Wandering Eye: Should the O's keep Duquette?, why liberals are being nice to Trump, and more

The Washington Post's Dave Weigel (no relation) explains why liberals are saying nice things about Donald Trump, and it's not because he's bombastic. His tax plan—that the wealthy should be taxed more—aligns more with liberalism than the Republican leadership. Jonathan Chait and Paul Krugman have both written nice words about The Donald. "The influence of big-money donors meant that nobody could make a serious play for the G.O.P. nomination without pledging allegiance to supply-side doctrine, and this allowed the establishment to imagine that ordinary voters shared its antipopulist creed," writes the Nobel laureate Krugman. Trump's populist stance also explains why he's doing so well in the polls, and why the opponents who attack him for his tax policy are failing to gain ground. (Brandon Weigel)


With the Orioles playing pretty lousy baseball of late, plenty of fans are starting to get angry at the architect of the 2015 Orioles: Dan Duquette. It was Duquette who failed to replace Nelson Cruz and Nick Markakis with adequate bats, and it was Duquette who briefly flirted with taking a job with the Toronto Blue Jays in the offseason, which conspiracy-theorist fans like to allege distracted the executive vice president of baseball operations from doing his job of improving the Orioles. But The Sun's Peter Schmuck says Duquette deserves to come back and build the 2016 sqaud. As Schmuck reminds us, Duquette traded Jeremy Guthrie for Jason Hammel and Matt Lindstrom, two big parts of the team's 2012 playoff campaign, and signed Cruz to a bargain-basement deal last year, leading to an AL East title. But, Schmuck warns, with valuable players Matt Wieters, Wei-Yin Chen, and Chris Davis due new contracts, the Orioles front office has to spend some money to be competitive. Otherwise, they "are going to lose the fans they worked so hard to win back." (Brandon Weigel)


The only people who probably follow the news of who's selected for the long-running "Best American Poetry" anthology are the people who are hoping they'll get selected for said anthology. But there was a flurry of controversy around this year's selections: One of the poets selected, Yi-Fen Chou, turned out to be a white male poet, Michael Derrick Hudson, who had used a Chinese pseudonym as a way of getting around what he saw as a "politically correct poetry business." He explained in his bio for the anthology that he'd selected the pen name after the poem had been rejected by 40 different journals under his own name and thought that it might have a better shot of getting published if it sounded like it came from a minority writer. Naturally, a lot of writers were outraged: "When you're doing this from a position of entitlement, you're appropriating an ethnic identity that's one, imaginary, and two, doesn't have access to the literary world," poet and Chapman University professor Victoria Chang told WaPo. "And it diminishes categorically all of our accomplishments. He sort of implies that minorities are published because we're minorities, not because of our work. That's just insulting because it strips everything we've worked so hard for." Sherman Alexie, who edited the anthology, wrote a very long explanation on Best American Poetry's blog about how he selected the poems, nepotism in the literary world, and why he decided to include the poem even after he found out about the deception. Many writers probably still won't agree with Alexie's decision to keep it, but his thoughts are interesting nonetheless. (Anna Walsh)

Copyright © 2019, Baltimore City Paper, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Privacy Policy