Can you trust the judgment to which you're exposed...

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2022

...in the online Washington Post? While we're at it, these are the six (6) bannered news reports currently being featured at the top of the endless front page of the (online) Washington Post:

Disaster scenarios raise the stakes for Colorado River negotiations

‘Tripledemic’ isn’t solely to blame for shortage in pediatric hospital beds

Our 10 most popular recipes of 2022

Croatia defeats Morocco in third-place game

Dreaming of a holiday getaway? Take our quiz to find your perfect trip.

An art critic’s take on Trump’s NFTs: Laughably bad—and that’s the point

Can you trust the judgment on display at the (online) Post? We ask, you decide!

Can you believe the things you're told...

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2022

...by your tribe's most trusted tribunes? We're breaking an array of promises with today's brief posting.

We said that we would discuss this persistently puzzling "philosophical" question: What is time? 

Beyond that, we still haven't made our way back to the best books of 2022—to the genres featured in the New York Times, to the genres which got disappeared.

Also, we never got back to what Karine Jeanne-Pierre said about the release of Brittney Griner. That said, and just this once, we're going to let you ask us about our award-winning plans for next week.

Next week, we plan to review a claim which is frequently advanced by blue tribe elites. When the familiar claim is advanced, we're told that the claim is justified by academic research.

We've examined the claim once before, when it was made in the Washington Post by columnist Michele Norris. In the past few weeks, we saw the claim in a different essay in the Post, then again in one of the year's most widely praised books.

The book in question is Under the Skin: The Hidden Toll of Racism on American Lives and on the Health of Our Nation. 

The book, by Linda Villarosa, has been widely praised as one of the best of the year. The New York Times picked it as one of the year's ten best books, as you can see right here.

At this point, a quick bit of background:

We take it as obvious that this nation's brutal racial history has indeed taken a wide array of hidden and non-hidden tolls on the nation's health and general well-being. We have no idea how well the various specific claims in Villarosa's book stand up to full review.

We won't be reviewing Villarosa's widely praised book. Instead, we'll be reviewing one particular claim which appears in the book. 

The claim is made quite commonly, as we'll note next week. The claim appears in truncated form on page 40 of Under the Skin. Here's the way the claim appeared in 2018, in an essay by Villarosa in the New York Times: 

VILLAROSA (4/11/18): In 2016, a study by researchers at the University of Virginia examined why African-American patients receive inadequate treatment for pain not only compared with white patients but also relative to World Health Organization guidelines. The study found that white medical students and residents often believed incorrect and sometimes “fantastical” biological fallacies about racial differences in patients. For example, many thought, falsely, that blacks have less-sensitive nerve endings than whites, that black people’s blood coagulates more quickly and that black skin is thicker than white. For these assumptions, researchers blamed not individual prejudice but deeply ingrained unconscious stereotypes about people of color, as well as physicians’ difficulty in empathizing with patients whose experiences differ from their own. 

That UVa study is frequently cited when this general topic is discussed. But did the study actually show that white medical students and residents "often believed such incorrect and sometimes 'fantastical' biological fallacies" as the three that passage specifically lists?

To cite just the first example, did the study actually show that "many [of those students and residents] thought, falsely, that blacks have less-sensitive nerve endings than whites?" 

Indeed, did the study show that any of the students and residents believed that particular statement? We'll even go so far as to ask this:

Did the study show that any of the people surveyed believed any of those claims at all? (We're not sure the answer is yes.)

We'll ask those questions in service to a larger question. That larger question goes like this:

Can you believe the things you're told by your tribe's most trusted observers?

As the nation slides toward the sea—in this era of tribal warfare and widespread madness—we think that's a fairly good question to raise at the end of the year. Can you believe the factual claims to which you're exposed? Can you even put your faith in the people conducting academic research?

Villarosa's book has been widely praised. As far as we know, Villarosa and her book deserve the praise they've received.

Then again, we can't swear that various claims in the book are accurate. By the way, in case you missed it, this is the greatest film of all time:

 Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

In the realm of factual claims, in the realm of critical judgments, can you trust and believe the various things you're told by your own tribe's elites?

Can we trust our own elites? Inquiring minds rarely ask!

So many elites, so little time!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2022

We did have to chuckle at this: What does feminist filmistry look like? The elevation of Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles has had us thinking about that.

By happenstance, Jeanne Dielman replaced previous winner Vertigo in the new Sight & Sound survey of the world's greatest films. On its face, that may seem halfway odd, given Alfred Hitchcock's reputation for directing misbehavior at his female stars.

That said, Hitchcock's Notorious (1946) is one of our three favorite films. We love it because it's such a well-crafted thriller, but also because it examines a crucial question:

Why are (some) men inclined to loathe and humiliate the women they're inclined to love?

Hitchcock examined weird male behavior in a long list of films. That said, the fact that weird behavior is being presented doesn't necessarily mean that it's being endorsed.

Anne Bilson advanced that argument in this essay for The Guardian way back in 2018:

Vertigo is not the last word in misogyny, but a feminist deconstruction of it

We see Vertigo as a more aggressive continuation of Rear Window. In each film, the James Stewart character shows a remarkable inability to pay attention to the actual, real-life woman throwing herself at him. 

(Grace Kelly in Rear Window, Barbara Bel Geddes in Vertigo.)

By the time of Vertigo, the Stewart character engages in classic delusional / domineering behavior toward a woman he wants to dominate, own, make over.  That said, for better or worse, the plot in Vertigo takes us beyond the valley of the wildly implausible. The plot in Notorious makes pluperfect sense. 

Should Jeanne Dielman be seen as a feminist film? We have no idea. It may seem to call to mind Belle de Jour. We don't mean that as a compliment. 

We could talk about feminist filmistry all day; it's a worthy topic. Another of our favorites, Casablanca, plainly isn't a feminist film, but then again, consider the perfect behavior one of the leading characters displays toward his much-loved wife. 

He isn't content merely saving the world. He's a spectacular husband.

In an unrelated matter, we did have to chuckle at this. The piece appeared in the New York Times. These high-end elites today!

Soledad O’Brien’s Painted Hardwood Floors Spark Debate on a New Trend
The broadcast journalist recently painted the floors of her Florida bungalow. Some people loved the idea; others hated it.

"Ms. O’Brien chronicled the progress on Twitter, gushing over every room." Or at least, so the news report said!

Our third and still final favorite film is My Brilliant Career, a classic feminist offering. With great fondness, we recall the way one audience gasped, right there at The Charles, when Judy told Sam, "Sadly, no."

ELITES: Tucker savaged Brittney Griner!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2022

These elites today: It probably isn't Joshua Needelman's fault. We'll assume he just got the assignment.

Needelman is six years out of college (Maryland, class of 2016). At present, he's a "reporting fellow" at the New York Times. The program replaced the summer internship program back in 2019.

We'll guess he was told to do it! But Needelman's report about WOW—Women of Wrestling appears on the Times' front page today.

"Female empowerment" has come a long way! His report starts off like this: 

NEEDELMAN (12/16/22): Where was the mud? The oil? The Jell-O?

When Jeanie Buss attended her first WOW—Women of Wrestling show, in February 2001, she expected to see scantily clad performers wrestling in slippery substances, as had been the norm on mainstream TV shows of that era.

Instead Ms. Buss, then the executive vice president of business operations for the N.B.A. team the Los Angeles Lakers, sat rapt as the indoor arena, now the Kia Forum, in Inglewood, Calif., shook with excitement. This was not mud wrestling; this was female empowerment. It felt as if the comic book heroes of Ms. Buss’s childhood had come to life, displaying strength and athleticism as they tossed each other around the ring.

Increasingly, "comic book heroes" are driving the culture in this, our declining world. Those comic book heroes are everywhere, from Hollywood right on down. 

At times, this may seem to reflect the fact that some of us, the American people, may not always be perfectly sharp. Here's what female empowerment looked like to Buss, a good and decent and highly placed person, way back in 2001:

NEEDELMAN (continuing directly): The loser of the match, as stipulated in advance, had her head shaved in the middle of the ring. Ms. Buss, sitting 10 rows back, turned in shock to the friend who had joined her.

“It was wild,” Ms. Buss recalled. “And I fell in love with it.”

If you lost the match, your head would be shaved! That was genuine female empowerment, reminiscent of the way a gang or Irish villagers attacked the Sarah Miles character in a brilliant scene portraying ugly, misogynist conduct in David Lean's poorly received 1970 epic, Ryan's Daughter.

(In truth, the lengthy film was a bit of a dud. But we'd score that deeply ugly scene as deeply memorable.)

Has we been at that wrestling match, we're not sure that its manifestations would have struck us as "female empowerment." To his credit, Needelman eventually broke the news to Times subscribers about another aspect of so-called professional wrestling:

NEEDELMAN: Professional wrestling is actually something of a misnomer. It’s a scripted, athletics-based morality play with over-the-top characters and dramatic story lines, as well as so-called “feuds” settled through choreographed “violence,” which is different from legitimate fighting competitions like boxing and mixed martial arts. It also has traditionally been dominated by men, in terms of both featured competitors and decision makers.

According to Needelman, professional wrestling is "a scripted, athletics-based morality play with over-the-top characters and dramatic story lines, as well as so-called 'feuds' settled through choreographed 'violence.' "

So, of course, is our own "cable news," as Tucker Carlson showed, for the millionth time, in an ugly display last Thursday night.

As we noted yesterday, Tucker was savaging Brittney Griner in his monologue that night. Griner had just been released from a Russian labor camp. Another American, Paul Whelan, had not been part of the deal.

Based on a single, later disowned report, Tucker said it was "obvious" that the Biden administration had chosen to leave Whelan behind. Even as Griner was flying home, here's what the cable star said:

CARLSON (12/8/22): Well, why did they make that choice? Well, you should know that Whelan is a Trump voter, and he made the mistake of saying so on social media. He's paying the price for that now. 

Brittney Griner is not. She's got very different politics. Brittney Griner despises the United States. She's been very vocal about that. This country is so repellent and immoral that two years ago she said: "I honestly feel we should not play the national anthem during our basketball season." She hates the country so much she doesn't want to hear its anthem. So there's that. 

That's the kind of position that gets you rewarded by Joe Biden. "Hate America? Perfect! We'll free the guy who sold weapons to drug cartels to get you out early."

Thus spake a disordered member of an elite which speaks to millions of people each night. 

(Full disclosure: Fox now seems to have disappeared the transcript of this monologue. Over the weekend and as of yesterday, the transcript was available.)

As we've noted in the past, a large portion of modern "cable news" is actually "a scripted morality play with over-the-top characters and dramatic story lines." Carlson was scripting one such over-the-top character with his ugly conduct last Thursday night. 

This particular character was being scripted as a comic book villain. But how accurate were the cable star's comic book claims?

For the record, the quote he clipped was a technically accurate quote, but how accurate was his larger characterization? Has he possibly disappeared some aspects of the actual story in service to comic book villainy?

For the record, Griner had made the statement in question in the wake of the killing of Breonna Taylor. Griner was a major star with the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury. 

Below, you see, headline included, a fuller report of what Griner had said. The report was written by Jeff Metcalfe of the Arizona Republic:

Phoenix Mercury's Brittney Griner will not be on court for National Anthem this season

Phoenix Mercury center Brittney Griner does not believe the National Anthem should be played before WNBA games and will not be on the floor if it is.

Griner made her comments during a teleconference Monday, two days after the Mercury's opening game at IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida. Players were not on the floor for the anthem during that game, honoring the late Breonna Taylor, other victims of police brutality and Black Lives Matter.

"I honestly feel we should not play the National Anthem during our season," said Griner, one of the top players in the WNBA and second in 2019 most valuable player voting. "I think we should take that much of a stand. 

"I don't mean that in any disrespect to our country. My dad was in Vietnam and a law officer for 30 years. I wanted to be a cop before basketball. I do have pride for my country."

Carlson forgot to mention several things Griner had said. He was too busy creating a comic book villain, as millions of people watched and were possibly being misled.

We're going to guess that Carlson's statement—his statement about Griner despising the United States and finding it repellent—may not be perfectly accurate. That was comic book, pro wrestling stuff. Our culture is full of such product.

We'll have to admit that this makes us think of the greatest film of all time—Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975).

An international elite recently selected Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles as history's greatest film. We have never seen the film, but as we noted at the start of the week, its storyline is said to go like this:

The film examines a widowed mother's regimented schedule of cooking, cleaning, mothering, and running errands over three days. The woman...earns money by having sex with a different client each afternoon before her son arrives home from school. Like her other activities, Jeanne's sex work is part of the mundane routine she performs daily by rote.

After a visit by a client on the second day, Jeanne's orderly behavior begins to subtly unravel. She overcooks potatoes while preparing dinner, then wanders around the house carrying the potato pot; she forgets to cover the porcelain in which she keeps her money, misses a button on her house coat, and drops a newly washed fork. The alterations to Jeanne's routine continue until her client arrives on the third day. They have orgasmic sex, she dresses herself, and then impulsively stabs him to death with a pair of scissors. She then sits quietly at her dining room table.

We've never seen the film. Nor have we been able to find an explanation of what makes the film so great. 

We've seen it suggested that the film brilliantly captures the existing state of European feminist thought as of 1975. We wonder if the vision of that era's Euro elite may perhaps have been built around a comic book characterization of female possibilities in Europe as of that particular date.

These elites today! One elite may possibly love that ancient Eurovision. Another elite has Women of Wrestling atop today's front page!

For ourselves, we think Griner may have shown imperfect political judgment in the stance she adopted concerning the national anthem, not unlike the well-intentioned Colin Kaepernick before her. It seems to us that some other type of gesture might have produced a broader range of converts.

That said, Kaepernick and Griner were brilliant young professional athletes, not seasoned political players. By way of contrast, Carlson is part of a disordered elite which struts and frets upon a stage. Also, the New York Times has Buss and WOW and a vision of female empowerment atop today's front page.

Our ruling:

Everywhere President Roosevelt looked, he saw "one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." Everywhere we look today, even including MSNBC, we see gangs of overpaid elites whose statements you shouldn't assume to be fully accurate and whose sometimes slightly peculiar assessments you possibly shouldn't quite trust.

Who won the 2022 elections?

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2022

Where the numbers stand: A few weeks back, we took a preliminary look at the nationwide numbers from the 2022 House elections.

By now, the votes are pretty much counted. Here's the way the numbers look at the Cook Report:

November 2022 House elections:
Total votes cast: 107.6 million
Votes for Republican candidates: 54.5 million (50.6%)
Votes for Democratic candidates: 51.4 million (47.8%)

Republicans narrowly won the House. Nationwide, Democratic candidates were outvoted by almost three points.

Several points should be made concerning those nationwide numbers:

As we noted way back when, Democrats got zero votes in certain districts because there was no Democratic candidate on the ballot. For example:

As you can see on the Cook Report map, there was no Democratic candidate in the race for North Dakota's one "at-large" House seat. The same is true of the race for South Dakota's one House seat.

For those reasons, there were no Democratic votes in the Dakotas this year. There were no Democratic votes because there were no Democratic candidates!

Down in Texas, there were no Democratic candidates in six contiguous districts stretching almost across the state (Districts 19, 25, 26, 31, 06, 11). It's also true that there were no Democratic candidates—and therefore, no Democratic votes—in certain other districts across the vast U.S.

That said:

In California, Adam Schiff was re-elected in District 30 in the face of zero Republican votes. So was Anna Eshoo in District 16. (California's relatively new "jungle primary" system helps explain this state of affairs.)

This sort of thing undermines the usefulness of the nationwide two-party vote as a measure of national political sentiment. On the other hand:

It has long been assumed that the party holding the White House will do more poorly in midterm elections, especially in a president's first midterm election. On that basis, and given problems with inflation, it was sometimes assumed that Republican turnout would swamp Democratic turnout this time around.

That didn't exactly happen. We'd say that the presence of Donald J. Trump in the nation's political life has changed a lot of long-standing assumptions and rules of thumb. That's reflected in the relatively high number of people who turned out, from both parties, in these midterm elections.

Examples:

Obama's midterm elections took place in 2010 and 2014. In those two years, total midterm turnout stood at 86.8 and 78.2 million voters.

Then, along came The Age of Trump. Total turnout in the 2018 and 2022 midterms stood at 113.4 and 107.6 million voters.

Large numbers of people still don't vote. But in this, The Age of Donald J. Trump, the tide on the river has risen.

Final point:

In this, The Age of Donald J. Trump, Republicans were still able to win the House—except on blue tribe cable news programs, where the outcome of the 2022 House elections is often described as a "win." 

On cable, we're still told that we won. Ain't news by silo grand?

ELITES: When Carlson made ugly, bogus remarks...

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2022

...our blue elites responded: As far as we know, Tucker Carlson isn't cognitively challenged in any major way.

In the case of Donald J. Trump, we aren't entirely sure. With Tucker, we see few signs.

That's why we started yesterday's report with that first thing Tucker said. He was discussing the release of Brittney Griner—and he proceeded to make a claim he surely knew to be bogus:

CARLSON (12/8/22): "But no," says Joe Biden. "We had no choice to take but to take Brittney Griner over Paul Whelan. Putin demanded that."

BIDEN (videotape): We never forgot about Brittney. We've not forgotten about Paul Whelan, who has been unjustly detained in Russia for years. This was not a choice of which America to bring home.

CARLSON: "This was not a choice of which American to bring home?" Really? 

Oh, but it clearly was a choice. And we know it was a choice because the first accounts of the prisoner swap with Russia said it was a choice. 

For the Carlson transcript, click here.

Tucker said that Biden had a choice—he could have brought Paul Whelan home from his Russian prison. And he said we know that Biden had a choice because of what NBC said:

CARLSON (continuing directly): Earlier today, Andrea Mitchell of NBC—this is someone who's been in Washington covering news for more than 50 years, someone who is deeply supportive of the Joe Biden administration—contributed to a story that contained this line: "The Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan—or none." 

So Mitchell's piece attributed this fact to a "senior U.S. official." It was not a guess. It was sourced. 

One part of that statement was accurate! Earlier in the day, NBC News really had reported that the Kremlin had given "the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan—or none." 

Six hours later, NBC News had appended a formal correction to that initial report. And by the way, the initial, later corrected report wasn't "Mitchell's piece." Andrea Mitchell had been listed as a contributor, not as one of the authors of the report.

Why did NBC News file that first report? We have no idea. 

That said, Carlson noted another accurate point during his monologue. This was the second time, in a matter of weeks, that NBC News had been forced to correct an initial report about a widely discussed event. 

Below, you see Carlson's slightly extended statement, in which he refers to that first corrected report:

CARLSON (continuing from above): So Mitchell's piece attributed this fact to a "senior U.S. official." It was not a guess. It was sourced. 

And then, as with the early reporting on Paul Pelosi last month, that account was scrubbed and sanitized, and the new version of the NBC story assures us that: "The Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one."

In other words, Joe Biden's version of events is now perfectly in sync with the official NBC News version of events. Of course. ,..So at this point, we can assume the obvious. The Biden administration chose Brittney Griner over Paul Whelan, the basketball player over the Marine facing 16 years. There was only room for one in the lifeboat and the Marine got left behind.

In that passage, Carlson linked this corrected report to NBC's earlier corrected report about the attack on Paul Pelosi. In fact, there had been such a corrected report. This wasn't NBC's first such report in recent weeks.

We don't know why NBC News keeps making these glaring errors. But in that passage, Carlson was telling his viewers something he surely knew to be bogus. 

He was saying we know that Biden chose Griner over Wallace because of that one, later corrected, NBC report. Indeed, he was saying this was "obvious," based on that one report!

As far as we know, Carlson isn't cognitively challenged. Assuming that impression is correct, Carlson knew he was saying something which was utterly bogus.

Carlson said we knew what Biden had done—that the truth was obvious. He had "chose[n] Brittney Griner over Paul Whelan...There was only room for one in the lifeboat and the Marine got left behind."

Presumably, Carlson knew that we knew no such thing, that no such thing was "obvious." He made the statement anyway, then went in an ugly direction:

CARLSON (continuing directly): Well, why did they make that choice? Well, you should know that Whelan is a Trump voter, and he made the mistake of saying so on social media. He's paying the price for that now. 

Brittney Griner is not. She's got very different politics. Brittney Griner despises the United States. She's been very vocal about that. This country is so repellent and immoral that two years ago she said: "I honestly feel we should not play the national anthem during our basketball season." She hates the country so much she doesn't want to hear its anthem. So there's that. 

That's the kind of position that gets you rewarded by Joe Biden. "Hate America? Perfect! We'll free the guy who sold weapons to drug cartels to get you out early."

That presentation was ugly; it was also remarkably stupid. Then, things got dumber and uglier still:

CARLSON (continuing directly): And then there's the matter of identity, which is central to equity. 

Brittney Griner is not White, and she's a lesbian. Now, those facts might seem irrelevant to you. We hope they do seem irrelevant because they are, but they're not irrelevant to the White House press secretary. In the view of the White House press secretary, those are essential qualifications for a prisoner swap.

At this point, Carlson played tape of something Karine Jean-Pierre had said in the course of announcing Griner's release. 

We'll have to postpone that part of this battle until tomorrow. The warfare gets extremely complex when the elites of our major tribes clash.

For today, we do need to offer this:

We know of exactly zero evidence in support of Carlson's ugly claims about Brittney Griner's political views. More specifically, we know of exactly zero evidence indicating that Brittney Griner "despises the United States," that she finds this country "repellent and immoral."

On the other hand, there's the possibly unwise statement Karine Jean-Pierre had made. And there's the somewhat selective account in the New York Times concerning what Carlson had said.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But our varied elites are at war with each other at the present time. 

In our view, Carlson made an array of statements last Thursday night which were ugly and baldly bogus. 

His work that night came from deep within a deeply disordered elite. Then too, there's the way our own tribe's elites responded—and then too, there's the year's best books!

Tomorrow: We try to wrap this up

What is time, Augustine asked!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2022

We plan to answer his question: We spotted the sign at the World Cup match. "Allez les bleus," the sign said.

Inevitably, it called Steve Martin's observation to mind. "Those French," Martin famously said. "They have a different word for everything!"

This brings us to the discussion which broke out at Ezra Klein's site this week. Plainly, it was a "philosophical" discussion. At one point, it went like this:

KLEIN (12/13/22): You write in the book, “The human brain did not evolve to understand or to experience a true nature of time.” Tell me what you mean by that.

BUONOMANO: So all animals exist in time, of course. And they have to anticipate and interact with other beings on other—their conspecifics and predators and prey. But humans are unique in our ability to represent time and to have a conceptualization of time, of long, temporal periods, to make cause-and-effect relationships between now and one year from now.

So while humans have the ability to conceptualize time, that’s sort of what gives us the ability to have this discussion of, "What is the nature of time? What’s the difference between past, present, and future?" So this ability that humans have to conceptualize time, I think, is what makes Homo sapiens sapien. It’s what makes us wise.

Klein was speaking with Dean Buonomano, a professor of neurobiology and psychology at UCLA. We'll let Klein offer a thumbnail:

KLEIN: My guest today is Dean Buonomano. He’s a professor of neurobiology and psychology at UCLA. And his book, “Your Brain Is a Time Machine”—what a great name—it gets at these two levels of time, the time that we experience and the time that exists, as best we understand it, outside of our experience.

This is one of those conversations, one of those topics that at times—ha, ha—you might feel like you’ve taken a handful of mushrooms. Because it’s weird. Ultimate reality, to the extent there is such a thing, is weird.

Ultimate reality is weird! To some extent, so are discussions in which we humans are said to be "wise" due to our ability to have a discussion about "the difference between past, present and future."

Eventually, it had to be said! Augustine had to be quoted:

BUONOMANO (continuing directly from above): But at the same time, we’re not very good at it. We know what we mean by time, but it’s something we’re still struggling to understand. There’s the famous quote by Saint Augustine, which is translated various ways. But the gist of it is, if you don’t ask me what time is, I know what it is. If you ask me what it is, I do not know.

So said Augustine, regarding time. Almost two thousand years have crawled past, and we humans are still puzzling about this.

The later Wittgenstein offered some basic approaches to such never-ending conundrums. According to Professor Horwich, the academy decided to walk away from this helping hand.

Regarding the question, "What is time?" we'll plan to suggest an approach to such conundrums in a very special Saturday morning session. Regarding that specific question, we'll offer an instant spoiler:

With that, as with many such questions, the start to an answer might go something like this:

What is time? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

ELITES: Justice Kavanaugh, partying hardy!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2022

Reporting what Tucker said: These journalistic elites today!

Over the weekend, Justice Kavanaugh was partying hardy—or at least, so Politico said.

On Monday night, we watched as Lawrence O'Donnell went on and on, then on and on and on and on, flogging the troubling conduct captured in that troubling soundbite. 

We were struck by the dumbbell demagoguery this TV star put on display. And then, this very morning, we skillfully spotted this:

Why Kavanaugh partying with right-wing conservatives raises ethical questions

That was the link to Ruth Marcus' new column. It sat atop the front page of the rapidly deteriorating (online) Washington Post.

After we clicked, the headline on Marcus' column said the exact same thing. But wouldn't you know it? 

Right at the start of her actual column, Marcus says something quite different. Please note the key word "not:"

MARCUS (12/14/22): I’m not worked up about Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s appearance at a conservative-studded holiday party. But the episode serves to highlight a disturbing trend among the justices, more prevalent on the right than the left: funneling their public appearances into compatible ideological silos.

Some background on Kavanaugh’s partying: Politico reported that the justice attended a Christmas party last weekend at the home of American Conservative Union chair Matt Schlapp. The two men worked together at the George W. Bush White House; Schlapp went to bat for Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation hearings in 2018; and Kavanaugh has been to Schlapp’s party in previous years.

This time, though, it created some fuss...

As she continued, Marcus named some of the other people who had attended the party. But right there, in her very first sentence, Marcus said she wasn't worked up about the Justice's partying.

In paragraph 4, Marcus offered more detail about her state of mind:

MARCUS: I think it might have been the better part of valor for Kavanaugh to send regrets this year, but my head is not exploding here. Even Supreme Court justices get to have social lives, and the Kavanaughs and Schlapps are longtime friends. Justices aren’t responsible for vetting their hosts’ guest lists. And Kavanaugh’s mere presence at an event at which another attendee filed an amicus brief hardly seems problematic.

It isn't just that she isn't worked up—her head isn't even exploding! Or at least, so her column says

In the bulk of her column, Marcus goes on to discuss the "disturbing trend among the justices" which she cites early on. She says that liberal Justices are involved in this trend, though it's more prevalent among those on the right.

Did the headline writer at the Post actually read this column? The headline which sits atop the piece seems to contradict what the columnist actually says.

If the headline writer read the column, was he or able able to grasp what the columnist was saying? We're not sure such things hugely matter, at all times, among These Journalistic Elites Today!

In our view, Lawrence had demagogued dumbly and hard at the start of his show Monday night. We can't link you to a a transcript of what he said because the corporate channel which pays him millions has apparently decided to stop all transcript production again.

At Fox, they proudly transcribe the things Tucker says; they even proof-read the copy! At MSNBC, they've plainly decided that they're rather not make it easy to see what their various all-stars have said.

So it goes as these branches of our  journalistic elite continue their tribal warfare. This brings us back to what Tucker said last Thursday night about the release of Brittney Griner from a Russian labor camp.

Griner's release occurred mid-week; Tucker swung into action. Some of his statements were blatantly bogus—but some of his statements were not.

Along the way, he identified an unmistakable, unexplained error by NBC News. He also featured a statement by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre—a statement which reflects our own blue tribe's "demographication of everything."

Fox News was willing to transcribe what Tucker Carlson said. His blatantly bogus claim can be found in the passage posted below. 

As he starts, he's speaking about Paul Whelan, the Russian prisoner who is constantly capsuled, for whatever reason, as a "former Marine:":

CARLSON (12/8/22): So the former Marine, who's been there for four years already, gets left behind in Russia while the celebrity athlete who gets busted with hash oil is championed by her celebrity media friends like Gayle King and is home in just months. 

I mean, that's what happened. And it seems like a metaphor for how America under Joe Biden is working at this point. 

"But no," says Joe Biden. "We had no choice to take but to take Brittney Griner over Paul Whelan. Putin demanded that."

BIDEN (videotape): We never forgot about Brittney. We've not forgotten about Paul Whelan, who has been unjustly detained in Russia for years. This was not a choice of which America to bring home.

CARLSON: "This was not a choice of which American to bring home?" Really? 

Oh, but it clearly was a choice. And we know it was a choice because the first accounts of the prisoner swap with Russia said it was a choice. 

Sad! According to Tucker, the Biden administration had "clearly" chosen to free Griner instead of Whelan. We chose to leave Whelan behind. 

According to Tucker, we clearly know that that's the case. He then explained how we know this troubling fact:

CARLSON (continuing directly): Earlier today, Andrea Mitchell of NBC—this is someone who's been in Washington covering news for more than 50 years, someone who is deeply supportive of the Joe Biden administration—contributed to a story that contained this line: "The Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan—or none." 

So Mitchell's piece attributed this fact to a "senior U.S. official." It was not a guess. It was sourced. 

We know because Andrea Mitchell said! So said Tucker Carlson.

In fact, that NBC News report had been quoted correctly. In fact, NBC's original report had said exactly what Carlson said it had said.

In truth, it wasn't "Mitchell's piece"—that statement was part of the scam. And no—we don't know that something is true just because NBC says it is in an early report, a report to which the network appended a later correction.

There's more to say about what Tucker said. We'll say more about his report tomorrow.

That said, let's be clear. Obviously, Carlson knew that what he was saying was bogus. He knew that we don't actually know that "the Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan." 

Tucker knew that we don't know that just because that's what one early report said. Tucker knew his claim was bogus. The excitable boy was at it again—but so was Lawrence, four nights later. 

Tomorrow, we'll show you what the New York Times reported concerning what Tucker had said. It seemed to us that the paper of record offered a highly selective report on this topic. But that's the way our reporting elites tend to play the game in this war of the blue and the red.

These are complex, challenging times within this branch of our journalistic elite. Other branches of this elite don't seem to be aware of this fact—or at least, that the thought which popped into our heads over the weekend when we reviewed the was the Times discussed the year's best books.

The Times was quite high on certain genres. Other genres were disappeared.  

Tomorrow: The Times reports what Tucker said

Friday: The best books of the year


Beyond the valley of the logicians!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022

Balthazar suffers and dies: Just to be completely honest, we've seen and liked several films which might strike others as boring. 

We're thinking of My Dinner with Andre (1981). We're thinking of Wings of Desire (1987).

We saw Wings of Desire at The Charles one night long ago, probably during its first run. We came home and dreamed a highly affecting dream, whose contents we can't recall.

Several decades later, we watched it again on our TV screen. Our reaction was totally different. Plainly, you had to see it in a darkened theater, perhaps on that very night.

For these reasons, we can't reject the possibility that we would also like and admire Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, the newly-crowned world's greatest film, assuming we could make it through the length of this greatest film's title.

Based on what we've seen and read, we'll guess that we wouldn't like the famously unwatchable film with the seemingly stereotypically downbeat Euro-"feminist" framework. 

We prefer a more hopeful feminism. But it's certainly possible that we'd end up liking this.

As we noted yesterday, the New York Times' Manohla Dargis has listed Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles as history's third greatest film. In her estimation, the greatest film of all time is Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar (1966).

By happenstance, we have seen that film. Through the miracle of YouTube, you can watch it too, simply by clicking this link.

We're going to guess that you won't like it. We suspect that you're likely to find it puzzlingly amateurish, weirdly tedious, also quite possibly dull. 

That, of course, doesn't mean that Dargis' judgment is "wrong." It does raise a question about where our tribal frameworks come from.

Yesterday, we showed you Dargis' list of the ten greatest films of all time. As we noted, we've seen three of these films, one about ten million times:

Manohla Dargis, ten greatest films
1) Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson)
2) The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola)
3) Jeanne Dielman (Chantal Akerman)
4) Flowers of Shanghai (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)
5) The Gleaners and I (Varda)
6) Tokyo Story  (Yasujiro Ozu)
7) Killer of Sheep (Charles Burnett)
8) Little Stabs at Happiness (Ken Jacobs), 
9) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson) 
10) Shoes (Lois Weber)

The Godfather is highly familiar to many Times subscribers. Many of those others are not. Therein lies a possible bit of a small minor lurking conundrum.

Without attempting to be too haughty, we'll note that lists like those of Dargis and her colleague A. O. Scott tend to come straight outta film studies degree programs. There's nothing necessarily "wrong" about that, until such time as there may be.

In our view, it's slightly odd when a major newspaper employs a pair of high-end film critics whose aesthetic sensibility is so separate and apart from that of the paper's subscribers. 

In the case of the New York Times, it may well be that this exercise in academic high taste helps establish one of the newspaper's branding themes, in which the Times is thought to be a smart publication. Subscribers tend to play along, knowing that the red tribe's rubes would never tolerate lists of that type, the way we brainiacs do.

Go ahead—we dare you! Go ahead and take the Balthazar Challenge! Go ahead and try to watch 15-20 minutes of Dargis' world's greatest film.

We're going to guess that you'll have no idea why this film would strike someone as the greatest film of all time. When you react that way to the selections of Dargis and Scott, you make us flash on sacred Nietzsche, explaining where certain types of values come from.

We've often written about the way we've been abandoned by the logicians. Have we possibly been abandoned by the high-end film critics too?

Go ahead—take the Balthazar Challenge! There's no such thing as the world's greatest film, but if there actually were such a film, can you really see why this film would be that?

Your lizard will tell you to play along. Are you able to ride herd on such deeply sourced advice?

ELITES: What Tucker Carlson said last week!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022

And what the Times reported: Over the past how many years, The Crazy has played an increasingly major role in our semi-parodic imitation of a national discourse—in our "imitation of life."

Today, The Crazy or its approximation is back in the news again. For one example, Greg Sargent cites the latest from Elon Musk in this piece for the Washington Post:

SARGENT (12/12/22): Over the weekend, Elon Musk called for the prosecution of Anthony S. Fauci, the leading infectious-disease expert in the Biden administration. “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci,” Musk tweeted, mocking transgender people for good measure. Musk then endorsed a complicated right-wing conspiracy theory about Fauci’s role in the covid-19 pandemic.

Democrats and other Musk critics reacted with an explosion of outrage...

So went the tweet from Musk, followed by the explosion. For an account of Musk's "complicated right-wing conspiracy theory about Fauci’s role in the covid-19 pandemic," we'll direct you to the rest of Sargent's essay.

Our first question goes like this: 

Is it true? Was Fauci "involved in U.S. government funding of controversial early research into covid?" Did he then "lie to Congress about it?" 

So goes the complex conspiracy theory, as described by Sargent. What that could have to do with pronouns is pretty much anyone's guess.

Has Musk introduced The Crazy into the discourse through his recent tweet? To a large extent, that would depend on the ability of the public to sort through the facts of the case.

Given the way our discourse currently works, such sorting can never occur. On one cable channel, viewers will be given a highly selective selection of facts designed to make the theory seem true.

On the other cable channels, the charge won't be discussed. As on Morning Joe this morning, Fauci will be thanked for his service, and the matter will end right there.

Within this bifurcated world, The Crazy gets halfway around the world before anything like clarification can even get its pants on. And as it turns out, we humans are highly susceptible to The Crazy, a point we discussed just last week.

We discussed the Taylor family, pere et fille, as described by The Atlantic's Elaina Plott Calabro in a heavily-researched profile. Calbro started by describing The Crazy as believed by the father:

CALABRO (12/5/22): Bob Taylor may not have been overtly partisan, but he rivaled Trump in his tendency to self-mythologize. In 2006, [he] had published a novel with the small publisher Savas Beatie called Paradigm. As best I can tell, this is Taylor’s effort to demonstrate the value of a system he invented called the “Taylor Effect”—which purports to predict the stock market based on the gravitational fluctuations of Earth...

You can read the rest of the passage in last week's report. But much as The Music Man's Professor Hill had once proffered an approach called "The Think System," this father claimed that his "Taylor Effect" was capable of predicting the stock market based on gravitational fluctuations.

There was one major difference between Bob Taylor and Harold Hill. According to Calabro's report, Bob Taylor really believed his apparently crazy claims. 

According to Calabro, "He considered his stock-market theory to be 'the Genuine Article.' " Later, in a ghost-written memoir, "he likened himself to da Vinci, Galileo, Edison, Marconi, and the Wright brothers." 

(By way of contrast, Professor Hill was a fictional con man in a fictional Broadway musical which later became an Oscar-nominated fictional movie. By the end of the fictional tale, the phony professor was healed by the love of a much younger, conventionally attractive woman.)

According to Calabro, Bob Taylor truly believed in his own Think System! Years later, along came Taylor's daughter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Once she became involved in politics, she apparently believed such things as these:

CALABRO: QAnon followers subscribe to the sprawling conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by a network of satanic pedophiles funded by Saudi royalty, George Soros, and the Rothschild family...[S]ince its inception, in the fall of 2017, when “Q,” an anonymous figure professing to be a high-level government official, began posting tales from the so-called deep state, no politician has become more synonymous with QAnon than Greene. To an extent, Greene had already signaled her attraction to conspiracy theories, questioning on American Truth Seekers whether the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was a false-flag operation to eliminate gun rights. But with Q, Greene was all in. She has gone so far as to endorse an unhinged QAnon theory called “frazzledrip,” which claims that Hillary Clinton murdered a child as part of a satanic blood ritual.

For the record: Calabro seems to think that Rep. Greene really does or did believe such things, that it hasn't been simply a ruse.

Over the weekend, Greene was back with her latest contribution to the discourse. If she had been in charge of the events of January 6, she said, the attack would have been successful—and participants would have been armed!

Greene later said, not entirely incorrectly, that her remarks were tongue-in-cheek. But these are the kinds of postures being floated about as The Crazy takes over the discourse—and as "Democrats and other critics react with explosions of outrage."

In his essay for the Post, Sargent suggests that these explosions of outrage may not be especially helpful. We're inclined to agree with that view.

That said, it also isn't especially helpful to respond to The Crazy with selective accounts concerning what has and hasn't been said. It seems to us that that's what happened when Tucker Carlson offered these remarks last Thursday night about the release of Brittany Griner from a Russian labor camp.

It was vintage Tucker! Some of what he said this night was blatantly bogus. But then again, on the other hand, some of what he said somewhat possibly wasn't. 

In this subsequent news report, the Times produced a selective account of what the disordered fellow had said. So it may go within our blue tribe's reporting elites, even at the highest levels.

Over the course of the past few weeks, we've seen two of those blue elites possibly gone a bit wild. First, an international assortment of cognoscenti produced the somewhat peculiar claim that an unwatchable film from 1975 was the greatest film ever made.

(According to the Times' Manohla Dargis, it was only the third greatest film of all time. According to Dargis, the greatest film concerns a donkey named Balthazar. Trust us! Most Times subscribers would find that film barely watchable, but also esthetically strange.)

That film elite operates "over the heads" of the illiterate masses. But then, along came the New York Times' major book critics, with their accounts of the books which "stayed with them" this year.

The first elite is off in the clouds. This second elite seems to be wrapped up in "memoirs about erotic obsession," but also in "celebrity memoirs." 

More generally, as we read the Times' review of the best books of the past year, we were struck by the various genres which needn't apply!

On the reporting side of the New York Times, two major reporters offered a rather selective account of what Fox's Excitable Boy had said about Griner's release. On the paper's critical side, two of the critics were off in the clouds, while others were way down in the valley.

We'll try to get to all these battles among these elites as our week continues. Spoiler alert: 

The Crazy is all around us these days. But so is the "what-us-worry" branch of the High Lofty Undisturbed.

Tomorrow: Best books of the year!

Scott disappears world's greatest film!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2022

Dargis drops it to third: These elites today! Often, they're in the framework-of-understanding business, sometimes in ways we may not fully see.

Last Wednesday, the New York Times co-chief film critics—Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott—released their own lists of the world's ten greatest films. Their colloquy appeared in today's print editions—or at least, it appeared in the print edition we found outside our front door.

The pair were reacting to Sight & Sound's recent announcement that Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles was selected as history's greatest film in its latest survey of slighlty over 1,600 academics and critics.

What did the co-chief critics of the Times list as the ten greatest films? Scott presented his list in chronological order—and the world's greatest film wasn't there:

A. O. Scott, ten greatest films
The Gold Rush (Charlie Chaplin)
La Terra Trema (Luchino Visconti)
What’s Opera, Doc? (Chuck Jones)
Big Deal on Madonna Street (Mario Monicelli)
La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini)
Cléo From 5 to 7 (Varda) 
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One (William Greaves)
Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee)
Paris Is Burning (Jennie Livingston)
Happy as Lazzaro (Alice Rohrwacher)

That's right—Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One! It's one of the ten greatest films! 

For ourselves, we've seen three of those ten films, though possibly not to the end. 

Scott didn't include Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles on his list at all. It came in third on Dargis' list, which she said she was listing in order of merit:

Manohla Dargis, ten greatest films
1) Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson)
2) The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola)
3) Jeanne Dielman (Chantal Akerman)
4) Flowers of Shanghai (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)
5) The Gleaners and I (Varda)
6) Tokyo Story  (Yasujiro Ozu)
7) Killer of Sheep (Charles Burnett)
8) Little Stabs at Happiness (Ken Jacobs), 
9) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson) 
10) Shoes (Lois Weber)

We've seen two or possibly three of those films, one about ten millions times.

Dargis' second greatest film is a giant popular favorite, at least here in the U.S. Her greatest film is about a donkey named Balthazar. It would strike most American viewers as amateurish and highly tedious, much as it struck some observers when it first appeared:

The New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, however, wrote that although some consider the work a masterpiece, "others may find it painstakingly tedious and offensively holy." Ingmar Bergman also said of the movie, "this Balthazar, I didn't understand a word of it, it was so completely boring...A donkey, to me, is completely uninteresting, but a human being is always interesting."

Judgments like these are subjective. We do think it's interesting to note that the chief critics for the Times tend to favor films whose merits would be unrecognizable to most Times readers and which would very likely bore many Times readers to tears.

That doesn't mean that their judgments are "wrong." It does suggest a possible oddity concerning some of our modern world's high-end journalistic and academic elites.

Other journalistic elites work quite hard to dumb things down. More on this mishmosh to follow.

STARTING TOMORROW: Curtain drawn back!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2022

Dueling elites gone wild: Just this once, we're going to let you ask us about our weekend.

Also, we're going to take a point of personal privilege. 

Two items in the New York Times struck us with the greatest thunderclap during that two-day period. One item was this rather selective news report—a report which included a rather selective account of something Tucker had said on his nightly TV show. 

The other item involved the New York Times' book critics. Quickly, a bit of background to this thunderclap:

Yesterday, it was the New York Times pretty much gone wild regarding end-of-year Top Ten lists. As you can see in Sunday's "Today's Paper" listing, the paper of record presented separate items regarding such end-of-year entries as these:

Best Songs of 2022
Best Movies of 2022
Best TV Shows of 2022
Best Art of 2022
Best Theater of 2022
Best Dance Performances of 2022
Best Podcasts of 2022
Best Comedy of 2022
Best Jazz Albums of 2022

"Best Comedy of 2022!" By now, it's gone that far!

Such "Best of" selections are always subjective; we'll assume that most people know that. That said, it was in the Book Review section where yesterday's New York Times seemed to go most wild.

Yesterday, the Book Review presented reports on the following topics. We include the page number on which each report appeared in yesterday's print editions:

The Best Historical Fiction of 2022, BR12
The Best Book Covers of 2022, BR16
The Best Crime Novels of 2022, BR18
The Best True Crime of 2022, BR19
The Best Romance Novels of 2022, BR20
The Best Audiobooks of 2022, BR21
The Best Poetry of 2022, BR22
The Best Thrillers of 2022, BR23
The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of 2022, BR24

As you can see, the Times presented a review of the year's best romance novels. The paper reviewed the best crime novels, but also the best true crime books.

The Times reviewed the year's best thrillers, along with the best science fiction and the best fantasy fiction. The Times reviewed the best audiobooks—even the best book covers!

That said:

We were struck, as we looked at those listings, by the categories which didn't bark. We had a similar reaction when we clicked a link to this report, which was first published late last month but has only appeared online:

100 Notable Books of 2022
Chosen by the staff of The New York Times Book Review

That report didn't appear in yesterday's print editions. For whatever reason, it was included in yesterday's aforementioned "Today's Paper" listings.

At any rate, staff of the Times had chosen the year's 100 most notable books. Beneath the slightly bewildering presentation of those titles, this further report was offered at that very same link:

Explore the Best Books of 2022
A look at the books that defined the year, by genre.

The paper now provided links to the year's best books in an array of genres. Once again, we were struck by some of the genres which did appear—and by some of the genres which didn't. 

Further links excluded, here's the full presentation you will find at that link:

Explore the Best Books of 2022
A look at the books that defined the year, by genre.

Thrillers: A fiendish puzzle, an all-out struggle for survival on a remote island, the mysterious disappearance of a spouse: The year’s best thrillers could not be more different.

Science Fiction and Fantasy: Pandemics, witchcraft and terrifying artificial intelligence were among the themes that stood out in 2022.

Romance: The genre has had an exceptional year. Here are some of the novels that took our breath away.

Historical Fiction: These 10 historical novels are sturdy time machines, built to last and constructed by pros.

Crime: Our columnist was introduced to a marvelous array of mysteries this year. These are the ones that made an impression.

True Crime: Some narratives are all the more chilling because they happened in real life. Here are the most compelling of 2022.

Poetry: If you love reading poems, you will not want to put down these seven collections.

The listings started with the year' best thrillers, then moved on from there. As it turns out, the romance genre had an exceptional year. In fact, some of this past year's romance novels had taken staffers' breath away!

At any rate, those are the genres which did appear. We were struck by some of the genres which didn't.

All these things having been said, we haven't yet reached the offering which brought us up most short. That offering appeared on page B14 of the Book Review, headlined exactly as shown:

2022 Reading Picks From Times Staff Critics 
The books they read this year that have stayed with them.

We were struck by some of the books, but also by the types of books, which stayed with those three (3) New York Times book critics this year. Also, we were struck by the types of books which apparently didn't.

Just last week, an international array of critics, professors and hangers-on told the world that this largely unwatched and unwatchable film is the greatest film of all time:

Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

In the view of that international elite, Jeanne Dielman is the greatest film of all time, apparently because it captured the existing state of European feminist thought as of 1975. 

(Inevitably, this involved a woman who engages in no activities except cooking, cleaning and sex work. After that, she kills someone. It's the greatest film of all time!)

We thought the selection of that unwatchable film may have said or suggested something about that one elite. Similar thoughts flooded our minds when we read the titles of the books which stayed with the New York Times' three book critics this year.

Lost in the shuffle was the front-page report which mentioned Tucker Carlson. Inside that front-page news report, we thought we saw the war of the worlds, with imperfect elites from both major tribes spinning rather hard.

Tomorrow: The books which stuck with the critics


BREAKING: Who chooses the middle seat on a plane?

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2022

Also, who chooses the Washington Post? We never cease to be amazed by the other-worldly, dimwit drift of the online Washington Post.

As we type at 11 a.m., the online Post is offering six reports under banner headlines at the top of its endless front page.

Believe it or drop, these are the headlines on those reports. No, we aren't making this up:

Fierce claims to Crimea highlight slim chance of Russia-Ukraine peace deal

U.S. veterans take desperate road trip to remind America about its Afghan allies

To the people who willingly chose the middle seat: We have questions

Menopause transition ushers in memory problems for many women

Bored on a winter weekend? Try one of these cold-weather DIY projects.

The members of Fox’s NFL pregame show have bonds deeper than football

In case you're wondering, the third of those featured reports is really as dumb as it seems. Here's the full way that report is presented, including its silly sub-headline:

To the people who willingly chose the middle seat: We have questions
A viral tweet about a rebuffed seat-swap on a recent flight made people wonder: Who actually chooses to sit in the middle?

That report sits at the top of the Post's front page. This is the business they've chosen!

Slight oddities from the world of sport!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2022

See you in September: BREAKING! Croatia has defeated Brazil, 1-1, in a high-scoring World Cup match.

Even stranger are the recent twin anomalies from the world of the NFL:

On Monday night, Tampa Bay defeated New Orleans, 17-16. In the game's first 55 minutes, the Buccaneers had scored exactly three points. At that point, they gained control of the ball and staged two lengthy touchdown drives, winning the game with three seconds to go.

Last night, the same darn thing! Las Vegas kicked a field goal with twelve minutes left. As a result, they were leading the Los Angeles Rams, 16-3.

The Rams had scored exactly three points in the game's first 48 minutes. Inevitably, they proceeded to stage two extremely long touchdown drives. They too won by the mandated score of the week, this time with ten seconds left in the game.

We're reporting one notable difference. Tampa Bay was quarterbacked by Tom Brady, greatest QB of all time. Los Angeles was led by Baker Mayfield, who had been on the team's roster for something like two days.

True story! Mayfield was cut by the hapless Carolina Panthers on Monday. He showed up in Tinseltown on Tuesday. 

Two days later, he savaged the Raiders. On this basis, NFL teams have found yet another way to save a couple of bucks.

Why in the world should NFL teams waste time with such outmoded conventions as practice or training camp? Next year, teams can simply message their players:

We open on Sunday, September 10. Try to get here by Thursday at noon!

Also this local event: This past Sunday, the Baltimore Ravens had scored exactly three points in the first 55 minutes of their game against Denver.  

Under backup quarterback Tyler Huntley, they then staged a 91-yard touchdown drive and won the game, 10-9. 

Long story short. In the modern NFL, everyone's the greatest QB of all time—but not till there's five minutes left!


FRAMEWORKS: The usual suspects go there again!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2022

Our own blue tribe's own goals: We vaguely remember the very first time we heard about "thunder words."

We were a senior at Aragon High. For reasons we can't recall, we were taught about the existence of those words in our AP World Literature class.

Luckily, no one asked us to read Finnegans Wake, the novel win which such words appear. 

Finnegans Wake was Joyce's final novel. The first of the novel's ten thunder words appear in this unforgettable passage, right there on the novel's first page:

JOYCE (1939): The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy. The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since dev-linsfirst loved livvy. 

Sic! And that was just the novel's third paragraph. As Joyce proceeds to paragraph 4, things don't get  much simpler:

JOYCE (continuing directly): What clashes here of wills gen wonts, oystrygods gaggin fishy-gods! Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualu Ualu Ualu! Quaouauh! Where the Baddelaries partisans are still out to mathmaster Malachus Micgranes and the Verdons cata-pelting the camibalistics out of the Whoyteboyce of Hoodie Head. Assiegates and boomeringstroms. Sod's brood, be me fear! Sanglorians, save! Arms apeal with larms, appalling. Killykill-killy: a toll, a toll. What chance cuddleys, what cashels aired and ventilated! What bidimetoloves sinduced by what tegotetab-solvers! What true feeling for their's hayair with what strawng voice of false jiccup!...

We're only halfway through that paragraph. But you may get the general idea.

In the passages we've posted, we've highlighted the first of the novel's so-called thunder words. As we learned way back in high school, ten such words appear in Finnegans Wake. For those who might wonder why that is, the leading authority on Joyce's work offers this capsule explainer:

These ten words have come to be known as thunders, thunderclaps, or thunderwords, based upon interpretation of the first word as being a portmanteau of several word-forms for thunder, in several languages. The Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan (with Quentin Fiore and Jerome Agel) made this connection explicit in his War and Peace in the Global Village, where he identified the ten words as "thunders," reproducing them in his own text...Marshall's son Eric McLuhan carried on his father's interpretation of the thunders, publishing The Role of Thunder in Finnegans Wake, a book expressly devoted to the meaning of the ten words. For [Eric] McLuhan, the total letter count of the above ten words (1001) intentionally corresponds to the One Thousand and One Nights of Middle Eastern folklore, which buttresses the critical interpretation of the Wake as being a book of the night.

Inevitably, that first thunder word was interpreted as being a portmanteau of several word-forms for thunder, in several languages. It was all about the Thousand and One Nights of Middle Eastern folklore—or at least, so the McLuhans have said. 

There's much more to be said about those ten words, but we're trying to keep it simple. Engaging in thunder word-level overstatement, the leading authority offers this overview concerning Finnegans Wake:

Finnegans Wake is a novel by Irish writer James Joyce. It is well known for its experimental style and reputation as one of the most difficult works of fiction in the Western canon...Written in Paris over a period of seventeen years and published in 1939, Finnegans Wake was Joyce's final work. The entire book is written in a largely idiosyncratic language, which blends standard English words with neologistic portmanteau words, Irish mannerisms and puns in multiple languages to unique effect. Many critics believe the technique was Joyce's attempt to recreate the experience of sleep and dreams, reproducing the way concepts, people and places become amalgamated in dreaming. It is an attempt by Joyce to combine many of his aesthetic ideas, with references to other works and outside ideas woven into the text; Joyce declared that "Every syllable can be justified."

Due to its linguistic experiments, stream of consciousness writing style, literary allusions, free dream associations, and abandonment of narrative conventions, Finnegans Wake remains largely unread by the general public.

Finnegans Wake remains largely unread by the general public? Among the general public (and almost everyone else), the book isn't read at all! 

How "difficult" is this work of fiction? Among critics, one fan of the book was so thrown by Joyce's obvious brilliance that he ended up saying this:

The text's influence on other writers has grown since its initial shunning, and contemporary American author Tom Robbins is among the writers working today to have expressed his admiration for Joyce's complex last work:

"The language in it is incredible. There's so many layers of puns and references to mythology and history. But it's the most realistic novel ever written. Which is exactly why it's so unreadable. He wrote that book the way that the human mind works. An intelligent, inquiring mind. And that's just the way consciousness is. It's not linear. It's just one thing piled on another. And all kinds of cross references. And he just takes that to an extreme. There's never been a book like it and I don't think there ever will be another book like it. And it's absolutely a monumental human achievement. But it's very hard to read."

The book is "unreadable," this admiring critic said. That brings us back to the greatest film of all time, whose fans have occasionally seemed to suggest or say that this newly-anointed greatest film is basically unwatchable.

So it largely went last week, as over a thousand of the usual suspects enshrined their avant garde views in the latest Sight & Sound survey of academics and critics.

Concerning Joyce, we'll offer this. It's often said that before he went completely avant garde, he had shown himself to be a master of traditional fiction. Admirers point to the stories in his first major volume, Dubliners, and especially to that volume's novella-length final story, The Dead.

To contemporary readers, it isn't obvious where where Joyce was coming from in The Dead, which is sometimes praised as one of the greatest short stories ever written. The reader may have to read around to understand the young artist's views concerning the general cultural backdrop in his native Ireland.

That said, it is completely possible to understand what is happening in The Dead's closing scene, where a weeping Gretta Conroy tells her husband of many years about an incident from her youth, recounting a memory which has been triggered by the singing of a popular Irish ballad:

“I suppose you were in love with this Michael Furey, Gretta,” he said.

“I was great with him at that time,” she said.

Her voice was veiled and sad. Gabriel, feeling now how vain it would be to try to lead her whither he had purposed, caressed one of her hands and said, also sadly:

“And what did he die of so young, Gretta? Consumption, was it?”

“I think he died for me,” she answered.

We'll recommend that you watch Angelica Huston perform this dialogue at the start of the final scene of her father, John Huston's, last film (The Dead, 1991). 

(“Poor fellow,” she said. “He was very fond of me and he was such a gentle boy.")

We'll suggest that you may want to stop watching as Gretta finally cries herself to sleep. We're not sure that Huston's film captures the tone of the way the Joyce story ends.

At any rate, there you see it—a bit of Joyce's more traditional early work. Twenty-five years later, it was largely Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek—but Joyce is still widely regarded as the greatest writer of the long-gone 20th century.

Why is Joyce so highly regarded, while it may be somewhat easy to mock last week's selection of Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles as the world's greatest film? We'll answer that one for ourselves:

Fans of the newly-crowned greatest film describe is as an essential offering in the realm of feminist film. They also admit that the film is borderline unwatchable—that the regular people of the world can't really be expected to sit through its incredibly long, incredibly boring patches.

In this way, the usual suspects of our tribe may have performed one of their usual dances. We're amused by the work of this high elite, not by the contents of a film which we, like everyone else, have never actually seen.

Nothing will turn on the critical judgment those academics and critics executed last week—and we aren't even saying they're "wrong." Elsewhere, though, we gain our basic frameworks of understanding from similarly cosseted collections of high elites. 

That includes our basic ideas concerning how to react to such disordered public figures as Kanye West, whose horrible conduct we've long tolerated, and even Donald J. Trump.

One such elite spills out of its clown car on "cable news" each night. They recite one set of scripts on Fox. On our blue tribe's "cable news" channels, these usual suspects perform their standardized dances for Us.

Last week's critical judgment was so obscure it won't even make it to Fox. Trust us! If we the people were ever told that Jeanne Dielman now ranks as the world's greatest film, Tucker Carlson would enjoy a good solid laugh at the expense of these usual suspects.

No one is going to hear such things. The Sight & Sound survey concerning the world's greatest films is simply too obscure.

But in these ways, do our blue tribe's high elites sometimes perform "own goals?" The term comes straight from the world of international soccer. We'll continue our award-winning meditation on this question next week.

"The American people are pretty sharp!"

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2022

Except for matters like this: It's long been a staple of mainstream punditry:

The American people are pretty sharp! 

Pundits have uttered this bromide for decades, but it ain't necessarily true.

When a person isn't entirely sharp, that doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is some sort of bad person. That said, if contemporary history has taught us anything, it has taught us this:

A lot of us humans are capable of believing the darnedest things!

We're going to cite two dangerous examples—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), but also Bob Taylor, her father. We'll cite some examples from Elaina Plott Calabro's fascinating profile of Rep. Greene, which has been published by The Atlantic.

The danger lies in the possibility that you will think these examples prove something about The Others but nothing at all about Us. In truth, we blues can believe the darnedest things too. But at least according to Calabro's profile, here's what Bob Taylor believed:

CALABRO (12/5/22): Bob Taylor may not have been overtly partisan, but he rivaled Trump in his tendency to self-mythologize. In 2006, Greene’s father had published a novel with the small publisher Savas Beatie called Paradigm. As best I can tell, this is Taylor’s effort to demonstrate the value of a system he invented called the “Taylor Effect”—which purports to predict the stock market based on the gravitational fluctuations of Earth—in the form of a high-stakes international caper. The story follows twin scientists who discover an ancient Egyptian box in the bowels of the Biltmore estate, the contents of which, they soon realize, could “destroy many of the world’s most powerful families” if ever made public.

He considered his stock-market theory to be “the Genuine Article”; in the afterword, he likened himself to da Vinci, Galileo, Edison, Marconi, and the Wright brothers. “History,” he wrote, “is filled with characters who endured ridicule, imprisonment, and even death because they discovered things we know today with absolute certainty to be true.” Suzanne Thompson, a North Carolina author hired to help Taylor write Paradigm, recalls that Taylor had “a bit of an exalted sense of himself.” She was unaware that he was Marjorie Taylor Greene’s father, and gasped with dismay when I told her. “Oh my gosh, I had no idea. Oh my God.”

According to Calabro's profile, Bob Taylor believed he had invented a system which could "predict the stock market based on the gravitational fluctuations of Earth." As Calabro's profile continues, she describes the way Taylor's daughter began believing various apparently crazy Q-Anon dogmas in just the past few years.

Please note—according to Calabro, Bob Taylor was apparently a highly competent businessman. Here is Calabro's account of his backstory:

CALABRO: Her father was Robert David Taylor, a Michigan transplant for whom a three-story home had never been guaranteed but who had believed acutely in its possibility. Bob Taylor was the son of a steel-mill worker; he had served in Vietnam; he had hung siding to pay for classes at Eastern Michigan University. He had married the beautiful Carrie Fidelle Bacon—“Delle,” to most people, but he called her Carrie—from Milledgeville, Georgia, and rather than continue with college, he had become a contractor and built a successful company called Taylor Construction. For Marjorie Taylor, the first of Bob and Delle’s two children, the result was a world steeped in a distinctly suburban kind of certainty: packed lunches and marble kitchen countertops, semiannual trips to the beach, and the conviction that everything happens for a reason.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and her husband built a successful business too. But according to Calabro's profile, Greene ended up believing this:

CALABRO: QAnon followers subscribe to the sprawling conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by a network of satanic pedophiles funded by Saudi royalty, George Soros, and the Rothschild family. Though Republican officials have insisted that QAnon’s influence among the party’s base is overstated, former President Trump has come to embrace the movement plainly...Yet since its inception, in the fall of 2017, when “Q,” an anonymous figure professing to be a high-level government official, began posting tales from the so-called deep state, no politician has become more synonymous with QAnon than Greene. To an extent, Greene had already signaled her attraction to conspiracy theories, questioning on American Truth Seekers whether the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was a false-flag operation to eliminate gun rights. But with Q, Greene was all in. She has gone so far as to endorse an unhinged QAnon theory called “frazzledrip,” which claims that Hillary Clinton murdered a child as part of a satanic blood ritual.

Correctly or otherwise, Calabro never suggests that Greene has simply been feigning belief in various QAnon dogmas. The father believed in the Taylor Effect, and the daughter believed in frazzledrip. To a surprising extent, this seems to be what our somewhat imperfect species is actually like.

We humans believe the darnedest things! Until recently, this was a largely unknown anthropological fact. This basic anthropological fact has been brought into public view by the rise of the Internet, with its ability to disseminate wide arrays of the world's least likely beliefs, claims, thoughts and ideas.

("Music men" no longer have to travel from town to town. They can simply stay at home and display their wares on the Net.)

Calabro's profile seems to be quite well researched. We were impressed by the fact that she had located and interviewed Bob Taylor's co-writer.

We humans believe the darnedest things! How should our blue tribe proceed in the face of this startling, unhelpful new fact?

FRAMEWORKS: Senator Warnock won by three points!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2022

The possible role of our frameworks: Our endless Election Day is over, and Senator Warnock won.

He won re-election by something like 3.5 points. In this morning's New York Times, Gail Collins ponders the meaning of that somewhat narrow victory margin:

COLLINS (12/8/22): As the sun sinks over Georgia, we bid adieu to the Senate runoff election that seems to have been contested since the beginning of time.

Yes, dinosaurs once ruled the earth and Senate candidate Herschel Walker probably has a theory about how they could be killed by a werewolf. Or maybe a vampire.

This certainly was a race to remember. But now it’s over; Georgia very rightly decided that Senator Raphael Warnock, an estimable candidate, was better for the job than a guy who couldn’t seem to be clear about how many children he’d fathered or abortions he’d paid for.

But … Wait! Wait! Warnock got only a little more than 51 percent of the vote. That means more than 1.7 million Georgians thought it’d be a better plan to have a senator whose theory on global warming is: “Don’t we have enough trees?”

"Let’s face it," Collins says a bit later. "Warnock was running against one of the worst candidates in modern American history."

In our view, Collins may have been understating that point. Judged by any conventional standard, it's possible that Candidate Walker was the worst major-party nominee in modern Senate history.

Senator Warnock won by three points. Under the circumstances, that can seem like a weirdly narrow victory margin, as Collins notes.

At any rate, there is Collins, wondering about the 1.7 million Georgians who went out and voted for Walker. As to who those people are, Caroline Randall Williams was willing to tell us, or at least to suggest an answer, in a new essay for The Atlantic.

She offers a possible framework of understanding. Her presentation starts like this:

WILLIAMS (12/7/22): I watched the film version of Friday Night Lights almost obsessively during my senior year of high school. My father had just died. He was a diplomat, a businessman, and the general counsel of the U.S. Army, and he loved conservative optics and southern spaces and all manner of iconic Americana, for good or ill. So the movie connected me to him, or something—offered me catharsis, or something. The movie immersed me in all of the hard, strange things about the South, the questions about achievement and race and class and excellence and objectification, and what it can mean to lose or win or talk to God about any of it.

But there was one scene I hated to watch.

Quickly, a bit of background. Williams' father was Avon Williams III, a highly accomplished black conservative who died at the age of 45 after a severe asthma attack.

Williams herself, a high school student at the time, proceeded to watch the film version of Friday Night Lights "almost obsessively." As she continues, she describes that one scene, the scene she (understandably) hated to watch: 

WILLIAMS (continuing directly): Coach Gaines is getting ready for the start of the season, and attending a booster-club dinner with a table of wealthy white donors who presumably love God and football and Texas and not a whole lot else. It’s a subtle scene, the dinner party spliced with distracting clips of the players at a raucous high-school party. A woman talks almost salaciously about the physicality of the young men she saw on the field during practice: “What I saw was speed out there, but where’s the beef, Coach? I saw me some small boys.” The master’s wife, perusing the auction block. 

That's the background to the scene Williams (understandably) hated to see. (The woman's conduct gets worse from there.) A certain framework of understanding may already be appearing in Williams' essay at this point.

We can't find video of that scene at YouTube, or anywhere else. For that reason, we can't say whether we agree that the woman in question was speaking "almost salaciously" about those high school football players when she said those things to Coach Gaines.

We can say that this was a fictional woman in a fictional scene, one part of a fictional movie. When Williams describes that fictional scene, she describes the salacious fictional woman as "the master’s wife, perusing the auction block."

Who knows? That may be the way that fictional woman was actually meant to be seen! At any rate, Williams continues her account of that scene—but at least for today, we'll leave her account right there. 

We'll even skip her apparent explanation of (all? most of? some of?) those Walker votes, along with her account of the way she feels when she observes such elections.

Concerning Williams herself, we'll offer some basic background. 

Williams is a Harvard graduate (class of 2010). Before attending Harvard, she prepped at St. Paul's.

Her mother, the writer Alice Randall, is also a Harvard graduate (class of 1981.) As noted, her father, a Williams graduate, was general counsel of the U.S. Army when he suddenly died. 

As for Williams herself, she's a writer in residence at Vanderbilt. Her mother is a writer in residence at Vanderbilt too. 

Earlier in her career, her mother wrote a significant number of country music hits as part of the Nashville music scene. She's also the author of six novels, one of which was included in the Washington Post's listings for "Best fiction of 2004."

In connection with her Atlantic essay, Randall Williams was interviewed last night by Lawrence O'Donnell. One hour earlier, her essay had been discussed and praised on Alex Wagner Tonight.

In our view, Williams' essay advances a certain framework of understanding. As applied by Williams in her essay, that framework may or may not seem to make perfect sense in at least several ways. 

That said, it's a framework which persistently comes to us blue tribe members, live and direct from our floundering tribe's political and "journalistic" elite.

Is it possible that this framework helps generate the large number of votes which went to history's all-time worst nominee? Is it possible that this framework may lead our tribe to future defeats, if Donald J. Trump ever stops directing his party to nominate such deeply flawed major candidates?

You will never see such questions "interrogated" from within our own blue tribe. Our elites have handed us a basic framework of understanding, one which we see our tribal elites express again and again.

Stating the obvious, Caroline Randall Williams is a good, decent person. She became a major star on O'Donnell's show after an earlier guest essay in the New York Times.

Williams is a good, decent person—but could it be that the framework she expresses in her Atlantic essay isn't necessarily accurate and isn't especially helpful? 

For the record, we aren't saying that Williams' reactions to public events are somehow morally "wrong." We're asking if it's obvious that they're accurate and helpful.

You will never see such questions examined by our currently underwhelming tribal journalistic elite. People like Collins will note the oddness of Senator Warnock's narrow victory margin, but only one framework will be employed as our tribunes explain such events.

Is it possible that our mandated tribal frameworks aren't necessarily accurate and aren't especially helpful? Tomorrow, we'll return to the greatest film of all time, but also to Finnegans Wake.

Tomorrow: "Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk," our greatest writer once wrote.