the problem of political incorrectness
Shifting through the odd “bullet point” list of “offensive” statements by the latest Trump Fed pick, what I’m struck by in uneasy “mixture of ‘sure’ and ‘not really'” which is what is always going to end up roiling this project and will mar it as an effective political “hit”…
… Aside from the sense that the Nixon parallel we have is Trump is thinking through no later than his presidency on “what he wants”…
… or, for that matter, the always problematic political reality of “Never Apology” and “punch forward” — political pluses otherwise tend to be weak…
Untangle some of it.
That said, Moore did bring up the recent CNN article that looked into a number of columns Moore had written between 2000 and 2003 for the National Review, including one where he declared that women should be barred from announcing college basketball games, mocked the idea of women officiating basketball — a sentiment he doubled-down on in the next column, and an entire article arguing against pay equality in pro sports.
The last one is the loaded “not necessarily without point” (depending on what the argument is, and I suppose “You Must Watch the WNBA if you watch the NBA” is the sort of “cultural elitism” against the heartland the Paul Krugmans must contend with in dealing with this sort of sorting out) that confounds the whole “bullet point”s. But the one I’m fascinated by is this 2002 “bit” on college basketball broadcasting…
1. No Women. Here’s the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no women announcers, no women beer venders, no women anything. There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant.
2. Bonnie Bernstein should wear a halter top. This is a no-brainer, CBS. What in the world are you waiting for? To quote the immortal Wayne of Wayne’s World, “If Bonnie were president of the United States, she’d be Babe-raham Lincoln.
7. More probing interviews by Bonnie Bernstein. Did I say this already? I welcome readers’ ideas about further reforms in this sacred institution.
Funny ha ha in the pages of the National Review. The thing about this is that I don’t exactly have a problem with it and would just want to roll my eyes on it — (exaggerated satire with no real point)– if it were from someone not seeking an executive position. The problem I end up with this theory that all I want to see published from a looming Fed chairperson, two decades down the line, is dry economic arguments or coursework. You leave the crass “marketing of entertainment to the caveman consumer” business to your pundits not entering government officialdom. It suggests a lack of seriousness of purpose. Seek your fun and games outside the published realm.