November 24, 2003

Duranty fit in well with the culture of The NY Times. He anticipated the deliberate playing down of the news of the Holocaust in europe which was about to come.

Luskin is frequently a good "on the other hand" to Krugman's columns, but I think he's overstated his case on the book cover. For instance, he finds it inconsistent that Krugman said "I should have said..." in a situation where he supposedly had no control — Krugman saying "I should have said" doesn't necessarily imply control, but that he accepts that he is guilty for failing to react. People frequently react even when it will have no impact, and for Luskin to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or indicative of a limited human expeerience. (Also, pointing to Clinton's failure to recall is a shallow attempt to get his readers riled up — Ronald Reagan used the same reply with respect to Iran-Contra, but Luskin doesn't mention that because it would have the opposite effect, of making Krugman's response seem acceptable.)

As if "mendacious" does't apply to all political columnists -- if not in terms of outright lies, then in terms of being false or untrue!

Walter Duranty's defense: "they all do it".

False & untrue? Yes -- George Will, Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, they all do. Read your Daily Howler.

Outright lies where the columnist knows what he types is not true? Prove it.

The Daily Howler is currently tearing Bernard Goldberg's practices to shreds. In yesterday's column the complaint was over an unjustified attack on Frank Rich's use of homophobe (Goldberg didn't tell readers that his count of Rich's uses was over a 20 year period!), perhaps due to sloppiness. Goldberg also seems to rely too much on the resources of the Media Research Council, who not only misattributed a quote to Howell Raines, but in doing so created a Frankenstein passage using a 28 page ellipsis.

I made a link mistake in the post above. The correct link for the first article "yesterday's column," is here. Sorry!

"Outright lies where the columnist knows what he types is not true? Prove it."

If Duranty had no idea of the horror going on all around him, he had no business calling himself a newsman. If, on the other hand, he chose to shut his eyes to the truth and report back, contrary to what he knew, that all in all things were just fine and well... then yes, he was mendacious. What other word would you use?

I was responding to the use of mendacious re Paul Krugman. My point is that, because the word has additional meanings beyond 'lying,' but also the softer 'false' or 'untrue,' that 'mendacious' applies to so many columnists that it is not a very discriminating term (lots of columnists have written what has been shown to be untrue) UNLESS you use the 'lying' connotation (in which case it would be better to just call someone a liar, which doesn't have additional meanings). And if Horsefeathers intends THAT meaning, then they should prove that Krugman knew what he was writing wasn't true. I'm as disgusted by Duranty as you are.

Why don't you "prove" you're as disgusted by Duranty as you say you are. Your previous "they all do it" defense of him is on the record. Oh I guess that was a misunderstanding. Okay--hey, I don't really expect courtroom "proof"--you're not under oath and your comments can be judged for their worth without questioning your veracity. It's very enlightening actually to see the musings of someone with the moniker "hired contrarian". Your efforts to discern the distinction between lying and mendacity is risible. Thanks for the entertainment. I'm using "mendacious" in the "softer" sense you allude to, as for example, I would use mendacious to describe Mohammad Mattathir's description of the ways Jews control the world. He isn't "lying" in your provable sense. He is in the grip of a paranoid delusion which he honestly believes to be true. I mention the example of Mattathir because you presumably know that Krugman defended his delusional rantings--thus was not lying but simply shoring up a paranoid idea. A man truly worthy of a Hired Contrarian's defense.

Cant, cant, cant. You're the one making the charges, you prove them. I don't need to prove ANYTHING about myself, because I'm only refuting your phenomenally poor use of the English language. Twit. Why not call columnists "two eyed"? Do I have to teach you how to WRITE, for God's sake? You think that just because you have an Internet account and a bunch of software that you can spout off.

If YOU want to use 'mendacious' you might want to make sure it MEANS something. Otherwise you're wasting YOUR time typing it and everyone else's reading it. The word has lapsed into MEANINGLESSNESS, which is what I tried to point out. You might as well describe people as 'nice'.

Twit. You're mendacious (er, a liar) just in saying you avoid cant, because the foolhardiness of your ways has been pointed out to you.

Excellent, Hired Contrarian! Thanks for more humor. A friendly suggestion though: you ought to read Dr. Johnson to improve the sharpness of your wit and to broaden your awareness of the human condition. Education is a wonderful thing for someone like yourself who has strong sentiments but little knowledge. Your ability to reason is compromised by your premature efforts at seriousness. It is especially amusing of you to condescend about the craft of writing when you are so pretentiously incoherent yourself. Listen more carefully to your high school teachers. They can help you to form a logical argument and express it clearly. You may have a future, when you reach adulthood--in another 7 or 8 years, I'd guess, as a comedy writer. Al Franken hasn't cornered the market. Give it a shot. Meanwhile, feel free to find yourself a more compatible website. Might I suggest moveon.org?

Oh, and I'd recommend you drop the CAPITAL letters for emphasis. It weakens your already weak argument, as would yelling when you have nothing logical to say. These are basic things one learns by 10th grade at a decent school.

I bet you still haven't looked up 'mendacious,' nor thought about it seriously. Goes to show that vocabulary is a dangerous tool.

Hired, I saw your point — that mendacious doesn't say much when describing today's political columnists and one should use 'lying' if that what one means (and others may have understood it too) — but did you have to go so far afterwards, once you'd made it?

Mendacious, cool word! when the mendacious Tedd Rall wins his pulitzer for journalism, The N.Y.T. can exhibit it right next to Walter Duranty's.

Cool word. It's a weasel word. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. "Liar" works better, no ambiguity.

Hired Contrarian,
I suggest you finish your English as a Second language homework. Then check out the OED to expand your vocabulary. Doing so, you'll learn that many fine authors didn't, and don't, share your disdain for the 'mendacious'. While it was first used in 1616 (according to the OED) it remains a useful tool for writers. For someone like yourself, so obviously ill-educated and poorly read, it's easy to see why you'd prefer a shout, a capitalized word, an expostulation, to a reasoned argument requiring more mature thought. Why don't you join your fellow idiotarians at a site like democratic underground, or moveon.org.

That should read "don't share your disdain for the word, 'mendacious'.

Oh, it's a perfectly fine word, I'll grant you, but applying it to any political columnist, it OBVIOUSLY needs to be repeated, is silly, because you need not lie in order to be mendacious -- merely writing what turns out to be false is mendacious. Calling Paul Krugman mendacious is meaningless because Ann Colter, William Safire, Jonah Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Oliver North, Eric Alterman, Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, E.J. Dionne, George Will, Bob Novak, and so on and so on have printed material which was false. LYING -- knowing it's not true when you write it -- is different. And if you're going to charge Krugman with that, then the burden of proof is on YOU, blogboy. If you don't mean 'lying' when talking about political columnists, then mendacious remains a weasel word.

PROVE to the world that Krugman is LYING. It's put up time.

Can't back it up? No? Can't provide any evidence to your slanderous charge? Is this your response to free speech (for which people have died), that if you disagree with someone and can't refute them, you slander them? It's put up time, blogboy.

Hired Contrarian:
D+ for this one. You haven't heard my comments about capitalizing words. They don't help, in fact detract from your argument--such as it is. As Dr. Johnson said: "I have offered you an argument, I am not obliged to offer you an understanding." Nice of you to defend Krugman, the defender of Mattathir Muhammad and his Malaysian brand of anti-semitism. I'd say the word 'mendacious' is most apt for capturing Krugman's essence more forcefully than the overused word liar, which has been drained of power and meaning by the likes of you and Al Franken who apply it liberally to differences of opinion or errors of judgment. It's amusing that you think it's a stronger word, when in fact it has become a trivial charge that usually alerts one to the failure of argumentation of its deployer. Krugman in blaming Bush and Sharon for the Jew hatred expressed in Mattathir's anti-semitic canards, omitted mention of his role as economic adviser--for pay--to the same Mattathir Mohammed.
I think you would do better to expend your energies getting yourself an education. I could suggest a reading list. There are some excellent children's books to acquaint you with the glories of the English language. Even if you don't go on to learn what your betters have articulated over the centuries, this will stand you in good stead. Language is a very useful tool for the mastery of inchoate emotions of the sort you display here regularly.

That's a retort, not an argument, blogboy.

Just as I knew you would, you came up empty handed.

Hired Contrarian,
Try getting out from behind your computer. Explore the world beyond the web. It's good for adolescents to get out of their rooms. Try reading books, going to the theater, attending a ball game. It will, at least expand your impoverished vocabulary. Most children get past the point of screaming and yelling by age 6 or 7. I know, Michael Moore and Al Franken have converted such immaturity into great fortunes, but there's no evidence so far that you possess either wit or comprehension. Meanwhile, could you take your idiocy somewhere else where it would be greeted as profundity? I have an idea; why don't you gather your thoughts into a college essay. I'm sure the Ivy League would give extra points for your politically correct views- despite your SAT scores.

My opinions might be more welcome in the forums you've suggested, but as a good American, I feel replying to your nonsense is required of me. It's you who have chosen to come into such a public square, and your ridiculous opinions should be responded to.

H.C.: I was thinking of your own best interests when I recommended you take your mud pies, what you call "opinions" elsewhere. Someday you may develop an interest in getting an education. Once you master the basics of language and reasoning you will understand how foolish you have been and will look with shame on your blabberings. You may learn to respect your betters, those who have more knowledge of language and life. Right now you lack the necessary self-awareness to realize how risible are your efforts at coherent argument. As I mentioned, you should devote some of your energies to reading books with more to them than Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying liars that tell them". Why not start with Plato's Republic and work your way through the Western canon. The words tend to have more letters than 'liar', but with hard work and the OED near to hand, you might work your way up to average, normal comprehension levels. You may even come to appreciate the ways in which language evolves: a new word, coined on the web, applies beautifully to you, H.C.--"idiotarian".

Oh, you two are such savages! The boyfriend and I both cannot think of a single better way to demonstrate patriotism and political intelligence than by bickering on an important web site like this! I recommend you both consider something constructive, like becoming a Big Brother, or volunteering in a homeless shelter. All the rest of this hooha is like flags on the clips of your ballpoint pen. Forgotten when the ink runs out.

Not that I have any hope or expectation that it will help, but let me offer my own perspective on this matter. There are, it seems obvious, different kinds of lies, and the man who tells his wife the new dress she's wearing makes her look thinner (when in fact he can discern no appreciable difference) should not be considered in the same light as the man who says the Holocaust never occurred. Most people would agree that the former represents a far less egregious assault on the truth than the latter. Even if the first man speaks knowing full well that he lies, and the second speaks out of nothing but ignorance, most people would judge the first pronouncement 'innocent' and the second decidedly not; the second is clearly the more serious affront to our sensibility, though both statements are lies.

Should the second case be considered as an example of mendacity or just the ranting of an ignorant fool? I don't know. But the man who, through a willful disregard of the facts, promulgates an agenda meant to absolve the Nazis of their crimes does, most definitely in my opinion, deserve all the opprobrium the word mendacious is meant to confer.