"The Fox News star Tucker Carlson said on Monday evening that he would leave on a vacation, starting immediately, days after a writer on his program, Blake Neff, resigned over racist, sexist and misogynist messages..."

"... that Mr. Neff published pseudonymously on an online message board. Mr. Carlson told viewers that he would return to his show next week and described the vacation as 'long planned,' suggesting that his time off had been set before Mr. Neff was revealed on Friday as the author of the offensive posts.... Mr. Neff... resigned last week after Fox News learned of his activity on AutoAdmit, an online forum popular with law students. There, Mr. Neff had written messages that denigrated African-Americans, Asian-Americans and women.... 'What Blake wrote anonymously was wrong,' [Carlson] told viewers. 'We don’t endorse those words. They have no connection to the show. It is wrong to attack people for qualities they cannot control.'... Mr. Carlson, who has used his platform to denounce a so-called cancel culture that he says stymies free speech, appended a somewhat defiant note. He said that Mr. Neff 'has paid a very heavy price' for his behavior, 'but we should also point out to the ghouls now beating their chests in triumph at the destruction of a young man, that self-righteousness also has its costs... We are all human.... When we pretend we are holy, we are lying. When we pose as blameless in order to hurt other people, we are committing the gravest sin of all, and we will be punished for it, there’s no question."

From "Tucker Carlson to Take ‘Long-Planned’ Vacation After Writer’s Resignation/On his Monday evening show, the Fox News host said racist and sexist posts by one of his writers, Blake Neff, were 'wrong,' while castigating his detractors as 'ghouls'" (NYT).

I hope this "ghouls" terminology catches on. It was only 3 days ago that I myself said: "I've been seeing this Steven Pinker story out of the corner of my eye for a while. I don't even know what the cancel ghouls even say that he did wrong. I just assume they're crying wolf."

IN THE COMMENTS: Wince links to the fascination with the word "ghoul" in "Gangs of New York":

"Talking with my teammates, they gave me the confidence I needed... They said, 'You're still our teammate. You're still our brother."

"'We kind of had an idea, but your sexuality has nothing to do with your ability. You're still a ballplayer at the end of the day. We don't treat you any different. We've got your back.' That was a giant relief for me... I never wanted to feel like I was forcing it on them. It just happened. The outcome was amazing. It was nice to know my teammates see me for who I am, not my sexuality."

David Denson, the Milwaukee Brewer and the first openly gay baseball player.

EMD called attention to that in the previous comments thread. I didn't realize none of the baseball players had identified themselves as gay yet.

Oh, wait a minute. He's not even a major league player! I don't even know why this is news. A minor league player is openly gay? Good lord, the lack of social progress surprises me sometimes. Haven't we done this already? Wake me up when the many gay major leaguers break their silence. That Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article is long. For a minor leaguer!

At the Christmas Café...

... you can talk about anything you want.

IN THE COMMENTS: EMD said: "I hope to God/Bhudda/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster that's a 'holiday" tree."

And I said: "It's a Christmas tree, and it even has a sign in front of it telling us it's a Christmas tree." Here, look:

Kirsten Gillibrand says the late Daniel Inouye was the Senator who told her she'd "lost too much weight" and "I like my girls chubby."

Under pressure to name names, Senator Gillibrand names a dead man.

It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident.

With his deep baritone and courtly manner, Mr. Inouye was revered by his colleagues and was a powerhouse in both Hawaii and the Senate, where he was a reliable supporter of women’s rights.

Oh, those supporters of women's rights are the worst sort of sexists underneath it all, I bet.

Here's my post from last week speculating about why Gillibrand wouldn't name names. I thought of 5 reasons why not and polled readers, and by far the most popular guess was: "Maybe it didn't happen." That answer seems more apt now that the response to the pressure was to name a dead man.

Now, what do you think is more likely?

It never happened, and she's lying by naming Inouye.

It happened, and it was Inouye. She'd been protecting him.

It happened, it was Inouye, but she didn't name him because we wouldn't care if a dead man did it.

It happened, but someone else did it, and a dead man's name is convenient.

It happened, it was Inouye, but she'd look bad naming a dead man.

It happened, it was Inouye, and she wanted no names to focus us on the generality of sexism.

pollcode.com free polls

IN THE COMMENTS: EMD said: "You think she'd have enough smarts to name a dead Republican," and, really, that's the strongest evidence that she's not lying. If you're going to use death to insulate your lies, why not pick an opponent? One answer is: The Republican Party would fight back, call me a liar, etc. My party has its interest in me.

And Todd makes 2 important points. First, the linked article doesn't specify that Gillibrand divulged the name, only that "people with knowledge" did. I am assuming that the "people" are either Gillibrand herself or her agents, speaking for her. It's possible, though, that they acquired their knowledge through Gillibrand, but not as a consequence of the pressure she's felt to name names and that their decision to speak to the press was an independent choice, unconnected to any decision by Gillibrand to name names. I think that's unlikely, but the text of the NYT piece preserves that possibility. The NYT could clarify that. But I believe the NYT would tend to protect and help Gillibrand, so I don't think they'd publish this fact unless it was what Gillibrand wants.

Speaking of how the NYT phrases things to help Democrats, Todd's other observation is a discrepancy between the text I cut and pasted — "It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident" — and the text that appears at the link now — "It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident."

The original text did something that's frequently seen, the omission of "Democrat" in a mainstream media report of something negative about a Democrat. I'm guessing that somebody criticized the omission — somebody usually does — and the NYT stuck the "Democrat" in there. I looked for a reference to a correction but found none.

I did, however, find that the page I was reading is a new NYT feature, beginning today, called "First Draft," which is "a ​continuously updated ​news feed." Does "continuously updated" mean that corrections don't need to be noted? If so, "First Draft" is a misnomer. I don't know what draft I'm reading.

"Why Thatcher Wouldn’t Succeed in Our ‘Lean In’ Culture."

By Amity Shlaes.

As [Sheryl] Sandberg laboriously notes [in her bestseller "Lean In"], Harvard Business School, which already famously focused on teamwork and consensus, has lately emphasized teamwork even more. It’s hard to imagine Thatcher (“Defeat? I do not recognize the word”) thriving at HBS.

The result of the collaborative culture is that corporations or government institutions focus intensely on internal culture and pour their energy into achieving minuscule policy changes relating to workplace efficiency, gender or race. The great victory with which future Thatcher biographers are likely to open their accounts is her winning back the Falkland Islands from the Argentine junta. The great victory with which Sandberg opens her book was getting Google Inc. (GOOG) to establish reserved parking for pregnant women.

IN THE COMMENTS: MayBee asks: "What is with this annoying attempt to get people to use the phrase 'lean in'?" I've been irked by this too. Obviously, Sandberg was trying to sell her book and came up with something she wanted to make into a meme, but how did she get so many media people to adopt it?

Why does the meme seem useful? Is it some subliminal effect? I see the connotations of slimming down and also being lazy (like when you're leanin' on the shovel/mop instead of working).

I suspect that media people are mostly just lamely grasping at ways to make the same old material seem new. I'm guilty of spreading the meme too, since I put this post up, but I have actually been avoiding "Lean In" stuff. I fell for it this time because of the Margaret Thatcher + Amity Shlaes prod.

ALSO IN THE COMMENTS: "I enjoy watching a woman 'lean in.'" And: "Lean In while wearing a low cut blouse, and you're sure to get a promotion." Is that the subliminal sustenance people are receiving?!

What's the birther/truther word for those who think political polls have become, basically, propaganda?

Pollers? Pollemicists? Poller bears? The Poller Opposites? Help me out. I need a good coinage for the condition I've found myself lapsing into. Here's the latest symptom. I think I saw somewhere this morning — on Drudge? — that CNN had the presidential race suddenly tightening up, in advance of the polls. And my first thought — I just blurted it out loud — was: They're saying it's close right in advance of the debate so they can say, after the debate, that Obama went up. He won the debate.

I went over to Drudge to look for what I'd seen, and I didn't find that but I found:

Under oath, Edwards pollster admits polls were 'propaganda'...

POLL: Plurality of Americans believe POLLS biased for Obama...

And here's what I remember seeing this morning that brought on my pollemic: "New CNN/ORC poll less skewed for Barack Obama than the previous one."

The survey, that includes a smaller eight percent over-sample of Democratic voters, has Obama leading by a 49 percent to 47 percent edge....

The news here is not that this poll is slightly skewed, but compared to the 15.4 percent skewed in favor of the Democrats in the controversial September 10 CNN/ORC poll, this latest one is based on a far less skewed sample.

See? I think they adjust the skew to get the result that suits the propaganda purpose, and they're temporarily making the race look tight to make the debate seem super-important. (That's good for CNN's ratings, so there's a commercial, nonpolitical reason too for poll fakery.) Then they can make a show of breaking the news that Obama got big debate bounce.

IN THE COMMENTS: EMD said...

Pollcats?
Polltergeists?
Skewballs?