USA TODAY GETS IT RIGHT! Rachel and Big Eddie fumbled ahead. Meanwhile, a colorful paper starts an important project: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011
Direct from the soul of Versailles: No one can say this is a dull time. Major issues are screaming for treatment.
But sure enough! Live and direct from the soul of Versailles, Maureen Dowd just wants to have fun good sexy fun, that is:
Dowd seeks sexy ways to remember. By way of contrast, sensible people read her columns, then drink to forget.
In her boxed sub-headline, Dowd offers the following apercu: Our hunter-gatherer brains are swamped in a Twitter-blogger world. We think the lady flatters herself, comparing herself to hunter-gatherers. But go ahead! To gather the latest pap from the palace, push your way through her full piece.
Chait speech/Joe Scarborough edition: Here at THE HOWLER, were always intrigued when someone defends a Dem against attack, but leaves a factual error unchallenged. Example:
George Will savaged birtherism in Sundays column, but he left a troubling claim unchallengedthe claim that Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the Brits when he seized the Oval Office.
In a fact-check, the AP says that claim is wrong. Of course, they may be lying again.
In context, this was a minor point. But even as he savaged the paranoia of birtherism, Will quoted a crackpot making this claim, then left the claim unexamined.
In a discourse ruled by false statements, this sort of thing is quite common. The same thing happened when Jonathan Chait challenged this Politico piece by Joe Scarborough.
Scarborough had composed his piece while perched atop a very high horse. What follows is part of his column. In his rebuttal, Chait quoted this chunk of the piece as part of a longer passage:
After quoting a longer passage from Scarboroughs piece, Chait hotly defended Obama. But we were puzzled by the passage weve highlighted. Did Obama really call Social Security the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far? That seemed unlikely to usbut Chait had let the claim stand.
Answer: No, Obama didnt say that. Here is the relevant part of Obamas speech:
In fact, Obama said the rising cost of health care was our most pressing challenge.
Our conclusions? Mikas been writing Joes columns again. Buried under a set of bad claims, Chait may have been distracted.
Clarity is our most important product/Big Ed and Rachel explain: Your DAILY HOWLER keeps getting results! Consider last nights Maddow program!
Its truewe did experience setbacks. Rachel staged her second cell phone texty poll question thingy midway through the program. (The language, which were quoting, is meant to make viewers adore her.) As before, her poll question thingy concerned some very embarrassing language; in this case, the language had been emitted by Alan Simpson. As before, Rachel pretended to be confused by technical aspects of conducting her poll question thingy. This too is designed to make you like herto make you think shes just like you, despite her vast corporate wealth.
Those were the setbacks, but here was the win: Naomi Klein was a guest on the program! As you may recall, we started lobbying for such bookings in April 2009 (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/21/09). Results have been few and far behind, but last night we got a big win! And sure enough! With substantial clarity, Klein explained the way her shock doctrine/disaster capitalism analysis can be applied to the events which are now unfolding in the various states.
Kleins theory can be explained quite simply; two weeks ago, Paul Krugman wisely turned to her theory as a way to help explain these events (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/25/11). Meanwhile, during last nights discussion, Klein and Maddow agreed on a key pointprogressives need to develop clear explanations for the worlds major events:
Naomi Klein was right on with this thingy! Progressives need clear explanations. Understanding it and explaining it isI mean, its stupid to say thats half the battle, Maddow said as she closed, discussing a topic on which she is expert. But, in this case, I think it really is and you are helping.
Clear, persuasive, accurate explanation may not be half the battle. But over the past four decades, liberals have offered few explanations of any kindand when we do come up with ideas, we tend to express them in ways which show open contempt for the regular people we need to convince. Klein was very clear last night, explaining the way oligarchic interests use moments of crisis to gain wealth and powerto savage the interests of regular people. Those regular people come from the left and the right, by the way.
By way of contrast, Maddow began the show with one of her long, hapless rambles. By now, Maddow seems to have developed a theory of explanation: You simply craft a bumper sticker, then repeat it again and again, waving your arms where necessary. Last night, Maddow kept repeating this bumper sticker: Events in Wisconsin, and in other states, are not about the budget!
(One example, of more than many: It is not about the budget. It is really not. It is not about the budget in Wisconsin. It is not about the budget in Florida. It is not about the budget in Ohio. It is not about the budget in Michigan.)
Its not about the budget! Maddow grouped all sorts of disparate events under this all-purpose cry. At one point, her rather murky claim devolved into this:
Except, of course, its both. In the private and the public sectors, collective bargaining rights get stripped away as a way to lower compensation. That does lower budget costs for the states, though other motivations may also apply as legislation is crafted.
Klein is a hundred times sharper than Maddow. We liberals would be much better off if Maddow had simply adopted Kleins construct as a way of explaining what is occurring. But MSNBC is a place of extremely weak explanation.
Just consider what Ed Schultz did.
On Monday night, Schultz began his heralded, week-long report about the rising cost of gasoline and food. You just knew the report would be great because Maddow herself had vouched for it. In our view, Schultz approaches politics from the right perspective. But good God! Can he explain anything?
On Monday, Schultz said the following as he introduced his topic: Wall Street picks your pocket every time you go to the grocery store, fill up at the gas station or turn up your thermostat. This sounded like an important claim. But then, his taped report began. It started out like this:
Famous last words, one analysis said. Big Ed rumbled along:
By now, Schultz was five paragraphs into his taped reportand no one had the slightest idea what the Boy Howdy he was talking about. In our view, any semblance of clarity was gone by the highlighted paragraph about FDR.
Good, clear explanations count. On that point, Klein and Maddow agreed. But Klein is a hundred times sharper than Maddowand Big Ed just cant explain squat.
Progressives need to explain the world. Its been a long time since we tried.
USA TODAY GETS IT RIGHT (permalink): Good lord! All praise to USA TODAY for its new, unfolding project!
To read the papers first report, click here. More reports are coming.
That first report by the colorful paper is almost 4000 words long. To help you know what this project is all about, this is part of Jay Mathews overview from his blog at the Washington Post:
Know-nothing columnists, pundits and pols keep piling up pressure on standardized tests. They never seem to understand that this will lead to outright cheating. (And yes, we mean cheating. We dont mean teaching to the test.) USA TODAY is involved in a major project in which they detail the wages of this kind of pressure. For the record, Jay Mathews wife, Linda Mathews, is in charge of this project.
For ourselves, we strongly support annual testing; we cant imagine running a school system without an annual program. (Thats especially true of a low-income system.) But heres a quick bit of background:
Accountability began to be linked to testing programs in the early 1970s. Ever since then, some teachers, principals and entire school systems have cheated on these testing programs, in every conceivable way.
Some such peoplenot all.
Were talking here about outright cheating, not about teaching to the test. Among other things, were talking about changing students answer sheets after the actual testing is done. Were talking about giving students all the test questions (and all the answers) before the test is administered.
This started at the classroom and school level. In time, it rose to the school system level, then to the level of state education departments. Examples: In the middle of the last decade, the state of Virginia conducted a statewide scam which inflated the passing rates at almost all schools. Last summer, the state of New York threw out its test scores from the last decade, acknowledging that, over the years, the tests had become too easy to pass.
Big news orgs have always avoided these topics. When the state of Virginia acknowledged its scam, the Washington Post didnt even report it. The New York Times has made little effort to explore the recent scam in New York. (As best we can tell, the Washington Post has given that matter one sentence.)
This is a very important topic, but only if you care about children. You wont read about this at liberal sites. Our side quit on black kids three decades ago. Despite our self-ballyhooed racial grandeur, we dont care about such children.
That said, USA TODAY seems to have created a very large project concerning a very important topic. Given the massive emphasis now being placed on testing, this problem needs full discussion.
All praise then to this most colorful paper! We look forward to its future reports, and we strongly recommend Mondays impressive first effort.
Direct from the Los Angeles Times: As Mathews notes in his post, six Los Angeles charter schools were just shut down for cheating. To read all about it, click here.