President Donald Trump’s thin skin has evolved into rage about the role of criticism of any sort. Giving what Fox & Friends this morning actually called “a great uplifting speech” at Liberty University on Saturday, Trump declared, “No one has ever achieved anything significant without a chorus of critics standing on the sidelines explaining why it can’t be done. Nothing is easier — or more pathetic — than being a critic, because they’re people that can’t get the job done.”

So, what do folks who spend much of their professional lives offering tough, thoughtful criticism have to say about that rather unsophisticated broadside?

Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips: “If Trump defines a critic as anyone who’s second-guessing what the hell he’s up to on any given day, then we’re living in criticism nation. And it’s a sign that we haven’t gone completely numb to the outrages.”

Harvey Young, dramatist and a theater and African-American studies expert, Northwestern University: “The president is clearly conflating naysayer and critic. Critics, by and large, analyze and evaluate on the basis of fact, deep research and an enviable depth of historical and practical knowledge.”

“They help us to appreciate the larger context. They often are among the first to advise on how something can be done and to applaud path-blazing innovation. It is true that critics will call out moments of error, failure, ineptitude — akin to telling the emperor that he has no clothes — but that’s being truthful, not oppositional.”

Elizabeth Taylor, co-editor of The National Book Review and former president of the National Book Critics Circle: “With all the stuff coming at us every day, where would we be without critics? Without critics, we have only the loudest voices in the room.”

“In a world where everyone seems to be a critic — in the rise of the citizen reviewer with undisclosed biases — we need discerning critics who can make convincing cases to readers and lead a conversation about quality.”

Robert Abrams, board member of the Dance Critics Association and critic for ExploreDance.com: “Mr. Trump is confusing criticism with negativity. This is a common misconception, unfortunately. Well-crafted criticism helps readers understand the work in question with a greater depth than the reader might have seen before.”

Andras Szanto, former director of the now-defunct National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia’s University’s Graduate School of Journalism: “In the world of art, artists and institutions welcome criticism because it validates what they do and connects them to a broader public. By saying what he said, Trump underscores two overarching features of his presidency: He does not seek validation from anyone but himself, and ultimately he doesn’t care much about what the public thinks. He is not interested in being part of a two-way discourse.”

Mary McNamara, television critic of the Los Angeles Times: “Well, the obvious first response is that this is pretty rich coming from a man who has spent years criticizing many, many people including and especially President Obama, mostly through the facile and pot-shotty platform of Twitter. Perhaps that is what he means by ‘nothing is easier than being a critic.’”

“Still, even that sort of criticism remains an important part of our democracy, which was, after all, born of criticism. What were the founding fathers if not critics?”

Well, of course, don’t expect any uprising of the Fox News army of analysts to coalesce in outrage. After all, isn’t Trump calling them idiots, too. Right?

Puerto Rico’s giant mess

The island’s financial woes are prodigious. The Wall Street Journal discloses that losses for mutual funds that invested in Puerto Rico’s debt is about $5.4 billion in the last five years and explains exactly how it came up with the not-easy-to-divine figure. (The Wall Street Journal)