By a country mile it was Ann Coulter. I think only once before has a single individual affected an election to this extent. From what I recall, Coulter wrote her book and appeared in a debate with Jorge Ramos. After seeing that Trump ordered the book and placed immigration at the centre of his campaign. She also kept contact with the campaign via e-mailing Lewandowski and berating them for going off script.
I enjoyed reading Scott Adams even if his, not so concealed, advocacy for Trump but not sure he affected the campaign so much as he explained it. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/magazine/how-donald-trump-set-off-a-civil-war-within-the-right-wing-media.html
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
The funny thing is, he wasn't even supporting Trump. He was just explaining Trump, for the most part.
ReplyDeleteBy a country mile it was Ann Coulter. I think only once before has a single individual affected an election to this extent. From what I recall, Coulter wrote her book and appeared in a debate with Jorge Ramos. After seeing that Trump ordered the book and placed immigration at the centre of his campaign. She also kept contact with the campaign via e-mailing Lewandowski and berating them for going off script.
DeleteI enjoyed reading Scott Adams even if his, not so concealed, advocacy for Trump but not sure he affected the campaign so much as he explained it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/magazine/how-donald-trump-set-off-a-civil-war-within-the-right-wing-media.html