Her media pals have swooned over her, calling her the best press secretary ever. She was competent, I'll give her that -- but she was condescending, and lied a lot (though that may come with the territory), and did very little to raise the tone of debate in the country. I give her credit for holding regular briefings, but I have it on good authority that she and her underlings maneuvered to make sure that challenging questions were quashed, except from Peter Doocy, who works for Fox News, which is too big to ignore or wish away (Obama tried).
This was not a job she should have had. The job was earned by former Biden spokesperson Symone Sanders, who was somehow shunted to the VP's office and eventually left the administration. (Somehow in all the talk of systemic racism, we never heard the explanation as to why a black woman who did it all on the campaign trail was passed over in favor of a white woman who did not.)
There is a corruption issue here: Psaki is leaving to join MSNBC, if reports are to be believed, and there were several outlets courting her, so she was, as Byron York notes, briefing the same organizations who were trying to hire her (and whom she was trying to entice to hire her). There are stark conflicts of interest.
I think one can honestly say, though, that the administration will be served more poorly by anyone who replaces her, which is a form of praise, I guess.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
