In the New Yorker...

[Jeff Wrangler]

Jeff, if you've got New Yorkers piled up with pre-election articles, I would take this opportunity to give yourself a break and skip them. Nothing they could say would be relevant anymore.

Well, that's a good suggestion, but I'll have to at least check them for articles about the theater, movies, TV, books, and interesting people and so forth that I might want to read. I could just skip the articles about the election.

[serious crayons]

I've been able to toss whole chunks of my toppling New Yorker piles when I've realized they dated back to a previous presidential administration. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I've been able to toss whole chunks of my toppling New Yorker piles when I've realized they dated back to a previous presidential administration. 

    

[Jeff Wrangler]

I know I'm way, way behind on my magazines, but I'll report in here and say that I'm currently enjoying Elizabeth Kolbert's article on Greenland (Oct. 24).

[Jeff Wrangler]

I know I'm way, way behind on my magazines, but I'll report in here and say that I'm currently enjoying Elizabeth Kolbert's article on Greenland (Oct. 24).

I finished the article over lunch today. Interesting but also very sad in a way. After reading it, I would not invest in any waterfront property. ...

In the same issue, I also read the Hilton Als essay on the movie Moonlight (he doesn't explain the title). Apparently the film includes this piece of dialog:

"You don't talk much but you damn sure can eat."

Remind you of anything? 

[Front-Ranger]

I woke in the night and started reading some parts of the long compilation of articles on writers' reaction to the Presidential elections, "Aftermath". I skipped over a lot of it, but some were very poignant. I'm concerned about something. I read in the front matter that people like Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani are being considered for high appointments, but when I went to the Internet to check this out, it appears that none of them are actually being appointed. This worries me. Is the New Yorker getting people all riled up for nothing? Conversely, although the real appointees are not household names, it appears that they are just as regressive and inept as any of those other people. I'm confused. I'm terminally confused these days.

[Jeff Wrangler]

At lunch today I started reading George Packer's Oct. 31 article "The Unconnected." In a sense this article is outdated by the election results, but if you didn't read it, I suggest it's worthwhile reading anyway. Why? Because so far--and I haven't gotten very far into it--it's looking like a very good explanation of why and how Trump won. Prescient, too, I guess, since it was published a week before the election. I mean, Packer seems to be explaining how "millions of Americans were suddenly drawn to a crass strongman who tossed out fraudulent promises and gave institutions and elites the middle finger."

He goes on to write, and I find this somewhat alarming:

The fact that so many informed, sophisticated Americans failed to see Donald Trump coming, and then kept writing him off, is itself a sign of a democracy in which no center holds. Most of his critics are too reasonable to fathom his fury-driven campaign. Many don't know a single Trump supporter. But to fight Trump you have to understand his appeal.

It's the "no center holds" part that scares hell out of me. And while it's too late for this election, I think it's probably still a good idea to understand Trump's appeal.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I am still reading George Packer's Oct. 31 article, and I'm still electrified by it. Scared by it, too. ...

[Front-Ranger]

Interesting, several commentators have referenced Yeats' poem "Second Coming" including Robert Kingler:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/11/22/civility-casualty-2016-election/93897456/

[serious crayons]

I woke in the night and started reading some parts of the long compilation of articles on writers' reaction to the Presidential elections, "Aftermath". I skipped over a lot of it, but some were very poignant. I'm concerned about something. I read in the front matter that people like Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani are being considered for high appointments, but when I went to the Internet to check this out, it appears that none of them are actually being appointed. This worries me. Is the New Yorker getting people all riled up for nothing? Conversely, although the real appointees are not household names, it appears that they are just as regressive and inept as any of those other people. I'm confused. I'm terminally confused these days.

I think some of the actual verified appointees are just as scary, if not more so.

Maybe I'm insufficiently knowledgeable about New Jersey politics, but Chris Christie would seem positively reassuring compared to, say, Steve Bannon.