Somewhere (I forget where) on TV yesterday a reporter was interviewing attendees at a Donald Trump rally. You realize, he asked each of them, that Trump sometimes is untruthful?
The interviewees agreed. They did not attempt to argue the point; they accepted the reporter’s premise.
So then, he asked, why are you supporting him? Continue reading
I was having lunch Monday (with Andy Cohn) at a French restaurant, Liaison, in solidarity: Liberté, égalité, gastronomie! Afterwards I find myself wondering what to make of the horrible events of last Friday in Paris, and how to even frame the questions we have to ask and eventually answer.
I begin with a topic I have written about before but may require some additional consideration: how to talk about acts of terrorism. My answer: as little as possible.
When horrific events of this kind – whether terrorism or mass murder – occur, American media respond in unison: talk about nothing else for a week, and then…drop it, and get back to the reality shows. Both parts are dangerous. It may be tempting to be part of the audience after such tragedies – perhaps hearing the litany over and over is in some way cathartic – but we need to understand that being coddled in this way does us no good. Continue reading
By now you have had a chance to watch a few presidential debates, and as a result you may be asking: What are these debates for, and what should I be learning from them? Is there a reason to watch them rather than tuning in to PBS for another exciting episode of “Antiques Road Show”? Let us consider these questions.
Too many people are discouraged from watching the debates because they have been encouraged to watch for one thing, which never shows up, rather than watching for something very different and in fact more important. Continue reading
Two articles on the topic of “diversity” appeared in The New York Times over the weekend, and the fact that they occurred in close succession needs some explanation. The first was an op-ed by Arthur C. Brooks (of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, on Saturday, October 31. The second, by Anna Holmes, appeared the next day in The New York Times Magazine,. Both were critical of current uses of the word “diversity.” While I want to concentrate here on the Brooks op-ed, both are worth reading, and the fact that close examination of a single word occurred in two articles in the Times so close together makes it clear that “diversity,” and diversity, are on people’s minds. Continue reading
To understand Ben Carson’s surge, you have to compare-and-contrast him with Donald Trump.
Carson and Trump are twins, fraternal rather than identical. On the surface, in terms of style, they appear as different as can be; more deeply, in terms of the content of their utterances, they are very similar. Both specialize in grand displays of egomania; turning the tables on anyone who gives them trouble; making great promises without any indications of how they would carry them out; making bombastic statements about history backed by less than no knowledge; bullying – Trump through direct verbal intimidation, Carson more subtly, by invoking the race card – there is the possibility hanging in the air that if anyone goes after him, he will attribute the attack to racism; as well as the Science card – i.e., he’s so brilliant! He couldn’t be wrong! For both, these strategies make them invincible. Continue reading
