There are the tantrums -- sometimes both theatrical and perfunctory -- of talking heads on television or commentators writing in vitriol (Paul Krugman's incessant contempt, Ann Coulter's equally constant loathing).
I'm not a big fan of Krugman's, but there's a world of difference between him and Coulter. I don't recall Krugman publicly describing a presidential candidate as a "faggot."
4 comments:
Why not a fan of Krugman? I liked him well enough even though he can be overwrought and dour. Since he got locked up behind the Times' fee wall, he's fallen off my radar. I'd just be curious to see what your concerns are with him.
Now I am angry, for having spent precious minutes goggling at George Will's competent book report bracketed by undiluted inanity.
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
There is something really evil about this increasingly common conservative line. Blanket delegitimization of anger -- even when it is clearly appropriate -- is a wonderful policy for those who are doing bad things that make other people angry.
Krugman has as his pulpit the NYT editorial page. Coulter does not. She is supposed to be a provacatur he is supposed to be an economist. If Krugman has failed to call conservatives "faggots" it is only because that is considered a compliment in his circles, not because of any elevated sense of restraint on his part. He is an example of Bush derangement syndrome writ large.
Post a Comment