David- Thanks for sharing this. It's been a while since I review the topic of post-collegiate community. Your writing is a great reminder of the importance of thoughtfulness. Hope you're well this week. Cheers, -Thalia
I like the moose, and the photography, generally speaking.
I say this in regard to just about anyone:
I think there are a LOT of things we see online or on TV, even, (heh) that are obviously videos. And I think it's quite likely that a fair percentage of those videos are manufactured to APPEAR to be giving us some sort of "truth" about something, because after all, it's "proof."
I trust nothing anymore. Anything is possible, and I've watched as things that seemed "truthy" enough turned out to be FAKED. We are in a time of very serious and copious fuckery, if you don't mind the term, and for this reason, my old standard is still in play: QUESTION EVERYTHING.
I say this in regard to Donald Trump and Joe Biden being candidates-- I remember seeing a video of how it's possible now to create "masks" of various people that look so real, it's virtually (virtually!) impossible to see it online and be able to tell if it's the real deal or not... And that's BEFORE we even get to the idea of "voting."
Now apply this and all the rest of the shenanigans that happen with cameras and editing and all that, and think about "elections."
Okay, bye, and I liked your post very much, thanks!
Sir, you are beyond biased. If you indeed believe President Trump has done these things and his truly ridiculous trials are just, there is no hope for you. Everything he is being accused of is done by congress and their hush money fund to Clinton and his various sexual attacks on many persons.
Carolyn, thank you for this. Only a fool responds to critics, but I cannot resist trying to clarify. The piece is not about Trump. For the record, I do not think he was a good President; I hope he does not win; I think he will win. For a part of why I think he will win, apart from the reaction to Gaza (which I share, btw), please see my last Intermittent Signal, "Inflation, Debt, and Political Sentiment," which is a critique of the Dem understanding of how economics affects households. This piece, however, and much of my work in recent years, is not about Trump at all, in any direct sense. It certainly has nothing to do with the trials, or with the Clinton administration. I'm thinking about governing elites, for which "Harvard" is a kind of shorthand. I am a member of this cohort, at least by training. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about how such elites have lost a hell of a lot of legitimacy, as evidenced by voices like yours. What is interesting here -- the reason I wrote the piece -- is that Harvard itself has radically shifted its ground, and in a direction I presume you approve. And, I suggest in the piece, this is not just an issue in the US, but in many countries around the world. Which is a long way of saying that I'm more sympathetic to what I take your position to be than I think you realize. Again, thank you for your comment.
Exactly the opposite of this: “The US President has violated, attacked, even disavowed, what we – in the United States and at Harvard - have long and publicly believed. Harvard and the like deeply reject the American experiment and look down on the American people, while at the same time rejecting its own tradition of the pursuit of truth. Turns out power and the skin color of those who hold it are more important. Lots of fancy words don’t matter much when they have zero to do with what’s actually going on.
Thank you for your comment. I am not quite sure where the quote ends, or who said it, but I think my response to Carolyn, above, might be relevant. Yes, the problem of "looking down" is profound. I've said that, a lot, in this and other venues. And race . . . I hear you. That's part of what I'm writing about.
David- Thanks for sharing this. It's been a while since I review the topic of post-collegiate community. Your writing is a great reminder of the importance of thoughtfulness. Hope you're well this week. Cheers, -Thalia
I like the moose, and the photography, generally speaking.
I say this in regard to just about anyone:
I think there are a LOT of things we see online or on TV, even, (heh) that are obviously videos. And I think it's quite likely that a fair percentage of those videos are manufactured to APPEAR to be giving us some sort of "truth" about something, because after all, it's "proof."
I trust nothing anymore. Anything is possible, and I've watched as things that seemed "truthy" enough turned out to be FAKED. We are in a time of very serious and copious fuckery, if you don't mind the term, and for this reason, my old standard is still in play: QUESTION EVERYTHING.
I say this in regard to Donald Trump and Joe Biden being candidates-- I remember seeing a video of how it's possible now to create "masks" of various people that look so real, it's virtually (virtually!) impossible to see it online and be able to tell if it's the real deal or not... And that's BEFORE we even get to the idea of "voting."
Now apply this and all the rest of the shenanigans that happen with cameras and editing and all that, and think about "elections."
Okay, bye, and I liked your post very much, thanks!
Sir, you are beyond biased. If you indeed believe President Trump has done these things and his truly ridiculous trials are just, there is no hope for you. Everything he is being accused of is done by congress and their hush money fund to Clinton and his various sexual attacks on many persons.
Carolyn, thank you for this. Only a fool responds to critics, but I cannot resist trying to clarify. The piece is not about Trump. For the record, I do not think he was a good President; I hope he does not win; I think he will win. For a part of why I think he will win, apart from the reaction to Gaza (which I share, btw), please see my last Intermittent Signal, "Inflation, Debt, and Political Sentiment," which is a critique of the Dem understanding of how economics affects households. This piece, however, and much of my work in recent years, is not about Trump at all, in any direct sense. It certainly has nothing to do with the trials, or with the Clinton administration. I'm thinking about governing elites, for which "Harvard" is a kind of shorthand. I am a member of this cohort, at least by training. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about how such elites have lost a hell of a lot of legitimacy, as evidenced by voices like yours. What is interesting here -- the reason I wrote the piece -- is that Harvard itself has radically shifted its ground, and in a direction I presume you approve. And, I suggest in the piece, this is not just an issue in the US, but in many countries around the world. Which is a long way of saying that I'm more sympathetic to what I take your position to be than I think you realize. Again, thank you for your comment.
Exactly the opposite of this: “The US President has violated, attacked, even disavowed, what we – in the United States and at Harvard - have long and publicly believed. Harvard and the like deeply reject the American experiment and look down on the American people, while at the same time rejecting its own tradition of the pursuit of truth. Turns out power and the skin color of those who hold it are more important. Lots of fancy words don’t matter much when they have zero to do with what’s actually going on.
Thank you for your comment. I am not quite sure where the quote ends, or who said it, but I think my response to Carolyn, above, might be relevant. Yes, the problem of "looking down" is profound. I've said that, a lot, in this and other venues. And race . . . I hear you. That's part of what I'm writing about.