Paul Krugman Calls Out Roger Ailes to His Face on This Week

That Roger Ailes even tries to put up a modest defense of FOX "News" is amazing to me. I'm really surprised he cares. He hit upon a formula that works and pays big dividends (even if it did lose big bucks for years before it caught on). It's not a news network, and Krugman is correct, its watchers are not properly informed.

On a side note, I noticed that The Las Vegas Review-Journal's TV supplement highlights news programs in orange. Curiously, while Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Hannity and The Rachel Maddow Show are not highlighted, The O'Reilly Factor is. What the hell is that about?

Paul Krugman: The Politics of Spite

Image from source, NYT

Thanks to my friend, Tracy for pointing out this op-ed piece by the always worth-a-read Paul Krugman. He captures my mood about politics right now perfectly, and of course in better words than I'm capable of committing to pixels. Enjoy.

[Excerpt]

The Politics of Spite

There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful. . .”

Read more at: New York Times

News to Nobody: Mark Levin is Disgusting

Image from Associated Content

Since Michael Jackson died, I've filled my short drive home with his music (no, I'm not obsessed, it's a 15-minute trip). Today, I'd had my fill of the Jackson 5, the Jacksons, Michael and even the Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger duets. So, instead, I flipped on the right-wing jabber on KXNT (sponsor of the stellar Sean Hannity Freedom™ Concert). Since my hours have been reduced, that puts me into the middle hour of The Mark Levin Show.

If I'm not mistaken, Levin is the 4th or 5th-rated talk show on radio. This would be impressive were it not for the top three, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael the Savage Weiner. Let's see, drug-addled gasbag, dumb as a box of rocks and certifiably insane, respectively. I see what each of the top three have to offer, though none of them do a damned thing for me. What Levin has though eludes me.

Like Savage, Levin has a barely tolerable voice, especially when riled. Which is often. This is usually seen as a liability in radio. Also like Savage, Levin is prone to paranoid rants, and idiotic nicknames for various people and entities. Unlike Savage, I believe that Levin believes what he is saying. I don't think he's an act. I think he believes he the smartest pundit going, and that he buys his own shtick. Supposedly, Levin is the guy who supplies the talking points that fill Hannity's empty head. And so, the theory goes, Levin was awarded with his own show.

So on my short trip home today, I heard Levin tearing apart journalists, and The New York Times ("Slimes" in Levinese) in particular. He first brought up economist Paul Krugman, and wasn't sure how to pronounce his name. No big deal, but then he called Krugman "freakish" looking, which is rather shocking coming from a face for radio like Levin. Next he went after Maureen Dowd by trashing her "dye job," but saying that it is black, when as far as I know, Dowd is a redhead. So as you can see, Levin has a tendency for personal rather than substantive attacks, right? But he wasn't done yet.

The core of his complaint was opinion columnist Frank Rich, who had written a piece on (saint) Sarah Palin. All through the bit, Levin portrayed Rich as a swishy, mincing gay man. This based on--again, as far as I know--the fact that Rich used to be a theater critic. Whaa? I only listened as I said, for a few minutes. And in that time Levin by his manner and voice kept up the anti-gay theme, with a sing-song voice, calling Frank "Richie," and more.

Now it's one thing to make fun of a public figure, be it with good-hearted humor, or even with a thick layer of snark. There are even ways to mock homophobia or homophobes using similar jocular jibes. I can even roll with lower humor than that, from shows like South Park or Family Guy. But there has to be actual humor, and a perceived absence of malice for that to work. There was no humor here, and Levin's voice drips with malice. I can't imagine listening to more than a few minutes of this show without boiling over into a rage. Levin gets stuff wrong, lies, distorts, and confounds logic. Inside of 90 seconds, I can find three things that aren't true in his rants. All with a voice that can make your ears bleed. Why is this clown so popular?

Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman on the Economy

Image from Rachel Maddow's Facebook Page


I've already lamented about my woeful lack of knowledge about all things Wall Street and stocks and bonds. I watch the rollercoaster ride of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and I just get queasy. So, it's good when you can find intelligent, knowledgable people to explain some of it to you.

Sadly, knowing isn't always a good thing. I'm still queasy.


"Talk Me Down" with Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman on the Politics of Fear

Photo from Wikipedia

Paul Krugman of the New York Times has an excellent editorial up on the politics of fear, and the Republicans' embrace of it. As this is a topic I've written about before, I thought it would be a good fit for this blog. See if you agree.

[Excerpt]

Fearing Fear Itself

By PAUL KRUGMAN

In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.

Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns. . .

Read the piece at: New York Times

Paul Krugman on Blackwater and Other War Contractors

Image from Wikipedia.org

I've wanted to post something on the war contractors, like Blackwater, but I don't feel well-versed enough on the topic to have a solid take on it. It has a nasty vibe, and it's hard to see the upside. And then, I find a story that says they did some good.

Still, the bulk of what I've read has been negative--very negative. I'd like people who read my blog to be aware of the subject, and I wanted to make sure the subject is addressed. So, until I've had time to study a bit more, I'll leave it to the pros. Here's a snippet of what New York Times writer, Paul Krugman has to say, in a recent NYT editorial.

[Excerpt]

Hired Gun Fetish

. . . As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”

And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They’re heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they’re private employees who don’t answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly. . .

Read the whole piece at: NYTimes.com