Once again, not playing my position. But I cannot stand it. Surely the future of the New York Times hinges on its having the people who write for it being oriented toward reality and telling it straight, rather than through laziness or corruption being complaisant henchmen for sinister grifters, doesn't it? So why? What business do the Sulzburgers think they are going to be in in which this kind of idiocy has a place?: Scott Lemieux: The Greatest Tradition in American Punditry Continues http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/02/the-greatest-tradition-in-american-punditry-continues: 'David Brooks: "Instead of spending the past 3 years on Mueller and impeachment suppose Trump opponents had spent the time on an infrastructure bill or early childhood education? More good would have been done." Paul Krugman: "Since some people seem confused about this, we could have had a major infrastructure bill, with overwhelming Democratic support, at any at any point in the past 3 years; Trump and his party were the obstacle." The punchline is that, as you can see from this story in Brooks’s own newspaper, House Dems introduced a major infrastructure plan last week. But I suppose it’s unrealistic to expect someone who gets paid a six figure salary plus God knows how much in speaking fees to write about politics to actually look stuff like this up...


#noted #2020-03-07

Comments