Maybe don't talk to the New York Times about Mamdani

Regarding press coverage today, and the one side says such, the other days this other thing:

> Only when you stand a little closer, or when circumstances make you a little less blinkered, do you notice the fact which then becomes blinding and finally crazymaking, which is just that there is zero, less than zero, stress put on the relation between those two "sides," or their histories, or their sponsors, or their relative evidentiary authority, or any of it.

Absolutely totally a context-less plague. Leaving only doubt and disbelief surviving, leaving us all morally weaker & adrift. Its enormously relieving to see this criticism homed in on, identified. The piece is worth it for this alone.

This was a good read and I thank Fraterkes for posting it.

I commiserate with the author, and his sense of self-chastisement: He might as well title the piece Pearls Before Swine and brush the dust from his shoulder.

This is a dilemma for the (socially) faithful, those who (naively) expect good behavior, those who generously give the benefit of the doubt. Even as a small voice whispers warnings, a theory of mind arises that imagines the other to be of like mind and is bound to be disappointed when a decidedly different species reveals itself.

Critics say we don't really need a National Ass calling-themselves-Scholars.