In search of a workable liberal logic!

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2021

Sonny and Loreen call C-Span: We're constantly struck by the problems our liberal tribe encounters as we try to create a workable liberal logic.

Consider a letter in today's New York Times. The writer is discussing the role the mainstream press should play at this perilous time.

The letter refers to this recent column by Ross Douthat. For us, it was the rarest of such columns, in that 1) we could understand what Douthat was saying, and 2) we agreed with his general view.

For now, let's focus on the logic of today's letter. Here it is, in full:

To the Editor:

Ross Douthat says the primary mission of the press is to provide an accurate description of reality, to be truthful and neutral. But being “neutral,” especially in today’s political climate, can result in inaccurate descriptions of reality and in untruths.

At present, the extreme segment of the Republican Party has an enormous influence and is an existential threat to our democracy. The extreme segment of the Democratic Party has far less influence and so, regardless of what you think of its ideas, does not pose the same threat to our democratic way of life. A false equivalency in coverage provides an untruthful and unrealistic picture of current affairs.

I’m sick and tired of hearing from acquaintances and others that politicians and political parties are “all the same.” They are not. It’s dangerous for the press to be “neutral” rather than truthful and realistic.

That's the full text of the letter. We can't help noticing this:

We agree with the general view described in the letter's first sentence. We agree that providing "an accurate description of reality" is the press corps' principal task.

That has long been a widely held view. Our question would be this:

How do we get, in the space of one paragraph, from "an accurate description of reality" to "a false equivalency in coverage?" How does being accurate (and "truthful") lead us to being false?

The writer believes that our current "politicians and political parties" are not "all the same." More specifically (but also somewhat fuzzily), he believes the current Republican Party presents "an existential threat to our democracy" while the current Democratic Party does not. 

Presumably, he's referring to Donald J. Trump and Trumpism, and to the apparent craziness which often resides in such parts.

Our question, again, would be this:

If Trumpism is full of wild misstatements—modern liberals, and mainstream journalists, prefer to describe such misstatements as "lies"—how would "an accurate description of reality" lead to "a false equivalency?" Why wouldn't "an accurate description of reality" lead instead to a mainstream journalism which featured endless examples of Trump's wild misstatements, with few or no corresponding reports about such behavior by Democrats?

In fact, that's what mainstream journalism has largely looked like in the past five or six years. Our press has been full of such reports about Trump. He still received 74 million votes in last year's election.

Back to our basic question! How does the letter writer move so quickly from "accurate / truthful" to "false?" He gets there because of a third word he attributes to Douthat—that third world being "neutral."

According to the letter writer, Douthat wants the press to be accurate and to be truthful—but also to be neutral. That third word leads the writer to picture a "false equivalency," in which journalists pretend that the two parties are just alike.

Douthat does refer to "neutrality" three times in his column. But when he does, he's imagining circumstances in which journalists decide that they shouldn't be truthful and accurate—that they should refuse to report the shortcomings of Trump's opponents, to the extent that such shortcomings exist. 

Should journalists behave that way? Especially if we're facing an existential threat, that is a matter of judgment. 

In his column, Douthat says that abandonment of "neutrality" tends to be counterproductive, and we tend to agree. 

That said, the letter writer, perhaps understandably, is in a state of high tribal dudgeon. Along the way, it seems to us that his logic is rather unclear.

Such lapses of logic tend to be general over the liberal world. We note a similar lapse today in Jesse Wegman's new column. 

Oddly, Wegman seems to think that the purpose of fact-checking is to persuade Trumpian propagandists—in effect, GOP "party leaders"—to stop making wild misstatements.

Wegman says he's come to see that this will never happen. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that the more useful purpose of fact-checking is to peel away a segment of the Trump-voting "rank and file." 

(This will be most likely to happen if the fact-checking is presented in a respectful, empathic way.)

Douthat's column is in part a response to Professor Jay Rosen. We were struck by a bogus idea which seemed to suffuse Rosen's half of this subsequent colloquy with Douthat. That's the idea that the mainstream press can somehow control what the electorate thinks. 

In the face of the power of the pro-Trump press, the mainstream press corps can't necessarily do that! Rosen finally notes this fact very late in his piece, but that false assumption seems to drive his perfectly understandable sense of frustration every step of the way.

We liberals are having a very hard time constructing a liberal logic. We sometimes seem to think there's some magical way that we, or the mainstream press, can somehow gain control of the political situation.

Especially given our lack of perfect insight, that's magical thinking—a dream.

Our giant nation is splitting in two, and one of those two tribes reviles us. In order to understand why that is, consider the first two phone calls this morning to C-Span's Washington Journal:

SONNY FROM MISSOURI: Hi, good morning! I have been listening to all kinds of news from all over the world. I do not just listen to Fox or CNN. So people who tell the truth—[indecipherable name], Dr. Lee Merritt, Peter McCullough—these people tell the truth. Everyone else is essentially lying. You know that omicron is weaker than all the other variants, even though it is more transmissible. But the original coronavirus is only .03 mortality rate. This is all brainwashing. Arrest Fauci, save Infowars! Alex Jones was right!

LOREEN FROM CALIFORNIA: Good morning! I would just like to say that every American that is not vaccinated is being very un-American, and they're scum as far as I am concerned.

Loreen stopped talking at that point. Jesse asked follow-up questions. 

"There is no reason why coronavirus should be running rampant in this country," Loreen told Jesse at one point. "It's all because of these Trumpers that are throwing a tantrum because Donald Trump lost and he didn't get credit for the virus."

For the record, Sonny and Loreen aren't part of the mainstream press corps. That said, these first two calls help explain the phenomenon which Professor Rosen, at least to our ear, hasn't quite come to terms with.

Dear Blue People, listen up! Their sons and their daughters are beyond our command! We can't fact-check their claims and call them names and command them to vote as we tell them.

In our view, the mainstream press corps should be truthful and accurate. In terms of its basic reporting, it should also be "neutral," at least in the way Douthat described.

Also this:

We liberals should learn to stop loathing The Others in the ways we so plainly do and pretty much always have. 

We're not inclined to agree with Sonny's assessments. But he may be the guy who will stop his car and help you change your flat tire next week. He very well may be the person who will stop and help you do that.

A giant society can only function based on comity and consent. In the end, a giant society can only function on a sense of shared values and sentiment, on shared respect and some sense of joint purpose. 

Fact-checking can't force The Others to see things the (admittedly perfect) way we do. That's simply not how "the beloved community" or the human race actually works!

There but for fortune: "Sonny lives on a farm / In a wide-open space?" 

That's the story Mary Black told—though also, of course, Sonny's mother, on the album A Woman's Heart.

To check your capacity for pure human feeling, we'll invite you to just click here. It seems to us that we liberals can boost our logic and our empathy. 


"Cable news" channel slow-walking again!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2021

Current state of a rolling charade: Our national polity is dissolving in various ways. Just to establish the historical record, we thought we'd mention the fact that MSNBC seems to be slow-walking its transcript production again.

Here it is, Friday afternoon, and the channel hasn't produced any transcripts since Monday's batch appeared. We would have liked to show you the way the channel's top star clowned her way through Wednesday night's program, but the chance to do that may yet be several days away.

(Or they may just stop producing transcripts altogether, as they did for several months within the past year.)

For a couple of years, that cable star, Rachel Maddow, had an on-site adult minder (Bill Wolfe). His background was in comedy and sports rather than news, but at least he was a grown-up.

Eventually, though, supervision ceased. Result?

For the first thirteen minutes of Wednesday's program, the liberal world's silliest child mugged and clowned and enjoyed her own comedy stylings as she played "open mike night" to her heart's content.

We can't link you to a transcript of all the fun; that transcript doesn't exist. Also, we can't link you to videotape of that fun-filled first thirteen. Perhaps for obvious reasons, the tape of that opening thirteen minutes wasn't posted on the Maddow Show's site.

On the bright side, that evening's silly clowning helps draw attention to our eternal child's true interest these days. Essentially, her program is becoming a pseudo-political version of World's Dumbest Criminals, with our silliest child amusing herself with endless comedy stylings built around the dumbest and fringiest of the conservative world's many absurd fringe players.

It's very, very, very dumb. Our tribe is unable to see this.

Wednesday was one of the manic nights, with a great deal of chuckling and chortling. At one point, we even got to enjoy, for no apparent reason, a wonderful bit of deliberate "stage lisping." 

Our nation is sliding toward the sea. That said, the widely loved corporate cable star was very much on her game!

OUR LOGIC, OUR FACTS: Drum sketched several basic distinctions!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2021

After that, the deluge: We humans! We're strongly drawn to tribal logic and to tribal facts.

Consider what happened last weekend, when Kevin Drum offered this post.

Drum was asking a very basic question. In effect, he was asking a variant of this question:

How many Republicans really believe that the last election was stolen? How many Republicans really believe the so-called "Big Lie?"

In effect, Drum was asking that question. For what it's worth, we continue to think that it's an interesting question. 

In practice, Drum staged his question a bit more generally.  You can see him do so here:

DRUM (12/11/21): Republicans, in particular, have been convinced for a very long time that Democrats routinely steal elections. I wrote about this ten years ago in "The Dog That Voted and Other Election Fraud Yarns," and the following ten years have done nothing except cement this belief even further into the Republican psyche.

Do Republicans really believe this?...

Drum wasn't specifically asking about The Big Lie. Specifically, he was asking if Republicans really believe that Democrats "routinely steal elections." 

As far as we know, there are no surveys of that question, and Drum didn't offer any. But as he started discussing that question, he did something which is very basic, but also rather unusual.

Drum drew two or three very basic distinctions! Below, you can see the way he proceeded:

DRUM: Republicans, in particular, have been convinced for a very long time that Democrats routinely steal elections. I wrote about this ten years ago in "The Dog That Voted and Other Election Fraud Yarns," and the following ten years have done nothing except cement this belief even further into the Republican psyche.

Do Republicans really believe this? Among party leaders, I don't know. Some always have. Some have convinced themselves just from saying it so often. And some probably don't but play along cynically.

Likewise, among the rank and file, some are believers and some aren't. But as time has passed, and both Fox News and party leaders have unceasingly hammered on this, more and more conservative voters have turned into believers...

For our money, Drum was possibly going a bit too easy on Republican "party leaders." But those are the things he said.

At this point, Drum posted a chart showing that Republican voters' "trust in election results" has fallen to a very low point in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Presumably, the drop in trust has been driven, at least in large part, by widespread belief that the last election was stolen.

That said, let's return to our original question. Do Republicans really believe that? Do Republicans really believe that the last election was stolen?

Drum was discussing a related question. Please note the basic distinctions he drew as his rumination proceeded:

First, he drew a basic distinction between Republican "party leaders" and the GOP "rank and file." 

In our view, that's an extremely basic distinction. That said, it's amazing how rarely that distinction is drawn when liberal and mainstream journalists discuss what "Republicans" or "conservatives" believe.

(We're routinely amazed when Paul Krugman fails to draw this distinction, to cite one important example.)

Presumably, "party leaders" are much better informed, on average, than plain old regular voters. We assume that the rank and file is much more susceptible to crazy claims about election fraud than party leaders are.

At any rate, hurrah! As Drum started, he drew that first distinction between those disparate groups. 

He then drew a second type of distinction. He suggested that, within each of those groups, some people do believe the claim in question, while other people don't. Those party leaders aren't all alike. Neither are the rank and file.

Beyond that, he drew a third type of distinction—a distinction between the things he actually knows and the things he basically doesn't. He actually says he doesn't know how many party leaders believe the claim! He then says something similar concerning the rank and file!

In saying that he doesn't know, Drum is breaking every rule in the book. Drumcat, please! Dating back to the dawn of the West, "I don't know" are the three dirty words you can't ever say in the discourse!

As a general matter, we humans don't like such assertions. Socrates kept pushing that framework, and he annoyed everyone in Athens so much that he ended up drinking the hemlock. 

So it goes for those who say, at times of social stress, that there's something they don't quite know.

At times of high feeling, we human beings hate to admit that our knowledge is limited. We tend to adopt a different, two-part approach:

We invent a pleasing tribal story. Then, we all repeat it.

So it went when Drum's readers got the chance to comment. Comment One came in like this:

COMMENT ONE: We don't actually have to accept the framing that the poor benighted Republicans truly believe elections have been stolen from them. It's pure bad faith. They would like to steal elections from us and this is simply cover. It's fine to just say that.

This first commenter rushed to assert what "Republicans" truly believe, full stop. Also, what they would like to do. 

In this comment, all Republicans believe, and like to do, the very same things. The commenter turns directly to statements about "Us and "Them." All Drum's distinctions have flown.

That's classic tribal construction—and according to leading scholars, our human brains are wired to perform it. Because we humans are really "the tribal animal," we're strongly inclined to insist that The Others are all exactly alike, and that we know exactly how they are. 

The second commenter went down this same road. In this case, all Republican "party leaders" are said to be just alike:

COMMENT TWO: "Do Republicans really believe this? Among party leaders, I don't know."

Oooh, oooh, I know this one! No, stupid as a lot of Republican officeholders are, they know that elections are conducted and observed by members of both major parties, and that their party controls more state governments than Democrats do. And they know how few cases of actual fraudulent votes have been found by Republican Secretaries of State and state Attorneys General, because all of those efforts were loudly hyped by Republicans, until they failed utterly. So they are (gasp) lying sacks of shit who are cynically pushing a phony issue for political advantage, and they don’t care that they are destroying a democracy which until the late 20th century was becoming more and more just and free. It is malevolence, not gullibility.

In this framing, it's the "party leaders" who are all just alike. None of these leaders are so stupid, or so lacking in insight, or perhaps so drunk or delusional or mentally ill, that they can really believe these claims. 

Might some of them believe these claims? Experts say that, at times of stress, such possibilities aren't permitted! When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way!

(Other than that, you're a Shark.)

Commenter 4 walks a similar path. In this case, Republicans are all just alike; so are all Democrats. We append a second comment, one offered in response:

COMMENT FOUR: On this specific issue, do Republicans REALLY believe it? Sort of, but I don't think Republicans believe political things in the same way Democrats do. 

For example, Democrats really believe that partisan gerrymandering is unfair, undemocratic, and wrong. How do Democrats act on this belief? They enact nonpartisan schemes for drawing district boundaries where they can. This costs Democrats dearly, because Republicans do no such thing where they are in control. On the other side, Republicans believe that voter fraud is rife and must be addressed with voter ID laws while Democrats complain that these tend to disenfranchise marginal voters...

I think it would be more accurate to say that Republicans truly believe they are the real Americans, they are the real patriots, and thus they should be in charge...Republicans and Democrats have very different concepts of fairness and justice when it comes to elections. For a Democrat, fair is when every legal voter gets to vote. For Republicans, fair is when the Republican wins.

RESPONSE: Concur on both counts. They believe in "democracy" as they define it, to wit, not rule by the people generally but by the people who deserve to rule, i.e., them.

And as to believing in "fraud," yes I think they do believe in it, but only as a consequence, a corollary, of their belief that the election was "stolen." They believe it was stolen, therefore there must have been some mechanism for stealing it, i.e. "fraud," and the exact nature of the "fraud" is of minor importance. This is why there's no point in arguing evidence with them, and why they flit from theory to theory like butterflies on meth; they don't reason from evidence to conclusion, but from foundational belief to the implication that there must be evidence to support it.

This commenter, and this respondent, almost seem to be describing two different species. Members of the two different species "really believe" opposing things, full stop. Needless to say, the following is only true of Republicans:

"There's no point in arguing evidence with them...They don't reason from evidence to conclusion, but from foundational belief to the implication that there must be evidence to support it."

For the person who wrote that response, that is true of all Republicans, and it's only true of Republicans. All Republicans "reason" that way. None of us Democrats do.

Our view? We see liberal pundits and mainstream journalists "reason" that way all the time! We see them working from "foundational belief"—from treasured Storyline:

Al Gore said he invented the Internet! Newsmax is rootin' for Putin! 

The teenager took his gun to a protest. He went there looking for trouble!

Some of Drum's commenters pushed back against this tribalism. Beyond that, let's be fair:

We're sure that Commenters 1, 2 and 4 would quickly say, if they were asked, that they only meant for their assessments to apply to those different groups on average, for the most part, in general.

That said, we aren't going by what they meant; we're going by what they said. We're talking about our basic instincts—our basic instincts as human beings, the frameworks which lead to our wars.

Go back and look at that very first comment. According to major anthropologists, that's the way we humans are destined to reason:

They want to do something bad to Us.  It's pleasing and good "to just say that."

That's the way our brains are wired to work. Or at least, that's what award-winning experts all say. We love the logic of our own tribe. And we love our own tribe's facts.

Drum drew some basic distinctions that day. After that, the comments arrived. 

He acknowledged a couple of obvious points. After that, the deluge!

Inevitably, this: Eventually, some commenters began to complain about Drum's willingness to draw those distinctions. This was Comment 18:

COMMENT 18:  I don't know what Kevin wants us to get from posts like this. Yes, Republicans believe there is a lot of voter fraud. Interestingly, they never seem to actually find it. How are the rest of us supposed to respond to this? How are we supposed to take seriously a claim that has no supportable evidence? One conclusion seems to be the one that Kevin doesn't want us to draw. This is all an elaborate myth that allows Republicans to believe whatever they want to believe despite the lack of any supporting evidence. How are we supposed to respond to nonsense? Does taking it seriously help or harm finding a way back to rationality? I think it harms us.

Drum didn't churn tribalized Storyline in this particular post. He didn't say that The Others are all one (extremely bad) way, while We're all exactly the opposite.

He didn't provide that basic service. As a result, this commenter seems a bit uneasy, suspicious. 

He seems to suspect that he's being scammed in some way he can't quite define. He seems to think that Drum has a motive of some kind. In the end, that's how it went for Socrates, back at the dawn of the West.

The three dirty words you can't say on TV? You can't say The Others aren't all just alike, and you surely can't say you don't know!

Sometimes, The Others really are crazily wrong!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2021

Tucker Carlson speaks: No, Virginia! In its current cover report, Newsmax magazine doesn't seem to be "rootin' for Putin," as Brian Stelter claimed.

The magazine isn't hailing his conquests with "Cheers! Champagne!" That's how Maddow dreamed it. 

We'd also say that recent claims about Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham were also basically wrong. And by the way:

Can a nation survive with a "segregated" news environment—with a news environment in which each of its warring tribes hears nothing but the Storylines it loves, demands, prefers?

It's hard to imagine how that could work out. Increasingly, though, that's how our failed discourse works.

Today, though, we deliver some upbeat news. It's possible to make accurate statements about how crazy The Others are!

Our example involves Tucker Carlson. For starters, consider this passage from Jeremy Barr's recent report in the Washington Post:

BARR (12/14/21): Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who had said on Jan. 6 that “you’re not allowed to break windows or encourage people to break windows,” told his audience in September that the Capitol rioters “don’t look like terrorists. They look like tourists.” He has also baselessly suggested federal government involvement in the events of Jan. 6, culminating with his production of a three-part documentary series that featured claims that the deadly riot was a “false flag” or a “honey pot.” Two Fox News contributors, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, cited that series as their primary rationale for resigning from the network, calling it “a collection of incoherent conspiracy-mongering, riddled with factual inaccuracies, half-truths, deceptive imagery, and damning omissions.”

We decided to fact-check the highlighted claim—the claim that Carlson said, back in September, that the Capitol rioters “don’t look like terrorists. They look like tourists.” 

Here's why we decided to do that:

On its face, Barr's statement doesn't quite seem to make sense. If we're talking about people who are actual "rioters," in what way could they possibly "look like tourists?"

That didn't exactly seem to make sense. We wondered if Barr was being fair concerning what Carlson had said. 

For the record, some of the people who went inside the Capitol that day didn't engage in rioting. Quite a few others did, of course. Other people engage in violent rioting on the steps leading into the building.

We googled around to see what Carlson had actually said.  As it turned out, the quoted statement came from the monologue with which he opened his September 23 program on Fox. The headline on the Fox News transcript plus videotape says this:

Tucker: What really happened on Jan 6

Tucker was explaining "what really happened!" Below, you see the fuller passage from which Barr drew his quote:

CARLSON (9/23/21): [New] footage was just released. It was obtained by BuzzFeed. It covers 15 minutes on January 6th from 2:25 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. Eastern, and those are key moments in the so-called insurrection.

[Footage airs]

Now right now, you're seeing images from a surveillance camera positioned at the entrance to the Senate wing of the Capitol. You don't see people hiding bombs or using bayonets or firing weapons, trying to take over the country in an insurrection.

You see people walking around and taking pictures. They don't look like terrorists, they look like tourists, and all of them by the way are Americans.

The rest of the [new] footage, including shots from surveillance cameras outside the crypt of the Capitol, is similar to this. 

Let's be fair! The people in that particular bit of footage actually weren't engaged in "rioting," at least not at that specific time.  

As you can see in the videotape of Carlson's monologue, they actually were just "walking around and taking pictures." According to Carlson, the rest of the new footage from BuzzFeed showed other people who weren't engaged in rioting, at least not at that time.

Here's the problem:

If you read Tucker's entire monologue, he barely mentions the fact that other people very much did engage in violent rioting. At one point, he offers this:

CARLSON: So, it turns out, the vast majority of people inside the Capitol on January 6 were peaceful. They were not insurrectionists. They shouldn't have been there [but] they weren't trying to overthrow the government. That's a total crock.

And with that in mind, some of the other lies about January 6th start to make more sense.

Tucker did acknowledge the fact that the people in question shouldn't have been inside the Capitol building. But he said "the vast majority [of those people] were peaceful"—and elsewhere, as you can see from the transcript, he strongly implied that the people who were violent that day were actually "federal agents." 

His evidence for that exciting claim was strikingly slender. Soon, he was offering garbage like this:

CARLSON (continuing from above): ...some of the other lies about January 6th start to make more sense. Do you remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANA CABRERA, CNN: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours-long attack.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC: They beat a Capitol police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.

ANDERSON COOPER: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So here's a rule of thumb going forward. If you ever watch television again or read the newspaper, when they are absolutely insistent that you believe something, when they keep beating you over the head with the same talking point again and again and again, beware. There's a reason they're saying when all of them are using exactly the same line. Maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe it's coordinated. Maybe they're lying.

As it turned out, Officer Sicknick actually wasn't beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. There's also no apparent reason to think that people were "lying" when they reported that initial (inaccurate) claim.

Our liberal news orgs often do engage in clownlike behavior. In this case, Barr himself took some liberties in the claim he attributed to Carlson—the puzzling claim about the way the "rioters" looked.

In fact, Carlson's actual monologue was, at least on its face, crazier than the milquetoast statement attributed to him by Barr. In our view, major news orgs should be trying harder to come to terms with apparently crackpot presentations of the type Carlson delivered that night.

(In fairness to Barr, he went on to suggest that Carlson's "three-part documentary series" really was basically nuts. We haven't seen the three-part series; you have to pay to see it.)

Yes, Virginia! Carlson made an extremely strange presentation on his Fox program that night. For the record, it doesn't resemble the comparatively sane presentations made by Hannity and Ingraham on the evening of January 6.

That said, at times of tribal warfare, distinctions like that don't matter. The Others will always be said to be crazily wrong or profoundly dishonest, even when they pretty much aren't. Tribal warfare demands that.

For the record, Rachel was clowning hard again last night. Our own corporate "cable news" stars are often painful to watch.

Perhaps our physicians, within our own tribe, should think a bit more about healing ourselves, even as they look for ways to describe the (many) actual problems which exist at Fox. 

On the evening of January 6, Hannity said the rioters should all be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Our own cable stars, to a person, are never going to say that.

They will never make you hear that. Given the way our species works, it simply isn't done.


OUR LOGIC, OUR FACTS: Today, the New York Times enters the fray!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2021

Classic tribal deception: As you know, it has been several years since we formally threw in the towel.

"It's all anthropology now," we skillfully declared. In part at the direction of experts, we'd finally accepted a basic fact about the American discourse.

That basic fact is this:

There's essentially no information flow within the American discourse. It's basically Storyline all the way down. For the most part, our discourse is a dance of competing narratives, recited by teams of tribunes.

At long last, we conceded that basic point. All that was left was the anthropology—the explanation of how it can be that our tribalized discourse actually works that way.

We'll guess that it's been about four years since we threw in the towel. According to the experts with whom we consult, anthropology forces us humans to accept a counterintuitive proposition:

It isn't just the widely loathed Others who work from tribalized Storyline. Inevitably, one's own tribe is strongly inclined to work from Storyline too. 

According to experts, that's just the way our human brains are wired. That's just the way humans work.

According to experts, it tends to be hard to accept the fact that one's own tribe behaves in this manner. On that note, we turn to the latest "news report" about the Hannity/Ingraham texts.

The news report appears above the fold on page B1 of today's New York Times.

That's the front page of the Business section. As they start, Windolf and Koblin define their topic as shown:

WINDOLF AND KOBLIN (12/16/21): The Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham vociferously defended themselves for sending text messages on Jan. 6 that urged Mark Meadows, the last White House chief of staff under Donald J. Trump, to persuade the then-president to take action to stop the Capitol attack.

The texts made vivid something that was already not a secret—that key players at the network have acted as informal advisers to Mr. Trump. It is a situation that flouts journalistic ethical norms but does not appear to dissuade Fox viewers. In November, Fox News was the most-watched network not just in cable news but in all of cable television, with an average audience of 1.5 million.

Mr. Hannity and Ms. Ingraham said on Tuesday that their texts—which were read aloud in Congress Monday night by Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming—did not differ from their public statements that day.

How strange! Why would Hannity and Ingraham have to defend themselves for trying "to persuade the then-president to take action to stop the Capitol attack?" 

The answer lies in the Times' third paragraph. Instantly, it was widely alleged that the texts they sent to Meadows "differ[ed] from their public statements that day" (including their programs that night). 

As we noted yesterday, Hannity and Ingraham disputed that claim on Tuesday evening's programs. In theory, today's news report is an account of the way they defended themselves.

Question:

Are you able to imagine that we liberals sometimes receive selective news coverage from our most trusted sources? This news report, from atop the New York Times' B1, strikes us as a good example of this undesirable practice.

What did Hannity and Ingraham actually say, this Tuesday night, in their own defense? At no point does the news report quote or describe the actual evidence they presented in their self-defense.

Instead, the news report paraphrases the things they are alleged to have said. Wandering afield a bit, it also tells us what the texts they sent to Meadows "suggested" about their beliefs.

It doesn't quote the actual things they actually said on January 6! For example, if you read today's news report, you'll come away with no idea that Hannity offered these remarks on that evening's program on Fox:

HANNITY (1/6/21): Let me stop here and be crystal clear. Those who truly support President Trump, those that believe they are part of the conservative movement in this country, you do not, we do not support those that commit acts of violence. 

They—people, we don't believe, should be vandalizing our nation's Capitol, attacking the brave women and men that keep us safe in law enforcement. And all of today's perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But every good and decent American we know will and must condemn what happened at the Capitol. And moving forward, we have got to do a dramatically better job protecting the innocent men and women who work there. We've got to protect our law enforcement officers. We've got to protect every single elected member of the Congress and Senate. This is not politics. They deserve to be protected.

All of today's perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Every good and decent American will and must condemn what happened at the Capitol?

This Tuesday night, Hannity aired the videotape of those statements—statements he made, on the air, on the evening of January 6. That said, Windolf and Koblin don't tell readers that. 

As a matter of fact, they don't tell readers anything even dimly like that! Instead, they quote from a pointless gong-show exchange involving Geraldo Rivera this Tuesday evening—the kind of silly squabble involving Rivera which Fox News, for whatever reason, seems to like to air.

How informative is this morning's news report? In our view, it isn't especially informative at all, and it may be a bit deceptive! 

The journalism strikes us as very poor. Consider this two-part passage:

WINDOLF AND KOBLIN: On Tuesday, after showing a clip of Ms. Cheney reading aloud the text she had sent to Mr. Meadows, Ms. Ingraham...accused “the regime media” of “somehow trying to twist this message to try to tar me as a liar, a hypocrite who privately sounded the alarm on Jan. 6, but publicly downplayed it.”

On his show, Mr. Hannity set up a confrontation between Geraldo Rivera and Dan Bongino, a right-wing polemicist who joined the channel in 2019.

“This was a riot that was unleashed, incited and inspired by the president of the United States, which targeted the heart of American democracy,” Mr. Rivera said on the program.

Mr. Hannity told Mr. Rivera to stop talking and reminded his viewers that his guest’s words represented only his opinion. He then shifted to the House inquiry, saying, “The question is, this corrupt committee. The question is, why this riot and not 574 other riots?”

Consider the journalism on display in that passage! 

First, the reporters quote Ingraham on Tuesday night's program. She seems to be denying the claim that she "privately sounded the alarm on Jan. 6, but publicly downplayed it.” 

They leave the whole question right there. In fact, Ingraham proceeded to display the texts of the public tweets she posted on the afternoon of January 6. In those tweets, she had publicly "sounded the alarm" in the same way she'd done in her text to Meadows.

The reporters simply left that out. Given the basic framework of their report, why would reporters do that?

Regarding the silly exchange with Rivera, the reporters  quote Hannity making an unexplained reference to "574 other riots." But where the heck did that number come from? What could that number possibly mean?  

Those questions were answered quite clearly on Hannity's Tuesday night program. You may not agree with Hannity's point of view, but the reference is easy to explain.

That said, the reporters didn't bother to explain it. They left it hanging in air. 

The exchange with Rivera on Tuesday night was vastly less significant than Hannity's opening monologue, whose content the reporters ignored. But even as they wasted time with that utterly pointless exchange, they let it seem that Hannity had made some sort of puzzling, unexplained comment:

Why would reporters do that? Why would editors let such manifest piffle pass?

Our current news orgs are increasingly "segregated" by point of view. Depending on which news org you consult, you are almost certain to see criticism of The Others presented in selective, embellished form.

For ourselves, we aren't fans of Hannity or of Ingraham. We don't vote the way they do.

That said, anthropologists say the wiring of our human brains may lead us to reason thusly:

We liberals ,ay tend to be convinced that, since Hannity and Ingraham are wrong most of the time, they have to be wrong all the time. Result?

At times like these, our tribunes refuse to engage in normal reporting about the pair. This makes our tribal hearts glad.

That "news report" in this morning's Times is largely an imitation of a news report. It's a tribalized "news report," designed to serve tribal feeling.

This sort of service is also provided with great regularity on Fox. This is the way their tribe behaves—but increasingly, so does ours.

"All of today's perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

"Every good and decent American will and must condemn what happened at the Capitol."

The cable star who made those statements on January 6 wasn't Rachel Maddow.  

It wasn't Lawrence, and it wasn't Chris Hayes. It wasn't Cooper or Lemon. It wasn't even Chris Cuomo!

Because it wasn't one of our stars, the statements were destined to be disappeared by this morning's news report. Ingraham's public tweets met the same fate. This is the way brains are wired.

Today's "news report" is tribal gruel. Experts insist that the world ends this way, with a series of tribalized simpers.

Tomorrow: As promised all week, Kevin Drum's (intelligent / helpful) distinctions!

If you're able to take it: If you want to see Hannity saying those things on January 6, you can do so by clicking here.

Scroll down to "Hannity calls out January 6th committee, addresses text message to Mark Meadows." When you get there, click again. You'll see the start to Tuesday's show, including the videotape from January 6.

Warning! He'll say some things with which you agree! Will you be able to stand it?


Everybody says the same things!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2021

That's just the way humans work: Is our latest Storyline accurate? On January 6, did Hannity and Ingraham betray their genuine concern in private texts to Mark Meadows, then play a different game on the air that night?

Everybody has voiced some version of the latest hot claim, including the Post's Jeremy Barr. When we fact-checked Barr's specific complaints, we didn't think they held up real well.

Having said that, so what? The basic rule of the journalism game has been clear for decades. The basic rule goes like this:

Once a script has been put in place, everyone simply recites it. For example, this is the way Zack Beauchamp began his report on this topic for Vox:

BEAUCHAMP (12/14/21): As the Capitol riot unfolded on January 6, Fox News hosts knew exactly how bad things were.

“The president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy,” Laura Ingraham texted to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. “Please, get him on TV—[the riot is] destroying everything you accomplished,” Brian Kilmeade wrote to Meadows. “Can he make a statement, ask people to leave the Capitol?” wrote Sean Hannity in yet another Meadows text.

The texts, revealed during a Monday hearing of the House January 6 Commission, were at odds with the hosts’ on-air comments on the night of the attack. Ingraham suggested that “antifa supporters” may have been responsible for the violence. Kilmeade took a similar line: “I do not know Trump supporters that have ever demonstrated violence that I know of in a big situation.” Hannity, for his part, asserted that “the majority of them were peaceful.”

This is tangible proof that some of Fox’s marquee personalities knowingly lied to their audience about January. The lying began basically immediately, in the direct aftermath of a national tragedy.

Beauchamp offered one link in support of those claims—he linked to Barr's report. Basically, he simply paraphrased / copied what Barr had written, making things a bit more exciting by excitingly saying that Hannity and Ingraham had "knowingly lied to their audience."

Beauchamp took his mandated claims live and direct from Barr. Raise your hand if you think, for even one minute, that he did any fact-checking at all.

It was done this same way in 1999. Once the script had been established, the children all stood in line to say it:

 Al Gore said he invented the Internet! 

Many other mandated statements followed. George Bush ended up in the White House. The army ended up in Iraq.

It's the same familiar game in the present day. Today, though, the script tells us this:

The texts they sent to Meadows that day were at odds with their comments that night.

It doesn't much look that way to us. But this is a copying game.

For the record, we're offering pure anthropology here. This is pure anthro, all the way down. According to legions of major top experts, this is the way humans work!

Beauchamp offers one link, to Barr. Raise your hand if you think, for even one instant, that he did any fact-checking at all!

The other mandated statements: Memories crowd the corners of our minds! These were (a few of) the other mandated statements. The children all rushed to recite them:
Al Gore said he inspired Love Story.
Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal.
Al Gore hired a woman to teach him how to be a man.
Al Gore doesn't know who he is.
Al Gore has a problem with the truth, just like his boss, Bill Clinton.
There were many others, of course, right up through October 2000. Everybody rushed to repeat them. That's just the way humans work!

OUR LOGIC, OUR FACTS: Can we put our faith in our tribe's Storylines?

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2021

What Ingraham and Hannity said: Late at night—actually, in the wee hours of morning—highly credentialed major experts keep telling us the same thing.

It always happens when our species stages its tribal wars, these disconsolate anthropologists say:

The warring tribes always invent their own brands of logic.  They also invent their own facts.

We thought of these despondent scholars when we watched Morning Joe this morning. Early in the opening segment, Willie did it again!

Mockingly, Willie said that the hapless Mark Meadows has said "his own book was fake news." Moments later, Joe happily chimed in:

As Willie said, he called his own book fake news, the corporate cable star said. Meadows is "going crazy," Joe enjoyably said.

We're sorry, but Meadows didn't call his own book fake news. He said that about a certain interpretation of something his book said—and interpretation he said was wrong. 

(What did he actually say in his book? Concerning that unresolved point, our pundit class has moved on.)

At times like these, tribal players like Willie and Joe will just keep inventing facts—and they'll keep reciting those facts.  And no:

Unless you choose to be a true believer, you can't assume the accuracy of your own tribe's facts. 

You can't believe your own tribe's facts. Beyond that, you can't assume the validity of your own tribe's logic. Major experts have said this again and again, and we've come to believe those experts.

We mention this because of some things we saw on cable last night. The presentations contradicted one our tribe's most recent Storyline, the Storyline which gave rise to such tribal facts as the facts on display below.

Below, you see part of a news report by the Washington Post's Jeremy Barr. Barr cited the texts three Fox News host sent to Meadows on January 6. He compared those texts with the things these Fox News stars were allegedly saying in public.

Barr included our tribe's favorite new facts, and a bit of bungled logic. Those facts and that logic emerged full-blown from the head of Storyline:

BARR (12/14/21): Three Fox News hosts who have been among Donald Trump’s most ardent media boosters were so horrified by the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that they begged the then-president’s chief of staff to convince him to intercede, according to newly aired messages from that day.

[..]

But the texts stand in contrast with some of the messages that Ingraham, Hannity and Kilmeade sent to Fox News viewers in appearances on the night of Jan. 6.

While Ingraham that afternoon called the attack “disgraceful” and said that “the president needs to tell everyone to leave the building,” later that night, she suggested on-air that some of the rioters might have been left-wing agitators rather than Trump supporters. “I have never seen Trump rally attendees wearing helmets, black helmets, brown helmets, black backpacks—the uniforms you saw in some of these crowd shots,” she said.

Kilmeade made a similar point in an appearance that night on Fox. “I do not know Trump supporters that have ever demonstrated violence that I know of in a big situation,” he said.

While Hannity expressed his displeasure with the riot—“I don’t want to ever see our Capitol building breached like this ever again”—he also cast doubt about whether Trump supporters were largely responsible. Of the Jan. 6 participants, Hannity said that “the majority of them were peaceful.” 

The Fox hosts were saying one thing in private, but something else on the air! At present, it's our tribe's favorite Storyline—but can we believe our tribe's facts?

Let's start with a point of logic. Let's start with Barr's logic concerning what Hannity said.

According to Barr, Hannity "cast doubt about whether Trump supporters were largely responsible" for the January 6 riot. According to Barr, he did so by saying that "the majority of [the January 6 participants] were peaceful."

We'd call that logic tribal. Stating the obvious, the majority of people who gathered for the original January 6 rally didn't end up engaging in mayhem at the Capitol. 

Surely, no one thinks different. If that's what Hannity said that night, it wouldn't contradict his private text to Meadows at all.

Is that what Hannity was saying when he made the quoted statement? We haven't seen a full transcript or tape of his January 6 program, so we can't tell you that—but based upon the evidence he presents, Barr's logic is very flimsy.

We can tell you this:

Last night, Hannity played videotape of some of the things he said on his Fox News program that night. That evening, for example, Hannity said this:

HANNITY (1/6/21): Let me stop here and be crystal clear. Those who truly support President Trump, those that believe they are part of the conservative movement in this country, you do not, we do not support those that commit acts of violence. 

They—people, we don't believe, should be vandalizing our nation's Capitol, attacking the brave women and men that keep us safe in law enforcement. And all of today's perpetrators must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But every good and decent American we know will and must condemn what happened at the Capitol. And moving forward, we have got to do a dramatically better job protecting the innocent men and women who work there. We've got to protect our law enforcement officers. We've got to protect every single elected member of the Congress and Senate. This is not politics. They deserve to be protected.

What else did Hannity say that night? We haven't been able to find a full tape or a full transcript. But if you've listened to our own tribe's latest messaging, that statement may perhaps be surprising—and it's completely consistent with the text Hannity sent to Meadows earlier in the day.

We have found a videotape of Ingraham's full program that night. As it turns out, she did call the riot "disgraceful," as Barr conceded. (Quite a few guests concurred.)

She did so in an interview with none other than Kevin McCarthy! At minute 28 of the tape, the interview starts like this:

MCCARTHY (1/6/21): I will tell you, what happened today was not right. It was un-American. And, to me, it was the worst of America if you saw that. 

Thus spake the earnest minority leader on that very night. A few minutes later, this: 

MCCARTHY: When you sit back and look, we've got FBI running through here, it's part like a crime scene. Because whoever stormed inside our offices and rammaged [sic] different parts, they need to be prosecuted. That's wrong. And that's not who we are as Americans.

INGRAHAM: No. It's disgraceful.

That said, is it true that Ingraham "suggested on-air that some of the rioters might have been left-wing agitators rather than Trump supporters?" 

We'll start by noting that "suggested" and "some" are highly elastic words. At any rate, that's the one charge Barr managed to lodge against Ingraham's allegedly two-faced performance. But did she actually do that?

Having watched the full hour, we'd start by saying no. We'd call that a highly selective assessment.

Several of her numerous guests did suggest that Antifa may have been involved. At a few junctures, Ingraham alluded to some such emerging reports.

That said, she also directly pushed back against the emerging claim at one point in the broadcast (minute 46). She cited an experienced observer who said it wasn't them:

INGRAHAM: Now Andy Ngo, who covers Antifa, Chris, I know you know of him, independent journalist. He was there at the Capitol, right in the mix. He said—[correcting herself] Yeah, he wasn't there, he was looking at the images, excuse me, of today. He said he doesn't think it's Antifa. 

In that way, Ingraham pushed back against the emerging claim, a claim the red tribe would find pleasing.

How about it? Did Ingraham really "suggest on-air that some of the rioters might have been left-wing agitators rather than Trump supporters?" 

In our view, that's a remarkably selective account of the hour. But according to experts, this is what happens whenever our species starts to stage one of its tribalized wars.

Last night, Ingraham showed the statements she tweeted for all to see during the actual riot—public tweets which were completely consistent with the text she sent to Meadows at the same time. Also, she played some clips of what she actually said on the air that night.

There was much she said that night with which a blue tribe voter may not agree. But if you've been watching our own tribe's hacks assemble our own tribe's latest facts, you might be surprised by large amounts of what she and Hannity actually said that afternoon and evening.

No, Virginia! We're sorry, but Meadows actually didn't call his own book fake news. The fraudsters who are hired to please our floundering tribe have simply been telling us that.

They may even believe the things they say. That's how tribal we "rational animals" have always been, and still are.

Concerning Ingraham and Hannity on the evening of January 6, we will tell you this:

They offered frameworks and points of view with which you may not agree. In our opinion, the principal framework to which we refer—it involves the widespread looting and arson of the previous year—isn't completely crazy.

In our view, they have a point.

That framework isn't completely crazy, but it isn't our tribe's Storyline. And at tribally segregated times like these, you know where that leads—to a Babel of "logic" and "facts."

Can we believe our own tribe's facts? Can we trust our own tribe's logic?

Tomorrow: Still hoping to reach Drum's distinctions

Other invented facts: Last Wednesday night, Our Own Rhodes Scholar invented some wonderfully pleasing facts. 

She and her useless staff of twenty pulled those facts out of their ascots. For our final report on this ultimate nonsense, you can just click here.

Can you believe this Rhodes scholar's facts? How about Brian Stelter's?

How about Joe and Willie's facts? They're an entertaining buddy team, but whose facts can you believe?


Should we believe our own tribe's facts?

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021

Shirtless Putin, Maddow and Newsmax: At some point yesterday, MSNBC finally posted transcripts for its programs from last Wednesday on.

This means that we can show you what Rachel Maddow actually said—what she actually said about Newsmax, but also about shirtless Putin.

By reputation and (we assume) by fact, Newsmax is one of the farthest "right," and least credible, of the far-right news sites. We offer that as an assumption because, until the current nonsense, we had never gone there.

That said, we suspected that Maddow had done it again on last Wednesday night's program. The foolishness started like this:

Will Putin invade Ukraine again? Maddow began discussing the question in the manner shown:

MADDOW (12/8/21): [Putin] thinks we know for sure that the Soviet Union never should have broken up. He calls that the greatest political catastrophe of the 21st century. He apparently thinks that he should have control of Ukraine, even though Ukraine is a separate country. He kind of likes the idea of a little renewed Russian empire of his own to play with.

So he did send troops to invade Ukraine, and he seized part of their country, and says that's part of Russia. That was several years ago.

He's now threatening to do it again, and the United States does have an ally in this fight. We have an ally in this fight, and an antagonist in this fight. 

Russia is the antagonist. Ukraine is the ally.

Here's President Biden trying to convene the democracies of the world which, among other things, means, "No, not Russia, you're not invited." He's doing that, I think, not coincidentally at the same time that he's brushing back Putin and warning him not to invade our ally Ukraine again.

But again, look at what's going on inside our own country. Look at what's going on in the political right, right now. 

I mean, here's Biden trying to say we lead the free world, right? And we want democracy to once again, you know, fill its sails and be the rising form of government on this globe. We want to leave that both as a Democratic leader and lead by our example.

And here's the cover right now of Newsmax magazine, on the political right in this country: "Vlad the Great. Post-Trump, Putin becomes master of the world."

Cheers, champagne! That's Newsmax magazine this month.

If you listened to Maddow, you would have thought that Newsmax magazine was cheering Putin on—cheering him on with champagne. 

Here's why we instantly suspected that Maddow had done it again:

Rather glaringly, she didn't quote a single word from the actual Newsmax report. She merely showed the magazine's cover, then stated her pleasing assessment about "the political right."

As we noted yesterday, CNN's Brian Stelter did the same thing on Sunday's Reliable Sources program. He was totally wrong on this matter, as was Maddow before him.

Alas! To appearances, neither one of these cable news stars had made even the slightest attempt to fact-check their assessment. Yesterday, we showed you what Newsmax has actually said about its magazine article. 

Newsmax describes its (paywall-restricted) report as a savage attack on Putin. Watching Maddow, the viewer received a more pleasing assessment about what The Others are up to.

Maddow went on to say other remarkably stupid things during this braindead opening segment. As we noted last Saturday, she told us viewers that Fox News was simply in love with Putin. 

Two minutes earlier, we had been watching Sean Hannity calling Putin every name in the book. As soon as we flipped over to Maddow, we entered a far different world.

Concerning those photos of shirtless Putin, here's what the wonderfully entertaining TV star stupidly said:

MADDOW: I mean, all of those pictures of Putin shirtless we got from the Fox News Channel because they show them like on a loop because they've got a thing for him. I mean, that's weird. There is a weirdness around this on the political right, right now.

For the record, Fox News does not show shirtless photos of Putin "like on a loop." (Or at all, as far as we know.) As the uniform chyron on the photographs instantly suggested, the photos all came from a single, 24-second report from the summer of 2017. 

At that time, MSNBC and Fox News had each been running those shirtless photos as braindead cable filler. To its credit, CNN had done so much less often.

Speaking of braindead, Maddow has been phoning it in for a long time now. Please don't ask for more detail about last Wednesday's waves of bullsh*t, but the overall performance can only be ranked as the ultimate insult to viewers. 

It's long past time for Maddow to go. Aside from high ratings and profit-making, there's no reason to keep airing the magical mystery tours she offers her viewers each night.

NBC has promised the world that Maddow will be leaving. Now that they've managed to post their transcripts, could they possibly follow through on that?

Final question:

Should we believe our own tribe's "facts?" Not necessarily, no.

The Newsmax magazine report seems to be a withering attack on Putin. First Maddow, then Stelter, turned that fact upside-down. 

Also, plenty of shirtless photos! "Cable news" can be good solid fun!


OUR LOGIC, OUR FACTS: What do The Others really believe?

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021

Trump Junior, left in the dark: Liz Cheney's presentation last night has produced a great deal of reaction.

Cheney read a series of texts—and we're glad she was willing to do it. The texts had been sent to Mark Meadows during the January 6 riot at the Capitol. 

"These texts leave no doubt," Cheney said. "The White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol."

Some of the texts came from embattled members of Congress—from badly frightened people right there on the scene. Perhaps a bit more surprisingly, other texts came from major figures at Fox News. 

Cheney established the record:

CHENEY (12/23/21): Indeed, according to the records, multiple Fox News hosts knew the President needed to act immediately. They texted Meadows that:

"Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home...this is hurting all of us...he is destroying his legacy." Laura Ingraham wrote.

"Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished." Brian Kilmeade wrote.

"Can he make a statement?...Ask people to leave the Capitol." Sean Hannity urged. 

Hannity, Ingraham and Kilmeade were disturbed by what has happening. That said, the most intriguing of these texts to Meadows came from a Trump family member. 

According to Cheney, Donald Trump Junior had texted Meadows "again and again" as the riot continued. This is what the dutiful son had said:

CHENEY (continuing directly): As the violence continued, one of the President's sons texted Meadows:

"He's got to condemn this s*** Asap. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough." Donald Trump, Jr. texted.

Meadows responded: "I'm pushing it hard. I agree."

Still, President Trump did not immediately act.

Donald Trump, Jr. texted again and again, urging action by the President:

"We need an Oval address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand."

But hours passed without the necessary action by the President.

Trump Junior texted again and again. In reply, Meadows said he agreed with Trump Junior. Meadows said that he was pushing that point of view hard.

Was Meadows really telling the president that he needed to "condemn this s***?" At this point, there's no obvious way of knowing.

It's possible that Meadows really was telling Trump that he needed to act. It's also possible that he was just saying that to Trump Junior.

What was actually happening inside the White House? We can't exactly tell you. 

But in all the attention which has been given to Cheney's presentation, we don't think we've seen anyone note a certain point, though someone certainly may have. That basic point would be this:

If we take those messages at face value, that means that Donald Trump Junior didn't expect a violent riot to take place that day. 
Unless he was deceiving Trump Junior, it looks like Meadows was unaware of any such plan as well.

Was that riot part of a plan—a plan involving President Trump? Had Donald J. Trump, and other coup-plotters, really planned for that violent riot to happen?

We don't know the answer to that question but, within the liberal world, that theory has functioned as conventional wisdom for a long time now. 

It may well be that the theory is true. It may well be that Donald J. Trump did plan, all along, for a violent physical invasion of the Capitol to take place. 

Who knows? In time, the January 6 committee may end up demonstrating that President Trump was involved in some such plan. But we were struck, last night, by the apparent fact that Donald Trump Junior was unaware of any such plan—and that the same was true of the hapless Meadows, if his texts to Trump Junior can be believed.

Surprise! Three Fox stars were surprised and disturbed by what was happening that day! So was Donald Trump Junior—and so, it seems, was Meadows himself.

That struck us as a surprising "reveal" in Cheney's presentation. If Donald J. Trump had been plotting a coup, his own son hadn't known it! Neither did those major Fox hosts—and neither, it possibly seems, did his hapless chief of staff.

That struck us as an interesting takeaway from Cheney's presentation. That said, we don't think we've seen anyone articulate this point.

Instead, the anti-Trump crowd within our own tribe has criticized those Fox News hosts for their subsequent behavior. At times like these, tribal warriors will possibly tend to be somewhat selective in what they do and don't choose to say following some reveal.

If Donald Trump Senior had been plotting a (violent) coup, Donald Trump Junior had been left in the dark! Could that mean that Donald Trump Senior was also caught by surprise when the violence started?

We don't know the answer to that. Nor will you see the question asked on our own tribe's cable channels.

At times like these, the Montagues and the Capulets will have their own facts, their own logic. The Jets and the Sharks will possess dueling stories—and so will our "cable news" stars.

Indeed, at highly partisan times like these, our very capacity for logic and fact may sink beneath the tsunami of our more primal emotions. We may tend to fall back on Storyline, and the more of that the better.

That said, just how logical have we "rational animals" ever actually been? Consider:

Over the weekend, we saw Kevin Drum draw some basic distinctions as he asked a perfectly sensible question about the pro-Trump tribe.

Do conservatives really believe that the last election was stolen? In his discussion of that question, Drum drew some basic distinctions—and after that, the deluge!

After that, the comments began! Drum had drawn some basic distinctions. They were quickly observed in the breach.

All week long, we'll be asking a question:

Should we trust our own tribe's facts, our own tribe's logic, as current discussions unfold? 

The other tribe's facts and logic are routinely quite bad. The other tribe's facts and logic are bad—but how about our own?

Tomorrow: What do The Others believe?

This afternoon: We return, perhaps for the final time, to one of our own tribe's recent "facts"


CNN plays the "Vlad the Great" card!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2021

The dumbness of the tribe: CNN's Brian Stelter is a Baltimore area / Towson State guy. In our own past, we have a major Towson State tie.

(Today, it's known as Towson University.)

Brian Stelter seems like the nicest guy in the world. That said, we just watched the bulk of yesterday's Reliable Sources program on CNN. It was one of the dumbest hours you'll ever see on your TV machine when you aren't watching Fox.

The program featured long, virtually incoherent interviews with Professor Jay Rosen and with Russia specialist Julia Ioffe. Most remarkably, Stelter even played Rachel Maddow's astonishing "Vlad the Great" card!

In fairness, it was the briefest of plays.  Sadly, it went like this:

STELTER (12/12/21): You know, I mentioned earlier, Chris Wallace has been, you know, increasingly a man on an island at a network that has become more and more radical. I guess we will find out from him if that's why he decided to leave.

But it is so striking to see how figures like Tucker Carlson and others on Fox are rootin' for Putin.

This week, Newsmax ran a cover story titled "Vlad The Great." And Tucker seemed to be justifying a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shows across Fox, OAN, and Newsmax keep serving up anti-Biden, pro-Putin messages on the regular...

It went on from there. And yes, he actually said it—he actually said, rhymin' Simon style, that the various individuals and orgs he named have been "rootin' for Putin."

That said, also this:

Just as Rachel did last week, Stelter showed the Newsmax magazine cover with the eye-catching teaser, "Vlad the Great." Just like Rachel, he didn't quote a single world of what the actual cover report actually says.

As you may know, Newsmax is one of the louder and nuttier of the major far-right "news orgs." But are they really "rootin' for Putin" in their "Vlad the Great" cover report?

Newsmax magazine requires a paid subscription. But you can go to the Newsmax web site, as we did, to see their own account of that cover report. Here's the copy you will find, under a double headline:

Putin’s War on The West

The Russian leader exploits every opportunity to weaken the U.S. and its allies.

He’s evil, he’s cunning, and he’s the most powerful man in the world.

And now, the December issue of Newsmax Magazine takes you into the secretive, sordid, and sometimes frightening world of the man who’ll stop at nothing to get what he wants — Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In our explosive cover story, “Vlad the Great: Putin’s War on the West,” investigative reporter and bestselling author Kenneth R. Timmerman explores Putin’s beginnings and his goal of exploiting every opportunity to weaken the United States and its allies.

From his days as a cutthroat KGB spy stationed in East Germany to his power-hungry ascension to the presidency of Russia, Putin has given the U.S. and the world unending headaches with his nonstop amassing of nuclear weapons, incessant saber-rattling, and deadly espionage plots.

The iron-fisted tyrant kills his enemies without remorse, invades surrounding regions such as Crimea and Georgia, and works 24/7 to shut down America via sophisticated cyberattacks.

In addition, Putin has had an ongoing flirtation with China and Iran to form an axis to destroy the free world. “Putin has managed to expand Russia’s sphere of influence dramatically, while insulating the Russian economy from any serious impact from U.S. and international sanctions,” Timmerman writes.

In addition, Newsmax exposes Putin’s private life—from his secret girlfriend to his love children, to his favorite books and pop group. And you’ll learn why, incredibly, he has become a sex symbol in Japan!

Newsmax Magazine brings you Vladimir Putin as you’ve never seen him before—and it will change the way you look at one of the world’s most feared superpowers.

You can’t afford to miss “Vlad the Great: Putin’s War on the West”—only in Newsmax Magazine. (Page 54)

Tell the truth! Does it sound like Newsmax is using its Vlad the Great cover report as a way of—pause for entertainment—"rootin' for Putin?"

It doesn't sound that way to us! But first, the ridiculous Maddow said it. Then, CNN's media reporter decided to follow suit!

Our deeply self-impressed liberal tribe is, in fact, remarkably dumb and increasingly propagandistic. The problem starts with a certain self-adoring cable Rhodes Scholar. It goes all the way down from there.

Go ahead—click that link! Is the site really "rootin' for Putin?" Because that's what CNN said!


STARTING TOMORROW: Our logic, our facts!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2021

Our tribe: We spend a pretty good chunk of the weekend watching West Side Story (1961). We tried to imagine how the movie may have seemed to the many people who saw it in real time.

We were thirteen when it came out; we don't recall going to see it. But how did it seem to those who did? Also, how does it seem today?

As we watched it over the weekend, it struck us as surprisingly underwhelming. Its political / sociological messaging seemed to be captured in an exchange between George Chakiris' Bernardo and Natalie Wood's Maria, after Maria has suddenly fallen in love with somebody from the wrong group:

BERNARDO: Couldn't you see he's one of them?

MARIA: No. I saw only him.

In the end, we think that remains the ultimate message, even today. But we were puzzled by the way so many people swear by West Side Story (1961) as the greatest musical ever, a position we've seen widely stated by commenters to recent articles in the New York Times.

This morning, Slate offers an essay about Leonard Bernstein's politics at the time the film appeared. Simultaneously, Slate offers a portrait of our own self-impressed tribe with a rather typical onslaught of surrounding articles.

No, we aren't making this up. We've cited this syndrome before:

ELISA SHOENBERGER / DEC 13, 2021 / 5:45 AM
Go Ahead, Call Your Dog Your “Fur Baby." Science Supports You.

DANIEL WORTEL-LONDON / DEC 13, 2021 / 5:50 AM
Conservatives Say Liberals Want West Side Story to Be "Woke Side Story." The Real History of Its Politics Is Much Stranger.

STACIA L. BROWN / DEC 13, 2021 / 5:55 AM
How Do I Tell My Parents About My Boyfriend?

STACIA L. BROWN / DEC 13, 2021 / 6:00 AM
Dear Care and Feeding: Should I Tell My Girlfriend’s Kids The Truth About Their Father?

How to Do It / DEC 13, 2021 / 6:00 AM
The Absolute Worst Trend in Dating Now Is Really Getting To Me

EMILY WILLINGHAM / DEC 13, 2021 / 8:00 AM
Why Brain Games, Supplements and Other Cognition Boosters Can't Fulfill Their Promises

As we started typing this report, those were six of the last seven articles published by Slate. They supplemented similar fare from yesterday morning, including "Is What I Just Did Really 'Cheating' on My Boyfriend?" and Amanda Ripley's meatier piece, "How To Bounce Back From a Bad Dog Experience."

Let's stick with movie imagery! The article about West Side Story seems to be hiding among the others, as E.T. once hid among the large stuffed animals clogging Gertie's closet. Meanwhile, the article about "cognition boosters" almost seems like a bit of peak irony, perhaps like an inside joke.

We assume this relentless flood of pap represents what Slate has to do, on a daily basis, in order to keep its doors open. Meanwhile, when we clicked on the piece about West Side Story, we found an over-intellectualized, fuzzy essay by a (roughly 34-year-old) eternal graduate student. 

For the record, Daniel Wortel-London is plainly a good, decent person. Near the end of his piece, he says this:

WORTEL-LONDON (12/13/21): For most of my life, I rushed to West Side Story’s defense. Lonely, introverted, fearful of conflict, I looked to the burning chords of West Side Story like I looked to Whitman’s poetry or New York’s public spaces—as hymns to the possibility of communication across divisions. To criticize West Side Story’s treatment of empathy and understanding as naïve—or worse, malevolent—was to confirm my personal isolation, and foreclose the civic potential of urban life. I recognize the vehemence with which defenders of West Side Story rally to their icon’s defense. I recognize how the transcendent strains of “Somewhere” can hold the allegiance of humanists.

Wortel-London is thirteen years out of college (Ramapo, class of 2008).  Beyond that, he's plainly a good, decent person. 

He describes himself as a Public Policy Researcher | Project Manager | Civic Storyteller | Urbanist. He says that, for most of his life, he had been rushing to West Side Story's defense—but who's been debating West Side Story over the course of those years?

We don't have the slightest idea what Wortel-London is talking about at various points in his essay. It seems to us that his essay is unlikely to inform any useful debate about the value and meaning of West Side Story, whether back then or today.

It seems to us that Wortel-London's essay sails over the head of any useful current debate. Meanwhile, his piece is surrounded by the kind of low-IQ pap Slate relentlessly publishes, apparently in order to keep our self-impressed tribe coming back in sufficient numbers.

As our nation slides toward the sea, large parts of the conservative tribe seem to be losing touch with reality, or perhaps with Enlightenment values. It falls to us in our liberal tribe to keep our systems, such as they are, afloat.

Do we have what it takes to accomplish that task? It isn't clear to us that we do, but our self-impressed tribe, like all human tribes, tends to have a very hard time imagining any such fact.

Over the weekend, Kevin Drum offered a perfectly sensible post about a very basic question. He wondered how many Republicans—in the leadership and in the rank and file—really believe the current claim that the last election was stolen.

We thought Drum reasoned in certain sensible ways, drawing some basic distinctions.  But then, the comments began to come in. We thought they were instructive.

The other tribe is routinely quite daft—but what about our tribe? How much faith can we actually put in our logic, our facts, our instincts?

We'll examine such questions all this week, starting tomorrow.

Tomorrow: Several distinctions

Film factoids: West Side Story was apparently the biggest-grossing film of 1961. It exceeded the second highest-grossing film (The Guns of Navarone, which we did see) by roughly 50 percent. Plainly, it must have been speaking to quite a few people.

In April 1962, West Side Story won the Oscar for Best Picture. The Guns of Navarone was also nominated. So was Judgment at Nuremberg, which we saw, having walked to The Palm, and were deeply impressed by.

Regarding the box office race, The Parent Trap and The Absent-Minded Professor came in fourth and fifth. La Dolce Vita came in ninth! In more ways than one way, go figure!

Some of the things we heard Wednesday night!

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2021

Sharks and Jets, Montagues / Capulets: We almost never watch the Hannity show on Fox. 

We don't recall (exactly) why, but this past Wednesday night, we briefly flipped over to Hannity. We did so shortly after the start of the 9 P.M. show. 

When we flipped over, Hannity was beating up on President Biden for being too soft on Putin. Here's part of what we heard:

HANNITY (12/8/21): Today the pathetic, weak Joe Biden accidentally actually revealed his strategy to deal with the hostile actor Vladimir Putin and his hostile regime and his hostile activity. And the way is to accommodate them, pretty much kiss their ass in any way possible.

"Joe, you're the president," Hannity said. "You're not a concierge at a 5-star hotel. You don't need to accommodate Vladimir Putin."

Hannity felt that Biden was being too soft on the hostile Putin and his hostile regime. He went on to warn American citizens to get any relatives out of Ukraine—reason being, the pathetic Biden will never protect them against Putin's hostile behavior.

This was early in the 9 P.M. hour. When Hannity began beating up on Biden in earnest, we flipped back to the Maddow Show:

Within minutes, we were being told, by Rachel Maddow, that the prime-time hosts on the Fox News Channel simply adore this very same Vladimir Putin.

We still can't show you exactly what Maddow said. As of this morning, her slacker channel was four days behind in the provision of transcripts.

That said, her sweeping statement about those Fox hosts wasn't even the stupidest thing she said during the segment in question. Her stupidest, least excusable statement concerned a new cover report in Newsmax magazine.

At this point, we still can't show you exactly what she said about that report. Her slacker channel hasn't presented its transcript yet, and we've changed our mind about doing the scut-work ourselves.

At any rate, Maddow was telling her viewers that Newsmax magazine simply adores the vile tyrant Putin. She "proved" her point by showing viewers the cover of the magazine's new edition, without quoting a single word the cover report inside the magazine actually said.

What does the Newsmax report actually say? We haven't read the report. But according to Newsweek, here's what the actual report apparently actually says:

PALMER (12/8/21): In a statement to promote its December issue, Newsmax said: "He's evil, he's cunning, and he's the most powerful man in the world." The magazine also promised to present the Russian president as "you've never seen him before—and it will change the way you look at one of the world's most feared superpowers."

The cover story, written by investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman, would describe Putin's goal of "exploiting every opportunity to weaken the United States and its allies," as well as discussing his private life and alleged love children, according to the statement.

Speaking to Newsweek, a spokesperson for Newsmax, which operates the monthly magazine as well as a cable news channel and website, said: "Newsmax Magazine's December feature story is entitled 'Putin's War on the West: the Russian leader exploits every opportunity to weaken the U.S. and it's allies.' This investigative report paints a disturbing portrait of a dangerous leader and regime.

"Newsmax's cover portrays 'Vlad the Great' as a modern Russian Czar, who, after Trump, finds no world leaders to hold him in check."

Based on the eye-catching "Vlad the Great" cover hook—and based on nothing else at all—Rachel was telling the world that Newsmax magazine, like Fox News, was pimping its love for the great Russkie leader.

There was no sign that she'd looked at the Newsmax report itself. She was working off that eye-catching, excitingly ambiguous "Vlad the Great" cover hook.

If Maddow's owners ever post their transcript, we'll show you the exact words she said. That said, we haven't even told you about the stupidest thing she said during the segment in question.

That involved her claim that Fox News is constantly running fawning photos of the shirtless Putin. To establish this ridiculous claim, she flashed three or four photos of the shirtless Russkie strongman. 

As seemed clear from the standard chyron they all bore, they all track back to a single, 24-second report in the summer of 2017, when MSNBC and Fox News were each running such photos as filler. 

(Based on this analysis from 538.com, CNN ran such shirtless photos much less often during the general period in question.)

Maddow has been phoning it in for a very long time now. That said, it would be hard to behave in a more contemptuous, deceptive manner than she did on this occasion.

Who knows? Maybe she was just reading copy one of her staffers had written. Maybe she actually thought that what she was saying was accurate.

Given Maddow's frequent strange conduct, such possibilities are endless! But it's time to get this strange person off the air. It's time for this person to go.

Seriously, it actually happened! Two minutes after we watched Hannity savaging the hostile actions of the hostile Putin, we flipped over and saw this nutcase disinforming millions of viewers.

This is the way the Jets and the Sharks played the time-honored game. This was the Montagues, and this was also the Capulets.

This was standard tribal disinformation, wrapped up in a crowd-pleasing bow. Increasingly, we live to hate the other tribe, and to do nothing else. The basic thinking is perfectly clear:

It's no stupidity left behind! All stupidity goes!

Maddow's been like this for a long time. When will her irresponsible, profit-based owners get her off the air?

This just in from experts: Your lizard is saying that this has to be wrong. It's time for your lizard to go!

As a matter of fact, we knew Bob Dole!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2021

We met him on one occasion: On March 19, 1999, Annie Groer and Ann Gerhart announced the passing of a pet schnauzer in the Washington Post.

At the time, Groer and Gerhart wrote the Post's Reliable Source column. The name of the schnauzer in question was Leader. For fifteen years, he had belonged to Bob and Elizabeth Dole:

GROER AND GERHART (3/19/99): It looks like Leader Dole won't be going on a book tour. His memoirs will be posthumous.

But the schnauzer that Elizabeth Dole rescued from the D.C. Humane Society as a gift for hubby Bob 15 years ago did manage to finish "Follow the Leader: A Dog's Eye View of Washington, D.C." before departing this Earth earlier this month. He was 17; that's 119 in dog years.

In the best tradition of political animals (who among us can forget "Millie's Book" by George and Bar Bush's springer spaniel, or "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy" by Hillary R. Clinton), proceeds from Leader's yet-unpublished book will go to charity. The heaviest literary lifting was done by Mary Vincent, Leader's nanny and the Doles' next-door neighbor at the Watergate.

We wondered whether the Doles might soon replace him, or at least share a few kind words about Leader, who, after all, had his own high profile. He was Mr. September 1998 in the Ralston Purina calendar and the 1995 chairdog of the Bark Ball. Leader also sired eight pups with Chelsea Marie, the schnauzer owned by Sen. Strom Thurmond, reports The Post's Janelle Erlichman.

The report continued from there. Groer and Gerhart didn't hear back from Dole and Dole. But Mary Vincent, Leader's biographer, told the pair that Leader "lived well right up until the end."

When Vincent's book appeared, the Doles held a small book party to celebrate the occasion. In a manner we don't recall—we'll guess The Hotline was involved—we contracted to offer humorous remarks upon the occasion.

It was at that party that we met Bob Dole, who, by that time in his life, should have been called "Bob Droll."

By that time, everyone knew that Dole had a droll sense of humor. It's one of the reasons why, by the end of his lengthy career, he was well liked by Washington journalists.

After the book event that day, the Doles stood around chatting with guests and onlookers. Our own guest—someone a bit more reflexively partisan, at that time, than we were or are today—was astonished to discover the fact that she liked Bob Dole. 

A lot!

On that day, it was very easy to see why everyone liked Bob Dole.  Early in his lengthy career, he'd been considered an excessively partisan "hatchet man." That reputation had long since disappeared.

We don't recall exactly when that book event occurred. That said, Dole's sense of humor played an unfortunate role in the 2000 campaign, which was underway by that time.

During the 1996 campaign, Vice President Gore had gotten tangled up in the "Buddhist temple" incident. Dole had come up with a very good joke about one aspect of the affair.

On the down side, his joke was based on a premise which was factually false. Beyond that, Gore had nothing to do with the fairly modest "money laundering" which apparently occurred in connection with the event.

Candidate Gore had done nothing wrong. Dole's joke had been based on a false premise.

That said, the joke was actually funny—most jokes aren't—and, starting in March 1999, the press corps was waging a war against Candidate Gore. For those reasons, the joke was repeated, again and again, all through Campaign 2000.

Dole had come up with a funny, droll joke. The children took over from there.

ACTUAL STATE OF THE RACE: Why would Lara Logan say that?

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2021

Also, the way our own tribe behaves: First thing this morning, very early, we had a very unusual experience.

We were surprised by our experience. First thing today, we were thrilled by part of a news report in the New York Times.

We aren't speaking metaphorically; we actually found this morning's news report thrilling. You simply never read things like this—but there it actually was:

SHAPIRO (12/10/21): David C. Banks began his first morning as New York City’s schools chancellor-in-waiting with a warning to the city’s educational bureaucracy: The nation’s largest school system had betrayed too many of its students by paying the salaries of administrators who did not improve the lives of children, funded by a bloated budget that produced abysmal results for too many Black and Latino students.

[...]

Mr. Banks, a longtime friend and adviser to Eric Adams, is the mayor-elect’s first commissioner-level appointment, and his remarks, along with Mr. Adams’s, were feisty opening salvos that signal their plans for major changes in the sprawling system.

Saying that “65 percent of Black and brown children never achieve proficiency” on state standardized exams, Mr. Banks said that statistic reflected “a betrayal,” adding: “Think about if everybody in the Department of Education went home and all the kids went to school, you could get those same results,” he said.

For the record, we don't necessarily agree with the various things Banks said. Most specifically, we wouldn't say that those proficiency levels—wherever they come from, which went unreported—represent "a betrayal."

Still, it was thrilling to see someone say something which suggests that he actually cares about the lives, the interests and the experiences of the young people he cited. Shortly thereafter, Mayor-elect Adams was quoted too:

SHAPIRO: Mr. Adams said there was no alternative to bold action. “Let me tell you something, if 65 percent of white children were not reaching proficiency in this city, they would burn the city down,” he said. The mayor-elect said there has been “no urgency” about improving schools, in what appeared to be a veiled swipe at the de Blasio administration.

We wouldn't make that statement either. But there has certainly been "no urgency" surrounding these matters, especially in the aggressively uncaring pages of the New York Times.

In print editions, this news report appears today on page A21. Online, the Times lists eighteen different reports in its "National" section. This report, about those low-income kids, is listed eighteenth and last among those eighteen reports.

This afternoon, we'll have a bit more on this news report—but we found it thrilling early today. Simply put, you never see anyone talk about this topic, or about those kids, on our tribe's favorite TV programs.

It's amazing to see two people act like they actually care about those kids. Within our tribe, we simply don't. Nothing could be more obvious.

Within our tribe, we care about Donald J. Trump, but also about Mark Meadows. We care about locking them up, getting them sued. As is quite clear in our "cable news" diet, we care about no one and nothing else.

We care about locking up The Others. That may even include some teenage kids. We care about nothing else.

It's within that context that we discuss what Lara Logan said. She recently said the darnedest thing. As noted by the Washington Post's Jeremy Barr (and others), recently Logan said this:

BARR (12/1/21): Lara Logan, once a lauded foreign correspondent for CBS News’s “60 Minutes” and now a boundary-pushing Fox News guest commentator and streaming show host, drew fierce condemnation for on-air comments Monday night comparing the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, Anthony S. Fauci, to Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

Her comments came during a segment in which Fox host Pete Hegseth, a frequent critic of coronavirus vaccine mandates and masking politics, accused the Biden administration of overhyping the new omicron variant.

Logan’s response, though, went well beyond.

“What you see on Dr. Fauci—this is what people say to me: that he doesn’t represent science to them. He represents Josef Mengele,” she said. “Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War and in the concentration camps. And I am talking about people all across the world are saying this, because the response from covid, what it has done to countries everywhere, what it has done to civil liberties, the suicide rates, the poverty, it has obliterated economies. The level of suffering that has been created because of this disease is now being seen in the cold light of day.”

It was the latest and arguably the most inflammatory in a series of comments from Logan that have stunned viewers who remember her days as an impartial news reporter and star correspondent for the respected newsmagazine show.

In fairness, Logan didn't make those comments about Dr. Fauci herself. In fairness, she was merely reporting what many other people had said. People have been saying that "all across the world!"

At times of highly tribalized conflict, many adults will end up saying the darnedest things! And when these adults make these remarks, many other adults believe them.

In the end, there is no way to refute such remarks by resorting to facts or to logic. When the Jets and the Sharks go to war in the streets, members of the rival gangs will routinely say, and will believe, the darnedest and craziest things.

There's no obvious way to "explain" why some adults behave this way. According to major anthropologists, our brains are just wired this way. 

Some of us are more inclined to behave this way; others perhaps a bit less so. But this behavior routinely takes hold at tribalized junctures like this.

Meanwhile, though, how about it? Is it possible that Dr. Fauci is like Dr. Mengele in some sort of way?

Logicians say that all depends on what underlying facts you may have come to believe. They also tell us this:

At times of furious tribal conflict, there is no way to force The Others to stop believing the darnedest things. There are no other facts, there is no logic, which can magically force them to agree that they see things your way.

There is only the possible restoration of common feeling—the restoration of the sense that we're all in this together, that we form "a people," a nation. The restoration of the sense that, even where we may disagree on some proposition, I believe in your basic good intentions and in the state of your soul.

Here within our failing society, we're well past the point where some such restoration of common feeling is likely to occur. People like Logan seem to say the darnedest things—but then, our tribunes often say extremely strange things too.

We still plan to walk you through Rachel Maddow's appalling behavior on Wednesday night's TV show. Maddow said a string of the darnedest things that night, as she not infrequently does.

(Her channel still hasn't posted any transcripts past Monday night. We hate to waste our time in such ways, but we'll do the transcribing tomorrow if it comes to that.)

Maddow said a string of the darnedest things. Assuming basic emotional and intellectual competence (we don't), she and her staff were displaying utter contempt for her highly credulous viewers.

Some of her disgracefully stupid remarks struck us as baldly untrue on their face. We had to fact-check several others, though we (correctly) felt fairly sure we knew what we would find.

Why would Logan say what she did? Does she really believe that?

We can't answer that question. But why don't our cable news stars ever spend a single second worrying about our low-income kids? Worrying about what goes on in their schools? Discussing the urban violence to which they're often exposed?

On Fox, viewers are routinely told that we don't care about those kids. In this way, Fox viewers come to understand that fact about us.

We liberals don't understand such facts about our own failing tribe. We're too busy watching Rachel while the hours away, trying to get Trump and Meadows and Flynn and Eastman everyone else locked up.

Do parents of New York City's underserved kids want to get Trump locked up? Do they want to get him locked up to the exclusion of everything else? 

How about Hispanic parents, all across the nation? What do they think as they watch our tribunes blow them and their children off?

We can't answer your questions! But the people on our (profit-centered) "cable news" channels don't give a fig about those kids. Nothing could be more clear.

We were (briefly) thrilled by today's news report. We'll discuss it this afternoon.

We also came close to being thrilled by David Brooks' new column. It ran beneath this remarkable headline:

What Do You Say to the Sufferer?

Several years back, Brooks took a major turn in his subject atter. Today, he mainly writes about moral and spiritual questions. 

Within our tribe, no one does. Within our tribe, we spend our days, then spend our nights, trying to get The Others locked up. There's little else we care about. We betray the true state of souls.

When we read that news report today, we thought of those city kids' parents. Also, we thought again of the Woody Guthrie lyrics:

I've mined in your mines, I've gathered in your corn.
I've been working, Mister, since the day I was born.

When we read the headline on the David Brooks column, we thought of a song from the American song book, a song which came to us courtesy of Bill Monroe and Doc Watson.

 To hear their live performance, click here. Title included, the old song starts like this:

What Would You Give in Exchange for Your soul?
Brother you're far from the savior today
Risking your soul for the things that decay
Oh, if today God should call you away
What would you give in exchange for your soul?

What would you give (in exchange)
What would you give (in exchange)
What would you give in exchange for your soul?
Oh, if today God should call you away
What would you give in exchange for your soul?

That's the first verse and the chorus. The other two verses read thusly:

Mercy is calling you, won't you give heed?
Let the dear savior still tenderly plead?
Risk not your soul, it is precious indeed
What would you give in exchange for your soul? 
[...] 
More than all silver and gold of this Earth
More than all jewels the spirit is worth
God the creator has given it birth
What would you give in exchange for your soul?

We aren't religious at this site. But we think we may be able to see the loss of the soul when it happens.

Logan keeps saying the darnedest things. When she says the darnedest things, other people believe them.

Our tribe has been running on emptiness too. It's Rachel and Charles and it's Lemon and Cooper. What would you give in exchange for the chance to see some of The Others locked up?

This afternoon: More on that news report in the Times

Tomorrow: No, it isn't exactly her fault. But it's past time for her to go.