 |
1. Gabriel Sherman’s profile of John McCain in New York’s most recent issue detailed how the so-called maverick is ambivalently, agonizingly taking on Trump (“How Many Chances Do You Get to Be an American Hero?,” February 20–March 5). Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, thought the story demonstrated that “John McCain’s loss in 2008 could be the country’s gain now.” Nichols wrote, “While McCain is right that he can’t be ‘the car alarm that always goes off,’ he is, in fact, one of the last moral lodestones left in a party that has been whipsawed by President Trump’s kaleidoscopic change of positions. McCain was pilloried for lack of principle as both a senator and a candidate but now has the seniority and the scars — physical and political — to challenge his own president and party on issues that otherwise terrify lesser GOP lights.” Deadspin’s Alex Pareene, though, thought Sherman’s description of McCain’s “taking on the president” gave the senator far too much credit: “McCain has supported every one of Trump’s nominees besides one: budget director Mick Mulvaney, who lost McCain’s support because he has supported defense budget cuts. McCain’s sole inviolable principle is that we must spend an unlimited amount of money on war with everyone forever … The sum total of McCain’s record of brave or maverick-y actions consists of ‘giving [a] good quote to reporters.’ That’s it. Most of the political press is amnesiac and sycophantic enough to fall for it again.” The Washington Post’s David Weigel went further, arguing that lionizing McCain as the face of Trump resistance is bad for Democrats in the long run: “Democrats need their base to see them resisting … In the long New York magazine profile, McCain is not quoted criticizing any aspect of the Trump economic agenda. Democrats can criticize it all day — unless, of course, the story of opposition to Trump is one of a coalition of Republicans and Democrats opposing him over Russia and foreign policy.”
2. “Nine years after LeBron James spoke of a separation between sports and politics, he stood on a basketball court in Nike gear and made clear that times had changed,” wrote Reeves Wiedeman in his story about the resurgence of activism among professional athletes — and where it might go from here (“As American As Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem,” February 20–March 5). The New York Times’ Marc Tracy wrote that Wiedeman did “such a good job capturing this moment,” and Martha Ridgway of Athlete Ally tweeted, “This is what an engaged athletic community looks like!!! Very proud to be working with some of these people.” In his story, Wiedeman notes that “many male athletes seem to have been coaxed down the road to wokeness by the women in their lives,” but some readers were dismayed that the piece didn’t feature women in sports. “So you’re telling me there weren’t more female athletes that could have been in this story?” asked journalist Alyssa Oursler. And Linda Borish, a history professor at Western Michigan University, highlighted some of the women whose political engagement the piece elided. Borish pointed to Annie Smith Peck, Charlotte Epstein, Althea Gibson, and Billie Jean King to show how “gender plays a role in sports and social change and American sportswomen have also been involved in social change and protest and seeking equality in American society. Today’s advocates of equal pay in tennis like Venus and Serena Williams acknowledge the essential role of activists like Billie Jean King.”
 |
3. Frank Guan explored how many Americans have replaced work hours with game play and seemingly ended up happier for it (“Why Ever Stop Playing Video Games,” February 20–March 5). Commenter illogicaljoker responded, “I don’t entirely agree that it’s the repetition of games that people are looking
for, so much as the familiarity and comfort of a game’s rules, especially in a world that seems less and less to have any.” No.youshutup agreed, writing, “I’m a 36-year-old female and had never been a devoted video-game player until I was introduced to Skyrim a few years ago. Since the election, I’ve been playing it again. It’s just a better place to be.” Daria Kuss, author of For the Horde!: How Playing World of Warcraft Reflects Our Participation in Popular Media Culture, elaborated on this sentiment, writing that video games provide a compelling escape from the trauma — or plain boredom — of real life. “Games allow players to step out of their often boring and repetitive everyday lives, allowing them to gain reputation and be recognized, without having to face the hassles of daily life.” But Austin Walker, the editor of Vice’s gaming website, Waypoint, chafed against this purely emancipatory view of gaming: “While this style of self-care gaming is valuable,” Walker wrote, “we should also push for games that offer more than escape, that engage with the world instead of retreating from it.”