Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178

    Hypocritical Ethic Less Right Wingers; Iokiyar Indeed

    I think Krugman sums it up nicely.

    It is like a bad movie or novel that one is force to watch or read, only much, much worse.

    January 7, 2005
    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    Worse Than Fiction
    By PAUL KRUGMAN


    I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

    In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

    In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

    In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

    In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

    In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

    In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

    The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

    Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

    How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

    The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

    Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

    Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

    And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

    The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

    As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

    Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.)

    Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.
    Last edited by Wasatch Walt; 01-07-2005 at 09:07 AM. Reason: typo

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698

    Good job! Krugman critical?

    Holy sh!t, Walt. I can't beleive that Krugman would write something not just critical but almost libelous about the present administration.
    I do agree with him though that any novel he wrote would be bad. Kinda like his economice theories.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Holy sh!t, Walt. I can't beleive that Krugman would write something not just critical but almost libelous about the present administration.
    I do agree with him though that any novel he wrote would be bad. Kinda like his economice theories.
    which part is false and malicious?

    Looks like all true and documented stuff to me.

    Is it Rush? Is the the ACLU defending his case? Nope, that's all true.

    Let me know when you figure it out.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698

    Good job!

    When was the last time the ACLU defended anyone that wasn't left of center?
    It's ALL malicious, though.

    In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.
    A setup question by a journalist publicity hound, using reservists to ask his questions.

    Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.
    Widespread use of torture, gimme a break.

    In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.
    Does payment constitute guilt?

    And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.
    Good thing nothing like this has occured on the left.

    like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.
    Yup, Guiliani didn't do sh!t but stand around.

    You think there might be a reason that PK is affectionately known a America's most dangerous liberal pundit. Do you think anybody would even listen to his hysterical ravings if the NY Times, hardly a biased paper, didn't publish his pap. If PK was even 1/8th of the editorialist that William Safire was he might have a leg to stand on. Don't tell me he's a journalist, he's just a disaffected, disproven, 2nd rate economist with a soapbox to preach from.

  5. #5
    Trying to find Flow
    Reputation: Patchito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    I think Krugman sums it up nicely.

    It is like a bad movie or novel that one is force to watch or read, only much, much worse.

    January 7, 2005
    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    Worse Than Fiction
    By PAUL KRUGMAN


    I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

    In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

    In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

    In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

    In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

    In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

    In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

    The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

    Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

    How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

    The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

    Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

    Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

    And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

    The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

    As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

    Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.)

    Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.
    I'm confused. I thought with all of the Democratic party falling all over themselves to defend Clinton (Gore even referring to him as one of the greatest presidents ever) during the Lewinksy brouhaha, that one's personal life has no bearing on your capacity to lead or fulfill your professional political duties. Did the rules change again?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by Patchito
    I'm confused. ... Did the rules change again?
    Patchito,

    How naiveof you, the rules get changed whenever the left finds it convenient.

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation: Satan on a stick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    5,724
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    When was the last time the ACLU defended anyone that wasn't left of center?
    They seem to have an affinity for supporting the 1st amendment right of Nazis and the Klan. You ought to look up some of their cases before making that assumption.

  8. #8
    T 3
    T 3 is offline
    X - Pensive Wino
    Reputation: T 3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,484

    Nah...

    Quote Originally Posted by Patchito
    I'm confused. I thought with all of the Democratic party falling all over themselves to defend Clinton (Gore even referring to him as one of the greatest presidents ever) during the Lewinksy brouhaha, that one's personal life has no bearing on your capacity to lead or fulfill your professional political duties. Did the rules change again?
    I'm willing to judge those who serve in goverment by Clintonian standards,and I also would have been willing to to give Kerik a pass on the rescue worker apartment turned personal love nest thing,but the other stuff wouldn't wash.Wrong selection,bad idea.
    "There's a fine line between clever and stupid."
    -David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

  9. #9
    ride your bike
    Reputation: jubilee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,462
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Patchito,

    How naiveof you, the rules get changed whenever the left finds it convenient.
    C'mon you guys. If you can't see the VERY apparent hypocritical finger pointing coming from BOTH sides, you've got to be ignorant or stupid. FWIW I don't think you're either...
    Taking it easy for all you sinners.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    sandan that's pathetic

    what makes Krugman "2d rate"?

    what makes him "liberal"?

    as one who has no allegiance to anything "liberal" or related to Krugman, nor to the NY Times, I saw much truth in the various character plots in the hypothetical "bad novel". you may choose, out of your blind support of everything "conservative" and/or otherwise linked to Dubya, to see Krugman as a "liberal" but I see him merely as a person who's pointing out the humongous hypocrisy in the Bush Administration and the Republican Part... the very same hypocrisy that keeps me from joining the Repubs even though I am conservative on more issues than not.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    When was the last time the ACLU defended anyone that wasn't left of center?
    It's ALL malicious, though.

    In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.
    A setup question by a journalist publicity hound, using reservists to ask his questions.

    Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.
    Widespread use of torture, gimme a break.

    In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.
    Does payment constitute guilt?

    And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.
    Good thing nothing like this has occured on the left.

    like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.
    Yup, Guiliani didn't do sh!t but stand around.

    You think there might be a reason that PK is affectionately known a America's most dangerous liberal pundit. Do you think anybody would even listen to his hysterical ravings if the NY Times, hardly a biased paper, didn't publish his pap. If PK was even 1/8th of the editorialist that William Safire was he might have a leg to stand on. Don't tell me he's a journalist, he's just a disaffected, disproven, 2nd rate economist with a soapbox to preach from.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •