Listen6 minShareComment on this storyCommentAdd to your saved storiesSave
You’re reading the Today’s Opinions newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
In today’s edition:
WpGet the full experience.Choose your planArrowRight- How it feels to hold a gun during a home invasion
- Maybe all Americans should take a citizenship test
- Biden should shorten the State of the Union
- Does Trump have a point on Ukraine? (Nope — nor on democracy.)
Armed at 3 a.m.
As exciting as op-eds can be, it’s rare to race through one, heart beating, desperate to get to the end. That’s what happened to me this morning with Fredrick Kunkle’s recounting of a home invasion.
Kunkle, a former staff writer for The Post, writes that, about a year ago, he was home alone when he awoke at 2:35 a.m. to find a stranger at the top of his stairs. Tense minutes follow. The stranger stumbles through Kunkle’s home. Kunkle confronts him. Then Kunkle gets his gun.
I won’t spoil anything by giving away the ending; the journey there is the hair-raising part. But you’ll get the gist in the headline: “I’m glad I had a gun. I’m even happier I didn’t use it on an intruder.”
Kunkle’s discussion of gun ownership is a worthwhile read, especially for non-owners (and opponents of ownership). He reflects: “I was struck by how much I did not want to use my firearm that night unless there was no other choice. But I’m glad I had a choice.”
Advertisement
Kunkle’s piece calls to mind an essay from a few years ago by Michele Norris about another possible home intruder: the police.
Michele, who is Black, writes movingly about the object she keeps for self-protection: “a framed family photo next to my front door, positioned on a table, so you see it as soon as you enter.”
She recognizes that this might seem odd to some readers. But to others — particularly readers of color — conspicuously marking one’s home as one’s own makes all the sense in the world.
As Michele writes, there is always the risk that “we could be seen as criminals or intruders in our own homes even if we consistently and even obsessively live by the rules.”
Chaser: Journalist Elizabeth Flock examines another complexity of self-defense: that of the abused women who resort to violence to survive. That doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make them criminals, she writes.
Why not … test Americans’ civics?
The latest of Daniel Pink’s imaginative ideas for reinvigorating American life is a great one: Deploy a civics test not just for people seeking U.S. citizenship, but also for everyone who already has it.
Advertisement
“Maybe the point of a citizenship test should not be to keep some of us out,” Dan muses, “but to keep all of us together.” A little quizzing might go a long way toward getting us to think more intentionally about what it means to be an American.
Dan doesn’t imagine administering the test as a roadblock for anything as fundamental as voting, of course. But maybe if you pass the optional test, the State Department will expedite your passport? How does that sound? (Dan, tantalizingly, also proposes it as a possible “speed bump on the road to public office”: Sen. Tuberville, can you name for us the three branches of government?)
Share this articleShare
For fun — here’s the link to a sample quiz from the Smithsonian. See if you can pass it. If not, Dan might say you owe your country a little brushing up.
From the Editorial Board’s plea that the president make Thursday’s speech shorter, for his own sake as much as ours. If Biden is to beat Donald Trump again, the board writes, “he shouldn’t squander his biggest televised audience of the year by delivering another box-checking laundry list that drags on more than an hour.”
Advertisement
The board bucks conventional wisdom and says Biden shouldn’t focus on what polls well for him, but rather go straight for the border and attempt to convince Americans he has a handle on things. He also needs to sell his worldview — or at least dismantle the opposing “America First” philosophy.
Last year, Biden devoted minutes to discussing fees at resorts. This year, who has the time?
More politics
So you aced Dan Pink’s citizenship quiz, huh? All right, here’s another one for you — from the Editorial Board, on U.S. aid to Ukraine. The meta-question: Does Donald Trump have a point about American overspending?
If you answered no, well, your chances are looking good. Not to divulge too many answers, but the theme that clearly emerges in the quiz is how very little a share of U.S. spending is devoted to Ukraine.
Advertisement
Still, Republicans are increasingly saying that any amount is too much because Ukraine simply cannot win against Russia. Max Boot, armed with statistics as well as experience from his own recent visit to Ukraine, turns this on its head: The only way Ukraine can lose is if the United States cuts off aid.
Jen Rubin says that the MAGA crew’s intransigence puts it on the wrong side not only in Ukraine’s war, but in the global fight for democracy, too. “MAGA Republicans’ recent conduct will only hasten the dangerous trend toward authoritarianism,” she writes, drawing from a Freedom House report that shows global freedom declining for the 18th year in a row.
Chaser: Keith Richburg sees freedom slipping in Southeast Asia, too, where he writes that stability seems to be the priority over accountability.
Smartest, fastest
- David Ignatius explains how a food convoy’s arrival in Gaza turned into hell on Earth. The deadly mayhem shows, he writes, how Israel is destroying “any vestige of orderly life.”
- Karen Attiah reports that Texas is once again making Black hair history. This time, she says, it’s for all the wrong reasons.
- E.J. Dionne previews how paradoxes of party-class alignment will shape the 2024 election.
It’s a goodbye. It’s a haiku. It’s … The Bye-Ku.
Mountains, waves of grain ...
What’s America unpassed
With flying colors?
***
Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!
Share Comments Sign up
You’re reading the Today’s Opinions newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
In today’s edition:
As exciting as op-eds can be, it’s rare to race through one, heart beating, desperate to get to the end. That’s what happened to me this morning with Fredrick Kunkle’s recounting of a home invasion.
Kunkle, a former staff writer for The Post, writes that, about a year ago, he was home alone when he awoke at 2:35 a.m. to find a stranger at the top of his stairs. Tense minutes follow. The stranger stumbles through Kunkle’s home. Kunkle confronts him. Then Kunkle gets his gun.
I won’t spoil anything by giving away the ending; the journey there is the hair-raising part. But you’ll get the gist in the headline: “I’m glad I had a gun. I’m even happier I didn’t use it on an intruder.”
Kunkle’s discussion of gun ownership is a worthwhile read, especially for non-owners (and opponents of ownership). He reflects: “I was struck by how much I did not want to use my firearm that night unless there was no other choice. But I’m glad I had a choice.”
Kunkle’s piece calls to mind an essay from a few years ago by Michele Norris about another possible home intruder: the police.
Michele, who is Black, writes movingly about the object she keeps for self-protection: “a framed family photo next to my front door, positioned on a table, so you see it as soon as you enter.”
She recognizes that this might seem odd to some readers. But to others — particularly readers of color — conspicuously marking one’s home as one’s own makes all the sense in the world.
As Michele writes, there is always the risk that “we could be seen as criminals or intruders in our own homes even if we consistently and even obsessively live by the rules.”
Chaser: Journalist Elizabeth Flock examines another complexity of self-defense: that of the abused women who resort to violence to survive. That doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make them criminals, she writes.
The latest of Daniel Pink’s imaginative ideas for reinvigorating American life is a great one: Deploy a civics test not just for people seeking U.S. citizenship, but also for everyone who already has it.
“Maybe the point of a citizenship test should not be to keep some of us out,” Dan muses, “but to keep all of us together.” A little quizzing might go a long way toward getting us to think more intentionally about what it means to be an American.
Dan doesn’t imagine administering the test as a roadblock for anything as fundamental as voting, of course. But maybe if you pass the optional test, the State Department will expedite your passport? How does that sound? (Dan, tantalizingly, also proposes it as a possible “speed bump on the road to public office”: Sen. Tuberville, can you name for us the three branches of government?)
For fun — here’s the link to a sample quiz from the Smithsonian. See if you can pass it. If not, Dan might say you owe your country a little brushing up.
From the Editorial Board’s plea that the president make Thursday’s speech shorter, for his own sake as much as ours. If Biden is to beat Donald Trump again, the board writes, “he shouldn’t squander his biggest televised audience of the year by delivering another box-checking laundry list that drags on more than an hour.”
The board bucks conventional wisdom and says Biden shouldn’t focus on what polls well for him, but rather go straight for the border and attempt to convince Americans he has a handle on things. He also needs to sell his worldview — or at least dismantle the opposing “America First” philosophy.
Last year, Biden devoted minutes to discussing fees at resorts. This year, who has the time?
So you aced Dan Pink’s citizenship quiz, huh? All right, here’s another one for you — from the Editorial Board, on U.S. aid to Ukraine. The meta-question: Does Donald Trump have a point about American overspending?
If you answered no, well, your chances are looking good. Not to divulge too many answers, but the theme that clearly emerges in the quiz is how very little a share of U.S. spending is devoted to Ukraine.
Still, Republicans are increasingly saying that any amount is too much because Ukraine simply cannot win against Russia. Max Boot, armed with statistics as well as experience from his own recent visit to Ukraine, turns this on its head: The only way Ukraine can lose is if the United States cuts off aid.
Jen Rubin says that the MAGA crew’s intransigence puts it on the wrong side not only in Ukraine’s war, but in the global fight for democracy, too. “MAGA Republicans’ recent conduct will only hasten the dangerous trend toward authoritarianism,” she writes, drawing from a Freedom House report that shows global freedom declining for the 18th year in a row.
Chaser: Keith Richburg sees freedom slipping in Southeast Asia, too, where he writes that stability seems to be the priority over accountability.
It’s a goodbye. It’s a haiku. It’s … The Bye-Ku.
Mountains, waves of grain ...
What’s America unpassed
With flying colors?
***
Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
