SEND BACK THE CLOWNS! Rachel and KO and solons oh my! Can someone please send back the clowns: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2010
Coming tomorrow or Monday: Part 4 of our current series, The fruits of a forty-year script. Weve bumped this series back due to the budget proposal.
Do you believe in Shanghai: Do you believe in magic? On the front page of yesterdays New York Times, Sam Dillon reported a major educational success for China.
Dillon reported results from an international test of 15-year-old studentsthe first such test in which China has taken part. But the whole Chinese nation wasnt tested or sampledonly some students in Shanghai. That said, this is Dillons overview of Shanghais apparent success:
Shanghai is just one city in China. That said, the Shanghai students vastly outscored students from all other countries in mathand Shanghai also topped the list in both reading and science.
The question: Was this legit?
According to Dillon, Shanghai is an industrial powerhouse that is a magnet for the best students in the country. But uh-oh! If Shanghai draws the best students from all over China, its hard to know how to compare its scores with those from other cities or nations. Later, Dillon described the efforts that were made to keep Chinas testing legit:
A mutual friend speaks highly of Schneider, who was until recently in charge of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (among other federal programs). That said, we were struck by Schneiders comments. Schneider says that he has been skeptical about some international testing in the past. Despite his view of the current situation, he notes that Chinese authorities could have tipped the sample of students from Shanghai even more than already occurs because its an educational migration hub.
He says theres no evidence that China cheated. For the record, that means they could have.
Lets summarize: Because of that migration factor, students in Shanghai are by no means representative of all China. And uh-oh! If Chinese authorities decided to cheat a bit in their sampling, students in this particular sample may not even be representative of all students in Shanghai!
Would the Chinese do such a thing? People! Of course they would! Are you sure the Australians could sniff a thing like this out? Crackers, please! In this country, we couldnt even get the Taiwanese to stop cheating on the rosters they sent to play in the Little League World Series! In matters like this, countries like China almost surely will cheat if they can. It may not be easy to detect, though no cheating may have occurred.
The real story in China remains to be written. Beyond that, were intrigued by Schneiders comments about all the results he has doubted before. For years, weve wondered how good the sampling is when organizations like PISA test students in countries all over the world. This was the first time weve ever seen a comment of this type.
Of course, you cant trust a bumbling rag like the Times to help you decipher a matter like this. Yesterday morning, the Times performed one of its usual hapless tricks as it reported the U.S. performance on these tests.
Example: From this graphic in yesterdays Times, you would naturally think that that the U.S. tied Ireland for last place on the current PISA math test. Sorrythat just isnt true! Incredibly, the Times omitted a fairly good number of countries from the bottom of all three listsreading, science and math. This creates a large misconception about where the U.S. placed.
Would anyone but the New York Times bungle such basic data this way? Truly, the D-plus elite at this hapless newspaper will always find new ways to amaze. By the way: On an international math test, how would a 15-year-old student score if he or she bungled data that way? Wouldnt we all be wringing our hands about that students low math score?
For a look at all three complete data sets, click here, then keep on clicking. Questions: Do you believe in Shanghais test scores? In Gothams great New York Times?
SEND BACK THE CLOWNS (permalink): The performance by liberal elites has been little short of astounding in the past few days. Consider what happened when Lawrence ODonnell interviewed Peter Welch.
Welch is Vermonts sole congressman. After this weeks budget proposal was announced, he organized a letter of opposition within the Democratic House caucus. On Tuesday night, he appeared on Last Word to discuss his opposition. Rather weirdly, this was his first Q-and-A:
Really? The real problem is the fact that this proposal would add to the deficit? Obamas original ten-year proposal would also have added to the deficit, big-time. But very few House Democrats opposed it. And sure enough! Moments later, Welchs position became even less clear:
Did Welchs comments make any sense? As everyone knows: Under the original Obama proposal, continuing those lower rates for the middle-class up to $250,000 would have been added onto the deficitwould have been on the credit card, to be paid for by our kids and grandkids And the cost of those tax cuts is several times larger than the cost of the cuts for the rich. But Welch didnt seem to see the apparent contradiction, even as he said that his middle-class constituents want to give something up to help meet our obligation.
Did any of this make a lick of sense? Was Welch proposing that we continue the middle-class tax cuts, but that they should be paid for? The analysts had no idea as they watched this puzzling session unfold. Nor did ODonnell help us decipher this lofty congressmans muddled meaning. Congressman Welch, you bring that clear Vermont common sense to this, he weirdly said, directly replying to that last quoted statement. Everything youve said is absolutely unimpeachable.
Moments later, ODonnell did it again. Congressman Peter Welch, thank you for your clear-eyed Vermont view of this. Thanks for joining us.
Good grief! If that represented a clear-eyed view, what happens when things get cloudy? To us, the fiery Welch was utterly muddled; his statements seemed to make little sense. Mainly, he said he was upset because $900 billion would be added to the deficitbut he said he supported the middle-class tax cuts, which comprise a large part of that price tag. At the same time, he quoted his struggling, middle-class constituents; they seemed to be saying that they wanted to relinquish their tax cuts! They wanted to pay the price themselves, rather than dump it off on their kids.
The next day, in this interview with Ezra Klein, Welch managed to clarify things a tadand as it turns out, he does support putting those middle-class tax cuts on the credit card. (Never mind what his yeoman constituents said!) By now, though, some of the analysts were in tears; others stared stonily into the distance. By now, the sheer incoherence of liberal conduct had truly been a thing to beholda marker of the broken morals and intellectual sloth of the modern progressive movement.
ODonnell has actually asked good questions this week, when he isnt dramatically losing his temper about pet aspects of this proposed plan. But how bad did things get in the liberal world as reaction to this plan unfolded? On Tuesday night, no one was more incoherentand more disingenuousthan Our Own Rhodes Scholar, Rachel Maddow.
But then, what else is new?
Tuesday night, Maddow devoted most of her program to the new proposal. His incoherence and incomprehension were astounding, matched only by her sense of absolute certainty concerning each word which fell from her mouth. She did catch one misstatement from Obamas press conferencehis apparently inaccurate claim that Republicans had been opposing extension of the child tax credit. But elsewhere, her own incomprehension was general. To wit:
Maddow seems to have no idea what the Alternative Minimum Tax is. Repeatedly, she offered variants of this absurd statement: Republicans also got President Obama to agree to a fix in the alternative minimum tax. (The AMT is subject to an annual fix which is completely non-controversial.)
Maddow seems to think Republicans tricked Obama into extending the Earned Income Tax Credita program which benefits low-income earners.
Maddow engaged in one of her classic truncated quotes followed by sarcastic sneering, doctoring Obamas perfectly intelligible explanation as to why this particular matter was a unique circumstance. Having omitted Obamas explanation, Maddow looked at the camera and snarked and sneered about his lack of same. (This practice is quite common on this miserable program.)
And then, there was Maddows weird interview with economist Simon Johnsonan interview which started like this:
Very, very odd. All of a sudden, Maddow seemed to be upset by the very idea of any deficit spending. Did the lady understand that this new-found concern seems to represent a change in her long-held position? All year long, Maddow has targeted those tax cuts for the rich ($700 billion over ten years!), pleasing tribal libs in the processwithout saying a single word about the much larger tax cuts for the middle-class, which would have added $3.2 trillion to those very same deficits. Suddenly, Johnson was saying that all such spending is completely irresponsibleand Maddow showed no earthly sign of seeing that this would represent a change in her own position. To all appearances, the lady was shocked, shocked to think that Obama would borrow money like that. In fact, Obama had proposed such borrowing all year longand Maddow, playing tribal cards, had thoroughly seemed to support it.
Does this biggest of all cable frauds ever know what shes talking about? Last night, she interviewed Frank Rich about the budget proposaland Rich was rather plainly suggesting that this weeks loud Democratic solons had been full of old shoes. Maddow had been screeching right along with them, of coursein Tuesdays interview with Sen. Sherrod Brown, for example. But Maddow did what she always does in these circumstances. Having seemed to agree with Brown on Tuesday, she now played along with Rich:
The Democratic rebellion was hypocritical, Rich saida little tardy, a little theatrical. One night before, Maddow herself had promoted that same rebellion. But now, she pulled in her head and offered inane remarks about how Nancy Pelosi has gotten things doneinane because, as everyone knows, the problem for Obamas original plan has always been found in the Senate.
Maddow is one of the biggest frauds ever dumped on the public. In this case, she has been dumped on usthe suffering souls of the liberal world. That said, Keith Olbermann has been equally clownish and clueless in his own screeching and yelling this weekand in his own interviews, where he too seemed to pretend that he didnt hear when guests seemed to disagree with him. (We think of his Tuesday night interviews with both Ezra Klein and Rep. Bobby Scott.) But what do you expect when big corporations select our progressives for us?
How upside-down have things gotten this week? Last night, Chris Matthews batted Sherrod Brown all over the lot, calling out the sheer absurdity of his Tuesday performance with Maddow. Double absurdly, Brown is saying that Obama should give a few speeches in Maine, forcing that states Republican senator to flip on tax cuts for the rich. This is one of the most ridiculous presentations weve ever seen from a major pol. That much said, in a dozen years of watching Hardball, we dont think weve ever seen Matthews clarify an actual issue. Last night, incredibly, he did.
Matthews actually clarified something! But then, things have been so absurd this week, even Gail Collins was spotted making sense in todays New York Times:
Duh. Major Dem solons ducked a vote. Now, theyre pretending that things can somehow be salvaged if Obama would make a few speeches in Maine! How vast has the absurdity gotten? Even Collins and Matthews are suddenly getting things right!
Maddows a consummate cable fraud; Olbermann is no better. The corporate boys purchased these presents for us. After Christmas, can we possibly send these clowns back?
More on our sides intellectual breakdown tomorrow. Truly, the liberal world has been behaving like children in this pre-Christmas week.