humanae hostiae

Dr. Krugman’s latest piece in The New York Times may be a poetic and persuasive diatribe against the “policy elite” and the “responsible economic policy” they set, but it has also made me want to put him in a new level of Dante’s Inferno, one reserved for those who have offended the classics gods and us who follow them.

His article, “Appeasing the Bond Gods,” begins as follows:

As I look at what passes for responsible economic policy these days, there’s an analogy that keeps passing through my mind. I know it’s over the top, but here it is anyway: the policy elite -- central bankers, finance ministers, politicians who pose as defenders of fiscal virtue -- are acting like the priests of some ancient cult, demanding that we engage in human sacrifices to appease the anger of invisible gods.

It’s the end of the last sentence that gets me. While poetic, as I said, and over the top, as he said, the predicate implies that priests of ancient cults (“some” here being quidlibet, “whichever” or “any you please”) generally “demanded that we engage in human sacrifices.” As someone who has studied some of those “ancient cults” and has a professional interest in interesting others in them, I do not appreciate Krugman’s implication, intended or otherwise. Certain cults at certain times in certain places may have included human sacrifice as a regular practice, but that does not seem to have been accepted practice among the majority of cults in the Greco-Roman world - among which may be mentioned one famous cult in particular (hint: it revolved around a figure with the initials J.C. who was not Julius Caesar). Although non-classical cults have become and continue to be popular, a significant percentage of Krugman’s readers will no doubt associate “ancient cult” with the Greco-Roman world and therefore draw the conclusion that human sacrifice was commonplace there. I’m only sorry that such a respected and widely read economist can be held responsible for that assumption.

devotio

Michael Bennet, a freshman senator from Colorado, recently affirmed in an interview on CNN that he will vote for health care reform even at the risk of losing his job.

Let's ignore for the moment that voting for health care will likely improve his chances for re-election in 2010, as noted (rather subtly) at the end of the article. The question itself was phrased in such a way that had he said anything other than "yes", he would have openly admitted to putting concern for his job over the best interests of his constituents. In other words, any other politician would have said the same thing.

Bottom line: Bennet's answer doesn't amount to much of a sacrifice, and it should not be advertised as such.

Of course, propaganda of this sort isn't likely to change anytime soon ever. It seems Ambrose Bierce hit upon something timeless when he defined politics as "a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles; the conduct of public affairs for private advantage." But the media should do better than falsely promoting politicians like this.

Oh, for the days when self-sacrifice meant dedicating yourself to the gods, throwing yourself at the enemy, and to hell with you if you survived!

cogito ergo deleo

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) - who is currently trumping up his experience as a medical doctor and making a rather poor attempt at covering up the fact that his colleagues won't take Medicaid patients because they simply don't pay as well - just used the term "less good" on the floor, and not in the sense of "to do less good" but in the sense of "I don't know the word 'worse'" (I would even have taken "not as good").

You could object that "less good" might be used when you want to acknowledge that, say, the result of patient care through Medicaid is not exactly bad, but rather not as good as that provided by private insurance. I still say it's wrong, except maybe in rhetorical play: "a less powerful tool, and therefore less good", or "Some Good (and Less Good) News". The last time the phrase "less good" was popular on its own was when it appeared in a (much-ridiculed) quote from a Microsoft exec describing Windows Vista. Coincidentally, that's about the quality of oratory coming from Republicans at the moment. Bottom line: go back to grammar school, Dr. Coburn.

And Sen. Hatch (R-UT), learn how to articulate if you want anyone to listen (I really can't say "understand"). Though maybe it would be smart to keep a lid on your "holy war" against health care reform, unless you actually want to attract the attention of Homeland Security.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to parade their ignorance. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) just compared reading through the 2,074-page HCR bill to reading the New Testament in Greek, saying "it's better to have someone help translate." Seriously? I get that you can't read Greek - I don't actually expect you to know Greek, though it would be nice - but apparently you can't understand English either, even legalese. Oh wait, isn't that your job?