For the second week in a row, I didn’t get into any single issue deeply enough to write a featured post. So I’m doing something different this week in a post I’m calling “More Questions than Answers”.
In my mind, a featured post is an expression of confidence: I’ve researched something well enough that I believe I have something to tell you that you may not see elsewhere. Also, I see this blog in part as a protest against the repetitive nature of the news media. So while regular readers will (over time) see me hit certain themes over and over, this week’s post should be substantially different from last week’s.
The recent run of news is defeating that vision. There are major events (like the war in Gaza) whose details are mostly hidden from us, and whose stories tend to repeat. (Israeli families are still worried about their relatives held hostage by Hamas. Civilians in Gaza are still suffering from a combination of privation and bombardment from Israel.) Here at home, there’s the looming Trump/Biden rematch, and the increasing need to sound the alarm about what a second Trump presidency would entail. In related news: the legal system keeps closing in on Trump little by little.
So I feel an enormous temptation either to write the same stories every week, or to speculate beyond my knowledge about what’s going on in Gaza or Ukraine — or inside the minds of people I don’t understand, like Trump supporters and Evangelical Christians.
So anyway, “More Questions than Answers” represents me backing off some of my usual standards: Its segments are covered in less detail than a typical featured post, and I give myself more room than usual to discuss what I think is happening, even if I don’t know. I’ll talk about whether Trump will ever be held accountable, what I think is going on with Ukraine aid, how I feel about Liz Cheney, how seriously to take the Hunter Biden situation, and a few other things. It should be out around 11 EST.
The weekly summary is relatively normal by comparison. It will talk about Gaza, Trump’s “dictator” remark, Taylor Swift, how crime gets covered, the importance of Norman Lear, and a few other things. I’ll aim to have that out before 1.
The Weekly Sift 
Comments
Biden has been more dictatorial than any other president measured by signed executive orders and he has weaponized gov agencies and colluded with social media giants and main stream media and his son indicted and whistleblowers shown how he was the asset his son Hunter traded for money he used on drugs and hookers but not on taxes – and you worry about a majority electing Trump in 2024 whose popularity keeps on rising with every attempt to interfere with his electability with frivolous lawsuits like Maduro in Venezuela or Putin in Russia
“Biden has been more dictatorial than any other president”
Does that list include the president that instigated an insurrection against American democracy itself in a last-ditch attempt to remain in power after losing a free and fair election (and is now facing criminal charges for doing so)?
There’s a whole of crazy packed inside your post. But have a great day otherwise.
Dementia J., is that you? Because it sure sounds like you. How nice of you to take a break from flooding the intertubes with your Truths and stop by to share your valuable wisdom with us. We were all looking forward to you testifying under oath this week in NY as you promised, but we’re sure you’ll make it up to us at one of your many other criminal trials.
Please don’t feel the need to keep up with us. I’m sure you’re much too busy preparing your response to Jack Smith’s motion to the SCOTUS to get them to answer whether you are, in fact, a king above all law, or whether you may be held accountable for leading the seditious conspiracy to overthrow the results of the 2020 POTUS election, as determined by the legally certified electors of the EC. So many indictments, so little time. How do you do it all?
I live
No matter what “new” news may be lurking in the murky depths of my computer screen, I ALWAYS look forward to your take on it.
Perhaps you could someday give us your thoughts about how university presidents and other “academias” can present themselves as anti-semitics. How do so-called “learned men & women” allow themselves to publicly out themselves with such crude opinions?
And especially given that these same ‘leaders’ represent institutions where speech critical of unhealthy body mass or questioning the certitude of sexual identification and its language orthodoxy is explicitly considered threatening behavior, and thus subject to discipline.
Those issues seem clear cut enough for them. But calls for genocide? Well, we have to wait for the actual behavior of it before that’s out-of-bounds.
I need to look at this more closely, but Michelle Goldberg’s take on the topic is worthwhile. She thinks the presidents’ invocation of “context” needs context.