« Diversity and Drivel at the Washington Post | Main | Of Blogs, Boks, and Academia: A Screening Model »

October 27, 2005

Comments

zogg

Hey there edgie, haven't upchucked anything to your esteemed blog in quite a while. Anyway, to agree with you is rather uninteresting to me, really not worth mentioning at all, but I find that to do so in writing and in a public forum is actually rather revolting and personally distressful in a gastric sort of way. Skin color is off, too. But here goes.
My agreement with you is in reference to a certain NYTimes columnist wanker by the name of Krugman. Did you read this week's thing on Iraq? (I happened to pick up a ketchup-stained NYT B section at my local greasy spoon, so I read the NYT op-ed page for the first time in years.) What a piece of shit, it probably wouldn't pass for an op-ed piece in a high school newspaper and here it is on the NYT page. Starts off by saying that the administration has never justified the war and lies constantly, and based on these facts the piece goes on to blather some other crap. Moreover, the rest of the pieces on the page are virtually identical in viewpoint and structure, only the topic changes. How long has it been like this? Back in the day, at least you could get a Safire piece, lunatic that he was, plopped in there as a paper tiger for the "balance" points.

Philip

Hi Zogg, and I'm pleased to hear from you. (In agreeemnt, no less!) It is a bit sad, the Krugman columns and the Times Op-ed page in its entirety. Evaluation of the intervention in Iraq cries out for clear-eyed weighing of costs and benefits. Economists are supposed to be good at this, but PK can't seem to help himself anymore. His first instinct these days is to use name-calling and bad prose as a substitute for thought. People of good faith and integrity may come to opposing conclusions about whether the potential cost of this regime change exceeds the potential benefits. Maybe the project is too difficult and costly and will backfire. This is a legitimate argument. But sticking out your tongue at the Bush administration isn't. Maybe it feels good to stick out your tongue at Bush (I like to do it too, sometimes, in the privacy of my own home), but it doesn't address the substantive issues.

As for the the Times op-ed page, I think it has gone downhill. It strikes me that amid all the chatter about promoting "diversity," the most important kinds of diversity are ignored completely. Diversity of ideas and viewpoints. What matters more: the color of your skin or the content of your thought?


Hersones

kvmLNO Hi Rabzebuddy! Google.

Ffrdsoqa

Wonderfull great site first class united airlines tickets flights lzpliq

panochas de mujeres

Sorry for my post, mujeres culonas, =), nalgas de mujeres en tangas, >:P, fotos de mujeres sin ropa, :PP,

The comments to this entry are closed.