Statistical numbering here in Our Town!

 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2020

The way we statistically number: Arguably, Vice President Pence is human history's greatest toady.

Today he got his first vaccine shot. Exactly six months ago, he wrote a Wall Street Journal column in which he basically said the commander in chief had basically conquered the virus.

The claims the vice president made in that column have held up rather poorly. In the course of correctly noting this fact, Jonathan Chait presents this example of the way we now statistically number over here in Our Town:

CHAIT (12/18/20): This prediction did not age well. Since Pence wrote that, hospitalizations from COVID-19 have more than tripled, daily cases risen nearly tenfold, and deaths shot up sevenfold, to more than 3,000 a day now.

Have Covid deaths shot up "to more than 3,000 a day?" Bad as things are, we know of no statistic which says that or anything like that. 

According to the Washington Post's numbers, our current 7-day average is 2,570 Covid deaths per day. The New York Times places the number at 2,596.

Nothing turns on a matter like this. That said, this is the way we handle statistics in our infallible town.

"Statistics are extremely hard." So Talking Barbie once thoughtfully said, as Talking Ken looked on.


OUR TOWNIES, OURSELVES: Who is Wajahat Ali?

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2020

But also, that fake Southern drawl: Who is Wajahat Ali? 

In the current context, we'll start by noting that Ali is a New York Times "contributing opinion writer." Beyond that, he's led a very impressive life, with a great deal more to come.

Ali was born in the Bay Area. He graduated from Berkeley. Later, he became a licensed attorney, but also a playwright and the father of two cute kids.

We've been quoting from the biographical profile found on Ali's own site. We assume that he's a good, decent person. A wide range of people are:

Wajahat Ali is a New York Times Contributing Op-Ed writer, public speaker, recovering attorney and tired dad of two cute kids. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides.

He also enjoys writing about himself in the third person...

Whimsically, the headline on the bio refers to Ali as a "very fine writer" and a "well-spoken speaker." We'll suggest that you read the whole thing, stopping to note how strongly the profile advances the concept of bridging those global divides.

Still and all, like everyone else, the person with this impressive bio is a human being. As such, he's subject to the occasional errors our flesh is said to be heir to.

In mid-November, he wrote a column for the Times which urged us not to attempt to reason with Trump voters. The logic of the piece was remarkably daft.

The column's logic was remarkably daft. Inevitably, the New York Times put the column in print.

Everyone's logic will slip on occasion. On the other hand, soon after that column appeared, Ali published this piece for The Daily Beast. 

Once again, the general drift may have seemed to suggest that we should stop talking to people who don't live in Our Town. In this case, though, the boundaries of Our Town may have seemed to be shrinking: 

Ali used derogatory, racialized language to suggest that we should stop pursuing the votes of Those People, the "Karens" (and also the Amys).

Here in Our Town, we sometimes seem inclined to behave like the people in other towns whose conduct we hotly decry. According to major anthropologists, we humans are wired to react in such ways in our less "human" moments.

It isn't the best possible way to react. But everyone's human in Our Town, and we humans are wired that way.

Ali is extremely bright; he's also a good, decent person. When his column appeared in the Times, we were struck by the column's comically silly illogic. 

Even more so, we were struck by the fact that the New York Times chose to put the column in print. In Our Town, we're extremely sure that we're the bright ones. This mandated tribal belief may not always be accurate.

What are we frequently like in Our Town? Brother Ali is very smart, but on at least one recent occasion, he fell in with the wrong crowd. 

Online, the resulting behavior is widely described by pundits from Their Town. On our own sprawling campus, we may have seen the behavior in real time, but we aren't quite sure.

We refer to the time when Ali fell in with Republican strategist Rick Wilson, the entertaining critic of All Things Trump who tends to express himself in the rude language of rough men. 

Wilson's uninhibited talk has endeared him to our own Brian Williams. On this night, he was speaking with CNN's Don Lemon, and he was mocking Trump voters.

Wilson adopted a mocking Southern drawl as he mocked the aforementioned goobers. Displaying the imperfect judgment to which our (human) flesh is heir, Ali briefly affected a mocking Southern drawl too.

Online, this outing is widely remembered by pundits in Their Town. (The behavior is used to tell Trump voters that they shouldn't listen to us!) In our view, the behavior clashed with the higher ideals expressed in Ali's bio. If so, we all make mistakes.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our country is in a real mess. The reigning commander-in-chief seems to be mentally ill (and he has a whole month to go). In Our Town, our routinely unimpressive elites have agreed that no one should ever discuss this possibility or the possible dangers therein.

The commander's behaviors are praised in Their Town. Many of the lesser beings can't see how crazy he is.

On the other hand, over here in our own town, one of our pundits gave thirteen (paid) speeches in four years in which he says he tried to reach out to Those People. At one point, he even shared his views with someone who gave him a ride to the airport!

When these thirteen attempts didn't part the Red Sea, he drew a comically silly conclusion:

      No one in Our Town should ever try again!

We're extremely self-impressed in Our Town. We've been this way forever.

All too often, others can see the actual truth. And in Their Town, our shortcomings get embellished by their overpaid tribal stars.

All too often, we're silly and stupid and nobody likes us. Rachel enjoyed the two weeks of dick jokes she rained down on Tea Party heads. Years later, Ali briefly affected that drawl.

Beyond that, we often reason extremely poorly over here in Our Town. Our journalistic and intellectual leaders have often failed to deliver.

We'll continue to discuss these matters in the weeks ahead. In our view, our candidates should seek votes from people who live  in Our Town, but from people in Their Town as well.

We humans are wired to be deeply, unhelpfully tribal. Or at least, that's what major top anthropologists have often despondently said.

The samizdat files: Ali has given up on reaching out to Those People. For a ridiculous alternate view, you can just click here

Our view? In our view, Ali is very bright. We'd suggest that he give a fourteenth speech, while trying to stifle the drawl.


Do we want people to take those vaccines?

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2020

The Post doesn't seem real sure: Covid vaccines have begun to arrive. As they do, the daily death rate across the nation continues to go up.

(Current 7-day average, nationwide: 2,561 Covid deaths per day, according to the Washington Post's numbers.)

Covid vaccines have begun to arrive. Do we want people to take those vaccines?

Reading the Post, it isn't real clear! Once again, we get the sick feeling that we may love our storylines more.

Last week, we thought Michele Norris favored storyline over good, sound advice in the column which bore this headline:

Black people are justifiably wary of a vaccine

Is there any reason why black people should be wary of these vaccines? Norris doesn't seem to think so. But to our ear, she favored current popular storyline over good sound advice.

This morning, it happened again. In print editions, page 1 of the Post's Style section is dominated by Monica Hesse's latest effort. Beneath a giant visual of a plainly worried women, Hesse's headline says this:

Why the vaccine worries women

People, there they go again! Should anyone line up for these vaccines? The Post doesn't seem real sure.

Over here in our failing town, we currently love to stage parades of horribles concerning matters of gender and race. We seem to love these storylines more than we love life itself.

Yesterday, we made a confession. We admitted that we've been thinking about Norris' column ever since it appeared in print last Thursday morning.

Norris recited a parade of horribles, purportedly explaining why black people are "justifiably wary" of these new, life-saving vaccines. 

Some of her collection of (treasured) horribles dated to the early to mid-1800s. Inexcusably, she also offered this wild misstatement about These White Med Students Today:

NORRIS (12/10/20): We are not just tussling with historical wrongs. A recent study of White medical students found that half believed that Black patients had a higher tolerance for pain and were more likely to prescribe inadequate medical treatment as a result.

That highlighted statement is horribly wrong. It's depressing to see how many denizens of Our Town were involved in its construction.

For starters, Norris never should have written that fairly obvious groaner. When we checked her link, her obvious error was clear.

Beyond that, her editors should have caught her (inexcusable) error before they put it in print. (In fairness, it promotes storyline.)

That said, Norris' error derives from an extremely slippery report by Professor Sabin about a rather slippery study. The editors who published the original study were also at fault.

We've come to love our tribal stories so much that we're willing to believe whatever claim we think we've read as long as it serves storyline. It's depressing to see this kind of thing transpiring in the streets of Our Town. That's why we've been avoiding a fuller report on the forensics of this gruesome groaner.

Tomorrow, we'll start to unpack that groaner's many strands. In the meantime, what do we in Our Town love more? 

Do we love our storylines more? Or do we love life itself? 

Also this: Should suburbanites fear the vaccines too? Will the Washington Post go there next?


OUR TOWNIES, OURSELVES: The barrister Powell seems to be nuts!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2020

But what about us Over Here?: Anthropologically speaking, this has  become a remarkable time for the study of human mental dysfunction.

In recent years, our species' mental dysfunction has been on wide display. In the past few days, the New York Times has done an excellent job chronicling the current behaviors which speak to this age-old problem. 

What's the current state of this mental dysfunction? Consider this manifestation of The Crazy, as reported today:

ALBA AND FRENKEL (12/17/20): Sidney Powell, a lawyer who was part of President Trump’s legal team, spread a conspiracy theory last month about election fraud. For days, she claimed that she would “release the Kraken” by showing voluminous evidence that Mr. Trump had won the election by a landslide.

But after her assertions were widely derided and failed to gain legal traction, Ms. Powell started talking about a new topic. On Dec. 4, she posted a link on Twitter with misinformation that said that the population would be split into the vaccinated and the unvaccinated and that “big government” could surveil those who were unvaccinated.

“NO WAY #America,” Ms. Powell wrote in the tweet, which collected 22,600 shares and 51,000 likes. “This is more authoritarian communist control imported straight from #China.” She then tagged Mr. Trump and the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn—both of whom she had represented—and other prominent right-wing figures to highlight the post.

As President Reagan might have said, there she went again! Now the emergence of Covid vaccines was said to represent "authoritarian communist control imported straight from China!" 

As their report continues, Alba and Frenkel describe additional promulgation of The Crazy by the barrister Powell. Is Powell some version of "mentally ill?" While we're at it, how about Michael Flynn and his business associate son, each of whom seemed to be involved in PizzaGate true belief?

Is the barrister Powell some version of "mentally ill?" By any standard of rationality, that same question ought to be asked about the reigning commander in chief—but here in Our Town, our leading lights have long since agreed that the question must never be asked.

So it has gone as our nation has slid toward the sea. To a remarkable extent, apparent human mental dysfunction has been on remarkably wide display, even right here in Our Town.

Below, we'll offer a partial list of behaviors observed in Our Town. We'll start by returning to the question we posed in yesterday's report: 

How is it possible that anyone would publish such a poorly-reasoned column? We refer to the New York Times column in which Wajahat Ali said we should all give up on the idea of speaking to Those People, the utterly hopeless Trump voters.

Why would anyone publish a column based on the comical reasoning Ali put on display in his column? In truth, such absurd decisions are amazingly common right here in Our Town.

For today, we want to take a quick look at the first thing we read today. It was written by someone who's perfectly competent. This may explain why the gods briefly laughed at his composition.

The post was written by Jonathan Chait. Eventually, Chait would come close to redeeming himself, but he started off like this:

CHAIT (12/16/20): One of the very few remaining mysteries surrounding Donald Trump—a very simple man prone to blurting out his feelings around the clock in whatever medium he has available—is whether or to what degree he is conscious of his lies.

To what degree is Donald J. Trump "conscious of his lies?" What could Chait possibly mean by that strained construction?

As Chait continues, it seems to us that his meaning becomes quite clear. He's actually asking whether, or to what degree, Trump believes his own crazy misstatements. 

Of course, if Trump believes his crazy misstatements, then his misstatements aren't "lies." It's clear that Chait even understands that! Here's the fuller passage:

CHAIT: One of the very few remaining mysteries surrounding Donald Trump—a very simple man prone to blurting out his feelings around the clock in whatever medium he has available—is whether or to what degree he is conscious of his lies.

Trump deceives his audience promiscuously, often on matters he knows full well are not true. (He repeatedly insisted he had “no business with Russia” when he surely knew he was engaged in a lucrative negotiation with Moscow.) But Trump also appears at times to genuinely convince himself of his own lies, which makes them no longer lies.

Is he a sociopathic liar? Delusional? Both?

A point in favor of “delusional” comes via CNN, which reports that Trump not only insists he actually won the 2020 election but has maintained at times that he will not vacate the premises on January 20...

It's fairly clear that Chait is actually asking whether, or to what extent, Trump believes his own crazy misstatements. As he continues, he says a recent report from CNN suggests that Trump may, in fact, actually believe some of his craziest claims.

Is it possible that Trump believes some of his craziest statements?  We know of no obvious way to answer that question. 

In a slightly more rational world, carefully selected medical / psychiatric specialists would be asked to assess such questions. Here in Our Town,  our journalistic elites have agreed that such consultations must never occur. 

In Our Town, that question can't be asked! According to knowledgeable sources, this is one of the many reasons why the gods on Olympus continue to laugh, even at us in Our Town.

According to these sources, why are we laughed at in Our Town? Let us count the reported ways:

In recent weeks, the gods have laughed at our constant claims that we mustn't try to reason with Trump voters. 

They've roared at our ridiculous claims that newspapers fawn to Trump voters but never discuss our views.

They've laughed till they've cried about the way, from Obama on down, we've tried to discuss the possible problem with a certain slogan / demand: "Defund the police."

Dating back to 1992, they've howled with delight at the way we slumbered and snored as ludicrous claims were directed at Clinton and Clinton and also at Candidate Gore. 

(The claim that Hillary used cocaine syringes as White House Christmas decorations is said to have been a special favorite. Also, all the murders the Clintons committed! Yes, that includes Vince Foster!)

They laugh at the ways we now discuss, or pretend to discuss, issues of race and gender. Also, at the ways we now refuse to discuss anything else, after decades of averting our gaze from such areas of concern.

At the ways we invent phony facts when we conduct such discussions. At the way these misstatements may their way from our professors down to our gullible scribes.

Our discussions of these failings will continue in the next few days. Today, concerning Chait's construction, we will offer this:

Chait is suggesting that Trump may believe some of his craziest statements. He even says this, in slightly disguised fashion:

If Trump believes his crazy statements. that "makes them no longer lies!"

It's perfectly clear that Chait understands the logic of this bone-simple matter. But here in Our Town, we have come to dearly love the deeply pleasing word, "lies." 

Almost surely, that explains Chait's jumbled presentation of a very simple question. How the gods on Olympus laugh when they see our childish behavior—when they see comical columns like the one we reviewed yesterday.

Tomorrow, we'll return to that comical column, and we'll continue from there. Sadly, the leading newspaper in Our Town decided to put it in print. 

Sidney Powell seems to be nuts. The commander seems deeply disordered too.

Mental dysfunction seems to be quite widespread. What's up with us Over Here?

Tomorrow: The logic of speaking to others


Who the heck was J. Marion Sims?

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2020

Encouraging people to die: Today, we make an admission. Our admission goes like this:

Ever since it appeared in last Thursday's Washington Post, we've been thinking about this column by Michele Norris. 

Why have we been thinking about that column? Admittedly, we've been thinking about it because it started like this, headline included:

NORRIS (12/10/20): Black people are justifiably wary of a vaccine. Their trust must be earned.

Trust is earned. We all know that. But if a national vaccine campaign is to succeed, we must quickly figure out how to earn the confidence and cooperation of African Americans who are justifiably wary of a coronavirus vaccine.

"Black people are justifiably wary of a vaccine?" Here in Our Town, are we sure we want to be publishing headlines like that?

We're not saying that anyone should be criticized for being "wary of a vaccine." But are we sure we want to feature the idea that those people we think of as black are justified in their "vaccine hesitancy?"

We ask for this reason:

Ever since the spring, observers have been noting the (substantially) higher death rate from Covid among the people we think of as black. With that in mind, are we sure we want to be publishing headlines in which we say that black vaccine reluctance is some version of "justified?"

People, we're just asking! But do we love our storylines so much that we're willing to let people die for them? Are we willing to let people die so we can keep telling our stories?

As you can see, Norris says, in her opening paragraph, that we should be encouraging African Americans to get vaccinated. Presumably, she feels that there's no medical reason why anyone should avoid these emerging vaccines.

That said, she spends enormous chunks of her column rattling off the horrors, past and allegedly present, which explain why black people are "justifiably" wary. Along came an editor, who propelled that into the headline.

Last Thursday, we cited an egregious howler emitted by Norris as she proceeds down this beloved, standardized path. Today, we'll show you something else we decided to fact-check.

As she proceeds, Norris rattles a standard list of horribles concerning past medical practices. In her formulation, these practices explain why black people are justifiably wary about accepting the vaccine today.

Norris goes on and on in this vein; she's telling one of the favorite stories currently told in Our Town. Needless to say, the Tuskegee experiment is cited. At one point, she also cites  this:

NORRIS (12/10/20): You must know names such as J. Marion Sims, who is known as the “father of gynecology” and lauded until 2018 with a statue in Central Park in New York. Sims performed reproductive experiments on enslaved Black women without anesthesia. One of those women, Anarcha Westcott, underwent 30 painful gynecological surgeries without any form of sedation. Sims later opened a hospital where he conducted his perfected technique on White women, who were of course anesthetized.

Really? To understand black vaccine hesitancy, we "must know names such as J. Marion Sims?"

Since we didn't know that particular name, we decided to look it up. We couldn't help noticing that Norris included a date for the statue removal, but not for the years in  which Sims engaged in the practices she describes (though the word "enslaved" does appear).

So who the heck was J. Marion Sims? The leading authority on the topic starts by telling us this:

James Marion Sims (January 25, 1813–November 13, 1883) was an American physician in the field of surgery, both known as the "father of modern gynaecology" and as a controversial figure for the ethical questions raised in developing his techniques...

The information proceeds from there. We couldn't help noting that Sims was born in 1813 (sic).

J. Marion Sims was born in 1813! Our question would be this:

Why should anything this man ever did affect anyone's attitude toward today's Covid vaccines? More particularly, how much do we love our horror stories that we're dragging ancient history like this into modern-day issues of life and death?

Here in our unimpressive town, we love our tribal stories. For the past several years, after decades of benign neglect, we all began pretending that it's still 1955 when it comes to matters of race.

(That benign neglect continues in all sorts of areas. When have you ever seen your favorite cable stars discuss the schools black kids attend?)

We've been pretending that it's still 1955. Are we now pretending that it's still 1813 too? More specifically, why should anyone concerned about black life and death be talking about J. Marion Sims (born in 1813) in this current life-and-death context?

Here in Our Town, we tend to be deeply self-impressed. Beyond that, we love to tell our favorites tales, just like everyone else.

We'll add one final point:

Norris' error about (present-day) white medical students was, especially in this life-and-death context,  an egregious, inexcusable howler. The problem began with the professor whose slippery work Norris cited, but there's no excuse for the endless bullshit which litters the streets of Our Town.

At some point, we'll force ourselves to walk you through the slippery work which led Norris to commit that pitiful howler. We're sorry to tell you that Our Town's professors (and journalists) very much tend to be like that.

For today, we'll close with this

The current leader of Their Town seems to be deeply deranged. But what's our excuse Over Here?

Meanwhile, black people are justifiably wary! Please think about Marion Sims!


OUR TOWNIES, OURSELVES: Like Haggard's mother, the columnist tried!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2020

In Our Town, such columns get published: In the past, we've sometimes mentioned Merle Haggard's mother.

The parent in question deserves our respect. As Haggard reports, she tried:
I turned twenty-one in prison, doing life without parole
No one could steer me right, but Mama tried, Mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading I denied
That leaves only me to blame 'cause Mama tried.

We'll assume the reporting is accurate. Along with Okie From Muskogee, Mama Tried was one of Haggard's biggest hits.

Last month, folks in Our Town learned about someone else who tried. His story appeared in the New York Times, Our Town's most important newspaper. 

The author of the column in question was Wajahat Ali, a New York Times contributing opinion writer. As Ali began, he framed his piece as a warning:

ALI (11/17/20): Seventy-three million Americans voted for Donald Trump. He doubled down on all his worst vices, and he was rewarded for it with 10 million more votes than he received in 2016.

The majority of people of color rejected his cruelty and vulgarity. But along with others who voted for Joe Biden, we are now being lectured by a chorus of voices, including Pete Buttigieg and Ian Bremmer, to “reach out” to Trump voters and “empathize” with their pain.

This is the same advice that was given after Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory, and for nearly four years I attempted to take it. Believe me, it’s not worth it.

Sounding a bit like those very Trump voters, Ali seems to dislike being "lectured to." At any rate, the columnist  tried—and he says no one else should. 

One thinks of the greatest cautionary ballads, not excluding Young McAfee on the Gallows. Mike Seeger attributed the ballad to Jean Ritchie:

Draw near, kind friends, and learn of me
My sad and awful history.
And may you ne'er forgetful be
Of all this day I tell to thee.

So began one young man's cautionary tale. In his column, Ali warned about unwise conduct too. His piece appeared beneath this pair of headlines:

‘Reach Out to Trump Supporters,’ They Said. I Tried.
I give up.

Please stop reaching out to others! We're often given this advice in the organs of Our Town. Plainly, though, Ali says he tried!

Please stop reaching out to the others! In this case, the rationale for this advice was transparently comical. It's hard to believe, but nonsense like that which appeared in this column gets published in Our Town on a regular basis.

In this instance, the backstory went like this:

In late 2016, after Candidate Trump slid past Candidate Clinton and seized control of the White House, Ali decided to reach out to Trump's supporters. "I really thought it might work," he writes. 

The project went like this:

ALI: [I]n late 2016, I told my speaking agency to book me for events in the states where Mr. Trump won. I wanted to talk to the people the media calls “real Americans” from the “heartland”—which is of course America’s synonym for white people, Mr. Trump’s most fervent base. Over the next four years I gave more than a dozen talks to universities, companies and a variety of faith-based communities.

My standard speech was about how to “build a multicultural coalition of the willing.” My message was that diverse communities, including white Trump supporters, could work together to create a future where all of our children would have an equal shot at the American dream. I assured the audiences that I was not their enemy.

I reminded them that those who are now considered white, such as Irish Catholics, Eastern European Jews, Greeks and Italians, were once the boogeymen. I warned them that supporting white nationalism and Mr. Trump, in particular, would be self-destructive, an act of self-immolation, that will help neither their families nor America become great again.

Over the past four years, Ali made thirteen attempts ("more than a dozen") to reach out to Trump supporters. In an unstated number of these cases, he performed this outreach by taking plane rides to  red states, then speaking to blue university crowds.

As a general matter, we agree with the message Ali describes, though we can't necessarily vouch for the way he may have advanced it. Today, though, Ali has given up—and he thinks you should give up too! 

Why has the Timesman given up after four years of effort? Below, you see the start of his explanation. Believe it or not, comical nonsense of this type gets published, quite routinely, all around Our Town:

ALI (continuing directly):  And I listened. Those in the audience who supported Mr. Trump came up to me and assured me they weren’t racist. They often said they’d enjoyed the talk, if not my politics. Still, not one told me they’d wavered in their support for him. Instead, they repeated conspiracy theories and Fox News talking points about “crooked Hillary.” Others made comments like: “You’re a good, moderate Muslim. How come others aren’t like you?”

In Ohio, I spent 90 minutes on a drive to the airport with a retired Trump supporter. We were cordial to each other, we made jokes and we shared stories about our families. But neither of us changed our outlook. “They’ll never take my guns. Ever,” he told me, explaining that his Facebook feed was filled with articles about how Mrs. Clinton and Democrats would kill the Second Amendment and steal his guns. 

Ali had spent 90 minutes speaking to one Trump supporter—but despite that effort, the Trump supporter didn't (seem to) change his views! Why would anyone keep keepin' on after such an experience?

As he continues, Ali describes several other such incidents. The conclusion he reaches is this:

ALI: I did my part. What was my reward? Listening to Mr. Trump’s base chant, “Send her back!” in reference to Representative Ilhan Omar, a Black Muslim woman, who came to America as a refugee. I saw the Republican Party transform the McCloskeys into victims, even though the wealthy St. Louis couple illegally brandished firearms against peaceful B.L.M. protesters. Their bellicosity was rewarded with a prime-time slot at the Republican National Convention, where they warned about “chaos” in the suburbs being invaded by people of color. Their speech would have fit well in “The Birth of a Nation."

Ali says he did his part. But what was his reward?

Even after he spoke to the guy in Ohio, other supporters in other states hadn't changed their views! You simply can't reason with People Like This, the contributor sings as he closes.

Our question goes like this:

Could anyone read a column like this without thinking it's comically strange? That was the question which ran through our mind when we initially read it.

We don't know how someone comes to write a column so transparently foolish. But in Our Town, such musings get published on a regular basis, in Our Town's brainiest newspapers.

This was just a single column about maybe thirteen attempts. On the whole, the column will play absolutely no role in our nation's ongoing decline.

That said, this utterly silly ballad got published—in the New York Times, no less! In Our Town, at the highest levels, such work is believed to make sense.

As we wander the streets of Our Town, we encounter a lot of such musings. No, they aren't as crazy as Donald Trump's musings—but then again, nothing is.

Quite routinely, folks in Our Town offer advice and logic like that which appeared in that column. At the biggest newspaper in Our Town, such musings seem to make sense.

Out of such observations, anthropological learning might flow. What does this sort of thing say about Our Townies, but also about Ourselves?

Tomorrow: The logic of conversion


Does Bret Stephens live in Our Town?

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2020

Misstatements in Our Town and Theirs: Bret Stephens is a conservative, as is his perfect right. To his credit, he's also been a stone-cold never-Trumper.

Does that mean that Stephens lives in Our Town? Or does he live in Theirs? It might be instructive to examine a couple of errors from his latest New York Times column.

The first error isn't exactly an "error." It might be seen as, perhaps, a slightly selective presentation:

STEPHENS (12/15/20): Yes, there were serious missteps in the handling of the Covid crisis. But those who would blame Trump for tens or hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths ought at least to acknowledge that a pandemic of this magnitude would have gravely challenged any president. Deaths in the United States from Covid-19 (91 per 100,000 people) are slightly worse than in France (87) but better than in Britain (97), Spain (102) and Italy (107), all of which imposed harsher lockdowns and had more engaged leaders.

All of this has convinced many of my fellow conservatives, including those who were initially hostile to Trump, that there’s more than a touch of derangement to those of us who oppose him—a mixture of justified distaste for the man and his manners and unjustified fears about the consequences of his governance.

There are no perfect comparisons between different countries when we consider "total deaths to date" from the coronavirus. 

In that passage, Stephens is looking at major nations in western Europe. The virus may have arrived a bit earlier there than in the U.S., giving them more of a chance to pile up total deaths.

Beyond that, Stephens omits Germany and our near-neighbor Canada, whose "total deaths to date" (adjusted for population) are both much lower than ours. There are no perfect comparisons when it comes to total deaths, but in that presentation, Stephens—or at least, his his "fellow conservatives"—may have their thumbs on the scale a tad.

Let's repeat—Stephens has been a consistent never-Trumper. That said, we can learn a few things about Ourselves from the genuine mega-howler he uncorks later in his column:

STEPHENS: [Trump] has detonated a bomb under the epistemological foundations of a civilization that is increasingly unable to distinguish between facts and falsehoods, evidence and fantasy. He has instructed tens of millions of people to accept the commandment, That which you can get away with, is true.

Apologists for this president might rejoin that there are also examples of this form of politics on the other side of the aisle, notably in the person of Bill Clinton. That’s true. But it only causes one to wonder why so many of the same conservatives who vehemently objected to Clinton on moral grounds vehemently support Trump on the absence of moral grounds.

Truly, that's insane. Comparing Clinton to Trump on this score comes to us, live and direct, from stone-cold Crazy Land.

Truly, that's insane! But here in Our Town, we lazily let this crazy image of Bill Clinton gain traction during the many long years which eventually led to the commander's amazingly narrow win over Hillary Clinton (while losing the popular vote).

Our Town's sachems largely slept as that image of Bill Clinton was crafted and gained purchase. Starting in early 1999, our sachems then played the leading role in transferring this crazy image to Candidate Gore. 

Over the course of several years, some of our sachems lazily slept as Candidate Gore was novelized as The World's Biggest Liar. The rest of our sachems were actually playing the leading role in this death-dealing demonization.

"Why Our Town Slept" might be the name of the book which explores this crushing political history. In truth, that book will never be written, and that history will never be explored, due to prevailing codes of silence which strongly prevail in Our Town.

In his apparent madness, Donald J. Trump has indeed helped create "a civilization that is increasingly unable to distinguish between facts and falsehoods." Comparing his conduct to that of President Clinton in that arena is itself a form of howling madness.

That said, we in Our Town helped create this madness. For that reason, this madness still exists in the world, and its genesis can't be discussed.

Total deaths to date: Using the data at this site, here are the comparisons Stephens skipped, with bonus data thrown in:

Total Covid deaths to date, per million population
United States: 931
Canada: 359
Germany: 278 
Australia: 35
Japan: 21
South Korea: 12

We included the three Pacific nations just to stress the (astonishing) numbers which basically never get discussed Around Here.  Not even on cable TV!

Ken and Barbie said it best. Whether in Our Town or Theirs, statistics are boring and hard!


STARTING TOMORROW: Our Townies, Ourselves!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2020

The statements you'll hear in Our Town: The first thing we heard this Sunday morning may have been the dumbest.

It didn't occur during our own unusual sacred hour—the hour we spend at 7 A.M. listening to callers during the open phones segment on C-Span's Washington Journal. 

The first, possibly dumbest thing had been uttered even earlier than that.

C-Span callers were their usual selves during the sacred hour. But the first thing we heard this Sunday morning was uttered on the painful program Fox & Friends Weekends, as seen on the Fox News Channel.

In real time, we weren't sure who had made these dumbest remarks. We'd been listening at the time, not yet actually watching. 

That said, hail Columbia! The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona had heard these same dumbest remarks! He'd even transcribed some of the dumbest remarks—dumbest remarks which had been made by a "former reality star."

As it turned out, the former reality star was guest host Rachel Campos-Duffy, late of The Real World. Her remarks were reinforced by regular Fox & Friends Weekend host Pete Hegseth, who's most fondly remembered for having explained, in 2019, why he hadn't washed his hands in ten year.

On Sunday, Campos-Duffy may have been trying to prove that she's willing to be sufficiently dumb for a regular spot on Fox. Cued by the inexcusable Will Cain, Campos-Duffy offered these remarks, occasioning Hegseth's instant support:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (12/13/20): Yeah, absolutely! That Georgia pipeline thing is really something that—

You know, if this had been flipped, if this had happened to Joe Biden, this story would be investigated to the very bottom. You say there's a pipeline that, water—you know, that's why they had to stop, and all of a sudden they go back and they look at the work orders and there was no, there was no pipe that burst, there was no reason to stop the counting.

So you know, I just feel for the president. I see the pain and the frustration. You do everything you’re supposed to do. You run the country well. You campaign your heart out while the other guy is in a basement. And then in the end, fraud and shenanigans at the local level, you’re robbed. And we’ve all been robbed because when the elections don’t go well, when there is fraud, when there is these kinds of shenanigans, we all lose!

Campos-Duffy was feeling the president's pain concerning the fraud and shenanigans. He'd done everything he was supposed to do! While Biden was down in a basement!

With regard to "that Georgia pipeline thing," the former Real World star was referring to comments Trump had made the day before, at the Army-Navy game. He'd done so in an interview with Fox & Friends reality star Brian Kilmeade. Here's how that went down:

Speaking with Kilmeade, the commander had revisited a claim he'd first made in real time, in the first week in November. 

The commander's claim about the pipe that burst had been fact-checked to death at that time. But five weeks later, the commander had brought it up again, and Campos-Duffy, cued by Cain, was totally feeling his pain.

To watch this inanity unfold, just move to minute 23 of the Daily Beast videotape. Cued by Cain, then supported by Hegseth, Campos-Duffy may have topped C-Span's callers in the constant battle to utter Sunday morning's dumbest remarks.

The background to this is daunting:

If you watch the tape of this inanity, you'll be watching another installment of American intellectual / epistemic carnage. According to the leading authority on the topic, a long and winding reality road had brought Campos-Duffy to Sunday morning's program.

In 1994, as Rachel Campos, she'd starred on The Real World: San Francisco. But after that stardom, this:

In 1999, Campos taped Road Rules: All Stars, along with alumni of other past Real World seasons, such as Sean Duffy of the Real World: Boston cast, whom she would later marry.

Campos-Duffy was one of ten Real World alumni who starred in the 2003 film The Wedding Video, a Real World parody centered on the wedding of first season alumnus Norman Korpi.

She thrice vied for a role on the daytime television talk show The View. After Debbie Matenopoulos left the show in 1999, Campos competed in an on-air try-out with Lisa Ling and Lauren Sánchez. Ling was eventually hired. After Ling's departure in 2002, Campos—who by then held her own "coffee talk" show with other Wisconsin housewives—again competed in a week-long on-air try-out, this time against Erin Hershey Presley and Elisabeth Hasselbeck. In November 2003 Hasselbeck was hired to replace Lisa Ling. In July 2013 when Hasselbeck left The View to replace Gretchen Carlson as the female co-host of Fox & Friends, Campos once again tried out, but Jenny McCarthy was hired to fill the spot.

She'd thrice auditioned for a role on The View, even losing to Jenny McCarthy! Now, she may have been trying to show that she was able to seem dumb enough for a role on Fox & Friends, or possibly on Fox & Friends First, or maybe just Fox & Friends Weekend.

Watching this endless inanity, you're watching American carnage. For ourselves, we see no obvious way out of this burgeoning mess.

Spokespersons for a group of despondent though highly credentialed anthropologists insist that this represents a chance to explore the actual state of our species' self-ballyhooed "rationality." That said, the American experiment, such as it has been, is rapidly sinking into the sea as this corporate-fueled nonsense unfolds.

The analysts groaned and tore at their hair as Campos-Duffy spoke. That said, we'd been walking the streets of our own failing town all through the preceding week.

As you may recall, Our Townies had taken numbers and stood in line to caterwaul about Melania's Christmas decorations. Because they'd done so in the dumbest way humanly possible, we assembled the youngsters and posed an anthropological question about Campos-Duffy's emission:

To what extent does comparable nonsense routinely take place in Our Town?

We noted clear problems with Town and Gown. We told them to listen to Townies.

Donald J. Trump may be dangerously mentally ill, we once again told the analysts. (In Our Town, this obvious possibility cannot, by law, be discussed.) But what about our townies? we asked. And what about ourselves?

Because it's all anthropology now, we ran through a list of examples. It's hard to know just where to begin.

Anthropology can be daunting. By tomorrow morning, we will have made our choice.

Tomorrow: These Townies Today!


It's depressing to visit the streets of our town!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2020

The New York Times visits Europe: It's depressing to take a stroll through the cramped, crabbed streets of our town.

That's what all the analysts said after completing last week's Yuletide report. We still plan to examine additional sections of our town. But we told the exhausted, underpaid youngsters that they could take today off.

For today, consider something Nicholas Kristof said about the pandemic in Europe. Also, consider a New York Times news report about the pandemic in Germany.

In his column, Kristof considered the miserable state of the pandemic in these United States. (The column appeared online on December 10.)

It's true that our nation's performance has been a highly instructive disaster. But along the way, we were a bit surprised to see Kristof offer this:

KRISTOF (12/10/20): It’s not that the coronavirus can’t be controlled: Europe had a terrible autumn wave but reined in the virus—while keeping schools open. Yet the United States as a whole still can’t match Europe in rationally managing the virus.

Has Europe actually "reined in the virus" in a way we can't match? When we checked at the FT site, the first two numbers we fell upon looked exactly like this:

Average Covid deaths per day, per million population
Seven-day averages, as of December 10

European Union: 7.3
United States: 7.2

There's certainly more to the story than that. But that's where the story starts.

Briefly, let's be fair! The E.U. number has been inflated by the performance of some of its eastern members. 

Among the major nations of western Europe, the numbers looked like this. For the record, the United Kingdom isn't part of the E.U.:

Average Covid deaths per day, per million population
Seven-day averages, as of December 10
Italy: 10.7
United States: 7.2
United Kingdom: 6.2
France: 6.0
Germany: 5.1
Spain: 4.2

Those numbers are also part of the story. Then again, so are these:

Average Covid deaths per day, per million population
Seven-day averages, as of December 10
Hungary: 15.8
Austria: 10.8
Poland: 10.6
Belgium: 9.7 (as of 12/2)
Czech Republic: 9.5
Switzerland: 9.0
Greece: 8.9
United States: 7.2

Those rates of Covid death were also occurring in Europe. And no, we aren't including all the bad national numbers. (As of December 10, Bulgaria's death rate was worst.)

We offer these numbers because we thought Kristof's account might be somewhat misleading. Concerning the overall state of the pandemic, the largest problem we see is this:

Our daily death rate continues to climb at a rapid rate. By way of contrast, the daily death rate of the E.U. has (slightly) begun to nose down. 

This pandemic has been a disaster here, but so too over in Europe. We continue to be amazed by how little information is being offered to us the people about this basic fact. (Or about the vastly lower death rates  among the major Pacific nations.) 

Does information play any real role in our national discourse? Consider the news report about Germany which appears in this morning's Times. The headline reads like this:

 Germany Locks Down Ahead of Christmas as Coronavirus Deaths Rise

According to that headline, coronavirus deaths are on the rise in Germany. Sadly enough, that continues to be true. 

The daily death rate has dropped a bit in the U.K., and also across the E.U. In Germany, though, the daily death rate is still on the rise as the "second wave" continues.

Germany'a death rate continues to rise! But despite that headline, the Times report offers no idea of what Germany's current death rate is, or about the way it might compare to death rates anywhere else. Little information is offered.

All through the spring and summer, Germany was the model among the major Euro nations—but good lord! As of December 1, the model nation's daily death rate had almost overtaken ours! (See data below.)

We offer these data for no particular reason. As we've long noted, basic facts and information play almost no role in our extremely primitive national discourse. Our discourse runs on storyline and on little else. 

As with public school test scores and international health care costs, so too here:

Tons of data are available, but our biggest news orgs won't use them! Information is boring and hard!

Tomorrow: The analysts return to work

For figure filberts only: As of December 1, the numbers looked like this:
Average Covid deaths per day, per million population
Seven-day averages, as of December 1
United States: 4.8
Germany: 4.2

Holy cow! The model nation was now losing people at a rate rivaling ours! 

Germany's rate has continued to rise. Ours has been rising faster.


Hollywood, Soviets tackle Our Town!

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2020

As does the recent film Wonder: Extremely frankly, we didn't like today's post. So we took it down.

To learn what Hollywood and the Soviets did, you can just click here.


SAD TO SAY, OUR TOWN: Our werewolves explain why we aren't well liked!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020

And they're just the start of our problem: Pliny the Elder was one of the first to report the problem of werewolves. 

His reporting preceded Warren Zevon's by at least several years. According to the leading authority on the subject, his findings unfolded as shown:

Pausanias also relates the story of an Arcadian man called Damarchus of Parrhasia, who was turned into a wolf after tasting the entrails of a human child sacrificed to Zeus Lycaeus. He was restored to human form 10 years later and went on to become an Olympic champion. This tale is also recounted by Pliny the Elder, who calls the man Demaenetus, quoting Agriopas. According to Pausanias, this was not a one-off event...

Pliny the Elder likewise recounts another tale of lycanthropy. Quoting Euanthes,  he mentions that in Arcadia, once a year a man was chosen by lot from the Anthus' clan. The chosen man was escorted to a marsh in the area, where he hung his clothes into an oak tree, swam across the marsh and transformed into a wolf, joining a pack for nine years. If during these nine years he refrained from tasting human flesh, he returned to the same marsh, swam back and recovered his previous human form, with nine years added to his appearance.

[...]

Early Christian authors also mentioned werewolves. In The City of God, Augustine of Hippo gives an account similar to that found in Pliny the Elder. Augustine explains that "It is very generally believed that by certain witches spells men may be turned into wolves..."

Augustine, of course, is most famous for the prayer he extended to God. "Make me human again, but not yet," he's famously said to have said.

At present, the werewolves running through Our Town are notable for their youth. This very year, The Daily Beast ran a snark-soaked review of Melania's Christmas decs by a "style writer" who's only three years out of college (NYU, class of 2017). 

Earlier, she prepped at Miss Porter's. For reasons of age, we'll be withholding the name of the afflicted young scribe. Headline included:

Melania Trump’s Last White House Christmas Looks Pretty—and Empty

Never one to mask her emotions, Melania looked on at this year’s display of tinsel and twinkling trees with the type of disdain one might save for glaring at a raccoon rummaging through discarded sugar cookies sitting in the trash outside on December 26.

[...]

It was a void, detached statement coming from someone who has spent her husband’s first and only term mostly staring off into space blankly, uselessly, manifesting a future where she can go back to New York and do whatever it is that makes her happy. (Pilates? Adding Dior blazers to her Net-a-Porter shopping cart?)

Her outfit for the occasion—or at least, the official photos she posed in—was just as cold. The look was also very impractical for the task, though Melania let it be known on Twitter that the real heavy-lifting is done by plebeian “volunteers,” not her French manicured hands.

She wore four-inch Louboutin heels, a longtime shoe of choice for miserable rich women, a high-waist pencil skirt, and silver, crinkly button-up blouse. She looked polished and put-together, and so unlike any of us right now. It was another Marie Antoinette moment from Melania, while we’re all just shuffling around our homes swaddled in sweatpants and fear. Let them wear a Givenchy hoodie, this outfit snarls.

Melania presents herself as formal, dressed-up, and going to work, all while teetering through the home she supposedly lives in. Many Americans have spent much of this year growing familiar with every corner and crack in the drywall as a byproduct of staying home; our first lady still gapes around hers with the aloofness of a stranger.

Unlike past years’ spooky, shadow-casting, and probably haunted trees, or The Shining-colored evergreens erected in 2018, Melania’s last decorations are, well, OK.

Some might even consider the scene lovely, perfect in that every piece has its place. However, for all its conventional sparkle, there is a lingering emptiness to the whole thing. What a very appropriate final Christmas decoration for the Trump White House.

You simply can't get dumber than that. According to an array of experts with whom we've consulted, it simply can't be done.

This particular style writer had prepped at Miss Porter's, but how much good did it do? Before landing at her current spot, she "covered beauty at Popsugar," according to her Daily Beast bio.

Trust us—it gets much worse. Owing to this afflicted person's youth, we're being kind today.

The remarkable youth of the Werewolves of Yuletide only adds to the sense of alarm among major experts who are watching the growth of this plague. 

In Camus' famous book of that very title, he noted how hard it was for the citizens of Oran to recognize the pestilence which was beginning to move through the streets of  their town. So it is in Our Town today, as werewolves of various ages screech and holler and howl.

Many of us in Our Town suffer from an affliction. We're unable to see how blindingly stupid the work of this cohort is.

Elsewhere, others can see our problem for what it actually is. Last week, after unloosing its Four Hounds from Hell, the Washington Post was willing to publish one letter on this general topic from a different town. 

That letter concerned an earlier column by one of the wolves. It went exactly like this:

Robin Givhan’s Nov. 25 news column, “Christmas tree, turkey pardon: The Trumps obliged,” was disgraceful. She used the Thanksgiving turkey ceremony and the arrival of the White House Christmas tree as an excuse to spew gratuitous insults at the president and first lady.

This is where our country is. Even holidays are just occasions for venomous partisan attacks.

[NAME WITHHELD], Falls Church

"This is where our country is," the writer diplomatically mused. Others will be more frank:

This is how it is in Your Town, many other observers will say. After that, they'll talk to their neighbors and friends.

A certain irony obtains in the way the many wolves of our floundering town have attacked the first lady's decs. In the mid-1990s, a different first lady was under attack for her decs—and the self-assured dimwits who live in our town were too dumb to push back.

In October 2016, Amanda Marcotte, to her credit, recalled the astonishing episode at Salon. On the downside, like many of our town's somnolent citizens, Marcotte assumed that Candidate Trump couldn't possibly win in November. 

What follows is pathetic, sad. We include the principal headline, and yes, that's what it said:

The Clinton BS files: Hillary didn't decorate the White House Christmas tree with condoms and syringes

[...]

[I]t's never been enough for Clinton detractors to bag on her for being ambitious, smart and feminist—all qualities they barely conceal their loathing for, especially in a woman. No, in the fever dreams of the right-wing imagination, Clinton is frequently portrayed as downright nasty, a gross person who likes gross things, the grosser the better.

And a critical piece of evidence that the conspiracy-theory right has for this theory is the claim that, in 1994, First Lady Hillary Clinton decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms, cock rings and syringes.

Yes, it's actually true. The lunacy didn't start with Trump. In this case, the lunacy was fed to the public  in a major best-selling book:

While most urban legends about the Clintons start somewhat small and then grow in the telling, this one appears to have sprung fully formed from the deranged imagination of Gary Aldrich, a former FBI agent who worked on the security team for the Bush and Clinton White Houses. Aldrich had an unending contempt for the Clintons, who he clearly viewed as a couple of dirty hippies with their Fleetwood Mac records and daughter named after a Joni Mitchell song. After he left, he decided to cash in on that hatred with a 1996 book entitled "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House."

[...]

This particular conspiracy theory lost some steam after the Clintons left the White House, though it still pops up on right-wing forums and blogs periodically. But expect there to be some kind of Christmas tree-related controversy to be ginned up in 2017, when the Clintons are once again tasked with decorating the Blue Room Christmas tree—presumably with Bill instead of Hillary at the helm this time.

We'll recommend that you read Marcotte's entire essay; it recounts one part of the disappeared political history of the past three or four decades. While Our Town slept, this sort of thing was aimed at Hillary Clinton for 24 years, with several intermediate years of manifest lunacy directed at Candidate Gore. 

(A great deal of this came from the upper-end press, not from the right-wing machine.)

Children are dead all over Iraq because of the way Our Town slept. Also, Candidate Trump managed to slip by Candidate Clinton and find his way into the White House, even while losing the popular vote. Tragicomically, our resistance began in earnest the day after Trump assumed office.

Marcotte was almost a prophet that day. She predicted more craziness about Christmas decs—but she assumed that the lunacy would be aimed at Clinton and Clinton.

Instead, the various wolves who run through Our Town began howling at Wife of Trump.

Some will say that Aldrich's conduct was worse than that of our wolves.  We tend to react and reason that way in the various pubs of Our Town.

We're lazy and stupid and nobody likes us! Sadly, the problem we have with The Werewolves of Yuletide is only one small part of our failing town's ongoing mess.

Next week, we'll continue to stroll the streets of Our Town. Our folkways seem to make sense to us. To others, our wide array of embarrassing folkways will often look quite different. 

In all honesty, we can't say that the others are wrong. Our werewolves have gone to the very best schools.

How much harm has it possibly done?

Tomorrow: Special bonus quotation from the original script of Our Town, as performed in a recent film


These (white) medical students today!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2020

They're much better than these journalists: We've been at our current task,  at our current site, for almost twenty-three years now. 

We're still astonished by the things These Upper-End Journalists say. We're also routinely amazed by the howlers they put into print.

In the category of howling errors, consider this morning's column by the Washington Post's Michele Norris. In a column about black reluctance to take a vaccine, Norris emits this stone-cold, script-aligned howler:

NORRIS (12/10/20): We are not just tussling with historical wrongs. A recent study of White medical students found that half believed that Black patients had a higher tolerance for pain and were more likely to prescribe inadequate medical treatment as a result.

Is that statement accurate? Did a recent study really find that "half [of white medical students] believed that Black patients had a higher tolerance for pain?"

We clicked two links, starting with the link Norris provides. This let us examine the eleven questions the medical students were asked. 

More precisely, the students were asked to evaluate the accuracy of eleven different statements. And uh-oh:

Among third- and fourth-year medical students, only one, out of 87 in all, evaluated the relevant statement in the way Norris describes. And that one student may have said that the statement in question was only "possibly true." 

None of the other 86 white boys and Karens scored it as "true" at all! That works out to way more than half!

One out of 87 is substantially less than half! Norris has been a high-level insider since roughly forever, but this is very much the way this incompetent bunch tends to play. 

(Also at fault is Janice A. Sabin, MSW, PhD, whose slippery work misled the absurdly credulous Norris. We'll provide the details tomorrow.)

In the category of "things these journalists say," we'll refer you to this snark-rich essay at New York magazine concerning—Yay! Yay! Yay!—the latest exciting sex scandal.

(Headline: "The China Sex Spy Scandal Is a Reminder: Don’t Govern While Horny." Yay yay yay yay yay! This is just so much fun!)

Personally, we aren't crazy about Rep. Eric Swalwell—but still and all, go ahead! Read what Eve Peyser says about Swalwell in her thrilling and entertaining report. Then, compare it to what is said in the "bombshell report by Axios" which Peyser cites as her source.

Peyser arrives with plenty of swagger, also with plenty of voice. She's also taking plenty of liberties with the material she cites as her source.

Based on what we've seen today, the medical students seem alright. The upper-end scribes, not so much!

These upper-end mainstream typists today! We'll fill in the details tomorrow.


SAD TO SAY, OUR TOWN: Warren Zevon's reporting trip!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2020

Werewolves of the Washington Post: At some point in the 1970s, almost surely when he was still in his 20s, Warren Zevon went, or was sent, on a reporting trip to England.

Phil Everly seems to have been involved. When Zevon published his findings, he included such observations as these:

I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand walking through the streets of SoHo in the rain. He was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook's, gonna get a big dish of beef chow mein.

He also warned about this:

He's the hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent. Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair. You better stay away from him—he'll rip your lungs out, Jim. I'd like to meet his tailor!

Zevon reported seeing a werewolf drinking a piña colada "at Trader Vic's"—presumably, at its London location. "His [the werewolf's] hair was perfect," the crusading reporter claimed.

All through his report, Zevon stressed the impeccable surface appearance of these unnoticed half-human shapeshifters. We thought of Zevon's breakthrough work when "Werewolves of the Washington Post" surfaced in numbers last week.

In this case, the number of werewolves in question was four. The number rises to five if you're willing to count this "editorial cartoon" by Ann Telnaes. Extending a seasonal pardon, we aren't.

As we documented yesterday, it has become a tradition. The wolves began to run through the streets of D.C. after first lady Melania Trump unveiled this year's White House Christmas decorations. 

Over the course of the past four years, Secret Service protection denied the wolves physical contact with the first lady's throat. 

Frustration builds through the course of the year. On Tuesday morning, December 1, the howling began in earnest.

"Gender columnist" Monica Hesse snapped and growled on the front page of Style. The sheer inanity of this tradition is captured in this passage:

HESSE (12/1/20): The end of Donald Trump’s presidency means the end of a lot of things, but one I’m personally grateful for is that we can all finally stop reading (or writing) stories about Melania. We can stop speculating on whether she actually speaks five languages, or what she meant by “I really don’t care, do u?” We don’t have to read into her slappy hand movements, delivered when her husband reaches for her arm; we don’t have to hear about her alleged pre-nup negotiations or what bed she sleeps in or doesn’t.

Transformed as she was by the seasonal angst, Hesse pretended that someone has been forcing her to read (and write) "stories" about the first lady. Someone had been forcing Hesse to speculate about how many languages the first lady knows, even to hear about what bed she sleeps in. Or doesn't!

Werewolves of Yuletide, ah-oooh! (To hear Zevon deliver his report, you can just click here.)

Hesse began her essay with standard snark about how inhuman the first lady is. (All the children go there.) She proceeded to offer a standard reference to The Handmaid's Tale, but also to this season's newest form of tribal tinsel—the claim that supporters regard the first lady as elegant only because she's so white.

She also worked with "Who gives a f---?" We'll try to get there tomorrow.

On that same day, in that same print edition, "senior critic-at-large" Robin Givhan was howling at the moon also. Her essay appeared atop page A2. Like the rest of her stablemates, she was troubled by the Christmas decorations too.

As the world has known since the time of the 2000 Florida recount, you can't get dumber than Givhan gets when she leaves his chosen field—the pointless field of upper-class fashion—and starts to comment on major political figures. 

When Givhan discusses the first lady's Christmas decs, the headlines which sit above her essays pull no rabbit punches:

Post headline, 2019: Melania Trump’s Christmas decorations are lovely, but that coat looks ridiculous

Post headline, 2020: Melania Trump seems quite content on her pedestal

Like Hesse, Givhan complained about how "tall and thin and White" the first lady is. They were employing a theme on which The Werewolves of the Upper-End Press have finally landed this year. 

Givhan would join Hesse in play the whiteness card. A bit more simply, she chose to open with full-blown unvarnished snark:

GIVHAN (12/1/20): Look at her. Because despite her protestations, that is what Melania Trump would like you to do. That’s what supporters find solace in doing. Let your gaze linger.

In her final Christmas video, the one produced during a pandemic, Trump emerges into frame on a staircase landing high above a tree-filled hallway, while wearing a shimmering blouse and slim skirt. She strolls through the White House and marvels at the handiwork of others—who remain unseen. She doesn’t hang a bauble and she most certainly doesn’t step into the kitchen for a peek at the secrets behind the 25 pounds of icing on the gingerbread White House.

The decorations, themed to “America the Beautiful,” mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, celebrate first responders and highlight the country’s wildlife. Trump goes it alone in this slow-motion video that eschews behind-the-scenes flashes of the many masked volunteers who climbed atop ladders and wielded glue guns. There are no references to socially distanced team work. She’s not guiding the public in an intimate virtual tour.

The video is a high-glamour narrative in which she is the star.

Givhan complained that the first lady had behaved this way "during a pandemic." It didn't seem to enter her head that she herself was drowning the world in ugly, stupid, trivial snark during this same brutal period.

Givhan complained that the first lady's video doesn't include the many volunteers who helped create the decs. It doesn't show us the workers in the kitchen, the people up on the ladders. 

The video in question was one minute long. Werewolves of Yuletide again!

Hesse and Givhan occupied high-visibility spots in that day's print edition. On that same day, Molly Roberts' takedown of the decs appeared in the Post online.

Roberts is four years out of college. To her credit, she compensates for her tender years by basically knowing it all.

Not failing to cite The Handmaid's Tale, she reviewed four years of the first lady's "downright spooky" Yuletide "horror shows." Astoundingly, she closed by journeying back four years to cite a Melania tweet:

ROBERTS (12/1/20): “What is she thinking?” Trump tweeted in the distant days of 2012 to accompany a snapshot of a beluga whale. The creature’s head is thrust through the sea’s surface, and its jaw yawns wide open in what it is tempting to call a smile. The post resurfaced as she took on the title of first lady, and ad infinitum those watching her, hating her and loving her have pondered the query. This unusually usual holiday display may finally give us an answer: not much at all.

What has the first lady been thinking? "Not much at all," the Harvard kid saucily said as she wrapped up her werewolf performance. ("Ad infinitum" is Latin.)

As noted, it was December 1. By now, the Post had published three—count em, three!—sneer-alike essays by three of its stable of wolves. 

We might have thought the assault was done—but Saturday, on the op-ed page, Alexandra Petri shared her own thoughts on the current decs. Petri amused Post readers with this, humorous headline included:

PETRI (12/5/20): The nine circles of Melania Trump's Christmas decorations

Midway upon the journey of my life, I found myself in the midst of a dark and festive wood. I sought to escape the wood and climb away, toward 2021 and the new administration I could see gleaming just on the horizon, but there appeared a figure before me whose voice seemed rusty from long silence.

“Virgil?” I said.

“Melania Trump,” the figure said. “Follow me, and I will guide you among these ominous trees, through a place where you will hear desperate lamentations and see ancient, disconsolate spirits in torment. Would you like a tour of the White House Christmas decorations?”

Petri, another Harvard kid, was playing the Virgil card—and we don't mean Virgil Tibbs! She was comparing Melania's decs to Dante's nine circles of Hell!

(According to Dante's detailed report, he had been guided by Virgil.)

According to Zevon's breakthrough reporting, well-groomed werewolves were roaming freely through London highest circles. "I saw Lon Chaney dancing with the queen," Zevon reported, "doing The Werewolves of London."

Today, high-end shapeshifters of this very type are employed all over D.C. And when we think about Our Town, it's amazing to understand this:

Many of us, right here in Our Town, can't see, or begin to understand, how this utterly stupid shit will look to so many others. Anthropologically, we're too prehuman to think about this and too prehuman to care.

The Werewolves of the Washington Post all have excellent tailors. Along with the pair of Harvard kids, Givhan graduated from Princeton. Hesse settled for Bryn Mawr.

Werewolves are quite well received in Our Town. They often went to the finest schools. Is it possible that this explains why we aren't better liked?

Tomorrow: The soul of our floundering town. Also, Hillary's decs!


Finally finishing yesterday's post!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2020

South Dakota compared to New York state: Doggone it! We forgot to finish yesterday's post about the problem with the Covid statistic known as "positivity rate."

As we noted, Robin Lloyd has offered a critique of the funky statistic at New York magazine. Her essay appeared beneath a straightforward headline:

       "The Problem With the Positivity Rate."

That's what the headline said. To our ear, Lloyd seemed to be doing a decent job until she came up with this:

LLOYD (12/7/20): [M]ost researchers avoid relying on any single number such as the positivity rate to understand the status of a community’s outbreak, preferring to examine it alongside other statistics, such as the number of and trend direction for positive coronavirus cases in a community...

For instance, it would be misleading to base policy on South Dakota’s 448 new infections reported on December 1 without also looking at its eye-popping positivity rate of 42.5 percent. Together, these numbers start to paint a picture of a runaway outbreak and insufficient testing. By contrast, New York state on the same day reported over 16 times more new infections (7,413). In the context of the state’s 3.7 percent positivity rate that day, it could suggest a more controlled outbreak and enough testing to inform efforts to control or respond to transmission. 

We thought that passage was very strange—but we also thought it teaches us an anthropology lesson. First, though, what's the general problem with the use of the "positivity rate?" And what the heck is it, anyway?

When you record a state's positivity rate, you're recording what percentage of Covid tests come back positive. But that, of course, may be affected by the number of people being tested and by who those people are.

Imagine this:

State A is testing a wide cross-section of its population. By way of contrast, State B is only testing people who arrive at an emergency room displaying very bad symptoms.

All things being equal, State B will record a much higher "positivity rate." That said, there's little to gain from  a comparison between two states with such different testing regimens.

We thought Lloyd was doing a decent job explaining that point—but then, she presented that passage. Immediately, the analysts began to scream and cry. They pointed to some obvious problems:

How weird! Lloyd said that, on a certain day, New York state recorded 16 times more new infections (new cases) than South Dakota did. She didn't mention a basic fact:

New York state's population is roughly 22 times the size of South Dakota's.

Under the circumstances, it seemed strange to mention the one fact without mentioning the other. Meanwhile, Lloyd had cited the numbers from one particular day, rather than looking at the average numbers of new cases over the course of a given week.

Was New York's number of new cases 16 times the size of South Dakota's on that one particular day? Lloyd didn't say where her numbers came from, but yes, it basically was, according to New York Times numbers. 

But over the course of the 7-day week which ended on December 6, the number of New York state's new cases was only 10.6 times as large as South Dakota's. It seemed weird to juxtapose numbers from those two states based upon one single day, and without making any attempt to cite the large difference between the two states' populations.

Whatever Lloyd was trying to do in that passage, it seemed to us that none of its made any obvious sense. This is why we say that:

President Trump's lunatic rantings on the topic to the side, the number of new cases a jurisdiction records will depend, in part, on the amount of testing that jurisdiction is conducting, and also on who's getting tested.  Consider what Lloyd says about those numbers from South Dakota:

Is a 42.5% positivity rate really a sign of a "runaway outbreak?" Not necessarily, no. What if you're only testing people when they show up at the hospital with apparent symptoms? 

In that case, wouldn't you expect to record a high positivity rate? The positivity rate, by itself, wouldn't necessarily mean that you had a large outbreak.

How about South Dakota's 448 new infections that day? Would a number like that, day after day, indicate a "runaway outbreak?"

Not necessarily, no. In the case of South Dakota, it might, due to the state's small population. In a much larger jurisdiction, that number of new infections would look very different.

In short, Lloyd's analyses didn't seem to make much sense. We were especially struck by the comparison in the number of new cases, without any mention of the fact that New York State has a much larger population than South Dakota. But no part of her presentations seemed to us to make any real sense.

Alas! Within the world of mainstream journalism, Covid statistics are still very hard. The worst part of the story is this:

By now, we're nine months in!

The most direct comparison: The number of Covid cases will be affected by the amount of testing. Almost surely, the number of Covid deaths, while imperfect, is a more reliable measure.

Lloyd wasn't exactly trying to compare the outbreaks in those two states. But just for the record, here are the two states' current numbers for Covid deaths, based on Financial Times numbers:

Covid deaths per day, per million population, as of December 7 (7-day averages):
South Dakota: 26.3
United States, nationwide: 6.4
New York state: 3.6

Which state has the larger outbreak? Using Covid deaths, and adjusting for population, it seems fairly easy to tell.

Presumably, "Covid deaths" remains a more reliable measure than "Covid cases." But none of these numbers means a darn thing if you don't take the size of population into account. 

Covid statistics remain very hard. According to experts, this is an anthropological fact about our upper-end press corps and about the jumbled state of our national discourse.


SAD TO SAY, OUR TOWN: The Ghosts of Christmas Trashings Past!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2020

An exceptionally stupid tradition: To his credit, Stephen Kurutz ventured way out on a limb of his Christmas tree.

Kurutz was meeting a challenge. At the most famous newspaper in Our Town, he'd drawn the assignment of reviewing Melania Trump's Christmas decorations. 

At a time of widespread Covid death and corresponding political turmoil, it wasn't clear why any serious news org would be wasting everyone's time reviewing Christmas decs. But by now, this was a Yuletide tradition. 

Kurutz found himself charged with the task.

Authoring a profile in courage, the gentleman rose to the challenge. Defying expectations, he said the first lady's tinsel and baubles actually weren't half bad. 

He also dared to mention the works of the commentators in our town who have come to be known, though mainly in the future, as The Werewolves of Christmas Past. Shaking a dust of snow from his tree, Kurutz penned such remarks as these:

KURUTZ (12/3/20): The bold aesthetic choices that drew so much flak and snarky memes in Christmases past are noticeably absent. There are no blood-red trees, as there were in 2018, which various news outlets called “creepy” and “deeply haunted.” There is nothing akin to the icy, underlit branches of 2017 that turned the East Colonnade into what some likened to a barren, dystopian landscape.

[...]

Even outlets that have been harshly critical of Mrs. Trump’s take on the holidays couldn’t work up the energy this year. 

In such passages, the Timesman almost seemed to criticize the observers who had described earlier decs as creepy and deeply haunted. He almost seemed to dismiss such analyses as "snark," even as he engaged in some possible snark of his own.

In fairness to Kurutz, past reviews of the Christmas decs hadn't always been glowing. In 2018, the Christmas dec review at Vox had described a new journalistic tradition. Double headline included: 

Melania Trump’s White House Christmas decorations have become a horror meme yet again  / Your new holiday tradition: A Very Scary White House Christmas!

The White House has decked its halls for the holidays. And just like last year, its trimmings look more frightening than festive at first glance.

If you were one of many people who thought last year’s White House Christmas display was bizarrely ominous, moody lighting and barren tree skeletons looking like the backdrop of a horror movie—well, then, I can’t wait to hear what you think of the 2018 holiday look.

[...]

Perhaps determined to continue signaling disregard for her critics, Trump has repeated the idea of horror-tinged White-House decor in at least one corner of the place, lining an entire hallway with blood-red Christmas trees that immediately reminded gawkers on social media of fun holiday movies. Like Stanley Kubrick’s Christmas classic The Shining!

Horror movies and Handmaid’s Tale references reigned, but even the more whimsical takes on the return of the Evil White House meme tended toward darkness.

The horror meme response illustrates just how embedded the divide between the Trump administration and the public has become

As it did last year, the Evil White House Christmas meme speaks to the broader polarization between the public and the presidency, and the sense that the White House itself has become a visual representation of what many people view as the real-life horror being carried out by the Trump administration.

Since Donald Trump took office, it’s become commonplace to comment on his administration through horror memes...and now it looks as though turning the White House Christmas display into an annual grimoire is slowly becoming an unexpected tradition.

"Culture reporter" Aja Romano included oodles of tweets from the gawkers on social media. Their posts compared the 2018 decs to scenes from The Handmaid's Tale and The Shining, but also of course to Carrie.

The culture reporter explained the reason for this "unexpected tradition." All around the streets of Our Town, criers were finding new ways to sound off about the Trump administration's frequently gruesome policies. 

When they saw the Christmas decs, they thought of little else. Romano added a bit of mind-reading; she said the first lady might be repeating the previous year's "horror-tinged decor" to show her disregard for the viewpoints of our town!

That was Christmas 2018, and a new tradition was busy being born. Last year, our favorite headline from the works of the werewolves appeared in the Washington Post. 

It topped a piece by Robin Givhan. Here's what it actually said:

The Washington Post, 2019: Melania Trump’s Christmas decorations are lovely, but that coat looks ridiculous

Seriously! That's what the headline actually said as the trashing tradition continued.

In his review in the Times, Kurutz  indiscreetly mentioned this widespread prior conduct. But later, for some undisclosed reason, he began to dream peculiar dreams about the work of the werewolves this year: 

KURUTZ: Even outlets that have been harshly critical of Mrs. Trump’s take on the holidays couldn’t work up the energy this year. Consider this tepid headline from Mashable: “Melania Trump unveils her final White House Christmas decorations and they’re fine.”

The website gave grudging respect to Mrs. Trump, and seemed almost disappointed not to carry on the recent holiday tradition, undertaken by much of the media, of skewering the White House Christmas design choices.

Even Mashable had come around, Kurutz strangely said. He linked to a very short Mashable post which had instantly offered this: 

CONELLAN (11/30/20): It's the very last year of Melania Trump's Christmas decorations in the White House, before the Bidens take the reins to the sleigh, and that means it's the last time we'll be gifted a weird, cheesy trailer with Melania thoughtfully, earnestly, pensively wandering through the newly bedazzled halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (despite reportedly giving zero f**ks "about the Christmas stuff"). [Our asterisks]

The part about giving zero farks remains to be explained. Let it be said that Mashable's full review of the decs had appeared that very same day. As we noted yesterday, the headline it carried said this:

Mashable 2020: Melania's f*cking Christmas decorations, ranked [Their asterisk]

We'll only suggest that this review continued that new tradition. The piece had been penned by another "culture reporter." This particular culture reporter is five years out of college.

The werewolves have prowled the streets of our town for the past several years. Despite Kurutz's peculiar claim, they were out in force this year.

Nowhere did the beasts prowl more than at the Washington Post. Amazingly, four of these creatures emerged in the pages of that famous paper. Tomorrow, we'll show you what they said about the decs this year.

As we do, we'll turn to the audience, just as the Stage Manager does in Wilder's version of Our Town.

"Could this be why we aren't well-liked?" That's the question we'll pose to the werewolves, and the werewolf-enablers, of our own very dumb town.

Tomorrow: Zevon's reporting trip


Wolf Blitzer gets a Covid stat right!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020

New York gets a Covid stat wrong: The youthful analysts' youthful cheers rang loudly through our halls. 

Last evening, at 6 P.M. Eastern, Wolf Blitzer did the highly improbable. Somehow, he managed to get a Covid statistic right!

He even managed to make it look easy. In fairness, it pretty much is:

BLITZER (12/7/20): Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room. We're following breaking news.

Seventy-nine years after 2,400 Americans died in the attack on Pearl Harbor, Covid-19 is now killing almost as many people on average in the United States each day. More than 1,000 have already been reported today, and the toll has now surpassed 283,000 people, as the country is rapidly approaching 15 million confirmed coronavirus cases.

Those numbers will get worse and worse in the coming weeks...

It isn't hard to do! Blitzer didn't lead with the number of people reported dead on some particular day. Instead, he stressed the average number of deaths each day over the course of the previous week.

(According to the numbers at the Washington Post, the average number of daily deaths for that week was 2,215. Technically, that's the average number of deaths which were reported, or recorded, during that seven-day period. Most likely, it's very close to the average number of Covid deaths which actually occurred.)

Blitzer didn't cherry-pick the number of deaths for some particular day. Because reporting delays occur on weekends, doing so tends to be grossly misleading, with weekend numbers artificially low and the subsequent weekday numbers artificially high.

Not long ago, the endlessly gruesome Kayleigh McEnany was cherry-picking (low) weekend numbers to try to con us into thinking the pandemic wasn't that bad. Just last week, cable stars like Rachel Maddow were reporting an (artificially high) weekday number right after the four-day Thanksgiving weekend, producing the story we prefer—the pandemic is worse than we thought.

So it has gone as performers have played dueling reindeer games with this gruesome pandemic. (Do they know they're cherry-picking? We have no idea!)

Last evening, Blitzer was thoroughly competent. He led with the only death count which is journalistically respectable—the average number of daily deaths over a 7- or 14-day span. 

Though shocked, the analysts lustily cheered. Shortly, though, alas!

Within the next hour, we read this report in New York Magazine.  In the main, Robin Lloyd was describing the major shortcomings of another commonly cited Covid statistic. We refer to the so-called "positivity rate"—the percentage of Covid tests in some jurisdiction which turn out to be positive.

All year, we've been puzzled by the widespread use of that statistic. In her piece, Lloyd was describing some of the problems with the statistic—problems which had long struck us as obvious.

To our ear, Lloyd was rolling along reasonably well. But then, ohourgod—she wrote this:

LLOYD (12/7/20): [M]ost researchers avoid relying on any single number such as the positivity rate to understand the status of a community’s outbreak, preferring to examine it alongside other statistics, such as the number of and trend direction for positive coronavirus cases in a community...

For instance, it would be misleading to base policy on South Dakota’s 448 new infections reported on December 1 without also looking at its eye-popping positivity rate of 42.5 percent. Together, these numbers start to paint a picture of a runaway outbreak and insufficient testing. By contrast, New York state on the same day reported over 16 times more new infections (7,413). In the context of the state’s 3.7 percent positivity rate that day, it could suggest a more controlled outbreak and enough testing to inform efforts to control or respond to transmission. 

"By contrast, New York state on the same day reported over 16 times more new infections?"  

Why would a journalist write something like that, and why would an editor publish it? Needless to say, the analysts were now weeping and howling, and tearing their hair once again.

One hour earlier, Blitzer had the youngsters cheering. But as we've told you, Covid statistics are amazingly hard for our upper-end press elite! 

This is an anthropology lesson. More on this matter to follow...