
note the detail, in which Andre appears on the star of Mao's hat:






The segment follows the structure that used to be isolated to Fox: frame it in terms of a predetermined judgment, smirk your way through the interview with the person representing the view of the opposition (but present the interviewee as a straw man), then end by commiserating with the second and final interviewee who simply validates the point of view of the interviewer. 
I suspect, then, that this book will be a source of irritation to many people, especially those who know more about [name of subject] than I do. I'm sympathetic but, if we're to make any progress at all, there's one type of criticism I'd like to rule out of court straightaway. This is the 'But what about X?' or 'Why didn't he mention Y?' charge of inadmissible omission. Can we agree, in Whitman's words, 'that much unseen is also here', that it's not necessary to discuss--or even mention--every [instance of topic ever produced] in order to learn something interesting about [topic]? I hope so, because the person doing the learning is the person writing the book as much as the person reading it. The driver is along for the ride too. (7)
This is our neighborhood rooster, Layne, tending to some ducklings this afternoon.