otherwise Megan might get away with ignoring that even Arnold Kling thinks she was being "overly 'gotcha'".*
Being Megan McArdle means never having to say you're sorry, she has her junior pundit badge. You just lie about what you said, and pretend it isn't there, on the internet, for everyone to see. I mean, am I still talking about that? It's soooooooooo yesterday. So she was completely wrong and even her source/hero says so? What does that have to do with anything?
*- I know there is some debate about where to place punctuation in a quotation, and that I actually do what Megan does, perhaps paining some. I'm not trying to be British, that's what I was taught in my corner of academia, and I prefer it that way. It's a much more elegant way to include long quoted clauses in your own sentences, imo. I rarely blockquote in my academic writing.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
It's Good Joshua Green Is At The Atlantic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
So, as I noted yesterday, McMegan was so wrong in not having wanted to write Krugman's brilliant solution (you need to increase private spending, but wages are stable at best: inflate consumer assets. But how do you do that, given that consumers as a whole are net debtors? Housing bubble!).
And now she's very much on record as having said she doesn't want to be able to think through economic identities. Good thing she doesn't write about econ issue, eh?
It's funny, is Megan McArdle anywhere in Arnold Kling's posts or comments?
I'm tempted to say that this could have been far more embarrassing for Megan if Krugman or Kling had linked to Megan.
Actually it gets funnier....if Kling or Krugman say something like, "some other pundits have tried to argue...
, or "another blogger got it totally incorrect...", I think I'll know who they are referring to.
Heh, I don't really care about the punctuation, just McArdle's pretentiousness.
I know I've been out of the loop, so can anyone please explain to me what the HOOOOOLY FUCK is this http://ideas.theatlantic.com/ shit? I just clicked on a link somewhere that brought me there and goddammit, teh stoopid, it burns!!! The one on lefty blogs and charts and graphs, for example. And then there's this shit about Chinese names:
"population of 1.3 billion people limited to 8,000 characters? Mayhem."
Dude, teh fuck? Being able to read 2000 characters is considered a full literacy in China, so how in the name of all that is good, holy and gives of a pleasant scent is 8000 characters not enough???
Seriously, is there anybody left at the Atlantic who actually knows shit?
The ideas section is poison.
The answer to your question is "no."
At this point, I'd settle for a writer there who doesn't know shit, but at least has the humility to not try and pretend as if they do. The arrongant and pretentious poser intellectualism is beyond irritating.
It's not even like these people have to do any footwork to look crap up any more. For goodness' sake, you can research the history and etymology of Chinese names with your cell phone while you're sitting on the bloody toilet.
The arrongant and pretentious poser intellectualism is beyond irritating.
The thing is, cp, that it seems like this has become the journalistic norm. You might want to check out the Language Log, especially the recent series of posts on George Will and Obama's imperial 'I'. Read some of the comments and weep.
Also, knowing shit automatically includes knowing how much you don't know.
with your cell phone while you're sitting on the bloody toilet.
That's how I roll. Well, it's Ipod touch, actually...
Post a Comment