brief follow-up to "Bridge Over Troll-Ed Wat…

Thinking back, I just realized I mischaracterized the article I led off talking about. The premise I described was really the hook in the provocative headline; the article itself was more of a blanket defense of her prosecutorial record (though it did mix a few different elements of response). It wasn’t saying on principle that she should be above criticism, but that there was nothing to criticize. I didn’t find it convincing; that’s not how I see the criminal justice system and that candidate’s specific record. But to be fair, the article itself was bad in different ways than you’d get from my summary, or from the headline. I had so much disdain for the content itself that I didn’t think it was worth addressing. People have written better things on both the problems of the criminal justice and on the difficulties faced by people who do try to work from the inside, the pressures faced around race and gender, and the problems of purity. There’s really nothing new or interesting in the article; it’s just provocative framing.