Let's Move On From This Trump Joke

First Reaction to Trump: Really? Who cares?

Second Reaction: He’s polling high, but he won’t win.

Third Reaction: It's almost 2016. This is still a thing?

On deeper thought…I’ve only made one comment referencing Donald Trump on social media and it wasn’t really about him. I just haven’t been able to take him seriously as a presidential contender. Whether he’s really a bigot or “just” a showman cynically using the disaffections of low-information voters for political gain, he can’t (and shouldn’t) be taken seriously.

According to Nicolle Wallace on today’s edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Trump has “talents” because he stayed on the show after a commercial break to take questions from her and her co-hosts on his campaign and his comments. Joe Scarborough concurred, stating that no politician would have even called into the show after said show blasted him for his comments. Let’s not fool ourselves; just because Donald Trump has “talents” doesn’t mean he has the skills, the vision, or the moral imagination to be President of the United States, someone who people in some countries know more about than their own elected representatives. It’s highly irresponsible for MSNBC and its employees to entertain this man, likely for the hope of continued access. If this is what change at NBC News looks like under Andy Lack - sycophantic and superficially inquisitive - then I should just read the news.

Witnessing the reaction to Trump’s recent comments about Muslims (and Latinos and African Americans), I’ve realized that he’s like the student in a college seminar who hasn’t done the reading and has nothing to contribute to the discussion. To detract from his poor preparation while making an impact on the discussion, the student will make provocative and incendiary comments that will derail the class. Trump is that guy, someone who must say something (he thinks is) important even when he has nothing important to contribute to the conversation. And let’s be clear: proposing a ban, or even discussing it as more than a political science thought experiment, is absurd.

Why India should accept Syrian refugees ASAP

The Syrian refugee crisis continues; everyday more Syrians are displaced by circumstances beyond their control. Western leaders know this and have intelligence on the matter that is more comprehensive than even the best newspaper articles. However, the attacks in Paris, like the 9/11 attacks, have compelled policymakers and elected leaders alike to shift focus from “What can we do for the refugees?” to “How can we protect ourselves?”. The two questions aren’t mutually exclusive, but try telling that to a security or foreign policy analyst in Paris, Brussels, London, or New York who has to answer for why they didn’t know what was going to happen and what they know now.

ISIS attacked a Western city, so there could be reluctance on the part of leaders in Asia and other regions to wait for what their counterparts decide before making specific policy statements. It seems to be such a given that peace and security in the Middle East, an Asian region, is a Western responsibility that even leaders in China and India, eager for more opportunities to increase international prestige, are less demanding about participation in processes like the Iran nuclear or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I can’t blame them, but the Syrian refugee crisis, and how it’s been exacerbated by the response to the Paris attacks, should be a reason for India to be more engaged. India shouldn't even consider taking cues on this issue from Western countries. Sadly, the West is still addressing basic and fundamental questions around immigration and integration that countries like India, with its staggering cultural and religious diversity, have dealt with.  

This humanitarian and security crisis presents an opportunity for India - country with the second largest Muslim population, top 10 largest economy, world's largest democracy - to take the lead and secure its position as a preeminent dispenser of “smart power”. While Western cities are debating whether and how many armed guards to post at malls and movie theaters, India can address more enlightened issues like how many cities should be enlisted for settlement of Syrian refugees.  

India has many challenges, but integration isn’t one of them. Somehow, in contrast to the theories of social science, people’s duty to family, caste, or state supplements rather than supplants an Indian identity. Free and fair elections are held, the central government still sets the economic and foreign policy agenda, and there are no separatist/secessionist movements that seriously undermine the Centre’s control of security and the borders. For all the fascinating stories about dynamic state politicians and battles between states, the concept of state’s rights doesn’t manifest itself as dramatically as in the United States.

Indian policymakers and citizens will have many questions about the refugees - Where will they live? Where will they work? Will they take jobs from Indians? How can we verify their claims for asylum? Policymakers in the West are thinking the same thing (or trying to avoid thinking about it), but India has socioeconomic structures that support people who have fallen beneath the cracks. Besides the strong family ties that ensure most people have stable housing and consistent access to food, employers already accept resumes from jobseekers at colleges and companies they don’t recognize; homeowners hire maids and cooks without a background check; and we all ride autos and cabs driven by people who may or not have a license. People in this country are predisposed to give people a chance and make changes with little difficulty if things don’t work out: the employee will be fired if she falsifies her resume, the cook will be arrested if he steals, and you can refuse to pay a driver if he doesn't know where he’s going.

Sadly, many Indians don’t see India as a destination, somewhere you can aspire to be, so it might be hard to imagine that refugees might choose to come here. To the people who think that, including people who ask me why I’d want to work here, I’ll ask this: What about the Tibetans in Dharamsala? What about Auroville? This country is already a haven, so why not burnish that reputation and offer a home to these refugees?

Since when is a CBS show handling tough issues better than TWO HBO shows combined?

It’s notable that “The Good Wife” was able to deal with buzzwords like “race” and “Ferguson” with more seriousness AND levity this past Sunday than TWO shows on HBO featuring young urban professionals…"The Good Wife", which is know for having many guest stars, always used its limited time to portray three dimensional characters, most notably Lemond Bishop. Bishop, played by Mike Colter, is a black drug kingpin on the show. While his interactions with the lawyers play with the line between legal and illegal businesses, his presence is not defined by his job. Emotionally charged scenes where viewers aren't sure what Bishop wants or what he'll do (see every scene with Kalinda this scene) are underscored by how normal - and dare I say, well-rounded - his life is. He fights with his girlfriend! His son plays soccer! His son plays piano! 

In contrast, the few people of color featured on shows such as "Girls" and "Looking" are not assumed to have rich lives. Disagree? Fine. Name the people of color featured on “Girls”. Now name the characters they played. I’ll wait.

The Delusion of the Knowledge Worker

This line jumped at me during some late-night reading of The Washington Post: "For nearly half a century, since the hippies first flocked to Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco has been associated more with cultural and lifestyle liberalism than with such New Dealish concerns as advancing workers rights."

So it is with every American city with a young and educated professional workforce. This should be called "à la carte liberalism". Young professionals can discuss freedom, maybe even dignity, but can they advocate for equity outside of a dinner conversation? Do they want to?

Your answers to those questions depend on how you define labor and laborers. Many young professionals acknowledge that domestic workers and retail workers do hard work, but we don't really respect their work. "Home health aide" and "cashier" are not positions to aspire to, so it's not surprising that any opposition to increasing their wages and benefits has an undertone of "Why are we focusing on them as opposed to ___?". Our society is more proud of an unpaid intern at a literary journal or a tech startup than a cashier at McDonald's. We still believe that the positions of these "knowledge workers" implies greater professional traction than they will ever get and if the reality was different, intern lawsuits wouldn't make so much news.

Wired published a piece last April on the "Internet-enabled intimacy" that the sharing economy has catalyzed, but I find that anything Internet-enabled is by definition less substantive and less immersive, whether it's communication or shopping. The magazine called this new intimacy an economic and cultural breakthrough, but not every breakthrough is positive in the way that not every talented person is kind. Here's the relevant quote: