There is an art to choosing which pundit to read. A reader seeking comfort can read a pundit that they always agree with. Inevitably, this turns into disappointment. Soon you can anticipate everything the pundit will say, and you've heard it all before.
On the other hand, if you disagree with everything they are about to say, you have the same problems as above, with the added benefit of being made angry.
And so, the middle ground is best. You must be relieved and delighted when he agrees with you. These moments also predispose you to give him the benefit of the doubt when he disagrees with you. At least you stay good-natured about the disagreement.
That is why I have read James Howard Kunstler over the years. He has come a long way from his roots as a New York Jewish Democrat/Bolshevik (grin). His latest essay was mildly shocking -- and enjoyable.
For a moment there I thought the essay was written by Fred Reed.
On the other hand, if you disagree with everything they are about to say, you have the same problems as above, with the added benefit of being made angry.
And so, the middle ground is best. You must be relieved and delighted when he agrees with you. These moments also predispose you to give him the benefit of the doubt when he disagrees with you. At least you stay good-natured about the disagreement.
That is why I have read James Howard Kunstler over the years. He has come a long way from his roots as a New York Jewish Democrat/Bolshevik (grin). His latest essay was mildly shocking -- and enjoyable.
For a moment there I thought the essay was written by Fred Reed.
Comments
The same thing with his blog. But then I noticed something - he was starting to say things that I agreed with. I think it was around the beginning of Obama 2nd term that he started slipping over to the Dark Side i. e. Conservative thinking.
The Dark Side, eh? grin.