Here is how it opens:
The 2000 presidential election is still an open sore on the U.S. body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.
Besides the fact it is almost been five years later and the President has since won re-election, there are those that just cannot get out of their time warp and move on to face other challenges. Instead, they keep picking at a scab that will never heal, because they do not want it to heal. They want to keep re-living the 2000 election over and over again, when most people are content to fight the problems we face in 2005.
These are the same people that can never lose a game of checkers or cards without being sore losers and most will be living in some nursing home, some day in the distant (and for some, not so distant) future, bitching and moaning about an election that took place 40 years prior. Wouldn't you hate to be an activities director in that facility, in that time?
No doubt, Paul Krugman wasted valuable time and energy on this sorry piece. In addition, he wasted his employer's time and money by writing it and someone with an office, desk, and pen, signed off and approved this article for print, in spite of the fact that this issue is dead and moot.
Today we face countless obstacles he could have used as topic material. It certainly would have made much better use of the time, money, and space. But instead he (and those with the desks, offices, and pens) chose to waste it by publishing a dumbass article on something that happened almost a half decade ago. Social Security, the War On Terror, Homeland Security, Eminent Domain, the porous borders, the eroding freedoms with every new liberal court decision, and many other issues and sub-issues would have made much more sense to write about.
You see, this is the primary source of all of the bitterness and animosity being so prominently exhibited by the left, today. The blame Bush crowd will keep the flames burning as long as people that claim to be journalists, keep writing about it. They will keep sounding like a broken record for as long as there are people willing to read this garbage. And as long as that happens, there will be never be an opportunity to move forward and solve the problems we all face as a nation.
As a result of this assinine mentality and attitude, I highly recommend that MoveOn.Org change their name to something more fitting and appropriate.
How about, "StayPutAndStagnate.Com"?
(On a similar note read this article at Social Sense.)
UPDATE: Also read this, from Toni at MyView
4 comments:
Given the topic of this post, there can be little wonder that increasingly fewer people even bother to read print media. In my view, there is something inherently wrong with a news organization (print, radio, television) that becomes so politically polarized that they lose sight of the essentials of journalism.
And of course, LA is right when he says that news ought to be relevant. How relevant is the 2000 presidential campaign? Um ... not very?
If writing or presenting a news worthy story, just give us the facts, and please allow us the dignity to formulate our own conclusions and opinions. Otherwise, they should stop calling themselves "news organizations" and do what we do: write an opinionated blog.
The whole left ethos is one of moaning about past wrongs.
Think about it.
Women may not be earning exactly equal wages, but they've never been better off.
Racism? Condi anyone?
Poverty? Workers own their own homes, have two family cars and fly away on holiday.
You see there is nothing to get upset with about today's world, so they keep harping back.
Mustang,
I think you are absolutely 100% correct. Newspaper circulation is down across the board and the NYT is no exception. Krugman is a well-known liberal economist. If anything he should focus on the economy where he can at least claim some expertise (at very least he can on paper).
I am for his right to sound stupid, I am for the paper's right to print it. But you and I have a right to criticize it and expose it for what it is. That is precisely why blogs are getting more and more popular, while this crap keeps getting published.
EU-Serf,
Thank you for visiting my blog. It is an honor to have you here, as I have been reading your blog for some time now. I have been hesitant to comment on your blog, only because I am not European and was not sure how my opinions would be received by those that actually live there, and have a stake in European politics.
The thing I have found most pronunced by the the left ethos is what you bring up, as well as their objective of empowerment, not just equality. Once they get to a point where they have equal status (or close to it)in a given area, they immediately shift their focus from riding the train, to driving it.
You wrote:
"Think about it.
Women may not be earning exactly equal wages, but they've never been better off.
Racism? Condi anyone?
Poverty? Workers own their own homes, have two family cars and fly away on holiday."
It has never been better, in all demographics. Even the Bush Administration has more minorities and women in high level positions, than any of his predecessors. There is no racial or gender bigotry with the President, yet he gets accused of it.
I have plenty of criticisms for the President, but this area is not one of them. It is an area that he has distanced himself from the radical elements, by creating opportunities for all, and doing it by example.
Thanks again for the visit, you are welcome anytime.
I'm going to write a post about the nature of protest and liberalism that you all may enjoy. Hope to have it up before bedtime today.
Post a Comment