HOW HARDBALLS LIKE LAUREL AND HARDY! The loud dumb fellow got it wrong. His pals were too timid to tell him: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009
How Hardballs like Laurel and Hardy: On Monday, ABC News had no idea how marginal tax rates actually work (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/4/09). Last night, Chris Matthews loudly ran off the rails concerning those troubling earmarks.
The excitable host conducted his chat with pundits Heileman and Cillizza. Before we see what Matthews said, lets review the basic facts: The federal spending bill in question totals $410 billion. Of that, the earmarks total $7.7 billion. The earmarks thus comprise less than 1.9 percent of the total package. (Beyond that, weve seen no one try to explain why these provisions are wasteful.)
The guest pundits did make several attempts to calm Matthews as he thundered about all the pork and crap in the bill. But as usual, his thunder about Obamas failure to deal with this pork-barrel spending prevailed. By the way: How well did Matthews know his facts? Eventually, it came to this. We use the Nexis transcript:
Trust us. Anyone who watched this segment would have thought that the bill in question involved $410 billion in earmarks. And of course, no one clarified what Matthews said. The actual worth of the earmarks$7.7 billionwas never mentioned. No one made the slightest attempt to state the basic facts. (To find the full transcript, click here.)
Well guess that Heileman and/or Cillizza knew the actual figures involved here. But uh-oh! From watching Matthews through the years, well guess that he probably didnt. At any rate, one thing is certain: Citizens who watched this program were never exposed to the actual facts. The guest pundits could have corrected or clarified what Matthews said. But darlings! It just isnt done!
Hardball viewers came away with bogus facts in their noggins again.
But then, Hardball is often like Laurel and Hardy. The loud dumb one is always in charge. The others know that their pal has it wrongbut theyre too timid to tell him.
Laurel and Hardy played this for laughs, comically sketching the human condition. The loud dumb one was always in charge! Today, its the shape of your press corps.
THE USES OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN: What is your press corps actually like? Here, let Gail Collins tell:
Thats what the press corps was talking about when Collins walked into work.
Unfair! you hotly insist. Surely these scribes have earned the right to vent about minor distractions. But the fatuous culture of this group is apparent in its actual work. The Washington Post has struggled for weeks with George Wills bungles about global warming. On Monday, ABC News had no idea how marginal tax rates actually work. Last night, a $5 million man continued to pimp that bull-roar about those earmarks. And this morning, the Washington Post has embarrassed itself with two accounts of what occurred when its editorial board met with Ed Sec Arne Duncan.
How fatuous is the upper-end press corps? Consider part of Bill Turques account of yesterdays meeting with Duncan. Most likely, this isnt Turques fault:
We dont know what that first paragraph means. To the extent that we can guess, Duncans proposals are reasonable but quite underwhelming. But good God! The conversation described in that second graf is one for Extremely Slow Learners. According to Duncan, we can go beyond mere test scores if we want to rate our teachers. We can observe their work in class, he says. And we can take their attendance!
It would be hard to overstate how fatuous that passage is. But according to Turque, this conversation was going on at the highest levels of Americas press corpsperhaps just after the various scribes finished kicking The Bachelor around.
The next paragraph really is Turques faultor the fault of his editor:
Tenure isnt the main problem, Duncan reportedly said. But Turque fails to say what the main problem is for Duncan. Did anyone bother to ask?
Readers, we can keep track of teachers attendance! And we can observe them as they teach! These claims are certainly true, of courseand yet, the inanity of these suggestions is truly a thing to behold. To state the obvious, principals have been rating teachers through classroom observation roughly since the dawn of time. And who ever thought of keeping track of their attendance? Did we need to import a new Ed Sec to make such obvious observations? We dont know what Duncan actually said, and we dont mean this as a criticism of his ideas. But Turque describes a D-plus discussiona discussion for a remedial class.
And yet, in this mornings editorial, the editors who sat through this session express the very highest praise for a range of vague ideas which emerged from the chat. Falling down in praise of Duncan, the editors stand opposed to the same failed programs and broken schools; by way of contrast, they stand in favor of reform and programs with proven records of success. (They also seem to favor dramatically improv[ing] the education of children.) The editors favor improved student assessments as well as sophisticated data systems (our emphases). Not only that: The editors admire the fact that Mr. Duncan has absolutely no use for those who would use the social ills of poor children as an excuse for not educating them. And they close with a very high-minded statement. Like Duncan, they favor what works.
The editors spill with excitement todaybut do these editors have the first clue? If so, how did that conversation occurthe one described by Turque? Why didnt the editors laugh out loud when told that we can rate our teachers by keeping track of their attendance? By observing them in class? No one could think that such silly reforms can fuel the transformations envisioned. But then, as Collins tells us today, these editors may have been debating The Bachelor when Duncan showed up in the room. They certainly werent straightening out the mess they let Will made of climate change. More on this embarrassing episode in tomorrows edition.
This brings us around to another know-nothing. On Monday night, he used the interests of low-income kids to fuel his latest gong-show:
Lets state the obvious: Olbermann has no idea what Matalin meant when she spoke about Jindal and education reform. (Nor do we. We dont know if she can support what she said.) He knows nothing about Louisiana schools, or about those Education Week rankings. By the rules of the game, Olbermann has to throw hay to the herd every night, reinforcing their sense of tribal superiority. And his staff gave him this hay on Mondayalthough it makes little real sense.
(Olbermann didnt even explain how those data bolster his case, so let us help him out here: Jindals first year in office was 2008. If we take those rankings on their face, Louisianas ranking declined during his first year in office. Had Olbermann bothered explaining that, the rubes could have felt even more enhanced. But do those rankings reflect on Jindals work, in his first year in office? The answer is far from obvious.)
First, rankings like this may have some merit (or not). But no one would think that minor, year-by-year fluctuations can be taken as reliable measures.
More importantly: The Education Week rankings involve observations in six large categoriesand governors have no real control over a good deal of the material measured. Example: In the first large category, Chance for success, Louisiana rates very low among the stateslargely because it is a high-poverty state. (In last years ranking, for example, the state ranked 47th in percentage of children from families with incomes at least 200 percent of poverty level. To see that report from last year, just click here. The new report isnt on-line.) A second category is K-12 achievement; high-poverty states will tend to score low in this measure, however well their governors may be functioning in the matters they directly control. These, and other Ed Week measures, lie far outside the immediate control of any governor, however much Olbermann may want to trash him. In short, the Ed Week rankings are not intended as report cards for a states government.
With that in mind, lets look at part of the state press release to which Olbermann alluded. (The press release is quite direct, one sign of well-managed government.) Here is the way it begins:
Louisiana ranks number two in how it measures education progress and number six in its programs to improve teacher quality! Are those the areas to which Matalin referred in praising Jindals work? Like Olbermann, we have no idea. For the record, these high rankings seem to be based on last years assessments (based on 2007); Education Week only considered three of its six major categories in revamping last years rankings, and these matters would seem to fall outside the areas which were reconsidered. In other words: If Jindal reinvented the wheel in three of this studys six major categories, it wouldnt show up, until next year, in the rankings to which KeithO referred. This is another reason to avoid using the Ed Week ranking as a measure of a governors success.
Why did Louisianas ranking drop in 2008? Like Olbermann, we dont know. But heres what the press release says. Presumably, Olbermann read it:
Is that accurate? Like Olbermann, we have no idea. If it is, it suggests that the drop in Louisianas ranking stems from new financial measurement systems, not from changes that Jindal made. But lets stress again: We dont know how true that statement is. Neither does thundering Olbermann.
It takes a special kind of progressive to use low-income children this way, as cudgels with which he can bang a political target over the head. But thats precisely the way low-income kids have been used by the Olbermanns down through the years. Sometimes, journalists praise the silliest possible reforms in service to some larger vision. Sometimes, they grab some ranking and pretend they know what it means. By the way: Candidate Clinton was trashed in precisely this way during the 1992 campaign. He too came from a high-poverty stateand the results of that poverty were used to show that hed bungled his states public schools.
Stupid then, dumb today. But then, Olbermann often seems like a very bad personone of the worst in the world!