Wingnuts and Moonbats
This was originally going to be a post solely about Paul Krugman's latest attempt to re-create history using his New York Times article, but then Pat Robertson had to go open his mouth again.
Paul Krugman, for those who don't know, is the worlds most over rated economist. I'm sure at some point he was able to crunch numbers with the best of them, but in the past few years he has instead decided to replace the actual numbers with his political views. That of course leads to rebuttals like these over at the American Thinker which take him to tasks for essentially making up facts to suit his arguments even when all the evidence actually proves the opposite. It's not even a contest. The sad thing is, these are not isolated cases. Almost everything Krugman now writes is filled with these same types of either false facts or the oddest interpretations of events you will likely ever see in print in a major Daily. I've seen him on political talk shows where it's interesting, to say the least, to see him totally ignore facts that contradict his statements. At first I thought he was just another generic political hack, based on his lousy debating ability, but it was only later I found out he was supposedly a well respected economist (well, respected by some).
Then there's the case of Pat Robertson. Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has a good write-up about Robertson's latest controversy in which he actually called for the assassination of Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. I'm sure a lot of people have thought about how easy it would be to simply assassinate foreign leaders who present problems as opposed to going to war with an entire country, but there are two main problems with the way Robertson choose to do it. First of all, most sane people while possibly making statements like these jokingly, do not make those statements in a public forum and in a serious manner as he did. Secondly, Robertson used his 700 Club television show to offer up his plan. The 700 Club is suppose to be a Christian news and discussion program and I can't personally think of anything less Christian than calling for the assassination of someone. Sure you can say the person should be brought to justice, but an assassination is a sentence without trial or defense, something even Saddam has been given.
The big difference between these two characters, besides their political leanings, is their level of acceptance by their political brethren. While Robertson has always been viewed by large numbers of the right as a bit of a maverick and a rarely taken seriously, Krugman is still accepted by the majority of the left as a economics expert, even if he rarely has any proof to back up his opinions.
Update:
Apparently the good Reverend Robertson has seen the error of his ways and has apologized for his earlier comments about Hugo Chavez, you know, when he called for the use of covert US operatives to 'take him out'. But of course he can't simply admit his mistake and be done with it. By the end of his press release, his 'apology' basically turns into a pat on the back for bringing this tyrants actions to the media's attention. I don't know about Pat's edition, but my Bible does not include a 11th commandment about 'the end justifying the means'.
Paul Krugman, for those who don't know, is the worlds most over rated economist. I'm sure at some point he was able to crunch numbers with the best of them, but in the past few years he has instead decided to replace the actual numbers with his political views. That of course leads to rebuttals like these over at the American Thinker which take him to tasks for essentially making up facts to suit his arguments even when all the evidence actually proves the opposite. It's not even a contest. The sad thing is, these are not isolated cases. Almost everything Krugman now writes is filled with these same types of either false facts or the oddest interpretations of events you will likely ever see in print in a major Daily. I've seen him on political talk shows where it's interesting, to say the least, to see him totally ignore facts that contradict his statements. At first I thought he was just another generic political hack, based on his lousy debating ability, but it was only later I found out he was supposedly a well respected economist (well, respected by some).
Then there's the case of Pat Robertson. Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has a good write-up about Robertson's latest controversy in which he actually called for the assassination of Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. I'm sure a lot of people have thought about how easy it would be to simply assassinate foreign leaders who present problems as opposed to going to war with an entire country, but there are two main problems with the way Robertson choose to do it. First of all, most sane people while possibly making statements like these jokingly, do not make those statements in a public forum and in a serious manner as he did. Secondly, Robertson used his 700 Club television show to offer up his plan. The 700 Club is suppose to be a Christian news and discussion program and I can't personally think of anything less Christian than calling for the assassination of someone. Sure you can say the person should be brought to justice, but an assassination is a sentence without trial or defense, something even Saddam has been given.
The big difference between these two characters, besides their political leanings, is their level of acceptance by their political brethren. While Robertson has always been viewed by large numbers of the right as a bit of a maverick and a rarely taken seriously, Krugman is still accepted by the majority of the left as a economics expert, even if he rarely has any proof to back up his opinions.
Update:
Apparently the good Reverend Robertson has seen the error of his ways and has apologized for his earlier comments about Hugo Chavez, you know, when he called for the use of covert US operatives to 'take him out'. But of course he can't simply admit his mistake and be done with it. By the end of his press release, his 'apology' basically turns into a pat on the back for bringing this tyrants actions to the media's attention. I don't know about Pat's edition, but my Bible does not include a 11th commandment about 'the end justifying the means'.
posted by Bic at 10:21 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home