Will the Circle be Unbroken with Iris Dement and Michelle Wright.
Double click to enlarge.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
"Florida can’t just not have a governor" - Seems at least a debatable proposition
An amusing reminder of technicalities. From Surprise! Florida’s Next Governor Won’t Be DeSantis or Gillum by Sarah Rumpf. We get so focused on the resolution of the absurdities of the Florida recounting and all the the sly dodges and tricks going on, that this headline is a shocker. Who is it that they are bringing in? How could that happen?
The reality is not alarming. It is just a recognition that with many systems, there is always a little play in the system. In this instance, it is about schedules.
The reality is not alarming. It is just a recognition that with many systems, there is always a little play in the system. In this instance, it is about schedules.
The ongoing recounts in several races in Florida after the midterm elections November 6th have created a lot of drama. Races that seemed settled on Election Night were challenged, with the contests for Governor, Senator, and Agriculture Commissioner being deemed too close to call. Now that the deadline for machine recounts has passed and we know how many votes remain that could potentially be counted (overvotes and undervotes), we can say that it’s highly unlikely that Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D) will be Florida’s next governor.In the words of the former New Yorker editor Harold Ross: Carlos Lopez-Cantera - Who he?
But it’s also highly unlikely that Congressman Ron DeSantis (R) will be governor either.
That’s right, the next governor of the Sunshine State will be someone else entirely.
Meet Carlos Lopez-Cantera. He’s the current Lieutenant Governor of Florida. Previously, he was Miami-Dade Property Appraiser and served several terms in the Florida House of Representatives.
Here’s why: Current Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) is almost certain to be declared the winner of his battle for the Senate seat against incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson (D). Sorry, Democrats, but there aren’t enough votes remaining, despite all the legal maneuvers, to help Nelson overcome his nearly 13,000 vote deficit.
The next step for Scott would be to be sworn into office as the junior senator from Florida. The Senate’s term is scheduled to begin on January 3, 2019, so he would have to be sworn in no later than that morning in order to take his place with the incoming Senate class.
However, the next governor’s term won’t begin until January 8, 2019. Scott will have to resign as governor before he can be sworn in as senator, and Florida can’t just not have a governor, even for such a short period.
Theoretically, Scott could delay being sworn in as a senator, but that risks his seniority in the Senate, placing him in a tier below every other senator elected this fall, instead of on equal footing with them.
So, barring some sort of historically unprecedented last-minute wrench thrown in the works (this is still Florida we’re talking about and anything is possible), Lopez-Cantera will be governor for five days.
Little Brand New Baby
Little Brand New Baby
by Tom Paxton
Hey, little brand new baby
Your momma and your daddy think you’re mighty nice
Hey, little brand new baby
I hope you have a mighty nice life
Your daddy’s lookin’ mighty proud
Handin’ out cigars all around the town
Grinnin’ like a possum and I think he’s gonna crow
And I hope you have a mighty nice life
Hey, little brand new baby
Your momma and your daddy think you’re mighty nice
Hey, little brand new baby
I hope you have a mighty nice life
It all lies ahead of you and from this day
It won’t be easy as you travel your way
But here’s to your birth and I just want to say
That I hope you have a mighty nice life
Community forums with quality commenters can be a great place to surface new information
From The Long-Run Impacts of Same-Race Teachers by Seth Gershenson, Cassandra M. D. Hart, Joshua Hyman, Constance Lindsay, and Nicholas W. Papageorge. From the Abstract:
It certainly seems plausible; it easy to conjure reasons why it might be true. On the other hand, I strongly and instinctively don't want it to be true. I cannot but be concerned about findings which seem to support the return of race and gender segregation in education.
And I say this as a product of a single-sex high-school education which I suspect was superior to the alternatives.
I have never resolved this tension between what the data implies versus what I wish to be true.
One palliative thought has been that even if the studies are true, they don't necessarily require a return of segregation. Perhaps it just implies certain considerations in student class assignment within a still integrated school. Perhaps. But I don't take much solace in that prospect - it still feels like imposing the steel hand of identity regardless of individual needs.
The more reassuring thought has been that perhaps the studies are wrong. Certainly, the methodologies and protocols often seem quite questionable and the effect sizes relatively small. The fact that the studies seem consistently in one direction might be because of publication bias and/or the bias of educational academia. Academia is one of the bastions of postmodernist critical theory and its commitment to identity. It is not too surprising that they might be finding what they have already decided must be true.
So I am left in a quandary. I want to go with the evidence but the evidence as it exists is in a direction I hope is not true and which I have good reason to question.
The NBER paper is via Marginal Revolution. The nice thing about MR is that Cowen and Tabarrok's commenters are pretty high quality. There is a share of trollers and low quality comments, but in general, regardless of the topic, MR commenters drive toward greater understanding and clairty.
The commenting discussion on this NBER paper is pretty robust, raising all sorts of methodological, analytical and statistical issues casting doubt on the conclusions.
But then commenter Dave finds a pretty devastating critique already in circulation.
Drum points out this graphic from the paper:
Click to enlarge.
5% more likely to graduate from high school is a reasonably good outcome, probably representing a real effect and one that is consequential in terms of life time earnings (HS graduates earning some 30-40% more than non-HS graduates).
However, 0.5% increase in the number completing college is a negligible effect-size and within the confidence margin.
And in terms of consequence, it is actually on the face of it, a net negative. Attending college has a time and dollar cost and the income earning benefit is almost completely dependent on graduation. Matriculating without graduating means you are out of the workforce for 1-3 years with the lost income that entails. In addition, if you take on any non-dischargeable loans to attend, then you are left with all the costs and virtually none of the benefits, a condition in which 85% of the newly attending student would find themselves (4-0.5/4).
The real prize in terms of improved income is a completed college degree and having race-matched teachers does not facilitate that big win. However, we are still left with that 5% increase in those who graduate high school, which would still be a real productivity win if it were true.
But we are left with serious questions - is that effect size large enough to be true? And even if true, is it sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the negative impact on the 3.5% who attend but do not graduate from college.
We examine the impact of having a same-race teacher on students' long-run educational attainment. Leveraging random student-teacher pairings in the Tennessee STAR class-size experiment, we find that black students randomly assigned to a black teacher in grades K-3 are 5 percentage points (7%) more likely to graduate from high school and 4 percentage points (13%) more likely to enroll in college than their peers in the same school who are not assigned a black teacher. We document similar patterns using quasi-experimental methods and statewide administrative data from North Carolina. To examine possible mechanisms, we provide a theoretical model that formalizes the notion of “role model effects” as distinct from teacher effectiveness. We envision role model effects as information provision: black teachers provide a crucial signal that leads black students to update their beliefs about the returns to effort and what educational outcomes are possible. Using testable implications generated by the theory, we provide suggestive evidence that role model effects help to explain why black teachers increase the educational attainment of black students.Whether it is race or gender, I have seen many studies such as this over the years - black students do better with black teachers and male (or female) students do better with male (or female) teachers.
It certainly seems plausible; it easy to conjure reasons why it might be true. On the other hand, I strongly and instinctively don't want it to be true. I cannot but be concerned about findings which seem to support the return of race and gender segregation in education.
And I say this as a product of a single-sex high-school education which I suspect was superior to the alternatives.
I have never resolved this tension between what the data implies versus what I wish to be true.
One palliative thought has been that even if the studies are true, they don't necessarily require a return of segregation. Perhaps it just implies certain considerations in student class assignment within a still integrated school. Perhaps. But I don't take much solace in that prospect - it still feels like imposing the steel hand of identity regardless of individual needs.
The more reassuring thought has been that perhaps the studies are wrong. Certainly, the methodologies and protocols often seem quite questionable and the effect sizes relatively small. The fact that the studies seem consistently in one direction might be because of publication bias and/or the bias of educational academia. Academia is one of the bastions of postmodernist critical theory and its commitment to identity. It is not too surprising that they might be finding what they have already decided must be true.
So I am left in a quandary. I want to go with the evidence but the evidence as it exists is in a direction I hope is not true and which I have good reason to question.
The NBER paper is via Marginal Revolution. The nice thing about MR is that Cowen and Tabarrok's commenters are pretty high quality. There is a share of trollers and low quality comments, but in general, regardless of the topic, MR commenters drive toward greater understanding and clairty.
The commenting discussion on this NBER paper is pretty robust, raising all sorts of methodological, analytical and statistical issues casting doubt on the conclusions.
But then commenter Dave finds a pretty devastating critique already in circulation.
DaveThank you, Dave. Follow the link to Kevin Drum's assessment.
November 20, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Any thoughts on this critique of the study which seems to me to be relatively devastating? (Found via a Jesse Singal tweet):
First, the effect was limited almost entirely to enrollment in community college. Second, although black children with black teachers were, overall, 4 percent more likely to enroll in college, they were only 2.7 percent more likely to stay past their first year—and this result was only marginally significant. Third, they were only 0.5 percent more likely to earn a degree. The authors confirm this in the text—”We find a near-zero, statistically insignificant effect on degree receipt”—but also offer up some gobbledegook to suggest this is no big deal: “However, given the very low rates of degree completion among non-matched students (8.5%), we cannot rule out degree receipt effects on the order of 1 or 2 percentage points. Effects in that range would suggest the marginal matched student induced into college persisting to degree receipt at around the same rate as the inframarginal, non-matched student.”If I’m reading that correctly, it means the effect on earning a degree is about zero no matter what.
Drum points out this graphic from the paper:
5% more likely to graduate from high school is a reasonably good outcome, probably representing a real effect and one that is consequential in terms of life time earnings (HS graduates earning some 30-40% more than non-HS graduates).
However, 0.5% increase in the number completing college is a negligible effect-size and within the confidence margin.
And in terms of consequence, it is actually on the face of it, a net negative. Attending college has a time and dollar cost and the income earning benefit is almost completely dependent on graduation. Matriculating without graduating means you are out of the workforce for 1-3 years with the lost income that entails. In addition, if you take on any non-dischargeable loans to attend, then you are left with all the costs and virtually none of the benefits, a condition in which 85% of the newly attending student would find themselves (4-0.5/4).
The real prize in terms of improved income is a completed college degree and having race-matched teachers does not facilitate that big win. However, we are still left with that 5% increase in those who graduate high school, which would still be a real productivity win if it were true.
But we are left with serious questions - is that effect size large enough to be true? And even if true, is it sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the negative impact on the 3.5% who attend but do not graduate from college.
The same things are happening as before, for the same known reasons. But now we must allude to climate change.
From an article in the Smithsonian, recommending the best science books of the year.
Click to enlarge.
The book is Chesapeake Requiem: A Year with the Watermen of Vanishing Tangier Island recommended by Marjorie Hunt, folklorist and curator, Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage.
The text above is:
While in college, circa 1980, I read a long-piece reporting in the Washington Post on the fate of an island in the Chesapeake Bay. Whether it was Tangier Island or not, I don't recall. But everything else was the same - the theme of change and erosion, the disappearance of an ancient way of life, the nostalgia for old "intricate interconnections between people, place, history, and nature."
Nearly forty years ago (and I suspect even longer ago than that), journalists were doing pieces on the loss of Chesapeake Bay islands due to erosion. However, there was no talk about it being caused by global warming. Land subsidence has long been a well-known factor causing flooding in the Chesapeake Bay area as well as shifting riverine and tidal flows.
Indeed, river levels have been 3-400 hundred feet higher or lower over the period of recent glaciations.
Currently, the US Army Corps of Engineers estimates that more than half of flooding in the Bay is caused by land subsidence. Whether sea levels are rising in the Chesapeake remains unknown. From the same study:
There is no basis for knowing that Tangier Island is threatened by climate change, as opposed to all the other dynamics at play. Islands have been eroding for centuries. Ocean surface levels have been rising since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of the current Holocene some 11,000 years ago.
It is quite possible that we might be in the midst of a sea level rise in the area of Chesapeake Bay, as is hypothesized. But we cannot yet measure that rise - all the numbers are within the margin of measurement error. Even more critically, no one has even begun to attempt to parse how much Chesapeake erosion is occurring from land subsidence, land use practices, normal hydrology or speculated, but not measurable, Chesapeake Bay sea level rises, much less such rises due to AGW.
The Smithsonian Magazine is supposed to be dedicated to knowledge. From their mission statement:
Were it not for the fact that I read such a similar article in the Washington Post nearly forty year ago, the glaring inconsistency would likely not have been so obvious.
The book is Chesapeake Requiem: A Year with the Watermen of Vanishing Tangier Island recommended by Marjorie Hunt, folklorist and curator, Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage.
The text above is:
This excellent book vividly captures the traditional ways of life and work of the watermen of Tangier Island, Virginia, and the dire threat posed to the Island's existence by climate change as the waters of the Chesapeake Bay continue to rise and land disappears at an alarming rate. As someone who has conducted fieldwork with watermen on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Maryland, I am captivated and moved by this meticulously reported, beautifully written and compassionate story of the intricate interconnections between people, place, history, and nature.Just one of the dozens of instances I come across almost daily where some already occurring event is lazily linked to climate change, not because there is an actual causal relationship with climate change, but because it is the trope all journalists mimic.
While in college, circa 1980, I read a long-piece reporting in the Washington Post on the fate of an island in the Chesapeake Bay. Whether it was Tangier Island or not, I don't recall. But everything else was the same - the theme of change and erosion, the disappearance of an ancient way of life, the nostalgia for old "intricate interconnections between people, place, history, and nature."
Nearly forty years ago (and I suspect even longer ago than that), journalists were doing pieces on the loss of Chesapeake Bay islands due to erosion. However, there was no talk about it being caused by global warming. Land subsidence has long been a well-known factor causing flooding in the Chesapeake Bay area as well as shifting riverine and tidal flows.
Indeed, river levels have been 3-400 hundred feet higher or lower over the period of recent glaciations.
Currently, the US Army Corps of Engineers estimates that more than half of flooding in the Bay is caused by land subsidence. Whether sea levels are rising in the Chesapeake remains unknown. From the same study:
There is presently no evidence of a statistically significant increase marking an acceleration in RSL rise at any of the five bay stations. Small but steady increases in RSL rise rate with time are still a possibility as RSL trend confidence intervals remain too large for statistical inference.The Chesapeake Bay is hydrologically very dynamic. Land use influences, land subsidence, sedimentation and river bed changes are all contributing to both erosion as well as embankment growth.
There is no basis for knowing that Tangier Island is threatened by climate change, as opposed to all the other dynamics at play. Islands have been eroding for centuries. Ocean surface levels have been rising since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of the current Holocene some 11,000 years ago.
It is quite possible that we might be in the midst of a sea level rise in the area of Chesapeake Bay, as is hypothesized. But we cannot yet measure that rise - all the numbers are within the margin of measurement error. Even more critically, no one has even begun to attempt to parse how much Chesapeake erosion is occurring from land subsidence, land use practices, normal hydrology or speculated, but not measurable, Chesapeake Bay sea level rises, much less such rises due to AGW.
The Smithsonian Magazine is supposed to be dedicated to knowledge. From their mission statement:
Smithsonian magazine informs and inspires readers with knowledge they can trust through a balanced editorial blend of topical, relevant issues and historical perspective.How can we trust them if they make statements that are so easily checkable (it took about sixty seconds to find multiple reliable sources which indicate that there is no measurable rise). Granted, the recommender, Marjorie Hunt, is a folklorist rather than a scientist. However, one would think that the editors were checking their facts before allowing statements which are not known to be true.
Were it not for the fact that I read such a similar article in the Washington Post nearly forty year ago, the glaring inconsistency would likely not have been so obvious.
Friday, November 23, 2018
Unconsidered aspects of history.
From Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.), 17 March 1921. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress.
I am doing some genealogical research and came across this obituary notice of a man with an odd claim to notice. I was looking for Baylesses in Tennessee and the search came back with Nathan Bayless in Kentucky. This is presumably some distant cousin whether separating off at some point from the Tennessee line or perhaps a parallel branch out of the originating settlement in Long Island.
Part of why I am enjoying this genealogical research are the aspects of history which you wouldn't obviously consider. In this instance - who bought the last slave in America?
If so, I wonder if there is any evidence anywhere of the future of that last slave? Did he serve in the Federal Army? Did he survive the war? What was his fate as a newly emancipated citizen? Could be a fascinating tale.
I am doing some genealogical research and came across this obituary notice of a man with an odd claim to notice. I was looking for Baylesses in Tennessee and the search came back with Nathan Bayless in Kentucky. This is presumably some distant cousin whether separating off at some point from the Tennessee line or perhaps a parallel branch out of the originating settlement in Long Island.
Part of why I am enjoying this genealogical research are the aspects of history which you wouldn't obviously consider. In this instance - who bought the last slave in America?
PARIS MAN WHO SOLD LAST SLAVE IS DEAD$1,500 in 1863 (date of the Emancipation Proclamation) is worth $30,000 today - Nathan Bayless paid a high price for honoring the contract. Interestingly, the Emancipation Proclamation was originally very constrained in its application.
Paris, Ky., March 17—Nathan Bayless, Sr., aged 86 years, credited with having purchased the last slave sold in the south, died here Tuesday after a long illness. He was noted throughout Central Kentucky as a judge of saddle and harness horses, and for many years engaged in buying and selling horses and mules for the southern trade.
Mr. Bayless, so the story goes, bought a negro slave at public auction for $1,500 only a few hours before President Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation. He had possession of the slave for about 24 hours, but stuck to his bargain and paid the agreed price. Mr. Bayless was born at Stamping Ground, Scott county. In 1871, he married Miss Laura Wright, who survives him.
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."One can hope that if Nathan Bayless honored the purchase contract, that he might have immediately honored the spirit of the Emancipation Proclamation despite the fact that it did not technically have application to Kentucky.
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the United States, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy (the Southern secessionist states) that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union (United States) military victory.
Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.
If so, I wonder if there is any evidence anywhere of the future of that last slave? Did he serve in the Federal Army? Did he survive the war? What was his fate as a newly emancipated citizen? Could be a fascinating tale.
Water, 1566 by Giuseppe Arcimboldo
Water, 1566 by Giuseppe Arcimboldo
I used to be fascinated by these Arcimboldo paintings, particularly his four seasons.
Click to enlarge.
I used to be fascinated by these Arcimboldo paintings, particularly his four seasons.
It almost looks like it was all along a vehicle for buying influence
From the Clinton Foundation, the 2017 Public Report. Christina Laila points out that private contributions are down 90% since Clinton's departure from the State Department.
Someone else points out that private contributions are down 85% since 2016, the last run.
It almost looks like it was all along a vehicle for buying influence rather than a means of supporting good works.
Someone else points out that private contributions are down 85% since 2016, the last run.
This is jaw-dropping. The Clinton Foundation's 2017 annual report is finally online--WOW. Lots to unpack but digest this nugget:
— thebradfordfile™ (@thebradfordfile) November 21, 2018
2015 Total Contributions: $182.5M
2016 Total Contributions: $135.4M
2017 Total Contributions: $22.8M ðŸ˜
WHEN THEY CAN'T PLAY--NOBODY WANTS TO PAY!
It almost looks like it was all along a vehicle for buying influence rather than a means of supporting good works.
Higher social class undermines wise reasoning about interpersonal affairs
From Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts across regions, persons and situations by Justin P. Brienza and Igor Grossmann. From the Abstract:
The introduction is a little clearer.
Click to enlarge.
People with fewer academic credentials demonstrate a much higher index of wise reasoning (but with a much larger standard deviation) compared to those with college degrees.
This is consistent with Philip Tetlock's finding that forecasting capability of experts is often undermined by their loss of broader perspective. He doesn't use the terminology of wise reasoning but in effect that is what is happening. Pundits become very expert in their narrow field and with their high cognition and mastery, also become accustomed to being right in their narrow slice. They fail to take into account that their expertise in one narrow domain does not translate into other domains and they fail to take into sufficient account the broader context within which their domain resides. Informed wise reasoners (maintenance of humility, recognition of uncertainty, and respect for alternative views) frequently outperform the experts in their forecasting.
I suspect that this finding (were it to be more robustly replicated) factors into the the widening trust chasm between the Mandarin class and the average citizen. While the Mandarin class might be better credentialed and even possibly have higher average IQs, their absence of wise-reasoning means that most their grand schemes come astray. The wise reasoning average citizen recognizes failure of competence, frequently exacerbated by selfing-serving and corruption by the Mandarins. Mandarins, suffering a dearth of humility and failing to respect alternative perspectives, are insulated from recognizing the consequences of their frequent failures.
The wise-reasoning average citizen sees less and less reason to trust the Mandarin class. The Mandarin class becomes increasingly dismissive of the average citizen and their failure to tug the forelock to the Mandarins.
We propose that class is inversely related to a propensity for using wise reasoning (recognizing limits of their knowledge, consider world in flux and change, acknowledges and integrate different perspectives) in interpersonal situations, contrary to established class advantage in abstract cognition. Two studies—an online survey from regions differing in economic affluence (n = 2,145) and a representative in-lab study with stratified sampling of adults from working and middle-class backgrounds (n = 299) — tested this proposition, indicating that higher social class consistently related to lower levels of wise reasoning across different levels of analysis, including regional and individual differences, and subjective construal of specific situations. The results held across personal and standardized hypothetical situations, across self-reported and observed wise reasoning, and when controlling for fluid and crystallized cognitive abilities. Consistent with an ecological framework, class differences in wise reasoning were specific to interpersonal (versus societal) conflicts. These findings suggest that higher social class weighs individuals down by providing the ecological constraints that undermine wise reasoning about interpersonal affairs.I am leery of studies with self-selected participants, online surveys, etc. On the other hand, this fits my priors.
The introduction is a little clearer.
How do people of different social class vary in their reasoning style? For at least a century, this question has been at the core of scholarship on mental abilities. Some research has suggested that people of higher social class exhibit a superior style of reasoning, with white-collars performing better on tasks measuring fluid and crystallized intelligence compared with blue-collars. A dominant explanation for this observation has involved differences in ecological affordances, with lower-class environments defined by fewer resources, greater threat, and more uncertainty — all factors that inhibit performance on abstract intelligence tests—suggesting that lower-class environments promote inferior reasoning. Here, we advance an alternative account, with a focus on wisdom-related pragmatic reasoning rather than abstract reasoning such as propositional logic. Central aspects of this reasoning style include intellectual humility, recognition that the world is in flux and changes, and the ability to take different contexts into account besides one’s own—factors philosophers have long associated with handling situations wisely.I liked this finding.
People with fewer academic credentials demonstrate a much higher index of wise reasoning (but with a much larger standard deviation) compared to those with college degrees.
This is consistent with Philip Tetlock's finding that forecasting capability of experts is often undermined by their loss of broader perspective. He doesn't use the terminology of wise reasoning but in effect that is what is happening. Pundits become very expert in their narrow field and with their high cognition and mastery, also become accustomed to being right in their narrow slice. They fail to take into account that their expertise in one narrow domain does not translate into other domains and they fail to take into sufficient account the broader context within which their domain resides. Informed wise reasoners (maintenance of humility, recognition of uncertainty, and respect for alternative views) frequently outperform the experts in their forecasting.
I suspect that this finding (were it to be more robustly replicated) factors into the the widening trust chasm between the Mandarin class and the average citizen. While the Mandarin class might be better credentialed and even possibly have higher average IQs, their absence of wise-reasoning means that most their grand schemes come astray. The wise reasoning average citizen recognizes failure of competence, frequently exacerbated by selfing-serving and corruption by the Mandarins. Mandarins, suffering a dearth of humility and failing to respect alternative perspectives, are insulated from recognizing the consequences of their frequent failures.
The wise-reasoning average citizen sees less and less reason to trust the Mandarin class. The Mandarin class becomes increasingly dismissive of the average citizen and their failure to tug the forelock to the Mandarins.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
