The comparison with the Nat-bots on nz.general is obvious; the
comparison with New Zealand's government is troubling:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/ignorance-is-strength.html?ref=todayspaper
Ignorance Is Strength
Paul Krugman
FEB. 13, 2017
When I travel to Asia, IÄ…m fairly often met at the airport by someone holding a sign reading Å‚Mr. Paul.Ë› Why? In much of Asia, names are
given family first, personal second ‹ at home, the prime minister of
Japan is referred to as Abe Shinzo. And the mistake is completely
forgivable when itÄ…s made by a taxi driver picking up a professor.
ItÄ…s not so forgivable, however, if the president of the United States
makes the same mistake when welcoming the leader of one of our most
important economic and security partners. But there it was: Donald
Trump referring to Mr. Abe as, yes, Prime Minister Shinzo.
Mr. Abe did not, as far as we know, respond by calling his host
President Donald.
Trivial? Well, it would be if it were an isolated instance. But it
isnÄ…t. What weÄ…ve seen instead over the past three weeks is an awesome display of raw ignorance on every front. Worse, thereÄ…s no hint that
either the White House or its allies in Congress see this as a
problem. They appear to believe that expertise, or even basic
familiarity with a subject, is for wimps; ignorance is strength.
We see this on legal matters: In a widely quoted analysis, the legal
expert Benjamin Wittes described the infamous executive order on
refugees as łmalevolence tempered by incompetence,˛ and noted that the order reads łas if it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all˛ ‹ which is a good way to lose in court.
We see it on national security matters, where the president continues
to rely on a chief adviser who, suspicious closeness to the Kremlin
aside, appears to get his strategic information from right-wing
conspiracy theorists.
We see it on education, where the hearings for Betsy DeVos, the
education secretary, revealed her to be completely ignorant about even
the most elementary issues.
We see it on diplomacy. How hard is it to ask someone from the State Department to make sure that the White House gets foreign leadersÄ…
names right? Too hard, apparently: Before the Abe flub, the official
agenda for the state visit by Theresa May, the British prime minister, repeatedly misspelled her name.
And on economics ‹ well, thereąs nobody home. The Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to provide technical expertise, has been
demoted from cabinet rank, but that hardly matters, since nobody has
been nominated to serve. Remember all that talk about a
trillion-dollar infrastructure plan? If you do, please remind the
White House, which hasnÄ…t offered even a ghost of a concrete proposal.
But let me not be too hard on the Tweeter-in-chief: disdain for
expertise is general in his party. For example, the most influential Republican economists arenÄ…t serious academics with a conservative
bent, of whom there are many; theyÄ…re known hacks who literally canÄ…t
get a number right.
Or consider the current G.O.P. panic over health care. Many in the
party seem shocked to learn that repealing any major part of Obamacare
will cause tens of millions to lose insurance. Anyone who studied the
issue could have told them years ago how the pieces of health reform
fit together, and why.
In fact, many of us did, repeatedly. But competent analysis wasnÄ…t
wanted.
And that is, of course, the point. Competent lawyers might tell you
that your Muslim ban is unconstitutional; competent scientists that
climate change is real; competent economists that tax cuts donÄ…t pay
for themselves; competent voting experts that there werenÄ…t millions
of illegal ballots; competent diplomats that the Iran deal makes
sense, and Putin is not your friend. So competence must be excluded.
At this point, someone is bound to say, Å‚If theyÄ…re so dumb, how come
they won?˛ Part of the answer is that disdain for experts ‹ sorry, łso-called˛ experts ‹ resonates with an important part of the
electorate. Bigotry wasnÄ…t the only dark force at work in the
election; so was anti-intellectualism, hostility toward Å‚elitesË› who
claim that opinions should be based on careful study and thought.
Also, campaigning is very different from governing. This is
especially true when the news media spend far more time obsessing over
your opponentÄ…s pseudo-scandals than they do on all actual policy
issues combined.
But now things have gotten real, and all indications are that the
people in charge have no idea what theyÄ…re doing, on any front.
In some ways this cluelessness may be a good thing: malevolence may
indeed be tempered by incompetence. ItÄ…s not just the court defeat
over immigration; Republican ignorance has turned what was supposed to
be a blitzkrieg against Obamacare into a quagmire, to the great
benefit of millions. And Mr. TrumpÄ…s imploding job approval might
help slow the march to autocracy.
But meanwhile, whoÄ…s in charge? Crises happen, and we have an
intellectual vacuum at the top. Be afraid, be very afraid.
On Monday, 13 February 2017 23:44:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
The comparison with the Nat-bots on nz.general is obvious; the
What, specifically, is comparable?
name wrong? Go on, what are these obvious points of comparison?comparison with New Zealand's government is troubling:
What specifically, is comparable? Did Bill English get some foreign leader's
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/ignorance-is-strength.html?ref=todayspaper
Ignorance Is Strength
Paul Krugman
FEB. 13, 2017
When I travel to Asia, IÄ…m fairly often met at the airport by someone holding a sign reading Å‚Mr. Paul.Ë› Why? In much of Asia, names are
given family first, personal second ‹ at home, the prime minister of Japan is referred to as Abe Shinzo. And the mistake is completely forgivable when itąs made by a taxi driver picking up a professor.
ItÄ…s not so forgivable, however, if the president of the United States makes the same mistake when welcoming the leader of one of our most important economic and security partners. But there it was: Donald
Trump referring to Mr. Abe as, yes, Prime Minister Shinzo.
Mr. Abe did not, as far as we know, respond by calling his host
President Donald.
Trivial? Well, it would be if it were an isolated instance. But it isnÄ…t. What weÄ…ve seen instead over the past three weeks is an awesome display of raw ignorance on every front. Worse, thereÄ…s no hint that either the White House or its allies in Congress see this as a
problem. They appear to believe that expertise, or even basic
familiarity with a subject, is for wimps; ignorance is strength.
We see this on legal matters: In a widely quoted analysis, the legal
expert Benjamin Wittes described the infamous executive order on
refugees as łmalevolence tempered by incompetence,˛ and noted that the order reads łas if it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all˛ ‹ which is a good way to lose in court.
We see it on national security matters, where the president continues
to rely on a chief adviser who, suspicious closeness to the Kremlin
aside, appears to get his strategic information from right-wing
conspiracy theorists.
We see it on education, where the hearings for Betsy DeVos, the
education secretary, revealed her to be completely ignorant about even
the most elementary issues.
We see it on diplomacy. How hard is it to ask someone from the State Department to make sure that the White House gets foreign leadersÄ…
names right? Too hard, apparently: Before the Abe flub, the official agenda for the state visit by Theresa May, the British prime minister, repeatedly misspelled her name.
And on economics ‹ well, thereąs nobody home. The Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to provide technical expertise, has been demoted from cabinet rank, but that hardly matters, since nobody has
been nominated to serve. Remember all that talk about a
trillion-dollar infrastructure plan? If you do, please remind the
White House, which hasnÄ…t offered even a ghost of a concrete proposal.
But let me not be too hard on the Tweeter-in-chief: disdain for
expertise is general in his party. For example, the most influential Republican economists arenÄ…t serious academics with a conservative
bent, of whom there are many; theyÄ…re known hacks who literally canÄ…t
get a number right.
Or consider the current G.O.P. panic over health care. Many in the
party seem shocked to learn that repealing any major part of Obamacare
will cause tens of millions to lose insurance. Anyone who studied the issue could have told them years ago how the pieces of health reform
fit together, and why.
In fact, many of us did, repeatedly. But competent analysis wasnÄ…t
wanted.
And that is, of course, the point. Competent lawyers might tell you
that your Muslim ban is unconstitutional; competent scientists that
climate change is real; competent economists that tax cuts donÄ…t pay
for themselves; competent voting experts that there werenÄ…t millions
of illegal ballots; competent diplomats that the Iran deal makes
sense, and Putin is not your friend. So competence must be excluded.
At this point, someone is bound to say, łIf theyąre so dumb, how come they won?˛ Part of the answer is that disdain for experts ‹ sorry, łso-called˛ experts ‹ resonates with an important part of the electorate. Bigotry wasnąt the only dark force at work in the
election; so was anti-intellectualism, hostility toward Å‚elitesË› who claim that opinions should be based on careful study and thought.
Also, campaigning is very different from governing. This is
especially true when the news media spend far more time obsessing over
your opponentÄ…s pseudo-scandals than they do on all actual policy
issues combined.
But now things have gotten real, and all indications are that the
people in charge have no idea what theyÄ…re doing, on any front.
In some ways this cluelessness may be a good thing: malevolence may
indeed be tempered by incompetence. ItÄ…s not just the court defeat
over immigration; Republican ignorance has turned what was supposed to
be a blitzkrieg against Obamacare into a quagmire, to the great
benefit of millions. And Mr. TrumpÄ…s imploding job approval might
help slow the march to autocracy.
But meanwhile, whoÄ…s in charge? Crises happen, and we have an intellectual vacuum at the top. Be afraid, be very afraid.
The comparison with the Nat-bots on nz.general is obvious; the
comparison with New Zealand's government is troubling:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/ignorance-is-strength.html?ref=todayspaper
Ignorance Is Strength
Paul Krugman
FEB. 13, 2017
When I travel to Asia, I¹m fairly often met at the airport by someone
holding a sign reading ³Mr. Paul.² Why? In much of Asia, names are
given family first, personal second ‹ at home, the prime minister of
Japan is referred to as Abe Shinzo. And the mistake is completely
forgivable when it¹s made by a taxi driver picking up a professor.
It¹s not so forgivable, however, if the president of the United States
makes the same mistake when welcoming the leader of one of our most
important economic and security partners. But there it was: Donald
Trump referring to Mr. Abe as, yes, Prime Minister Shinzo.
Mr. Abe did not, as far as we know, respond by calling his host
President Donald.
Trivial? Well, it would be if it were an isolated instance. But it
isn¹t. What we¹ve seen instead over the past three weeks is an awesome display of raw ignorance on every front. Worse, there¹s no hint that
either the White House or its allies in Congress see this as a
problem. They appear to believe that expertise, or even basic
familiarity with a subject, is for wimps; ignorance is strength.
We see this on legal matters: In a widely quoted analysis, the legal
expert Benjamin Wittes described the infamous executive order on
refugees as ³malevolence tempered by incompetence,² and noted that the
order reads ³as if it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all² ‹
which is a good way to lose in court.
We see it on national security matters, where the president continues
to rely on a chief adviser who, suspicious closeness to the Kremlin
aside, appears to get his strategic information from right-wing
conspiracy theorists.
We see it on education, where the hearings for Betsy DeVos, the
education secretary, revealed her to be completely ignorant about even
the most elementary issues.
We see it on diplomacy. How hard is it to ask someone from the State Department to make sure that the White House gets foreign leaders¹
names right? Too hard, apparently: Before the Abe flub, the official
agenda for the state visit by Theresa May, the British prime minister, repeatedly misspelled her name.
And on economics ‹ well, there¹s nobody home. The Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to provide technical expertise, has been
demoted from cabinet rank, but that hardly matters, since nobody has
been nominated to serve. Remember all that talk about a
trillion-dollar infrastructure plan? If you do, please remind the
White House, which hasn¹t offered even a ghost of a concrete proposal.
But let me not be too hard on the Tweeter-in-chief: disdain for
expertise is general in his party. For example, the most influential Republican economists aren¹t serious academics with a conservative
bent, of whom there are many; they¹re known hacks who literally can¹t
get a number right.
Or consider the current G.O.P. panic over health care. Many in the
party seem shocked to learn that repealing any major part of Obamacare
will cause tens of millions to lose insurance. Anyone who studied the
issue could have told them years ago how the pieces of health reform
fit together, and why.
In fact, many of us did, repeatedly. But competent analysis wasn¹t
wanted.
And that is, of course, the point. Competent lawyers might tell you
that your Muslim ban is unconstitutional; competent scientists that
climate change is real; competent economists that tax cuts don¹t pay
for themselves; competent voting experts that there weren¹t millions
of illegal ballots; competent diplomats that the Iran deal makes
sense, and Putin is not your friend. So competence must be excluded.
At this point, someone is bound to say, ³If they¹re so dumb, how come
they won?² Part of the answer is that disdain for experts ‹ sorry, ³so-called² experts ‹ resonates with an important part of the
electorate. Bigotry wasn¹t the only dark force at work in the
election; so was anti-intellectualism, hostility toward ³elites² who
claim that opinions should be based on careful study and thought.
Also, campaigning is very different from governing. This is
especially true when the news media spend far more time obsessing over
your opponent¹s pseudo-scandals than they do on all actual policy
issues combined.
But now things have gotten real, and all indications are that the
people in charge have no idea what they¹re doing, on any front.
In some ways this cluelessness may be a good thing: malevolence may
indeed be tempered by incompetence. It¹s not just the court defeat
over immigration; Republican ignorance has turned what was supposed to
be a blitzkrieg against Obamacare into a quagmire, to the great
benefit of millions. And Mr. Trump¹s imploding job approval might
help slow the march to autocracy.
But meanwhile, who¹s in charge? Crises happen, and we have an
intellectual vacuum at the top. Be afraid, be very afraid.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 08:35:43 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:name wrong? Go on, what are these obvious points of comparison?
On Monday, 13 February 2017 23:44:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
The comparison with the Nat-bots on nz.general is obvious; the
What, specifically, is comparable?
... <silence> ...
comparison with New Zealand's government is troubling:
What specifically, is comparable? Did Bill English get some foreign leader's
... <silence> ...attempt to smear others.
So Dickbot's post was empty, hollow meaningless drivel in another failed
What a complete loser.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 37:52:38 |
| Calls: | 2,117 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,149 |
| D/L today: |
315 files (11,412K bytes) |
| Messages: | 952,719 |