Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Wake Up, You're Liberal: Again

I have a question for Eric Alterman. Is it weird to get paid to write a book someone else has already written?
Posted by at

14 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 at 8:11 AM

    You sound bitter again Ted. It doesn't suit you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Reform Baal TeshuvahMarch 26, 2008 at 8:32 AM

    We need a new book of this kind for each election cycle, and a new prophet.

    Did he lift your language?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 at 8:37 AM

    Did you look at the content? If it's vastly similar to yours, what are your options?

    ReplyDelete
  4. AngeloMarch 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM

    he saw how you gave up on suing cuntler and figured "what the hell".

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 at 1:19 PM

    When someone has a original, good, idea it's not uncommon for others to copy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 at 1:31 PM

    Rechardf8's comment reminds me of some story, (which may be fictional) about a reporter who asked Einstein "What's the newest thing in science?" to which Einstein replied with feigned surprise, "Oh, do you already know all the old things in science?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM

    Ain't it funny how an ugly word is only sexist when not applied to a conservative female.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousMarch 27, 2008 at 7:38 AM

    OMG Ted! I just got WAKE UP on Amazon a few days back. I was reading it on the train ride in and someone asked me, "What's the deal with THAT guy?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marion DelgadoMarch 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM

    If this is "bitter," it's hardly new. Uh, are people just now noticing Ted Rall has a snarly approach to virtually everything? If so, what is he famous for for YOU?

    That said, on balance, I prefer Ted's book.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aggie DudeMarch 27, 2008 at 8:07 PM

    This is why I prefer the Academy to journalistic publications. Did he site you? In Academia a new book is only accepted if it provides a new idea, or cites an existing idea and applies it to a new context. That way we ensure a continuing dialogue with an existing body of knowledge, rather than people reinventing wheels, and sometimes reinventing square wheels at that.

    Ted, if your chief concern were educating people, I would think you would be happy at the large number of sources this idea permeates from. What's the matter with Kansas also comes to mind.

    However, Robert Kennedy once said that 80% of Republicans are really democrats and don't know it.

    I don't think the idea originated with you either. I agree that there needs to be not one of these books per election cycle, but a bombardment of all forms of news media about the evils of the American right wing and the fascism of multinational corporations.

    For God's Sake, the last 8 years has made Pat "Bulldog" Buchanan look reasonable and educated (at least, sometimes).

    I think you're doing fine in the world, Ted, a lot of people aren't....this is a silly grievance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousMarch 28, 2008 at 2:17 AM

    Is that snarly or gnarly?

    ReplyDelete
  12. AngeloMarch 30, 2008 at 5:38 AM

    Academia hardly prevents square-wheels recycling. A doctor of economy was kind enough to inform me today that every example of successful development involved a sustained era of state activism and an eschewing of free markets (ditto for the US). Still, the debate rages on. Scholarly articles on development are coming out, talking about stimulating direct foreign investment, eliminating trade barriers and imposing fiscal austerity measures.

    Ted rarely gets any credit (besides from us). Still he plods ahead. I take these gripes as reminders to you and I to write letters and call radio stations so Ted can get back on radio, where he belongs. Ted, those tapes are not going to log and digitize themselves...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Aggie DudeApril 1, 2008 at 2:16 AM

    Angelo,

    I wouldn't include economics in Academia....Economics departments SHOULD be part of Math departments, they're only separate because of a sustained right wing effort to 'intellectualize' neo-liberal economic theology...and it IS a theology.

    This doesn't hold true for Agricultural Economics...which, though flawed in its emphasis on production agriculture and efficiency, AT LEAST deals with reality.

    So Economists writing about development is comical to me, and is not an adequate argument. If you want to see REAL development literature you need to look in sociology, anthropology and agricultural economics (which is, to beat a dead horse here, predates the Milton Friedman school of economic theology).

    The problem with any liberal on the airwaves is that people have been so trained into partial consciousness that they can't follow in depth analysis of anything unless they're being paid to do so, which is why I'm pursuing one of the best careers out there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AngeloApril 1, 2008 at 9:33 AM

    aggie, I think a discussion concerning whether or not to, say, nationalize public works, or institute protectionist trade policies, are substantive development discussions which are probably worthy of academic evaluation. I can't believe that Keynes applied his economic theory from a purely mathematical standpoint. It sounds like you are making a larger argument against phoney chin stroking in applied economics. I could not agree more. There are working models out there, stop debating. Do what we all know works.

    It seems like the right never looks at who is actually right. Rather, they look at what "worked" for the left, and they try to exploit the "strategy". So they would see Keynes as an opportunist who broght economics to the left, and now they just need to do the same thing for the right. They saw liberals overturn the committee system in the 60s, and thought "if we could just do something like that, but for OUR side".

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)