tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post5928101412972205835..comments2024-03-28T16:08:29.578-04:00Comments on Sardonicky: Corruption in a Vacuum TubeKaren Garciahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-85755930333075012622019-09-10T15:54:00.974-04:002019-09-10T15:54:00.974-04:00Excellent web site. A lot of helpfl information he...Excellent web site. A lot of helpfl information here. I'm sending it to several pals ans additionally sharing in delicious.<br /><br />And of course, thanks on your effort!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-10101803640515447022014-04-15T01:25:15.608-04:002014-04-15T01:25:15.608-04:00A small correction, the U.S.edition of the Guardia...A small correction, the U.S.edition of the Guardian (which is also published in the UK) is the recipient of the Pulitzer Price since only U.S.publications and writing are permitted awards by Pulitzer's legacy.Pearlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-37391831655578670332014-04-14T23:26:43.631-04:002014-04-14T23:26:43.631-04:00Here is the company Krugman and Maddow would keep ...Here is the company Krugman and Maddow would keep if they were journalists worthy of the name:<br /><br />http://truth-out.org/news/item/23091-this-award-is-for-snowden-greenwald-poitras-accept-polk-honor-for-exposing-nsa-surveillanceJay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-70379039134470435202014-04-14T21:40:37.979-04:002014-04-14T21:40:37.979-04:00Anyhow everybody, the Pulitzer prizes have gone to...<br />Anyhow everybody, the Pulitzer prizes have gone to the Washington Post and the U.K.Guardian for printing Snowden's information on the NSA! A great comment from the Pulitzers about the importance of printing information that keeps the public duly informed. As I recall, the NYTimes refused to do so. They also did not receive any prizes for any written information, just some for photography assignments. Wonder how Krugman feels about that!<br /><br />Pearl<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Pearlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-18621271550553196472014-04-14T19:58:02.993-04:002014-04-14T19:58:02.993-04:00Paul Krugman is to print journalism what Karen Mad...Paul Krugman is to print journalism what Karen Maddow is to TV journalism. They are twins in different media. With every column, with every show, on whatever subject, they spin out the same formula, predictably going easy on the Democrats but tough on the Republicans. Is this clear eyed? Is it integrity? When Dante and Virgil take their next trip through hell, they’ll find Krugman and Maddow unveiled as partisan hacks roaming the First Circle of Propaganda, not all that far from the center where dwells the Father of Lies.<br /><br />Is it news to you at this late date that both political parties are bought and corrupt? Not to recognize the reality is to be willfully ignorant or easily duped. We should be hard put to tell which party has done more damage. Any differences in degree would turn out to be spotty or measured in micrometers. Haven’t we been saying that very thing here and elsewhere for years?<br /><br />On second thought, there is one major difference between the parties: with tears in their eyes the Dems will arrange for the heel to be placed squarely on your neck; the Reps will do it without apology. So the Dems are far in the lead for hypocrisy.<br /><br />Krugman and Maddow consistently blow the whistle on the Republicans. Rarely do they catch sneaky fouls by the Democrats. Whether as temperate columns or colorful rants, their journalism is merely a variation of that tired campaign argument, since proven empty, about the lesser of two evils. Such journalism is unenlightening and at times downright dishonest. The consistency is not accidental. So, if it writes like a partisan hack, and talks like a partisan hack, and sticks to the party line like a partisan hack, and pleases a great crowd of partisan followers like a partisan hack, well maybe, even if it sports a Nobel Prize, just maybe it’s a partisan hack.Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-80759986328551536242014-04-14T17:02:20.162-04:002014-04-14T17:02:20.162-04:00Karen and Fred: You would think that the responses...Karen and Fred: You would think that the responses to Krugman's current articles such as yours Karen and several other excellent readers would inspire him to tell us what is going on behind the curtains. Certainly he reads the reports you cite but by avoiding explaining his vague descriptions of the players in this financial drama, it becomes obvious where he stands on the issues. I think he has become more centralized which is a shame and loss all around. Does he read the comments of criticism many send in? At least many readers have become educated but not Krugman I am afraid. <br /> There is a good article about reasons for supporting Bernie Sanders in Truthout which could take off if he is supported as he has made many excellent comments in the e-mails I get from his website.<br /><br />Pearlpvolkovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-32958348142669998962014-04-14T16:19:53.344-04:002014-04-14T16:19:53.344-04:00I too thought Krugman's column was more than a...I too thought Krugman's column was more than a bit weak, both in its inadequate degree of condemnation and to where his criticism, such as it was, was directed. One basic characteristic I immediately noticed was his use of the term "financial industry" (four times, no less), with no quotation marks around "industry", nor implied ridicule or sarcasm regarding that term. As I've said before, language <i>does</i> constrain thought, and as @Jay - Ottawa reminded us a few Sardonicky columns back, "For starters, suppose we drop the term 'The Great Recession'". Point taken, and critics --- genuine critics --- of the money manipulators must stop referring to financial activity as the "financial industry". It's not an industry in the traditional meaning of that term, and there's nothing industrious about it.<br /><br />Capitalism, at least as it is currently permitted to operate, has serious fundamental flaws. It argues that the so-called "free market" will allocate scarce resources to the "best use(s)". In fact, the "free market" does nothing of the sort, for two very different reasons:<br /><br />First of all, because the "free market" doesn't exist. But while the right-wingers denounce government regulation as the impediment to a supposed glorious "free market", the fact is that most of the time the market is highly manipulated, and it's being done by the capitalists themselves. Whether we're considering LIBOR or millisecond stock trades, or consumer "demand", or governmental purchases (by which I mean both what government buys/subsidizes and how our government has itself been purchased!), a great deal of it has been manipulated by business.<br /><br />Secondly, "best use" for most capitalists seems to mean nothing more than making the maximum amount of money. Civic responsibility, social justice, even basic decency have little or no place in either the thinking or actions of most modern capitalists as they pursue their vaunted "best use" of capital. It's all selfish --- and short-sighted, as there does not appear to be anyone with political power (or with likelihood of attaining it) who might be interested in saving capitalism from itself, as FDR did.<br /><br />(Interestingly, as I get set to post this, I notice that one of the captcha words is Rico. Capitalized, that is the acronym for "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act"!)Fred Drumlevitchhttp://www.freddrumlevitch.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com