Before the debate on Tuesday, I was asked by Rebel News in Canada what I would tell each side to do.
I started with Democrat Tim Walz. I said I would tell him to cut out the weird mannerisms that are off-putting to voters, and to be more like the deadpan congressional candidate who debated in 2006 (look it up on C-SPAN).
As for Republican JD Vance, I said he had to empathize. Democrats and the media had spun him as cruel or arrogant, based on his "childless cat ladies" remark (from before he held public office).
These recommendations reflect my theory, which I've explored here before, that it doesn't matter who "wins" a debate, since we live in separate media universes that tell their respective audiences what they want to hear. Rather, debates are just opportunities to get a message out to your voters and potential voters.
Vance did that. He expressed empathy for women who have abortions. He was civil to Walz. And in one notable moment, he expressed sympathy to Walz over the revelation that his son had been near a shooting in a community center.
Walz kept some of the gesticulations under control, but he frowned a lot. He also looked nervous and unstable. That is why Democrats are upset and why Republicans are happy.
It may not matter much but it boosts confidence in the Trump camp.
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!
