As some of you know, The New York Times at 12:00 am (EST) today, discontinued its "TimesSelect" service, a subscription service providing access to a lot of NYT on-line features, including access to the Times' well-known columnists. The news of the program's cancellation means at least one thing: I am SO happy. Gratitude knows no bounds in my household this morning.
Today's column by Maureen Dowd is a perfect example of intellectual barrenness masquerading as intellectual fecundity. Ms. Dowd has proven -- again? -- that it matters not what you know; what matters is the style with which you present what you clearly don't know. And what Ms. Dowd clearly does not know is the news in her own newspaper.
In Alan (Not Atlas) Shrugged, Ms. Dowd gives us a list of several men who slinked away from the public eye only -- in a "fashion" -- to slink back. Her list includes O.J. Simpson, Donald Rumsfeld, Larry Craig and -- curiously -- former Fed chair, Alan Greenspan.
Consider what Ms. Dowd says of Mr. Greenspan:
Even though he rubber-stamped W.’s tax cuts, Alan Greenspan is now upbraiding the president and vice president for profligate spending and putting politics ahead of sound economics.…
Irrational exuberance, indeed. [emphasis added]
Surely we cannot deny Ms. Dowd her success at being the NYT's equivalent of the popular high school girl cheered -- not for her academic prowess -- but for her aptitude at gossip. For surely this is pure gossip; perhaps it's even the very antithesis of polemics. How did Ms. Dowd not know the facts as reported in her own paper?
Read this from the New York Times, March 2001:
Mr. Greenspan's support for a tax cut and his warnings about runaway spending have given Republicans a lift as they seek to push Mr. Bush's plan. [emphasis added]
Those of us who remember Mr. Greenspan's testimony on Capitol Hill regarding the Bush tax cuts recall that he did not offer his support to those cuts without also issuing stern warnings about spending: to Greenspan, the Bush cuts would only have the desired effects if Washington scaled back spending on all levels.
How did Ms. Dowd not know this? The answer is simple, really. Perhaps it can best be expressed in what could be the NYT's new motto: We know so you don't have to.
And note that Ms. Dowd avers that Mr. Greenspan "rubber-stamped" George W. Bush's tax cuts. The use of this tired verb -- intended to imply that Greenspan and his peers were little more than automatons in the Bush regime -- is used with such facility that one would be right to point out that those who use it do so automatically, even robotically. Plus, has Alan Greenspan ever rubber-stamped anything in his career?
In the end, perhaps the most important point in all this is that Ms. Dowd does not really know her Ayn Rand. After all, Atlas IS shrugging. Surely Steve Fossett's disappearance proves this, no?
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
6 comments:
Of course, Ms. Dowd also neglects to mention that in spite of the tax cuts, a)federal revenues are higher than they've ever been and b) deficit reduction, occasioned by the unforeseen events of 9-11 and two wars, is occurring faster than the administration predicted. In fact, just a year ago, the Demos were demanding that the tax cuts be rescinded in order to reduce the deficit. Now, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, talk about rescinding the tax cuts to pay for a new health care program to benefit 47 million Americans.
Which is it then? Deficit reduction or "The American People Are Rolling In Excess Cash; Let's Take Some More Of It And Buy Ourselves Something Nice."
Cheers.
MoDo is all style. This particular column seemed to be just a scattershot blast at whoever was annoying her just then.
RS,
Did you read VP Cheney's response to Mr. Greenspan as published in the WSJ?
Interesting stuff (and further proof that Mr. Cheney is the real president).
Peace and mirth,
BG
Mo modo,
Welcome.
I have to agree with you. MD's most recent column is just plain terrible. It seems celebrity-status justifies mediocrity. How else to explain that her editor let this one through?
Blessings!
BG
Firstly, a warm welcome back! I had (and have again) some catching up to do when I realized your sabbatical was over.
Could you explain your "proof that Mr. Cheney is the real president" comment for the politcally naïve among...me? (Though I do note with a bit of joy that some unexpected poll results sparked my interest in the upcoming presidential primaries.)
n[ate]vw,
Greetings and blessings! Thanks for coming by.
The Cheney quip is mostly quip. There are many folks, particularly those on the left side of political issues, who believe that Cheney is really running the show in the White House. Bush was merely chosen because he was younger, willing, and a Bush.
Now, I don't believe this hooey, personally. But there are times when Cheney is definitely the heavyweight when it comes to articulating ideas or defending administration policies. In short, he sounds presidential. Bush, as we all know, does not -- at least most of the time.
Again, my comment was meant to be ironic. But it is rooted in at least one fact: Cheney is the most influential VP in recent American history (and maybe in all of American history).
Be well!
Gnade
Post a Comment