Graydon Carter wrote a fatuous piece in this month's Vanity Fair (to see the "editor's letter"):
A few thoughts in response:
The hardest part about issuing a failing grade - which Carter so clearly deserves - is knowing where to begin in explaining it. I assume I must not have fully comprehended the editor’s remarks. I enjoy Vanity Fair, and can’t stand to see lovely articles – like this month’s on RFK – tainted with the stain of high school newspaper like editorializing. The “arguments” and tropes in his opening to the June 2008 issue are so well-worn and poorly reasoned that it is not even a surprise when we get to the last sentence and Carter summarizes the president’s job as “telling us how to live our lives.” How will we ever elect someone to satisfy his understanding of the executive branch?
But what forced the response was the hilarious list of areas where the Bush Administration earned Mr. Carter’s disdain and omniscient scorn. Setting aside the debatable (which Mr. Carter fully ignores the complexity of), a few of Graydon’s grievances are especially amusing and baffling - in red below. Answers to the questions below each bullet might help us understand how an age complete with incredible modernization and development – and all the associated societal benefits - could be likened to the Dark Ages:
· “Our reputation, military, and economy in tatters?—F.”
Does Mr. Carter consider our reputation more important than our national interest and, even if not, how does he measure “reputation?” Has the military’s expansion into Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002 propagated any benefit and, even if not, how does he score the realized gains and costs to reach that conclusion? If Mr. Carter ties the “economy” so closely to the President’s governing policy, how does he explain the healthy economic growth from 2002-2008? (If he chooses to cite “stagnating wages” in his response, could he also elaborate on why GDP is not a relevant metric during the selected timeframe?)
· “Wall Street an unregulated disaster?—F.”
Would Mr. Carter like to see more zealous and righteous persecution of Wall Street a la Spitzer or of a different variety? Does Mr. Carter think anyone other than hedge fund cowboys benefit from a thriving financial infrastrucutre through securities, mutual funds, pensions, etc?
· "Banks in crisis and airlines in bankruptcy?—F."
How exactly should the President begin meddling in the affairs of specific industries – either when they are profitable or struggling? Is this related to him telling “us how to live our lives” if we work in the airline or banking industry?
· "Oil at more than $113 a barrel?—F."
How exactly should the President begin meddling in the affairs of commodity pricing? Could, for example, other commodities be used as a success metrics during other administrations (e.g. is Jimmy Carter to blame for feeder cattle futures more than doubling in 1978-9)?
· "A tax system that favors the rich over the poor?—F."
Would Mr. Carter agree that the tax system is wildly progressive and that the “rich” pay the vast majority of the government’s revenues? If so, and if he still calls this favoring the rich over the poor, what would he call a regressive – or even a flat – tax?
But what forced the response was the hilarious list of areas where the Bush Administration earned Mr. Carter’s disdain and omniscient scorn. Setting aside the debatable (which Mr. Carter fully ignores the complexity of), a few of Graydon’s grievances are especially amusing and baffling - in red below. Answers to the questions below each bullet might help us understand how an age complete with incredible modernization and development – and all the associated societal benefits - could be likened to the Dark Ages:
· “Our reputation, military, and economy in tatters?—F.”
Does Mr. Carter consider our reputation more important than our national interest and, even if not, how does he measure “reputation?” Has the military’s expansion into Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002 propagated any benefit and, even if not, how does he score the realized gains and costs to reach that conclusion? If Mr. Carter ties the “economy” so closely to the President’s governing policy, how does he explain the healthy economic growth from 2002-2008? (If he chooses to cite “stagnating wages” in his response, could he also elaborate on why GDP is not a relevant metric during the selected timeframe?)
· “Wall Street an unregulated disaster?—F.”
Would Mr. Carter like to see more zealous and righteous persecution of Wall Street a la Spitzer or of a different variety? Does Mr. Carter think anyone other than hedge fund cowboys benefit from a thriving financial infrastrucutre through securities, mutual funds, pensions, etc?
· "Banks in crisis and airlines in bankruptcy?—F."
How exactly should the President begin meddling in the affairs of specific industries – either when they are profitable or struggling? Is this related to him telling “us how to live our lives” if we work in the airline or banking industry?
· "Oil at more than $113 a barrel?—F."
How exactly should the President begin meddling in the affairs of commodity pricing? Could, for example, other commodities be used as a success metrics during other administrations (e.g. is Jimmy Carter to blame for feeder cattle futures more than doubling in 1978-9)?
· "A tax system that favors the rich over the poor?—F."
Would Mr. Carter agree that the tax system is wildly progressive and that the “rich” pay the vast majority of the government’s revenues? If so, and if he still calls this favoring the rich over the poor, what would he call a regressive – or even a flat – tax?
No comments:
Post a Comment