Part 1
Here’s the Hancock breakdown in case you missed it:
1) it’s the public’s fault
2) I’m not answering that question about the police arresting people - properly
3) act like you’ve got the virus because most of you will soon (herd immunity)
4) the rich can fly in
#marr

Part 2 (had to make a cup of tea):
1) I love the NHS (ha ha)
2) we aren’t heading for a national lockdown (Pinocchio moment)
3) the new variant deflections: respond to different question, use vague language ‘not quite right’, verbal stumble (I’m in trouble)
#marr
Part 3 (the deflection continues)
1) November 5th - December the 3rd anomalies you say and I’m supposed to know what is going on (la la la I’m going to my happy place)
2) The only journalist I deign to give pretend answers to is you, Andrew (please please please be nice)
Part 4:
1) genomic surveillance (who’s a clever boy, eh?)
2) spread the blame: ‘brought to ministers’ attention’
3) no, no don’t show me the video of ‘the Boss’, making him look like a liar ...
4) mention the Archbishop of C (I’m a good person too!)
Part 5:
1) ‘when the evidence is clear’ (when we had to face the fact we’ve endangered even more lives for a Brussel sprout)
2) called my mum (I’m a human being too, guys!)
3) being in government is hard (face palm at this point)
4) the variant is to blame (keep saying it)
Part 6: now it’s about schools!
1) you’re lying about schools Andrew (wait, I have to defend Gavin the Gormless as well?)
2) refuse to answer question about Williamson’s actions (because Marr is right) and pretend the q. was about January
Part 7: still schools
1) that headteacher who complained is a terrible human being who doesn’t care about her pupils’ safety or education (personal attacks are easy - get in!)
2) make teachers look bad by comparing them to NHS workers (don’t mention the lack of PPE ...)
Part 8: Brexit and Hancock’s resignation. Too much for now! Thanks for reading 😉

More from For later read

Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).

Inside: Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs; Strength in numbers; and more!

Archived at: https://t.co/esjoT3u5Gr

#Pluralistic

1/


On Feb 22, I'm delivering a keynote address for the NISO Plus conference, "The day of the comet: what trustbusting means for digital manipulation."

https://t.co/Z84xicXhGg

2/


Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs: Ink-stained wretches of the world, unite!

https://t.co/k5ASdVUrC2

3/


Strength in numbers: The crisis in accounting.

https://t.co/DjfAfHWpNN

4/


#15yrsago Bad Samaritan family won’t return found expensive camera https://t.co/Rn9E5R1gtV

#10yrsago What does Libyan revolution mean for https://t.co/Jz28qHVhrV? https://t.co/dN1e4MxU4r

5/

You May Also Like

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x