A.J. DiCintio
Prize winner perversity
By A.J. DiCintio
How would Jonathan Swift react to the inanities that for decades have issued from the minds and mouths of far too many recipients of a certain international prize for achievement in literature, economics, or peace?
If the past truly is prologue, he would single out one of the true-believing leftists, create another of his inimitable lists to enumerate the worst of the person's words and deeds, and then conclude with this simple observation, done in his signature sarcastic style:
"And this they call a Nobel Prize winner."
The reason for this Swiftian exercise? Well, it comes to mind in reaction to a member of the perverse pack just mentioned, one who comes off infinitely more like a boss or flunky (take your pick) of the Chicago Political Machine than he does an intellectual giant.
But you'll want to decide for yourself; so here — with some observations — are a few of Recipient's comments about current affairs.
Regarding healthcare and the recent election, Recipient had this to say in New York City's most conspicuously collapsing newspaper:
. . . exit polls suggest that to the extent that health care was an issue in Tuesday's elections, it worked in Democrats' favor.
"Worked in Democrats' favor." Really? Here's the explanation.
In New Jersey, voters who considered health care the top issue went for Gov. Jon Corzine by a 4-to-1 margin.
Holy perversity, Batman! Everybody, including that intellectual fraud called the Joker, knows the margin mainly reflects the Obamacare-loving liberal vote in a state Democrats have painted so deeply Prussian blue that its citizens, horribly disabled by ten tons of crushing taxes, debt, and regulations, must be prevented (by a Prussianic law) from pumping their own gas!
Holy convenient ignorance, too! Because even Joker's third apprentice knows that what really counts in statewide and national elections is not attitudes and behaviors of liberals, who comprise only 20% of the population, but those of the rest of the electorate.
That's why Third Apprentice doesn't behave like a slobbering political shill who madly spins the Jersey vote in favor of Obamacare but keeps his eye on the kind of research provided by Rasmussen Reports (10/23/09) regarding national attitudes on the healthcare issue:
It would be better to do nothing rather than pass the current plan. (62% of Independent voters)
No matter how bad things are, Congress could always make it worse. (67% of all voters)
We now move on to Recipient's assertion that last November's election resulted in a "strong mandate" for "bold action on the economy."
What kind of bold action? Well, Recipient agrees with "the chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers" that the stimulus bill should have borrowed and spent "more than $1.2 trillion" instead of a paltry $787 billion.
That's why, he claims, the economy has recovered with a whimper instead of a hearty holler and why "more [stimulus] is needed."
Debt, debt, and more debt, waste, waste, and more waste — Welcome to Recipient's prescription for building America's economic foundation.
And what of the idea that prosperity flows only from hard work, frugality, and personal responsibility exercised under a government that is lean, efficient, and effective?
Recipient denounces that notion as "a view that's all wrong" as he continues to argue that Americans are angry because they want the country to move farther to the left.
Now, the Penguin who once ran for mayor of Gotham City would know better than to say that last November, the American people intended to give a leftist president and a leftist Congress a mandate to put the nation on sound economic footing by borrowing, printing, porking, bailing, lending, crediting, clunkering, and incentivizing more than ten trillion politically polluted dollars.
Come to think of it, any penguin would know better.
Finally, Recipient recently denounced an anti-Obamacare rally at the Capitol for "featuring [signs depicting] piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption 'National Socialist Healthcare.'"
Of course, he can't be faulted for his basic criticism because such comparisons made in ordinary political arguments are not just in bad taste, they are grievously insulting to every human being who suffered at the ugly, vicious hands of real Nazi fascists.
However, Recipient can and should be condemned for behaving like a duplicitous, conniving Riddler when, with respect to a few inappropriate signs, he used the word "featuring" ("making prominent") to smear not just a group of citizens but the majority of Americans, who, by ever-widening margins, are opposed to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare takeover.
Sadly, it's too much to ask this ilk of Nobel Prize winner to elevate truth above expedient promotion of crass political purposes.
So it is that Recipient failed to denounce the boorishness and insulting behavior that San Francisco-mouthed Nancy Pelosi exhibited when she purposely distorted the intent of one swastika drawn on one protestor's sign to smear the entire "Tea Party" movement with the slime of Hitler's fascism.
So it is that Recipient remained silent about the fact that the technique of spitting "Nazi" at one's political opponents was introduced into modern American politics at no less an august venue than the Democratic National Convention of 1968, by no less an august person than Democratic Senator Abraham Ribicoff, on no less an august occasion than his nominating speech for George McGovern, in no less a filthy manner than by hurling the accusation of "Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago."
So it is that Recipient didn't condemn Democratic activists, who, since '68, have religiously bowed to the dictum, "Never waste a good opportunity to insinuate Hitlerian slurs into American culture."
And so it is that Recipient did go on to denounce the Republican Party as "taken over" by "paranoid hard-right activists," an "irrational right" that has "no interest in actually governing" and, therefore, could — as he claims the "rump" Republican party has done in California — render "America as a whole. . . ungovernable."
What is there to say about that rant except to point out it is so maniacal and ironic that even the Riddler would join Main Street Americans in reacting to its author with the direct, unmistakably clear sarcasm of, "And this they call a Nobel Prize winner."
By now, you have very likely heard enough about Recipient to make a judgment about whether he ought to be regarded as an honest intellectual or a rank political ideologue.
Therefore, it's time to ask you to guess who he is.
You say "Barack Obama". . . because he's a Nobel Peace Laureate whose devotion to expressing leftist ideology in vacuous words, words, words is matched only by his love for targeting, freezing, personalizing, and polarizing his enemies Alinsky style.
What insightful thinking!
But Recipient happens to be only Paul Krugman, who is, however, a very special Obama White House "visitor" and an economist extraordinaire to members of the Nobel Committee and devotees of the NY Times.
© A.J. DiCintio
November 13, 2009
How would Jonathan Swift react to the inanities that for decades have issued from the minds and mouths of far too many recipients of a certain international prize for achievement in literature, economics, or peace?
If the past truly is prologue, he would single out one of the true-believing leftists, create another of his inimitable lists to enumerate the worst of the person's words and deeds, and then conclude with this simple observation, done in his signature sarcastic style:
"And this they call a Nobel Prize winner."
The reason for this Swiftian exercise? Well, it comes to mind in reaction to a member of the perverse pack just mentioned, one who comes off infinitely more like a boss or flunky (take your pick) of the Chicago Political Machine than he does an intellectual giant.
But you'll want to decide for yourself; so here — with some observations — are a few of Recipient's comments about current affairs.
Regarding healthcare and the recent election, Recipient had this to say in New York City's most conspicuously collapsing newspaper:
. . . exit polls suggest that to the extent that health care was an issue in Tuesday's elections, it worked in Democrats' favor.
"Worked in Democrats' favor." Really? Here's the explanation.
In New Jersey, voters who considered health care the top issue went for Gov. Jon Corzine by a 4-to-1 margin.
Holy perversity, Batman! Everybody, including that intellectual fraud called the Joker, knows the margin mainly reflects the Obamacare-loving liberal vote in a state Democrats have painted so deeply Prussian blue that its citizens, horribly disabled by ten tons of crushing taxes, debt, and regulations, must be prevented (by a Prussianic law) from pumping their own gas!
Holy convenient ignorance, too! Because even Joker's third apprentice knows that what really counts in statewide and national elections is not attitudes and behaviors of liberals, who comprise only 20% of the population, but those of the rest of the electorate.
That's why Third Apprentice doesn't behave like a slobbering political shill who madly spins the Jersey vote in favor of Obamacare but keeps his eye on the kind of research provided by Rasmussen Reports (10/23/09) regarding national attitudes on the healthcare issue:
It would be better to do nothing rather than pass the current plan. (62% of Independent voters)
No matter how bad things are, Congress could always make it worse. (67% of all voters)
We now move on to Recipient's assertion that last November's election resulted in a "strong mandate" for "bold action on the economy."
What kind of bold action? Well, Recipient agrees with "the chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers" that the stimulus bill should have borrowed and spent "more than $1.2 trillion" instead of a paltry $787 billion.
That's why, he claims, the economy has recovered with a whimper instead of a hearty holler and why "more [stimulus] is needed."
Debt, debt, and more debt, waste, waste, and more waste — Welcome to Recipient's prescription for building America's economic foundation.
And what of the idea that prosperity flows only from hard work, frugality, and personal responsibility exercised under a government that is lean, efficient, and effective?
Recipient denounces that notion as "a view that's all wrong" as he continues to argue that Americans are angry because they want the country to move farther to the left.
Now, the Penguin who once ran for mayor of Gotham City would know better than to say that last November, the American people intended to give a leftist president and a leftist Congress a mandate to put the nation on sound economic footing by borrowing, printing, porking, bailing, lending, crediting, clunkering, and incentivizing more than ten trillion politically polluted dollars.
Come to think of it, any penguin would know better.
Finally, Recipient recently denounced an anti-Obamacare rally at the Capitol for "featuring [signs depicting] piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption 'National Socialist Healthcare.'"
Of course, he can't be faulted for his basic criticism because such comparisons made in ordinary political arguments are not just in bad taste, they are grievously insulting to every human being who suffered at the ugly, vicious hands of real Nazi fascists.
However, Recipient can and should be condemned for behaving like a duplicitous, conniving Riddler when, with respect to a few inappropriate signs, he used the word "featuring" ("making prominent") to smear not just a group of citizens but the majority of Americans, who, by ever-widening margins, are opposed to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare takeover.
Sadly, it's too much to ask this ilk of Nobel Prize winner to elevate truth above expedient promotion of crass political purposes.
So it is that Recipient failed to denounce the boorishness and insulting behavior that San Francisco-mouthed Nancy Pelosi exhibited when she purposely distorted the intent of one swastika drawn on one protestor's sign to smear the entire "Tea Party" movement with the slime of Hitler's fascism.
So it is that Recipient remained silent about the fact that the technique of spitting "Nazi" at one's political opponents was introduced into modern American politics at no less an august venue than the Democratic National Convention of 1968, by no less an august person than Democratic Senator Abraham Ribicoff, on no less an august occasion than his nominating speech for George McGovern, in no less a filthy manner than by hurling the accusation of "Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago."
So it is that Recipient didn't condemn Democratic activists, who, since '68, have religiously bowed to the dictum, "Never waste a good opportunity to insinuate Hitlerian slurs into American culture."
And so it is that Recipient did go on to denounce the Republican Party as "taken over" by "paranoid hard-right activists," an "irrational right" that has "no interest in actually governing" and, therefore, could — as he claims the "rump" Republican party has done in California — render "America as a whole. . . ungovernable."
What is there to say about that rant except to point out it is so maniacal and ironic that even the Riddler would join Main Street Americans in reacting to its author with the direct, unmistakably clear sarcasm of, "And this they call a Nobel Prize winner."
By now, you have very likely heard enough about Recipient to make a judgment about whether he ought to be regarded as an honest intellectual or a rank political ideologue.
Therefore, it's time to ask you to guess who he is.
You say "Barack Obama". . . because he's a Nobel Peace Laureate whose devotion to expressing leftist ideology in vacuous words, words, words is matched only by his love for targeting, freezing, personalizing, and polarizing his enemies Alinsky style.
What insightful thinking!
But Recipient happens to be only Paul Krugman, who is, however, a very special Obama White House "visitor" and an economist extraordinaire to members of the Nobel Committee and devotees of the NY Times.
© A.J. DiCintio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
