today: Why is that? Why is it that so many people do not believe the things Obama said and implied?

Make no mistake: We the people do not hold the various beliefs Obama attributed to us. For one highly consequential example, consider what Obama said we the people believe about climate change:
OBAMA (1/21/13): We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
Do we the people “know that the failure to respond to the threat of climate change would betray our children and future generations?” Actually, no—we do not.

A few days before Obama’s address, CNN released a new survey about climate change. Below, you see the choices we the people were given—and you can see what we said:
QUESTION FROM CNN: Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of global warming?

Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories.

Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities.

Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven.

ANSWERS FROM WE THE PEOPLE:
A proven fact, mostly caused by emissions: 49 percent
A proven fact, mostly caused by natural changes: 24 percent
An unproven theory: 23 percent
Unsure: 3 percent
Uh-oh! Obama got 51.1 percent of the vote—and 49 percent of we the people believe that climate change is mostly caused by emissions. In October 2007, that figure stood at 56 percent.

"Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science?" In this recent survey, that “some” was half the country!

It sounded good when we told ourselves that “we the people” believe all those things—the things that we the liberals believe. But making this claim doesn’t make it true, and as Obama starts his second term, he’s stuck with a bad situation:

In the past forty years, we the liberals have done a very poor job persuading others of our beliefs. Even when our beliefs have been blindingly obvious, we haven’t been able to get them the people to agree.

(If we lower tax rates, we get extra revenue! The Social Security trust fund is just an accounting fiction! Susan Rice said that Benghazi wasn't a terrorist attack!)

Endless nonsense has been spewed through the land. We the liberals have shown little skill at persuading we the people not to believe it.

Why have we the liberals failed? Tomorrow, we’ll pose one idea.

Tomorrow: Dishes served cold

Friday: Them the authoritarians

Adele Stan and the spirit of loathing!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013

Taking it right to the limit: Wow! By the time we finished reading Adele Stan, she almost had us despising Obama.

We’ll almost surely return to her piece at some point later this week. In the meantime, it's a fascinating piece of reading. In our view, it's a testimonial to the prehistoric longing to loathe all the others.

Stan seems quite sure that the others are bad. Prehumans and those who came along later have always felt sure of this judgment. "Beloved Community" Stan's ass!

Final note: This is Stan at 51 percent. Imagine the piece she could have composed if Obama had done somewhat better!

What’s happening in the Prince George’s schools!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013

Do the editors know or care: Here’s the good news:

On Sunday morning, the Washington Post published a full editorial about the state of the public schools in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Prince George’s is one of the nation’s largest public school districts. It serves a majority black student population in a large suburban county outside DC.

In theory, it’s good that the editors would pay attention to the Prince George’s schools. But do the editors actually know what’s happening in that school system?

We're puzzled by the editors' logic. This is the way they started:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (1/20/13): The public schools in Prince George’s County are in trouble. Despite gains in test scores, student performance continues to lag that of other local, suburban school systems. About 1,000 students per year, on average, have been leaving, some because of shifting demographics, others because of the schools’ poor reputation. That has shrunk the system by more than 5 percent since 2006 (to about 125,000 students), even as the county’s population has grown. Meanwhile, the numbers of students from low-income and immigrant households are climbing.

Since he took office two years ago, County Executive Rushern L. Baker III has made the schools a top priority, in line with the wishes of many county residents. He’s increased the school budget even as student enrollment has declined and formed an education commission to generate ideas for innovation. Those are sensible steps.

Yet Mr. Baker has no direct authority and little leverage over the schools. Two highly regarded school superintendents have left in the past four years and now hold the top jobs in the Los Angeles and Philadelphia school systems. Clearly something is wrong.
We’re not sure we understand that. In the first paragraph, the editors say the district’s test scores are rising, even as enrollment grows among low-income and immigrant students.

But so what? By the third paragraph, the editors are saying this: “Clearly something is wrong.”

We’ll assume that many things are “wrong,” or imperfect, in this county’s schools. It may be that the Prince George's schools are being run quite poorly.

But in reading this editorial, we find no sign—none at all—that the editors have ever set foot inside these schools. We find no sign that they actually know how well these schools are performing.

Given the way the real world works, are we really supposed to be shocked when superintendents leave Prince George’s to head the Los Angeles and Philadelphia systems? In the real world, such moves count as promotions. Don’t these moves reinforce the point the editors make—Prince George’s has had a pair of highly regarded superintendents?

But on that basis, the editors say that “clearly,” something is wrong. The editors also base their assessment on the fact that enrollment has declined, by an unstated amount.

As the Post continues, it bases its judgment on one more fact—only four of the school board’s nine members hold college degrees. That may seem strange for a large school system, but it tells us nothing about the central question with which the Post started: How much are students in Prince George’s learning? Given reasonable expectations, how well are these schools performing?

So you’ll know, those “other local suburban school systems” are serving more affluent populations. How well is Prince George’s doing with its less affluent population? We see no sign in this editorial that the editors know—or that they’ve even tried to figure that out.

Reading this piece, we thought of the way these same editors have persistently peddled the wonders of Michelle Rhee, former head of the DC schools. For ourselves, we never saw any sign that Rhee had any ideas about how to improve instruction for low-income students. But the editors never seemed to notice. They were willing to base their views on conventional wisdom and external indicators, just as they’re doing here.

This editorial strikes us as lazy work. But when our big newspapers limn low-income schools, the work tends to be like that.

Fashion watch: Will we the people ever be spared!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013

Robin Givhan, on the scene: The analysts groaned when they clicked to the Washington Post’s web site this morning.

Quickly, their groans turned into wails. Robin Givhan was being featured by the Post on-line!

Gack! On the Post’s front page, the featured article bore this headline: “Obama’s speech heralds a bolder leadership style.” In the piece, Dan Balz offers his views on yesterday’s address.

So far, so OK! But right next to the Balz analysis piece, this was the other featured piece—and it appeared with a large color photo. Headline:

“How the first lady is redefining style.” The author was Robin Givhan.

Will we the people ever escape the tyranny of Givhan? The Post has been pimping her fashion reports for a great many years now. This morning, there she was again—and good God!

She opened like this:
GIVHAN (1/22/13): First lady Michelle Obama stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol during President Obama’s second-term swearing-in, holding the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s black leather Bible in her magenta-gloved hands.
As absolutists on Dr. King, we find that prose borderline obscene. You may be more forgiving—but eventually, the analysts wailed and threw dirt into the air:
GIVHAN: [F]or the evening’s two inaugural balls, she chose a patriotic red chiffon and velvet gown that highlighted her shoulders with its spare neckline. It was created by Jason Wu, the same young New York-based designer she catapulted from near anonymity into a household name when he crafted her first inaugural gown.

It was a stately choice, thanks to its classic first lady hue. But it had sophisticated sex appeal and was a far cry from the idealistic sweetness exuded by Wu’s first gown, the ivory, embroidered dress now in the National Museum of American History.

In four years, her style had shifted from fizzy hope to glimmering grown-up pragmatism.

During the day, her clothes echoed her husband’s. The Thom Browne coat was created from tie silk and echoed his discreet blue neckwear. As expected, the president wore a sober black overcoat, dark suit and black gloves, with a tiny American flag pin dotting his lapel. Their daughters, Sasha and Malia, finished the family portrait wearing coats in shades of lilac and violet. The elegant silhouettes underscored their new maturity.

Still, the first lady’s clothes stand apart. Observers obsess about Michelle Obama’s wardrobe because it offers clues to the personality of a public woman—a historic woman—who remains a resolutely private person. In an era of televised confessionals, she has never laid herself bare. But thankfully, her clothes, with their quirks and eccentric embellishments, do not adhere to unwritten protocol or dowdy traditions that have so often left first ladies little more than beige cyphers.
Actually, it’s the Washington Post which “obsesses about Michelle Obama’s wardrobe.” It does so because we live in deeply fatuous times.

Givhan may be an outstanding fashion reporter; we have no view about that. The problem begins when the Post turns her loose to offer her thoughts on the various meanings of politicians’ clothing. Mercifully, her piece appears on page A28 of this morning’s hard-copy Post.

But on-line, somebody knew what to do. They placed this utterly silly bilge at the top of the Post’s front page.

Can that possibly be where we the people want it? The analysts are still in recovery from the shock they experienced early this morning.

INAUGURATE THIS: Trying to get from here to there!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013

Part 1—In search of “we the people:” Did President Obama “make a forceful argument for a progressive agenda” in his Inaugural Address?

That’s what it says in today’s hard-copy New York Times, in one of the headlines atop the featured editorial. In the body of the piece, the editors describe Obama’s call for “collective action:”
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (1/22/13): He argued eloquently for a progressive view of government, founded on history and his own deep conviction that American prosperity and the preservation of freedom depend on collective action. In the coming days, there will be no let-up of political combat over the debt ceiling, gun control, national security and tax policies that can either reduce income inequality or allow such inequality to stifle economic growth and opportunity for all but the very wealthiest in this society.

But, on Monday, the president stepped back from those immediate battles to explain what it means in the broadest sense to be “we the people,” Mr. Obama’s most eloquent description of our common heritage.

[...]

In every sphere of life—improving education, building roads, caring for the poor and elderly, training workers, recovering from natural disasters, providing for our defense—progress requires that Americans do these things together, Mr. Obama said.
We agree. Almost surely, it will take “collective action” for “we the people” to address our most pressing concerns.

We Americans will have to “do these things together.” But did Obama’s address show us the way to that future? A bit later on, the editors tell us this:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: He spoke only obliquely of the persistent gridlock in Congress, where he will face right-wing Republicans whose bleak agenda would weaken civil rights, shred the social safety net and block important programs that could help put millions of jobless Americans back to work. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect,” he said.
Our questions: If you accuse people of “absolutism,” have you thereby engaged in “name-calling?” And also:

Was Obama suggesting that red and blue teams have both “mistaken absolutism for principle?” Or was that highlighted comment designed to scold the other side?

We will guess that many liberals heard that remark in a tribal way—as a criticism of the other tribe. By normal construction, that would be a sensible way to hear Obama’s speech.

This brings us to one of the least satisfying aspects of the president’s address—the long construction in which he explained what “We, the people” think and believe. This is the part of the speech where this theme began:
OBAMA (1/21/13): My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it—so long as we seize it together. For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.

[...]

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.

We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.
There was more. But do “we the people” really understand, believe and declare all those things? Actually, no—we do not. At least, not in a way which would easily lead to “collective action” in which we seek progress together.

As Obama was being sworn in again, Nate Silver was throwing a statistical wet blanket over the proceedings. In this post, he reminded us of the wages of modern polarization. Most simply put, Obama was elected with just 51.1 percent of the vote—and his current approval rating stands at just 52 percent.

Uh-oh! Despite the president’s rhetoric, “we the people” don’t agree in essential ways on a wide array of topics. Question: How might we move toward a greater consensus? How might we build the type of consensus which leads to collective action?

On TV, we liberals were cheering last night. We cited the president’s comments about “absolutism,” the absence of “takers” and about those who “may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science.” Meanwhile, the editors thought they heard Obama make a “forceful” and “eloquent” argument.

But did the editors really hear that? More precisely, how so we get from a forceful and eloquent argument to an argument that is persuasive? How do we get from 52 percent to a place where “we the people” really do agree in ways which might produce “collective action?”

Are we one people? Or are we just a bunch of tribes who happen to share a rather wide continent? Despite the president’s representations, “we the people” really don’t agree on a very wide range of topics.

How do we get from here to there? We’ll examine that question all week.

Tomorrow: The rise of The (alleged) Crazy

A chance to revisit the real Dr. King!

MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 2013

We recommend Stride Toward Freedom: A few years ago, we got real lucky.

We decided to read (or reread) Stride Toward Freedom, Dr. King’s first book, his memoir of the Montgomery bus boycott.

The book appeared in 1958; Dr. King was just 29. In the book, he described history-changing events—events which occurred when he was even younger.

We had always owned the book. Presumably, we had read it decades earlier. But right from its opening paragraph, we found that Stride Toward Freedom let us revisit the real Dr. King, the real person who really existed before he became an iconic figure known for a few very famous statements.

We were surprised by the book, right from its very first paragraph. This is the way Stride Toward Freedom starts:
DR. KING (1958): On a cool Saturday afternoon in January 1954, I set out to drive from Atlanta, Georgia to Montgomery, Alabama. It was a clear wintry day. The Metropolitan Opera was on the radio with a performance of one of my favorite operas—Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor. So with the beauty of the countryside, the inspiration of Donizetti’s inimitable music, and the splendor of the skies, the usual monotony that accompanies a relatively long drive—especially when one is alone—was dispelled in pleasant diversions.
At the tender age of 25, Dr. King was driving to Montgomery to preach a guest sermon—in effect, to interview for his first full-time job as a minister.

We were surprised by that opening paragraph. Dr. King had a favorite opera? He had several favorite operas? In 1954, the Metropolitan Opera was on the radio between Atlanta and Montgomery?

We’d never thought of Dr. King as someone who had favorite operas; very few people do. But right from that opening paragraph, Stride Toward Freedom reintroduced us to the actual person of the real Dr. King, a person who has largely been swallowed by the process through which he’s become an icon.

For us, Stride Toward Freedom was full of surprises. If you read the book, your results may differ; there is more than one to understand Dr. King.

But we were most struck by Dr. King’s account of his thoughts after his home was bombed, for the first time, with his wife and infant daughter inside. (He was 27.)

Dr. King describes himself thinking about the viciousness of the people who would conduct such a bombing. Then, he thinks about Montgomery’s city commissioners—about the statements they had made about him and about African-Americans generally.

“I was once more on the verge of corroding anger,” Dr. King writes. “And once more I caught myself and said: ‘You must not allow yourself to become bitter.’ ”

In that passage, Dr. King reminds himself of his beliefs about “corroding anger.” (Throughout the book, he discusses his view of what he calls “the Jesus love ethic.”) Then came the part of this book we found most striking—the part of the book which helped us recall one part of the real Dr. King:
DR. KING (page 138): I tried to put myself in the place of the police commissioners. I said to myself these are not bad men. They are misguided. They have fine reputations in the community. In their dealings with white people they are respectful and gentlemanly. They probably think they are right in their methods of dealing with Negroes. They say the things they say about us and treat us as they do because they have been taught these things. From the cradle to the grave, it is instilled in them that the Negro is inferior. Their parents probably taught them that; the schools they attended taught them that; the books they read, even their churches and ministers, often taught them that... So these men are merely the children of their culture. When they seek to preserve segregation they are seeking to preserve only what their local folkways have taught them was right.
Even their ministers taught them these things, Dr. King recalled himself thinking, almost in shock. He was putting himself in the commissioners’ place—telling himself that these are not bad men.

Truly, those are astonishing words. Your results may differ, but those are the words we remember most from this remarkable book. In his second Inaugural Address, Lincoln voiced the same sort of radical refusal to judge, imagining that the scourge of the Civil War had been a judgment brought down by God on the people of North and South.

For the record, this same refusal to hate, and separate from, the other is the trait which has made Mandela a light to the world. Where do these people come from?

This is a day for recalling Dr. King—and it’s a day for second inaugurals. As we did a few years ago, we’ll recommend Stride Toward Freedom to those who want a chance to recall the real living Dr. King.

Who in the world was the real Dr. King? Where does such leadership come from?

From Lincoln’s famous second address: We were with a group of fifth graders, on a field trip, when we first read Lincoln’s famous second Inaugural Address.

We recall how shocked when we read these radical words on a large marble wall:
LINCOLN (3/4/65): The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."
The scourge had been given “to both North and South!” We’ll ask our question one last time:

Where do these people come from?

What we saw (and heard) at Zero Dark Thirty!

SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2013

The law of the ranger’s command: Yesterday, eager to limn the controversy, we went to see Zero Dark Thirty.

This is what we saw and heard, and what we didn’t see:

The controversy concerning torture: One of our strongest reactions was this: If we weren’t already aware of the controversy, it wouldn't have entered our heads that we were supposed to leave the theater wondering if torture did or didn’t help capture bin Laden.

Yes, there are scenes of torture at the start of the film. Within the logic of the film, were we supposed to think that those acts helped locate bin Laden?

Frankly, we have no idea. As with many films in the age of “world cinema,” the events which transpire in the film struck us as rather confusing. As we watched, we weren’t real clear on the flow of events—on how we got from one car chase / apprehension / interrogation / deduction to the next.

We weren’t real clear who some of the apprehended parties actually were. As we emerged from the theater, we could never have outlined the chronology of events.

Maybe other viewers could. But in the age of world cinema, logic and detail have given way to worldwide visual language. Car wrecks, explosions and gun battles have replaced meticulous narrative.

That said, the torture scenes at the start of the film do serve one obvious purpose—they make you look (or look away) for the first half hour. They also help define the depth of the challenge facing the main character.

That said, does the film argue or suggest that those acts of torture led to the apprehension? Frankly, we don’t think the film showed any interest in such questions. Truth to tell, we really don’t think the film rises to that level.

That doesn’t mean that it’s “wrong” to debate the film’s depiction of torture. We just don’t think that the film or the film-makers show any particular interest in the questions involved there.

What are the film-makers interested in? There is one obvious theme in this film which practically hits you over the head, although it’s rarely mentioned in reviews or discussions.

The triumph of the determined “girl:” In the second half of the film, Kathryn Bigelow hits you over the head with a rather obvious theme: “The girl,” so described in the film, has triumphed through her determination over the relative lunk-headedness of her male bureaucrat bosses.

For ourselves, we tend to like films which portray young women in such ways. One of our favorite films is My Brilliant Career; it portrays the determination of a young woman to reject the social role which has been set for her. (Our other favorites: Notorious, Casablanca. In Notorious, a devoted young woman is relentlessly scorned by her bosses.)

Zero Dark Thirty hits you over the head with the theme of the deteremined "girl." Toward the end of the film, this theme becomes so overt that it approaches the level of I Love Lucy clownishness. We refer to the scene where Maya refers to herself as a “mother fucker” in her meeting with Washington’s CIA brass. Also, to the scenes where she aggressively counts the days which have passed since some action she has recommended has gotten official approval.

She keeps counting the days with a sharpie, on her boss’ glass door. At this point, the film employs a mallet in service to this obvious theme.

In these scenes, we are hammered with the familiar theme of the rebellious female underling who refuses to knuckle to her male bosses. This is a very familiar theme in modern movies; the theme is familiar to the point of being hackneyed.

In what way does the film specifically refer to Maya as “the girl?” In one of the closing scenes, Maya identifies the body of bin Laden. A male functionary on the phone to DC says the ID has been made by “the agency expert (pause). Yes, by the girl.”

In this moment, we get the perfect ironic conjunction—Maya, who is the film’s most successful expert, is still being described as “the girl.” We thought of the scene from In the Heat of the Night where the Steiger character angrily admits to the Poitier character that he, the southern sheriff, “ain’t no expert” (although the Poitier character is). And we thought that Bigelow was working extremely hard to mallet home the familiar theme of the determined but disregarded “girl.”

For our money, it’s a bit strange to make a film about such serious global-political issues and turn it into a commentary of this type. But this film is obviously interested in this theme in a way that it doesn’t interested in questions about the role of torture or how we should act in the world.

One of the ways this film keeps you watching: This film is long, and it has to keep you watching. One of the ways it keeps you watching is through the use of Jessica Chastain’s beauty.

We don’t mean this as a compliment to the film.

Hollywood has always kept viewers watching by putting good-looking people on screen. Why do people still watch Gone with the Wind? Not because it may deify The Lost Cause, as people kept suggesting in discussions of Django Unchained. People still watch Gone with the Wind today because (trust us) Vivien Leigh is astonishingly beautiful in one scene after another. Less reliably, we’re told that Clark Gable looks good in this famous film too.

There’s nothing automatically wrong with capturing eyeballs this way. For our money, though, Zero Dark Thirty is a bit cynical in this regard. Plainly, one of the ways it keeps you watching is by lingering on Chastain’s obvious beauty. And by the way: As the film moves along, you are rather clearly encouraged to scope out her body too.

Check it out! In the first half of the film, Chastain is constantly shown in unrevealing dress. In the second half of the film, she is suddenly wearing tee-shirts—and it becomes rather clear that along with her overall beauty, she has a conventionally good figure. And then, as Maya IDs the body near the end of the film, Chastain is suddenly costumed in a V-neck tee—and a bit of cleavage appears! In the final scene, riding home in the plane, the V on her t-shirt cuts deeper.

Some will think this wardrobe progression is coincidental. We doubt that. Given the seriousness of the film’s subject matter, we think it’s cynical to capture eyeballs this way. But make no mistake:

The film wants you to bond with the Maya character. To help your relationship deepen, it keeps giving you just a bit more. This is a very old, unattractive game in show business.

Where had we heard Maya's story before: The determined “girl” who stands up to her bosses? This theme is quite common in movies, to the point of being hackneyed. But as we watched the Maya character unfold (or fail to unfold), we realized that we had seen—or heard—this film's story before.

What is this film really “about?” As we watched it unfold, we kept thinking of the old American song, The Ranger’s Command. The song is generally attributed to Woody Guthrie although, to us, it doesn’t sound like a song that anyone actually wrote. (Did Guthrie perhaps just collect it?)

The song describes one of the most mysterious women in American song. As with many western ballads, the singer starts by declaring his intention. As he starts, the singer says he’s going to “teach you the law of the ranger’s command:”
THE RANGER’S COMMAND:
Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the ranger's command:

To hold a six-shooter and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
Having declared his intention, the singer begins to tell you his story. He introduces a mysterious woman—a great, iconic American figure who is perfectly captured in Zero Dark Thirty by the Maya character:
THE RANGER’S COMMAND (continuing directly):
I met a fair maiden, her name I don't know.
I asked her to the roundup with me would she go.

She said she'd go with me to the cold roundup,
And drink that hard liquor from a cold, bitter cup.
Whenever this song began, was the singer really going to the “cold” round-up? We don’t know. But in this passage, the singer has met a young woman about whom he knows nothing, not even her name. So it is with Maya, a young woman about whom we learn virtually nothing in almost three hours of film.

Where does Maya come from? Why is she is in the CIA? Why is she so determined in the pursuit of this work? Does she have family or friends? As with that archetypal western maiden, so too with Maya: We learn almost nothing about her in the course of this film.

Another similarity: Like the mysterious young woman in this old song, Maya is very much willing to go to the round-up! Here’s how that original woman reacted when the rustlers broke on her:
THE RANGER’S COMMAND (continuing directly):
We started for the canyon in the fall of the year
Expecting to get there with a herd of fat steer.

When the rustlers broke on us in the dead hour of night
She rose from her warm bed, a battle to fight.

She rose from her warm bed with a gun in each hand,
Said: “Come all of you cowboys and fight for your land.


“Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.”
As Guthrie presented it, that was the end of the song. In a great expression of the western ethos, a mysterious young women rose from her bed with a gun in each hand. Through her courage and her defiance, she memorably taught the men around her the law of the ranger’s command.

We’ve always thought that mysterious young woman is by light-years one of the greatest figures in American song. Today, that mysterious young woman is there on the screen in the unexplained person of Maya, who fights harder and more fiercely than the men around her.

In our view, that mysterious young woman is one of the greatest figures in American song. The ethos she expresses helped define the American west. We’ll only say this:

At the present time, it may not be the perfect way to confront the rest of the world. But a reworking of this archetype lets Zero Dark Thirty keep you watching for almost three hours.

Did torture lead to bin Laden’s capture? We didn’t see the slightest sign that Zero Dark Thirty cares about that. This film seems to care about something else—something we find a bit out of place, given the film’s deeply condequential global political context.

We love films in which young women triumph. The theme seemed a bit strange here.

You can see and hear it sung: Thanks to the wonders of YouTube, you can hear that brilliant old song.

Joan Baez recorded The Ranger’s Command on a 1965 album. Was any song she ever recorded better suited to her voice and persona?

Just click here. You’ll hear the top pacifist of the Vietnam era praise a straight-shooting young woman.

Woody Guthrie recorded The Ranger's Command in 1944. To hear his recording, just click this. And there’s more!

Apparently, there are only two pieces of film which actually show Guthrie singing. In one, he is singing the money verses of The Ranger’s Command.

Go ahead! Click this, but remember our warning:

The way that young woman settled the west may not work real well overseas. Does Zero Dark Thirty care? We really didn't get that impression when we watched Zero Dark Thirty.

Default follies: Big papers arrive at the scene of the fire!

SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2013

After the flames are extinguished: Yesterday, it became official. The House GOP will not refuse to extend the debt limit next month.

In this blog post, Paul Krugman hailed the good news, referring to what was averted:
KRUGMAN (1/18/13): And it’s a big deal. Yes, the GOP could come back on the debt ceiling, but that seems unlikely. It could try to make a big deal of the sequester, but that’s a lot more like the fiscal cliff than it is like the debt ceiling: not good, but not potentially catastrophic...
According to Krugman, we’ve reached the end of an episode that was “potentially catastrophic.” And how typical! Just as the GOP folded its tent, only then did the Washington Post and the New York Times start explaining, or trying to explain, the shape of this looming disaster.

Right on time! Yesterday morning, the New York Times offered this news report in which Annie Lowrey began explaining what was at stake in the debt limit threat. (Headline: “Difficult Choices on Debt if the U.S. Hits the Ceiling.”)

But how perfect! Right next to Lowrey’s detailed report, this second report explained that the GOP seemed to be dropping its threat! In its news reporting, the Times had arrived at the scene of the fire just as the fire went out!

This morning, a similar circumstance obtains at the Washington Post. On page A12, Zachary Goldfarb starts explaining the danger of screwing around with the debt limit. (Headline: “Last debt debate shows how fight can hurt economy.”)

But sure enough! Out on the Post's front page, this news report is telling the world that the GOP has abandoned its threat! Like the Times, the Post arrived at the scene of the fire just as the flames were extinguished.

In the past few weeks, we’ve been struck by the press corps’ failure to start explaining this topic. The fiscal cliff was resolved at the start of the year. At that time, the nation began moving toward a “potential catastrophe.”

But days went by, then several weeks, and our big news orgs made no attempt to explain this matter to the public. And by the way—the issues involved here are complex and confusing. How many people understand this matter, even after reading the reports which appeared in the past few days?

Here's the way Lowrey’s report started in yesterday’s Times. How many readers understand the highlighted passages?
LOWREY (1/18/13): By mid-February or early March, the United States could face an unprecedented default unless it raises its debt ceiling, the Treasury Department said this week.

Some legislators have theorized that a quick breach in the debt ceiling might cause only a minor disruption to government finances. And some commentators have suggested that the United States could pass legislation to prioritize or guarantee payments to bondholders, thus erasing what they describe as the worst of the financial market reaction and removing the threat of technical default.

But experts in government finance and markets described running up against the debt ceiling as an event that might quickly precipitate a financial crisis and eventually lead to a recession—an event with far greater disruptive potential than the “fiscal cliff” package of tax increases and spending cuts, a government shutdown or even the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
According to Lowrey, the failure to raise the debt limit could have caused “a financial crisis;” it was a potential catastrophe. That said, how many New York Times readers understand what “technical default” is?

How many readers could really explain what “default” is at all?

We'll guess the number is small. Later, Lowrey offered what follows. Do you understand what this means?
LOWREY: A standoff in the debt ceiling—even a brief one, with bondholders paid on time—might also raise the country’s borrowing costs permanently. “It is not assured that the Treasury would or legally could prioritize debt service over its myriad other obligations, including Social Security payments, tax rebates and payments to contractors and employees,” Fitch, the major ratings agency, said on Tuesday. “Arrears on such obligations would not constitute a default event from a sovereign rating perspective but very likely prompt a downgrade even as debt obligations continued to be met.”
How many Times readers could explain that paragraph? Could explain what “bondholders” and “ratings agencies” are? Could explain what “a default event from a sovereign rating perspective” might be?

We don’t offer this as a criticism of Lowrey; her report contained a lot of information about what would happen if the federal government ran aground on the debt limit. We especially like the granular detail with which she explains what might happen on February 15. Rather, the way she explains what could have happened on that date, if the Times had published her report before the threat was settled.

Goldfarb’s outdated report in the Post is informative too. But how many readers understood the way he started?
GOLDFARB (1/19/13): As Washington debates whether to raise the limit on government borrowing, an earlier conflict over the debt ceiling offers a cautionary tale about how brinksmanship can damage the economy.

The U.S. economic recovery was chugging along in the summer of 2011 when a partisan fight broke out over whether Congress would raise the federal debt limit and avoid a national default.
How many readers of the Post could explain what “a national default” is? We’ll guess the number is small. But Goldfarb continues to use such terms without attempting an explanation. Before long, he tells us this:
GOLDFARB: The Treasury Department says the government will be unable to meet all its obligations at some point between the middle of February and early March unless Congress allows for more borrowing. If it does not, Treasury says the government would default—and most economists say this would severely hurt the economy.
We will guess that very few readers can really explain the highlighted passage. How many such readers could explain why Fox News has been saying, perhaps correctly, that a default wouldn’t have to occur if the debt limit goes blooey?

(We asked that question, and Kevin Drum answered. To review what Drum said, just click here.)

For the past few weeks, the United States has been facing a “potential catastrophe”—a “default” which “would severely hurt the economy.” But so what? The Post and the Times dragged their feet in the face of the impending disaster. Only in the past two days did the mighty papers get off their keisters and start explaining how this fandango works. And trust us:

These first explanations leave much unexplained. In a more rational world, these newspapers would have started explaining long ago, with the expectation that they would have to explain early and often.

Alas! Information plays almost no role in our public discourse. Occasionally, our big newspapers pretend to explain matters such as these. But the Post and the Times aren’t especially skilled at this task, and information is rarely the fuel which drives our national discourse.

Our biggest newspapers rarely stoop to explain. Among other points of incomprehension, this helps explain decades of mass confusion about the claim that Social Security will be going “bankrupt.”

In this case, the public wasn’t invited to get involved in a robust discussion of a potential catastrophe. (Among other things, this helped obscure the recklessness of the GOP's threats.) Instead, the matter was settled in quiet rooms. The GOP bowed to forces which made their pleas behind a set of closed doors.

We were struck by the sloth of the Post and the Times as weeks passed without an attempt to start this vital discussion. In the past two days, the mighty newspapers finally arrived at the scene of the fire. But alas!

The papers arrived at the scene of the fire right after somebody snuffed out the flames! So it goes when our biggest news orgs conduct our Potemkin discussions.

They're shocked when sports scribes don’t check facts!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2013

Neither did Liasson, Schieffer: We’re puzzled by all the puzzlement.

At the Atlantic, Hampton Stevens is amazed by the journalistic breakdown concerning Manti Te’o’s non-existent doomed girl friend.

Visiting us from some distant land, Stevens says he finds the journalistic conduct “incredible:”
STEVENS (1/17/13): Incredible, isn't it? Not one of the highly-paid, well-respected journalists at SI or ESPN even bothered to check the most basic facts of their stories. Charlie Rose and CBS, with all that staff, with all that preaching about "original reporting," yet nobody at the whole network even so much as bothered to pick up a phone to find out if the girl actually existed.
We have no idea why people find this conduct incredible, although many people seem to. Consider a simultaneous journalistic breakdown about something which actually mattered:

On September 16, Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday programs to discuss Benghazi, among other topics. (On CNN, she wasn’t even asked about Benghazi.)

Almost as soon as Rice was done, massaged paraphrase began to circulate concerning what she had said. A very familiar old pattern obtained—the mainstream press corps quickly accepted these paraphrases as accurate.

Very few “journalists” looked to see what Rice had actually said. If they did look to see what she said, they certainly didn’t let the facts affect their misreporting!

How bad was the journalistic misconduct—the apparent failure to fact-check? Here’s what Mara Liasson said on Special Report:
LIASSON (10/10/12): I think the most kind of mystifying part of this is that Susan Rice was so definitive and so out over the tip of her skis, as they say, on the Sunday talk shows.

Why not say then we're doing an investigation to find out what happened instead of saying definitively it was a spontaneous protest that got hijacked? That has caused more trouble than attack itself.

BAIER: Which is often the case in this town.

LIASSON: Yes, often the case.
Why was Rice “so definitive?” So Liasson asked Brett Baier, using the D-word two separate times. Why didn’t Rice simply say we’re doing an investigation?

In fact, Rice specifically said on September 16 that her judgments were not “definitive.” And on every show, she stated, again and again, that the FBI was conducting an investigation—that we would have to wait for its results.

Here she was on Meet the Press, making the very points Liasson said she didn’t make. Please note her use of the D-word:
RICE (9/16/12): Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present. First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.
This was Rice on Meet the Press. She said her judgments were not definitive—that we would have to wait for the results of the investigation. And here she was on Face the Nation, making the same two points:
RICE (9/16/12): Well, Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the [Libyan] president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch, led by the FBI, that has begun...And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.
Four weeks later, Liasson seemed to have no idea what Rice had actually said. Either that, or Liasson deliberately misreported, keeping herself in line with the prevailing press script.

But so what? In a familiar type of journalistic disgrace, Liasson remains a star at NPR. She was never asked to explain her gross, absurd misstatement.

That was Liasson’s breakdown. Here was Bob Schieffer, a few weeks later, grossly misstating an obvious fact on his own show, Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER (10/28/13): How is it that so many of, versions of events could come out of this thing? I mean, you know, yes, yes, he— Yes, [Obama] said in the Rose Garden, he referred to a terrorist attack. But five days later, Susan Rice was right here on this broadcast and on other Sunday broadcasts saying that no, it wasn’t.
Did Rice appear on Face the Nation and say that Benghazi wasn’t a terrorist attack? In fact, here’s what she said when Schieffer asked her if al Qaeda had been involved:
SCHIEFFER (9/16/12): Do you agree or disagree with [the Libyan prime minister] that al Qaeda had some part in this?

RICE: Well, we`ll have to find out that out. I mean, I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.
Does it sound like Rice was saying it wasn’t a terrorist attack? She told Schieffer that it might have been al Qaeda affiliates—or that it might have been al Qaeda itself!

Alas! This type of malpractice is quite routine among our major political journalists. In fact, this has been the norm in our major political journalism for a good many years.

If we may borrow from Malcolm, this kind of misreporting is as American as cherry pie. People are dead all over the world because of such misreporting.

And yet, the force of denial is quite strong all through the rest of the “press corps.” And so, verily, it came to pass:

At the Atlantic, a scribe was amazed when sports reporters didn’t check facts—when they didn't fact-check an utterly meaningless story about a linebacker’s girl friend!

In what world do these people live? Did they travel down to Earth from the far planet Denial?

David Brooks writes a very strange novel!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2013

The headlong descent continues: Is it just us? Or is David Brooks’ new column one of the strangest ever?

The opinion piece is written in the form of a novel—a novel about what unnamed Washington Democrats are supposedly telling themselves.

There are a million novels in the capital city. Brooks has written the one in which the Democrats decide it's time to destroy the other party.

Brooks starts by saying that, in his opinion, Washington pols should spend the next four years learning to be constructive again. This is what he imagines:
BROOKS (1/18/13): As you know, I am an earnest, good-government type, so the strategy I’d prefer might be called Learning to Crawl. It would be based on the notion that you have to learn to crawl before you can run. So over the next four years, legislators should work on a series of realistic, incremental laws that would rebuild the habits of compromise, competence and trust.

We could do some education reform, expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers, encourage responsible drilling for natural gas, maybe establish an infrastructure bank. Political leaders would erode partisan orthodoxies and get back into the habit of passing laws together. Then, down the road, their successors could do the big things.
In his next paragraph, Brooks insists that he isn’t an idiot. If so, what makes him think the congressional GOP is ready to compromise on “a series of realistic, incremental laws?”

This is a party whose highest ranking, least crazy legislator won’t even attend state dinners because they're held at the White House. Why should we believe the nirvana Brooks envisions could possibly come to pass?

Brooks forgets to explain.

Having made his global recommendation, Brooks starts imagining what the Democrats are planning to do instead. In Brooks’ novel, the Democrats are telling themselves that they should move in for the kill:

BROOKS (continuing directly): I may be earnest, but I’m not an idiot. I know there is little chance that today’s partisan players are going to adopt this kind of incremental goo-goo approach. It’s more likely that today’s majority party is going to adopt a different strategy, which you might call Kill the Wounded. It’s more likely that today’s Democrats are going to tell themselves something like this:

“We live at a unique moment. Our opponents, the Republicans, are divided, confused and bleeding. This is not the time to allow them to rebuild their reputation with a series of modest accomplishments. This is the time to kick them when they are down, to win back the House and end the current version of the Republican Party.

“First, we change the narrative. The president ran in 2008 against Washington dysfunction, casting blame on both parties. Over the years, he has migrated to a different narrative: The Republicans are crazy. Washington could be working fine, but the Republicans are crazy.

“At every public appearance, the president should double-down on that theme. The Democratic base already believes it. The media is sympathetic. Independents could be persuaded.”
Here’s the problem: In many ways, modern congressional Republicans do in fact seem to be crazy. Failing to acknowledge this point, Brooks continues to imagine:

He pictures the Democrats deciding to pursue gun control and comprehensive immigration reform—but only as a way to drive wedges between Republican factions. He then imagines Democrats trying to stage “a series of confrontations with Republicans over things like the debt ceiling”—making Republicans “look like wackos willing to endanger the entire global economy.”

Brooks never explains why we shouldn’t see the current GOP as a bunch of “wackos willing to endanger the entire global economy.” Instead, he acts like it would take a devious act to stop them from using the debt limit in the ways they've repeatedly threatened.

Anyone can write a novel. Anyone can mind-read the motives of a bunch of unnamed people.

That said, this novel comes from Crazy Land, and it comes with no footnotes or explanations. As Dana Milbank wrote this week, The Crazy is spreading real fast.

Things that make sense to the New York Times!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2013

One way to improve the Congress: We know, we know:

The New York Times is widely seen, at least among liberals and mainstreamers, as our smartest newspaper. In some areas, the Times may even do some good smart work.

But good God! The types of things which make sense to the Times! We thought we’d mention the Sunday Dialogue the paper ran last week.

In some ways, the Sunday Dialogue isn’t a half bad idea. Each Wednesday, the Times publishes an “invitation to a dialogue”—a short piece by some assistant adjunct associate professor on some issue, concern or obsession.

Readers are invited to offer reactions. On Sunday, the original piece is printed again, along with a bunch of responses.

In theory, that sounds like a decent format. But uh-oh! Last Wednesday, readers were asked to respond to this idea:

The House of Representatives should have 3,100 members, not the current 435.

No, we’re not making that up. That’s the proposal which was chosen to spark the Sunday Dialogue.

On Sunday, the first two responses ridiculed this notion. (“Hopelessly undoable.” “Perhaps the worst vision of the future I have heard.”)

After that, the Times published five responses from readers who managed to act like this proposal wasn’t absurd on its face. Then, the original author responded.

In part, she said this:

“The idea of 3,100 representatives becomes less outrageous when one considers that the House already employs 10,000 staff members.”

Reputation and marketing to the side, the New York Times is a very strange newspaper—a strange, routinely dysfunctional artifact of a new gilded age.

PEDDLING RHEE: The way it works!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2013

Part 4—The reign of “conventional rhetoric:” Paul Krugman’s new column is highly informative. And not only that! The column concerns a highly important federal budget topic.

That said, there is little chance that Krugman’s column will affect the ongoing public debate about the federal budget. For one thing, other journalists won’t discuss the info his column contains.

At one point, Krugman explains why this is. Note the two highlighted phrases:
KRUGMAN (1/18/13): The point is that the case for urgent action now to reduce spending decades in the future is far weaker than conventional rhetoric might lead you to suspect. And, no, it’s nothing like the case for urgent action on climate change.

[...]

The deficit scolds dominating policy debate will, of course, fiercely resist any attempt to downgrade their favorite issue.
Key words: “Conventional rhetoric...dominating policy debate.”

Translation:

In one area after another, our public discourse is a pile of conventional rhetoric—rhetoric spewed by powerful groups who dominate the debate. These groups keep repeating the same old piffle no matter what the facts are.

Our “journalists” bow to their dominance. The modern “journalist” will very rarely challenge the rhetoric of these powerful groups.

This gives us a discourse straight outta Pravda. This observation brings us back to the way the Washington Post keeps peddling Michelle Rhee.

(For part 3 in this award-winning series, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/16/13.)

As became clear again last weekend, Rhee is the Washington Post’s favorite “education celebrity.” Meanwhile, our public debate about public schools is truly straight outta Pravda.

There is no other policy area where the information flow is so remarkably restricted. Where so much bad information is repeated by so many. Where so much actual information is so ruthlessly withheld from view.

So it was when the Washington Post misled the public, for the ten millionth time, about Rhee’s tenure as head of the DC schools. Is it true? Did DC students “make significant progress” during Rhee’s tenure, as the Post declared in an upbeat Saturday editorial? Is this echoing claim from a Sunday opinion piece actually accurate?
WHITMIRE (1/13/13): [Consider] the federal exam used to compare achievement by D.C. students to similar urban students around the country. That test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the so-called "gold standard" of testing, and it showed that D.C. students made unique progress during the Rhee years.
Judging from results on the NAEP, did D.C. students “make unique progress during the Rhee years?” Did they make “significant progress” on the NAEP, as the editors said?

Needless to say, it all depends on what the meaning of “progress” is! But since reading scores stayed where they were under Rhee or declined, we’d have to say no. On balance, no—they did not.

On balance, students didn’t make significant progress during the tenure of Rhee. Except in the land of “conventional rhetoric,” where our Pravda-like public discourse goes to wither and die.

In one area after another, this is the way our discourse works! In this case, the Washington Post keeps telling you that Rhee’s tenure produced “significant progress” on the NAEP, even though the Post knows the claim isn’t true, or is at best grossly misleading.

(DC students did show impressive progress on the NAEP, but only in eighth-grade math. Just how hard would it be to say that? Why does the Post keep pretending that strong progress was shown overall?)

Over the weekend, the Post conned its readers again. In those fleeting remarks today, Krugman describes the same overall process. Returning to the question of public schools, how in the world can this type of scam just keep occurring?

We’ll start with the mainstream press corps. By now, the process is clear: In a wide range of policy areas, frightened rabbits described as “journalists” will keep repeating the conventional rhetoric of the nation’s dominant groups. They will keep disappearing essential facts which undermine those groups’ preferred narratives.

In the case of public schools, this means that they will keep hiding the facts about the remarkable progress which has been recorded, nationwide, on the NAEP in the past twenty years. We've presented these data again and again. Have you seen them anywhere else?

Borrowing from Krugman’s language, the nation’s dominant “public school scolds” don’t want you to know about that progress—about the larger overall progress which makes a joke of the NAEP scores achieved in DC during Rhee’s glorious reign.

The public school scolds don’t want you to know about that progress—and your nation’s “journalists” reliably bend to their will. Within the nation’s upper-end press corps, it’s impossible to learn about the rise in those NAEP scores over the past twenty years. Powerful interests don’t want you to know—and your journalists hand you their bullshit.

Routinely, your “journalists” do as they’re told. They have very good jobs at very good pay. In the world we live in today, you don’t put such jobs at risk!

When it comes to public schools—when it comes to the tenure of Rhee—you can be sure that mainstream “journalists” will keep pounding out the conventional rhetoric. But another large entity is a key part of this massive ongoing scam:

That’s the career liberal world.

If you held a hundred grandmothers hostage, you couldn’t get the career liberal world to address this ongoing scam. Last weekend, the Washington Post went there again with ridiculous claims about Rhee’s tenure.

Result from the liberal world: Crickets! Similarly, with the exception of Kevin Drum, we know of no liberal writer at any establishment site which ever discusses the nation’s NAEP scores—and for our money, Drum tends to understate the amount of progress found in those scores. (Drum tends not to “disaggregate” the NAEP scores. That said, he receives a solid A-plus, with a star, if we grade on the curve.)

Your alleged liberal world is a big fucking scam. One example:

At MSNBC, they now insult your intelligence by running ads in which they posture about their concern for our public schools. But they would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before they would devote a segment of air time to any such topic.

For whatever reason, NBC News has long been at the heart of the scam-heavy movement known as “education reform.” For whatever reason, you will never hear the truth about the nation’s test scores from the multimillionaires who are hired to keep us liberals excited on the cable affiliate.

Your alleged liberal world is a big fucking scam. A whole other range of examples:

Can you name a single writer at a single liberal journal who has ever discussed the actual facts about the nation’s actual NAEP scores? The NAEP is routinely described, by one and all, as the “gold standard” of educational testing.

But with the exception of Kevin Drum, have you ever seen a liberal writer discuss the actual test scores from that program? Discuss the actual progress being displayed by the nation’s minority children? Discuss the progress being achieved under the direction of the nation’s much-maligned public school teachers, with their infernal and fiendish unions, which are destroying the nation?

For whatever reason, the conventional rhetoric about public schools involves endless assaults on those public employees. Have you ever seen a liberal writer describe the actual progress displayed on the NAEP under their direction? Have you ever seen a liberal writer say bullshit in this obvious way to the rhetoric of Bloomberg and Rhee?

Putting it another way: Have you ever seen a liberal writer push back against the dominant conventional rhetoric in this area? Against the disappeared data? Against the Post’s bullshit concerning Rhee? Tell us where you saw this!

Krugman employed good lingo when he spoke of “conventional rhetoric...dominating the policy debate.” In fact, almost every part of your national discourse is a thoroughly stage-managed scam.

Again and again, the career liberal world plays along with this arrangement.

Under Rhee, there was significant progress! In fact, the progress was unique! We’d call that bit of dominant conventional rhetoric the latest unanswered scam.

In fairness to Lawrence O'Donnell: In fairness, one of the millionaires on The Channel often talks about public school issues.

With the violins playing, Lawrence often talks about public schools—public schools in Malawi:
O’DONNELL (1/3/13): We are still receiving contributions for the KIND fund, the Kids in Need of Desks, including one recently from a loyal viewer of this program, Liz Smith, the legendary columnist who is now a repeat donor to the KIND fund.

Thank you once again, Liz.

And I am actually still thinking of people I should have sent Christmas presents to and then donating desks in their name. And also contributing to the new Girls Tuition Program that we started this year in the KIND fund.

And UNICEF continue to send gift notifications to the people I name in my contributions. And, you know, when you—when you donate in someone’s name, you actually write, you type the gift card yourself. And so now I’m titling them all, you know, “Happy holidays or Happy New Year,” because it's like way too late for any “Merry Christmas” stuff.

[Violins continue to play the theme song from About Schmidt]

And you can, of course, contribute to the KIND fund throughout the year. We are actually very close to raising $1 million for the KIND fund just in this holiday season alone. That’s tuition scholarships for hundreds of girls in Malawi. That will pay for thousands and thousands of desks that will be built by workers in Malawi who will be able to provide for their families through their jobs building those desks. And desks will be used over the course of their life by another 100,000 kids in Malawi.

In the now two full years that we have been raising money for the KIND fund, you have contributed a grand total of $5,433,468. The workers making those desks thank you. Their families thank you. The kids who are using those desks today and will use them for many, many years to come thank you.

And of course I thank you.
Public school students have a great champion—public school kids in Malawi!

Our guess? If those kids in Malawi knew about Lawrence, they’d refuse to sit down at those desks.