Monday, July 26, 2010

A Thought

if you haven't read Tom Levenson's latest vivisection of Megan, go do so.

I'm just realizing, after reading it, that we all may be going about this the wrong way. Megan doesn't listen to her critics because we, in a certain sense, genuinely don't get it.

It takes real effort to create false narratives with such careful, cautious, weaselly methods. Instead of laughing and calling Megan dumb we should be wowed by how well she lies. It takes focus to remain that ignorant, maintain a veneer of professionalism via constantly tonguing the asshole of anyone within 50 feet of you (though she seems a bit more... royal since her princess day) and still be a shallow materialistic yuppie.

Ok, not really, but she is loathsome enough to believe some variant of that as a final guard against genuine self-recognition.

Also, for some reason Megan seems to be responding to Levenson's criticisms in this post, probably because its author sits with her at lunch and has her back. Her comments start here, and she basically repeats the same glibberish again and again hoping to wear those responding out.


atat said...

When asked who she would rather lead the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Megan replies, "Me."

Classic. And then just for laughs: "The thing I don’t like about Warren is that she’s sloppy with data."

Susan of Texas said...

I added a comment. I see that McArdle will write another post on Warren.

Megan McArdle says:
Monday, July 26, 2010 at 15:26
As I’m going to write in the next few days, the thing I don’t like about Warren is that she’s sloppy with data, and also that her mistrust manifests itself in paternalism. It’s one thing to think consumers would be better off without certain kinds of credit; it’s another thing to be positively certain that you’ll be making them better off by making such credit unprofitable.

Also, Rortybomb and McArdle tussle on twitter after an article on the former's blog.

And another article in Huffpo (and many other places).