Entries Tagged 'Behind the headline' ↓

Republican support of the virus

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

Headline:

Stitt first governor to have COVID-19

The best way to get Biden elected is to keep the virus spread alive. Republican Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt did not wear a mask at the Tulsa event. Way to go Governor Stitt.

You say (1) you are quarantining now, (2) you did not get the virus at the Tulsa rally, and (3) you are feeling fine. If you know so much about contracting the virus, tell us how many people you infected prior to quarantine.

Oh–you can’t tell us that? Thanks for making my point.

Addendum:

And in Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt said this week that he remained opposed to a mask order, even after he became the first governor known to test positive for the virus. “You can’t pick and choose what freedoms you are going to give people,” Mr. Stitt said during the Zoom call on which he announced his positive test.

“You can”t pick and choose what freedoms you are going to give people.”

Really? That is what you were elected to do. What about speed limits, stop signs, every law that was ever written? That is your job as an elected official.

Way to go Oklahoma–you elected a good one there. Your governor won’t have anything to do with picking and choosing which freedoms he gives you–otherwise known as legislation.

Another aced intelligence test

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

The president recently aced his second intelligence test at Walter Reed Medical Center, and this time we have videotape proof. He wore a mask as he walked down the hallway.

Straw men lie in the weeds of muddled language

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

Bret Stephens’ critique of liberal thinking (Reading Orwell for the Fourth, 7/4/2020) doubles as an example of a “straw man argument:”

The more serious problem today comes from the left: from liberal elites who, when tested, lack the courage of their liberal convictions; from so-called progressives whose core convictions were never liberal to begin with; from administrative types at nonprofits and corporations who, with only vague convictions of their own, don’t want to be on the wrong side of a P.R. headache.

This has been the great cultural story of the last few years. It is typified by incidents such as The New Yorker’s David Remnick thinking it would be a good idea to interview Steve Bannon for the magazine’s annual festival — until a Twitter mob and some members of his own staff decided otherwise. Or by The Washington Post devoting 3,000 words to destroying the life of a private person of no particular note because in 2018 she wore blackface, with ironic intent, at a Halloween party. Or by big corporations pulling ads from Facebook while demanding the company do more to censor forms of speech they deem impermissible.

These stories matter because an idea is at risk. That’s the idea that people who cannot speak freely will not be able to think clearly, and that no society can long flourish when contrarians are treated as heretics.

That idea, old as Socrates, formerly had powerful institutional defenders, especially in the form of universities, news media, book publishers, free-speech groups and major philanthropies.

But those defenders are, on account of one excuse or another, capitulating to people who claim free speech for themselves (but not for others), who believe all the old patriarchal hierarchies must go (so that new “intersectional” hierarchies may arise), who are in a perpetual fervor to rewrite the past (all the better to control the future), and who demand cringing public apologies from those who have sinned against an ever-more radical ideological standard (while those apologies won’t save them from being fired)

The last paragraph is where the straw man is plain to see because the language is so tortured. (I love irony.) The first four paragraphs describe liberal elites’ arguments is such general terms that a reader can think: “Yes—I see that. It makes sense to see things that way.” Thus, without analyzing the clarity of the language and images used in Paragraph 5, where Stephens knocks down the straw man he erected, readers might agree with his negative depictions of liberal ideas.

If you are still not clear about this straw man technique, read Paragraph 5 again. Then compare it’s clarity of language and images with the clarity of Natasha Trethewey’s first three paragraphs (My Life Under Mississippi’s Racist Flag, 7/04/2020), which was the editorial directly following Stephens’ piece on July Fourth, 2020.

As my mother made her way to the hospital, hundreds of Confederate flags lined the streets. It was Confederate Memorial Day, 1966, exactly 100 years since the holiday was first celebrated, and the celebrations that day were particularly fervent in the aftermath of recent advances in the civil rights movement: the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. The laws were changing, but the iconic symbol of white supremacy and Black oppression could still be enlisted to send a message.

And the messages were everywhere. The landscape of my childhood was overwritten with monuments to and symbols of the Confederacy: They were in the names of roads, bridges, buildings, schools, parks, other public works and counties. And the state flag of Mississippi, incorporating the Confederate battle flag in its top inner corner, was among the most conspicuous.

Its message was a kind of synecdoche, a part standing in for the whole: The South may have lost the Civil War — a war fought to maintain slavery and white supremacy — but Mississippi would not be inclusive of all her citizens except in the continuing narrative of white dominion over Black subjects. The inclusion of the battle flag within the state flag served as a visual reminder of white Mississippians’ allegiance to that white supremacist heritage and was indicative of the new ways the state would find to maintain the second-class status of Black Americans. It waved to us again and again: Know your place.

The editors of the NYT, not Bret Stephens, were channeling Orwell.  

Or, if that is too complicated, Charles Blow’s NYT editorial, ‘Tell the Truth and Shame The Devil’ (July 6, 2020) provides a simple example:

. . . Trump stood at the base of Mount Rushmore and said, “Seventeen seventy-six represented the culmination of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy and reason.” He continued later, “Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children.”

To be clear, the “our” in that passage is white people, specifically white men. Trump is telling white men that they are their ancestors, and that they’re now being attacked for that which they should be thanked.

Although Trump did not specifically say that “our” was a reference to white people, Blow’s second paragraph drew that conclusion. This is the most common form of straw man—drawing a conclusion based on what you believe the speaker meant, not on what he actually said.

So, yes–Blow erected a straw man. Then he artfully knocked it down with facts about the oppression of black people by “our heroes”–Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and T. Roosevelt.

What do you call it when a writer puts a conclusion in a speaker’s mouth (erects a straw man) and then knocks it down with facts that support the writer’s conclusion instead of the one argued by the speaker?

I guess it is irony. Thanks Charles Blow. I love irony.  

Straw Man update:

Here is another one from Bret Stephens (NYT, 8/18/2020):

Economically, the conservative idea is that free markets foster personal enterprise, frugality, creativity, industry and other components of moral character. The populist idea is that free markets make you filthy rich.

No, Bret–the populist ideal is a question:

Where do we have free markets?

Oh–I forgot. There is one place where we have a free market. Legislators from both parties get purchased by the highest bidders. Clearly, we are the greatest nation in the world (sarcasm).

Trump decline

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

Two headlines and articles on the same page of the Asheville Citizen-Times (June 29, 2020):

Trump tweet causes quick stir

Soon after, Trump deleted the tweet that shared the video (of a man shouting “white power”), White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement that “President Trump is a big fan of The Villages. He did not hear the one statement made on the video.”

Trump: Not aware of Russian bounty

President Donald Trump denied Sunday that he knew about an intelligence report that concluded Russia had paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill American troops serving in Afghanistan.

Assuming both statements about Trump are true, which is unlikely, here are my Headlines:

Trump hearing is declining

Trump ignorance is growing

On the other hand, we had a saying in my classroom when I taught school administration to teachers aspiring to become administrators: “If it is not in writing, it did not happen. So, put things in writing.” Evidently, American intelligence officials have the same rule.

This is from the June 30, NYT:

American officials provided a written briefing in late February to President Trump laying out their conclusion that a Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan, two officials familiar with the matter said.

Mail In Voting

Our side is corrupt but the other side is more corrupt.

Headline (US News and World Report, June 19, 2020):

Trump: Mail-In voting Presents ‘Biggest Risk’ to Reelection.

What a loser! He is making excuses already.

Dear Ben Carson:

Our side is corrupt but the other side is more corrupt.

Headline (Politico, 6/14/2020):

“U.S. needs to stop being offended about everything, Ben Carson says”

Text of article:

“We’ve reached a point in our society where we dissect everything and try to ascribe some nefarious notion to it,” replied Carson, the only black member of Trump’s Cabinet. “We need to move away from being offended by everything, of going through history and looking at everything, you know, of renaming everything.”

Dear Ben,

As an African-American member of a Republican administration, you should share your experiences of being oppressed in America. The reason you are not sharing them is the reason we are dissecting everything and ascribing nefarious notions to them.

BTW — we don’t have to “try to ascribe some nefarious notion.” They are obvious. Can’t you see them?

We elected a child

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

From this morning’s NYT (5/31/2020):

Even some of Mr. Trump’s usual allies were distressed at the original shooting tweet. Geraldo Rivera, the television and radio host who often spends time with Mr. Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, decried “the recklessness” of that message and called on the president “to self-censor himself.”

“Come on, what is this, sixth grade?” Mr. Rivera said on Fox News. “You don’t put gasoline on the fire. That’s not calming anybody.” He added: “All he does is diminish himself.”

Geraldo Rivera says we elected a pre-adolescent middle schooler. He is wrong. We elected a child.

HEADLINE: Trump calls for journalists who covered the Russia probe to return their ‘Noble Prizes’ in Twitter rant before deleting it

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

This man is mentally ill.

Won’t be wearing a mask

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

Of course Humpty Trumpty won’t wear a mask:

“You can do it. You don’t have to do it. I am choosing not to do it.”

Wearing a mask would demonstrate that he cares about other people, which we know is not true. So, for once he told the truth–he cares about nobody but himself.

What grade are you in?

Our side is corrupt, but the other side is more corrupt.

Headline (3/3/2020)

Trump says he spoke to Taliban leader, had ‘good conversation’

Story

Trump told reporters. “We had a good conversation. We’ve agreed there’s no violence. We don’t want violence. We’ll see what happens.”

If Trumpty Dumpty was a fourth-grader, the teacher’s two questions would be (1) What do you mean by “good?” (2) Why do you think it was “good?”

This may be a decent report for a third grader, but a fourth grader would get a C-. A stable genius he is not–a third-grader? Maybe.

I love irony.