Indirect, But Real

When Bill Maher recently was interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo, the host of Real Time maintained that it is Representative Liz Cheney's

job to go after Biden. That's what Republicans do. They go after the - I mean, we did that forever. Republicans and Democrats were cats and dogs, and they fought. But also, Tip O'Neill and Reagan could have a drink, after work. They could work together.

I don't know how we are ever going to work together. How do you - we have how many QAnon members of Congress now? QAnon!

As seen in the video below, The Yong Turks' Cenk Uygur didn't play that excerpt, but instead others in which Maher lamented the contemporary practice of liberals of obsessing about race and gender, which Maher has been sufficiently indelicate to observe has been politically harmful for Democrats.  Maher, who has been warning of a "slow-moving, right-wing coup" by Donald Trump and allies since before the election of 2016, had told Cuomo "I think everyone recognizes, everyone right- thinking, in my view, that still a lot of work needs to be done. Remedial efforts need to be taken still. Racism is part of America." Yet, an incensed Uygur charged (at 9:44) "I think Bill Maher is worse than a right-winger."

Hyperbolic, fact-deficient claims aside, however, Uygur maintained (beginning at 10:04)

"Remember we all agree the left is wrong and he right wing is right." So he says absurd lies like "they're teaching all across the country that groups are- that the kids should be lined up as the oppressed and the oppressor." Show me one example, Bill, show me all across the country. That's not a thing. You just made it up. You just made it up. Because you probably read right-wing trash and think it's real because "all my friends are right-wing, right."

There is no such thing. If they lined up kids and said "you are the oppressors," I'd hate that. I'd be 100% opposed to that. It's not what they do. You liar. You liar.

Oops. In assessing the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin to the governorship of Virginia, Yascha Mounk of the Council on Foreign Relations, Johns Hopkins University, and The Atlantic linked to examples while explaining

The idea that critical race theory is an academic concept that is taught only at colleges or law schools might be technically accurate, but the reality on the ground is a good deal more complicated. Few middle or high schoolers are poring over academic articles written by Richard Delgado or Kimberlé Crenshaw. But across the nation, many teachers have, over the past years, begun to adopt a pedagogical program that owes its inspiration to ideas that are very fashionable on the academic left, and that go well beyond telling students about America’s copious historical sins.

In some elementary and middle schools, students are now being asked to place themselves on a scale of privilege based on such attributes as their skin color. History lessons in some high schools teach that racism is not just a persistent reality but the defining feature of America. And some school systems have even embraced ideas that spread pernicious prejudices about nonwhite people, as when a presentation to principals of New York City public schools denounced virtues such as “perfectionism” or the “worship of the written word” as elements of “white-supremacy culture.”

Mounk argues "It is impossible to win elections by telling voters that their concerns are imaginary. If Democrats keep doing so, they will keep losing." It exists; it's happening. And if liberals and progressives such as Uygur pretend that it isn't, thus failing to heed the warnings the likes of Mounk and Maher, it won't be voters only in Virginia who send the Democratic Party an unpleasant message.

               .

Share |

Let A Thousand Disagreements Bloom

It comes from the left, it comes from the right, but wherever it's coming from, narrrow-midedness is the order of the day.

The Washington Post's Cat Zakrzewski was interviewing Senator Josh Hawley of Michigan about a Pennsylvania court dismissing a challenge to the election of Joe Biden when the Republican grumbled (beginning at 1:47 of the video below)

No, hold on. No, no, no, no, no. You can't have it both ways, Cat. No, you can't have it both ways. You can't say they dismissed- you can't say they heard the merits and dismissed it. That's wrong. That's wrong. The Supreme Court didn't hear the merits of the..... no, hold on. It's an important point. Listen, it's an important point. Don't try to censor, cancel, and silence me here.

That's rich. The Washington Post gives Senator Hawley a platform and he tells the reporter she is trying to "censor, cancel, and silence" him (impressive piece of psychological projection, though).

On Monday night CNN's Chris Cuomo had the temerity to interview a guy Twitter already has determined is an irredeemable racist.  At a Young America Foundation conference in March, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum maintained

We birthed a nation. From nothing. There was nothing here. Yes, we have Native Americans, but there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture. It was born of the people who came here, pursuing religious liberty, to practice their faith, to live as they ought to live, and have the freedom to do so. Religious liberty.

Cuomo directly confronted Santorum on the substance of his remarks and the former Senator conceded

Just to be clear what I was not saying is that Native American culture…I misspoke…what I was talking about is the founding of the country. I gave a long talk about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and what I was saying is that we sort of created that anew, if you will. I was not trying to dismiss Native Americans. In fact, I mentioned them because they were here and they did have an impact. In fact, in this country you are right, they did have a huge impact.

But that acknowledgement of error was not enough because while conservatives such as Hawley object to being confronted about their actions, some liberals object to cultural conservatives being given a platform where they are challenged by an ideologically hostile interlocutor. In thecrossover from Chris "Cuomo Prime Time" to "Don Lemon Tonight," Don Lemon heatedly objected

I was furious watching that interview in my office. I can't believe the first words out of his mouth weren't "I'm sorrry. I said something ignorant. I- you know, I need to learn something about the history of this country. No contrition- didn't talk about the suffering Native Americans have had to deal with in this country.

In fact, the former senator did go further than almost any politician will, having admitted "they (Native Americans) were here and they did have an impact. In fact, in this country you are right, they did have a huge impact." However, neither Santorum nor anyone will get on his or her knees and beg forgiveness, beseeching "I said something ignorant."

Begging forgiveness is between Santorum and his God, not between Santorum and other human beings. It's not going to happen as Lemon wishes, even if the latter is so condescending as to demand that Santorum plead "I need to learn something about the history of this country."

It didn't get any more realistic when Lemon continued

Europeans did not found this country. Yes the Europeans conquered this country. They colonized it. But they didn't- it had nothing to do with the founding of this country and he should recognize that.

Actually, the Europeans did found this nation. That's not opinion; that's fact. Native Americans founded the land, though that's a redundancy. Of course, native Americans founded America- it couldn't be otherwise. Their descendants originated in Asia and were nearly wiped out at least 15,000 years later by people who came here from the European continent.

After displaying a fair amount of genocidal skill, European-Americans proceeded to create a nation which they hoped would enforce their dominance.  They helpfully did so with the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and some reasonably democratic institutions which we must constantly strive to perfect.

Having whiffed on American history, Lemon added

He should know that, especially if he's going to be on television representing us and talking about it. He should be doing it from the right perspective and not from some perspective about how Europeans- no! That's the wrong way to look at it.

It's just a guess, but it's likely lifelong right-wing Republican Rick Santorum wasn't asked on Cuomo's show to represent "us," but rather the viewpoint of, say, a lifelong right-wing Republican who had recently made the kind of remarks Santorum would be expected to make.  If Lemon needed "the right perspective," someone with the same perspective could have been brought on to mouth Lemon's viewpoint. Instead, Santorum's feet were held to the fire by Cuomo. Oh, the horror of it all!

Chris Cuomo challenging Rick Santorum on comments about the contribution of indigenous people to this country. Cat Zakrzewski confronting Josh Hawley on his effort to block certification of a free and fair election of a President. It's real journalism, amidst all the whining and complaining about it.

>> @DonLemon's reaction to Rick Santorum's comments: "I apologize to the viewers who were insulted by this. I was sitting in my office, furious, because he's done it so many times. So many times..." pic.twitter.com/UD00zTalI7

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 4, 2021

Share |

Whose Responsibility?

An exasperated Chris Cuomo, frustrated by what he believes is a lack of concern in white America about police slayings of black youth, on Friday remarked

......You don't like it. I don't like. It scares me. Shootings, gun laws, access to weapons? Oh, I know when they'll change. Your kids start getting killed, White people's kids, start getting killed, smoking that doobie that's actually legal, probably in your state now, but they don't know what it was, and then the kid runs, and then "Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop!" Cop was justified.

"Why'd you run?" "Oh, he had a baseball game tonight." "Oh? White kid? Oh, big family, that house over there?" Those start piling up, "What is going on with these police? Oh, what? Maybe we shouldn't even have police!" That kind of mania, that kind of madness, that'll be you. That'll be the majority, because it's your people.

See, now Black people start getting all guns, forming militias, protect themselves? "Can't trust Deep State!" Whoo-whoo! You'll see a wave of change, in access and accountability. We saw it in the 60s. That's when it changes, because that's when it's you.

According to a report released six months ago by researchers at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania

Using information from a national database compiled and maintained by The Washington Post, researchers found that victims identifying as Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), whether armed or unarmed, had significantly higher death rates compared with whites. And those numbers remained relatively unchanged from 2015 to May 2020.

Cuomo has a point about black youth and "white people's kids" because the average age for white victims is 38 while for black victims it is only 30. (No explanation was attempted for this discrepancy.) But then the numbers sighted by the Yale communications professional, Brita Belli, are all but incomprehensible: She writes

In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed).

So we have the numbers for 4,653 deaths. However, armed victims are broken down into Native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics; for unarmed victimes, the numbers are given for only blacks and Hispanics. For unarmed victims, numbers are given for blacks and Hispanics, absent for Native Americans. For neither are there numbers for the Asian/Pacific Islander community.

(Also, "Hispanics" are either the wrong classfication or wrong term because it includes individuals of Spanish, and excludes individuals of Brazilian, heritage; "Latinos" would be more appropriate.)

The raw numbers (as against percentages) presented indicate that of 4,653 deaths, there were 2518 among blacks and Hispanics; 77+ among Native Americans; and an unknown, probably very small number among the AAPI population.  That would leave 2135 among others, undoubtedly the vast majority of them white.

That number is suspect because if the rate of shooting fatalities among blacks is only 2.6 times (armed) or 3 times (unarmed) of whites, the deaths among whites would be more than the raw totals indicate. Even now, far more than half of us living in the USA are non-Hispanic/non-Latino white.

Whatever the numbers, the underlying facts are simple: 1) a disproportionate number of fatalities of police shootings are of a minority group, most of them black; and 2) a heck of a lot of  victims are white.

As pertains to Cuomo's argument, there are two underlying facts: 1) a very much disproportionate number of the fatalities of young people are black; and 2) a heck of a lot of even the young victims are white.

That means simply that Cuomo is wrong- dead wrong, pun intended- in an ironic manner.  Whether we are aware intellectually that lots of white youth have been, are are being, killed by police officers, we don't feel that they are.

We don't sense it because we don't see it. The news media, for a wealth of reasons justified and unjustified, prefer covering the homicides by police of blacks, and of youth.  Those of whites, particularly among those who aren't young, often are reported but during fewer news cycles. They become news, then fade from the news.

It is because of video. Some killings are shown on what appear to be endless loops and thus have a major impact on viewers, especially in contemporary circumstances in which people (especially low-information individuals) are unfortunately more likely to believe what they see than what they read in reputable news outlets.

There can be no better example than the brutal killing of George Floyd, which we saw.... and saw... and saw... and are still seeing, thanks both to traditional broadcast media and social media. That resulted in an extraordinary outpouring of protesters which was starkly absent in any of those other instances in which a police officer unjustifiably killed a black person.

If we read, we may care. If we see, we usually see it often, and we care. And so Andrew Cuomo is right, and he's wrong.  He's wrong when he implies that black youth are almost routinely killed by police who never kill white youth.

He is right, however, that if the public saw white kids being killed by police, there would be an insistence upon police reform. It is happening, but it is de-emphasized.

Yet, he does not recognize- or won't acknowledge- the irony that he is complaining. It is not up to "your people" (as Cuomo describes whites) to show the homicides. It is he who is on the primiest of the prime time hour- 9:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m. Eastern- on one of the three major networks.

 "My job is to show you in" the shooting of young blacks, Chris Cuomo notes. If he wants the white public to focus attention on police abuse, it's time for his network- and the others- to show us additional shootings by police, ones not limited by race or color.

 

Share |

Pictures Talk; Words Walk. I Didn't Make The Rules.

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle revealed Monday morning that she and her family have contracted Covid-19. Striking the right tone, in a piece on the network's website she acknowledges they have been "extremely lucky" and

I was privileged enough to be able to manage those fears, with doctors answering my frantic phone calls and messages. And I work for a company that let me put my life on hold and focus on my health....

We didn't get super sick. We had access to testing, eventually got some results and had the space and the financial stability to isolate safely. We have supportive paying jobs and schools that can offer virtual learning. If I didn't have all of that, maybe it would have been a lot harder to follow the guidelines.

Others are not so fortunate, she notes, because

Across the country, Americans have raised the alarm for months about our haphazard testing and muddled guidelines. And the guidelines have shifted since the pandemic started. Is it any wonder that this spread continues? We're all confused. I still don't know where we got Covid-19.

And forget about contact tracing calls; making them was insanely difficult. So many of the people I might have exposed didn't want to hear it. The people I came in contact with and the big-box stores I spent time in seemed to have no interest in when I might have exposed them. None of the stores took my temperature, but even if they had done so, it wouldn't have made a difference — I had no fever.

On her MSNBC program, Ruhle also struck the right note and addressed the vital issues.  She spoke and wrote eloquently with humility rare in cable news (insufficiently common elsewhere), eschewing any phony reference to "being humbled." There was no false emotion or pathos as she addressed the failure of both government and some individuals to take the pandemic seriously.

However,  she can be seen and heard explaining

As I mentioned at the top of the show, I am now back at work broadcasting safely from home after spending the better part of the last two weeks isolating and recovering from Covid-19.

Given the backdrop, if Ruhle had not mentioned that she was broadcasting from home, viewers would have assumed it was from a well-lit and reasonably appealing studio.  It did not appear that she was sitting in the family's New Jersey house, as she evidently was. or in their Manhattan apartment

This contrasted starkly with the CNN broadcasts in spring from the basement (albeit a well-appointed one) of Chris Cuomo's house on Long Island, NY.  Moreover, in those appearances Cuomo then appeared somewhat gaunt, clearly unhealthy. As she usually does, Ruhle looked healthy and not unattractive.

The latter was right on target with the words and the message, more clearly and modestly than was Cuomo. However, CNN sent the right image visually, accurately reflecting the enormous threat to human health characterizing Covid-19. MSNBC would have better served the public if it had broadcast from somewhere less inviting than the studio, delayed their host's return, or if possible had her appear on camera when she was still in throe of symptoms.

Images count, a lot more than they should, and dangerously so. Ask Lesley Stahl.

Share |

Premature Assumption

The reviews of Rudy Giuliani's interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo are in. They were not kind, and included

OMG this @ChrisCuomo @CuomoPrimeTime int w Guiliani where Cuomo gets him to come clean about his efforts to get Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election.

Good lord. Guiliani is a hot mess. How did this guy EVER lead SD NY?????

— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🗿💪 (@RachelBitecofer) September 20, 2019

Rudy’s performance on @CNN just now was a level of pants-sh*tting panic rarely seen on national television.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) September 20, 2019

Who failed to tell Rudy Giuliani that he doesn't have to go on television?

— David Gura (@davidgura) September 20, 2019

To paraphrase and adapt liberally a trite cliché:  Gura has forgotten more about broadcast journalism, Nichols about foreign policy, and Bitecofer about polling than you or I ever will ever know.

However, we should recall the time when the question was "will he or won't he?" Trump, it was explained, had too much of an ego to refrain from going up against the Special Counsel and coming out on top. He craved the spotlight and wouldn't pass up an opportunity to sit for an interview with Robert Mueller.

But President Trump, inaccurately derided as stupid (though he is ignorant) and crazy (though he's obviously not a healthy man), made the rational decision. Though the President had been asked to answer questions from the Office of the Special Counsel about obstruction of justice

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said questions about obstruction of justice were a "no-go."

Giuliani's statement was the most definitive rejection yet of special counsel Robert Mueller's efforts to interview the president about any efforts to obstruct the investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Russians. It signals the Trump's lawyers are committed to protecting the president from answering questions about actions the president took in office.

It's unclear if Giuliani's public position has been endorsed by Trump, who has said he wants to answer questions under oath. Negotiations about the scope and format of an interview are still ongoing. If the legal team holds its stance, it could force Mueller to try to subpoena the president, likely triggering a standoff that would lead to the Supreme Court.

Giuliani may have known, or at least suspected, what most of us didn't, and what still was an abdication of responsibility by Robert Mueller. The Special Counsel would not only avoid subpoenaing, but wouldn't even ask, Trump to be interviewed in person, rejection of which would have revealed that the President had something to hide. 

Trump agreed to answer questions in writing, presumably because any responses could be vetted by both his legal and political teams. He would answer in writing- without follow-up, as demanded by Giuliani- inquiries only about whether the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia. That inured politically to the President's advantage. The former New York mayor had his way on the matters of a) in what format the questions would be answered; b) whether there would be follow-up; and c) the subject area. And so we learned

Trump's legal team has argued that the president has the power to hire and fire appointees and the special counsel does not have the authority to ask him to explain those decisions. Giuliani said Thursday the team was steadfast in that position.

"That's a no-go. That is not going happen," Giuliani said. "There will be no questions at all on obstruction."

In a letter last week, Mueller's team said it would accept written responses from Trump on questions related to Russian election interference. Giuliani suggested Thursday that Trump's lawyers had agreed to those terms but wanted to prohibit investigators from asking follow-up questions.

The former New York City mayor is belligerent, emotional, and dishonest. But as of now, he also has been an extraordinary legal adviser to President Donald Trump. So don't count him out.  While no one can predict what an impulsive and corrupt President will do with, or to, his staff,  we cannot assume that Rudy Giuliani's remarks to Chris Cuomo were stupid, detrimental to the President, or reflected the ramblings of a lawyer over the hill. We made that mistake once about the guy.

Share |

Look At The Transcript, Folks

You may have heard it from Chris Cuomo on CNN during the Democratic debate, and from Anderson Cooper (at approximately 5:00  You may have read it from Jeff Greenfield, who claimed he "took a body shot from Julián Castro, who (inaccurately) accused him of forgetting what he’d said a moment earlier, but didn’t crumple." You can read it from supposedly straight news reporter Rebecca Morin of USA Today, who quoted the leading candidate stating "Anyone who can't afford it gets automatically enrolled in the Medicare-type option we have" and (Morin added) "Several minutes later, if Americans lose their insurance, 'you automatically can buy into this.'"

Neither Morin, who is paid to be objective, nor Cuomo or Greenfield, who are not, noted that former Vice-President Joe Biden had stated also

If you want Medicare, if you lose the job from your insurance — from your employer, you automatically can buy into this. You don't have — no pre-existing condition can stop you from buying in. You get covered, period.

You automatically can buy into this (and) no pre-existing condition can stop you from buying in.  That means two things: 1) Julian Castro was accurate when he charged Biden with having said "just two minutes ago that they would have to buy in;"  and 2) Cuomo, Greenfield, and Morin did not follow what Biden said or did not read the transcript.

Rebecca Morin of Axios, by contrast, is merely confused. She points out "Biden did reference his plan earlier in the night saying that anyone who can't afford gets automatically enrolled in the medicare type option." However, he had not stated "Medicare" but "Medicare-type option," which may be anything given reference to Medicare-type and option, the latter a funny way of describing something which is automatic.

Later, in the exchange featuring Castro's charge, Biden indicated that it would not be automatic. ("Nothing can stop you from buying in.")

It is possible, of course, that if elected, Joe Biden will undergo a progressive transformation and- under pressure from Republicans not to permit any option- will demand that the GOP accept automatic enrollment. And I am the King of England.

Share |

No Excuses

Whether for ethnic or professional reasons (or both), Sean Hannity, Corey Lewandowski, Geraldo Rivera, and Anthony Scaramucci stoutly defended the CNN host when Chris

Cuomo, the host of the eponymously named "Cuomo Prime Time," went viral Monday night when a conservative provocateur posted a video of him online. In the video, which is shot from a low angle, Cuomo erupts after being called “Fredo” by a heckler who claims not to know the anchor’s name. Cuomo says that the term, a reference to the mafia movie "The Godfather," is “an Italian aspersion,” comparing it to the racial slur used against African Americans. “It it’s like the n-word for us,” Cuomo said.

The conversation captured in the video deteriorates quickly, with Cuomo threatening the heckler, at one point warning him, “I’ll f---ing throw you down these stairs.”

If it is, it's news to Wikipedia, and also to myself, though not Italian-American but reared in quasi-northern New Jersey.

But of course, that's not the issue.  Cuomo's well-known heavyweight (scoundrels they are, but heavyweight)  defenders are not keen on the possibility that publicly confronting celebrities of the political world become a thing. 

It probably was, as CNN put it, "an orchestrated set-up." However, Cuomo's response was pitch-perfect:

Appreciate all the support but - truth is I should be better than the guys baiting me. This happens all the time these days. Often in front of my family. But there is a lesson: no need to add to the ugliness; I should be better than what I oppose.

— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 13, 2019

I should be better than what I oppose. Cuomo was condemned by President Trump who, if he had 10% of the class the anchorman displayed, would be- well, would not be Donald J. Trump.

Share |