Category Archives: Punditubbies say Hello

A New Low For the News Hour

Just one week after giving a woman sporting white power tattoos a forum, PBS News Hour gave a platform to the known credentialed bigot and author of the Bell Curve, Charles Murray in its weekly segment on economics, Making Sense. This segment usually makes little sense since it  is hosted by the economic illiterate and sneering doofus Paul Solman. Solman introduced Murray, as an economist. Murray’s training is in political science not economics.

The topic at hand was the rise of Trump. According to Murray, people support Trump because elites are mean to them. Examples of elites were people in the media, a conservative boogeyman. The grievances of people who support Trump may be legitimate but supporting Trump is going to do zero to alleviate them. Murray’s analysis is plain wrong, Hollywood  or the “liberal” media did not create their problems but the 1% favoring policies of tax cutting, deregulation and union busting favored by most Republicans are the cause of their woes, which Murray was mum about.

By the way where can I find this mythical beast of the liberal media? What passes for liberal media on TV these days  is nothing more than conventional wisdom soaked, Republican friendly claptrap and PBS (Pure Bull Shit) News Hour is no exception to this trend.

So tired of the both-sides-do-it BS

By two_kittehs

David Brooks Pimps Rubio and Ryan

After his brief foray into the land of intellectual honesty, David Brooks, is back to pimping toxic Republican policies and politicians who espouse them.

Voters don’t have to know the details of their nominee’s agenda, but they have to know that the candidate is capable of having an agenda.

Don’t worry your pretty little head about Marco’s agenda just know that he has one and chose him, just like I have, says Brooks. He is pretty for a politician and has R after his what more can a columnist/ Republican shill want? Then he says this about Jeb:

He would probably be a very effective president. And he would have been a very effective candidate — but in 1956.

Is Brooks calling Jeb, Eisenhower? What is the evidence for this hyperbole. Apart from fixing the election in Florida in his brother’s favor what exactly are Jeb Bush’s accomplishments.

Ted Cruz looks likely to emerge as the candidate of the disaffected white working class — the noncollege-educated voters who are now registering their alienation and distrust with Trump.

A Harvard and Princeton alumnus is now the tribune for the disaffected according to Brooks. His own newspaper however says otherwise, far from being the voice of the working class, Cruz is the darling of hedge fund managers, who have donated generously to his campaign.

Coming back to Rubio, who has been hailed as the fresh face to look out for by the Beltway types for over year, has nothing to offer but stale ideas where policy is concerned.

His policy on taxes is the same as other Republicans.

He would simplify the tax code, reduce rates and move us toward a consumption-based system by reducing taxes on investment.

His bold new initiative according to Brooks

He adds a big $2,500 child tax credit that is controversial among conservative economists, but that would make life easier for working families.

In what world is $2500 tax credit, a big credit? That’s probably less than what Brooks gets paid per column. Also what if you don’t have any children?

Rubio is also trying to sell other warmed over stale Republican ideas like wage subsidies i.e. paying employers to hire people and flex funds that the states would administer instead of the Federal government. Giving power to the states may sound good on paper, but in reality, it has meant giving power to the states to screw over their most vulnerable members, usually minorities and women.  A look at the map of uninsured Americans is a telling example of what happens when the administration of social welfare policies are left up to the states

According Brooks, Rubio is an apostle of the new so called reform conservatism, which is nothing but old snake oil in new bottle. Reform conservative nostrums for the ailing economy are like telling a person who is a bleeding from a head wound, that it would be good if they also lost some weight. Yes, losing weight would be good in the long term, but you need to stanch the bleeding right now.

In economic terms, job losses and rising inequality are mainly the result of the demand shock following the financial crash, not some structural weakness In the economy. While fixing the structural problems is a good idea, a patient suffering from heavy blood loss needs a transfusion not lectures on how to improve his overall health by healthy eating and exercise. When the economy needed a stimulus, the equivalent of a blood transfusion, to make up for the private sector entrenchment, most Republican legislators voted against it.

If Ryan and Rubio do emerge as the party’s two leaders, it will be the wonkiest leadership team in our lifetime. That’s a good thing.

Rubio and Ryan are not wonks, they are smooth snake oil salesmen, of whom the beltway media approves, since they are easy on the eyes and better at peddling the economics that favors the media types and their friends than your average Republican legislator.

New York Times Will Troll For Clicks

Lately, the op-ed page of the venerable New York Times has descended into click bait with outrageous trollish op-eds. A sampling from the past few days:

First, Lolrus Bolton arguing against the Iran deal. Like we need advice from one of the cheerleaders of the Iraq fail show.

Then we had a doctoral student from Zimbabwe arguing how Cecil the Lion had it coming and how people mourning the lion’s senseless killing were childish imbeciles.

Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being “beloved” or a “local favorite” was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from “The Lion King”?


Last but not the least we have an associate professor in political science from the University of Virginia, commenting on the supposed smugness of liberals in general and Jon Stewart in particular. This august personage finds torture enabler Yoo to be reasonable.

Maybe that’s why my strongest memory of Mr. Stewart, like that of many other conservatives, is probably going to be his 2010 interview with the Berkeley law professor John Yoo. Mr. Yoo had served in Mr. Bush’s Justice Department and had drafted memos laying out what techniques could and couldn’t be used to interrogate Al Qaeda detainees. Mr. Stewart seemed to go into the interview expecting a menacing Clint Eastwood type, who was fully prepared to zap the genitals of some terrorist if that’s what it took to protect America’s women and children.

Mr. Stewart was caught unaware by the quiet, reasonable Mr. Yoo, who explained that he had been asked to determine what legally constituted torture so the government could safely stay on this side of the line. The issue, in other words, wasn’t whether torture was justified but what constituted it and what didn’t. Ask yourself how intellectually curious Mr. Stewart really could be, not to know that this is what Bush administration officials had been saying all along?

The strategy has paid off, the last two op-eds garnered more than one thousand comments. So what’s next for the Gray Lady? Someone writing how slavery was a wonderful institution or how colonialism improved the life of the heathens who just needed a benevolent civilizing touch?

By two_kittehs

Quiz for the Day

What do the following have in common?  Trotsky, Jeb Bush, 3D printer, Ali Baba, World War II, friction, complexity, Thailand?

Hint: All these words are a part of the same column/article.

Extra Credit:  Write a paragraph or an  essay that contains all the above.


By two_kittehs

David Brooks Plumbs New Depths Of Victim Shaming

According to the esteemed New York Times columnist and expert on humility, one not only needs to lead a  perfect life but also needs an impeccable pedigree to expect any kind of fair treatment at the hands of police or other authorities. In the case of  Freddie Gray, the most recent victim of police brutality in the news, Brooks puts both Mr. Gray and his mother on trial in his latest column.

Despite all these efforts, there are too many young men leading lives like the one Gray led. He was apparently a kind-hearted, respectful, popular man, but he was not on the path to upward mobility. He won a settlement for lead paint poisoning. According to The Washington Post, his mother was a heroin addict who, in a deposition, said she couldn’t read. In one court filing, it was reported that Gray was four grade levels behind in reading. He was arrested more than a dozen times.


How is this even relevant? Mr. Gray may or may not have been an angel and had an ideal childhood but how does that excuse what happened to him. I wonder if  Mr. Humility come down so hard on Bush II’s youthful alcohol related shenanigans? Did he blame the former First Lady and the President for their parenting skills or the lack thereof?

Tom Friedman Loves Himself A Strong Man

Tom Friedman loves himself a dictator, especially the kind that makes the trains run on time and is super efficient.

After World War II, Asia was ruled by many autocrats who essentially came to their people and said, “My people, we’re going to take away your freedom, but we’re going to give you the best education, infrastructure and export-led growth policies money can buy. And eventually you’ll build a big middle class and win your freedom.”

So he is all fine and dandy with Asia’s strongmen, including the Chinese ones. Hey, what’s a few million dead here and there, for the price of being a manufacturing hub to the rest of the world.

He pays his respects to the Singapore strong man Lee Kuan Yew:

Asian autocrats tended to be modernizers, like Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, who just died last week at 91 — and you see the results today: Singaporeans waiting in line for 10 hours to pay last respects to a man who vaulted them from nothing into the global middle class.

He finds it quaint that Chinese pre-schoolers are worried about College admissions.

Although Chinese, mathematics and English are supposed to be taught to primary school students, it is not uncommon to see pre-school-age children across China being forced to study these subjects.” The essay went on to explain why it wasn’t healthy to “begin preparing for the college entrance exam” in preschool.

What a problem to have! Kindergartens teaching math and English too soon.

What an idiot! He has no idea what is like to been a rat race, to scramble to be a part of the middle class, the pressure one is under to succeed even as a child, to land a coveted spot in one of the ultra competitive institutions of higher learning.

I know a little bit, what it is like in the India, the pressure for teens feel when they are taking the state level grade 10  and grade 12 exams.  Usually in the week after the results are declared, there are usually reports of attempted and successful suicides of children. It is beyond sad to read about a fourteen old feeling so much despair that they feel like ending it all. Only because they have fallen short of the scores required to get into the college of their choice.  I wonder if  MoU finds that quaint as well.

The Great Dictator

By two_kittehs (Picture by: SWNS)

My Irony Meter Just Broke

In the parade of clueless opinion pieces that grace the pages of the New York Times, last week’s op-ed contribution by Aatish Taseer takes the not just the cake but the bakery.  In his column, Taseer,  laments how the language of India’s past colonial masters is killing Indian literature.  The leaps of logic, the factual inaccuracies and over the top generalizations would  give even the Mustache of Understanding a headache.

The essay follows a classic Friedmanesque pattern.  Instead of the cab driver, we have a boatman on the Ganges, dispensing pearls of wisdom to the intrepid Mr. Taseer. How quaint, and shall I say, orientalist of Mr. Taseer.

A BOATMAN I met in Varanasi last year, while covering the general election that made Narendra Modi prime minister of India, said, “When Modi comes to power, we will send this government of the English packing.”

The London born, Amherst College graduate, decries that English has killed Indian literature.  There is so much wrong in this piece that I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, it takes a lot of chutzpah to decry the influence of English, while peddling books in the same language. I see a bright future in politics for Mr. Taseer.  He can join the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party, and rail articulately against the influence of English and grumble about colonialism, while he himself profits from his knowledge of the so-called language of oppression.

The boatman’s story is followed by anecdata of someone not getting an acting job because they could not speak English.  Since that supposedly signified that the actor was not a member of the elite. How this is supposed to prove the death of Indian literature, I have no clue.

This friend, an aspiring Bollywood actor, knew firsthand what it meant to be from the wrong class. Absurd as it must sound, he was frequently denied work in the Hindi film industry for not knowing English.

Also, what is this Indian literature he speaks of? I wonder. Surely, Mr. Taseer is aware that there is no language called Indian? India is home to many languages with their own scripts, grammars and yes literature, dating back to a thousand years or more. There is more to India’s linguistic diversity than the dead classical language Sanskrit and the language of the Northern India, Hindi, the two languages Mr. Taseer mentions in his essay full of fail.

India has had languages of the elite in the past — Sanskrit was one, Persian another.

English is far more widespread and easily attainable than these two languages ever were. Persian was the language of the Mughal court but unlike the British, even at the height of their power, the Mughals never ruled all of India.   The South and Northeast were never a part of the Moghul empire. As for Sanskrit, it has been an antiquated language of ritual for more than a thousand years .  Until recently, it was the sole the preserve of Brahmin males and  even  for them, it was not the everyday language of marital spats or gossip.  Also, no other language is symbolic of the caste divides in India, than Sanskrit.  

Both these languages did not have the reach or draw of English, ever. In a country with a multitude of languages English is unique. It does not belong to  a particular region of India , nor is it a preserve of a particular caste. For better or for worse, in India, English is the language that helps you rise above your circumstances and get out of the constricting straight jacket of tradition. Since it is both  the language of official business and higher education, it expands your horizons of what is possible.  English is not a language oppression for Indians but a language of opportunity. Indians have made English their own and added to India’s linguistic diversity.  It is the very opposite of Mr. Taseer’s claim;

English, which re-enacts the colonial relationship, placing certain Indians in a position the British once occupied, does more than that. It has created a linguistic line as unbreachable as the color line once was in the United States.

What total bullshit, how is the linguistic line unbreachable? You can’t easily change your skin color or gender, or your caste  for that matter, but you can learn a new language. English is not some antiquated language with five living speakers, there are plenty of resources available if want to master it.

He then follows this brilliant insight with the stories of two students from Banaras Hindu University. Presumably, Mr. Taseer was dropped there by the boatman from the first paragraph. Banaras is another name for Varanasi, a city on the banks of the river Ganges, Hinduism’s Mecca if you will.  Anyway, coming back to the aforementioned students, both give Mr. Op-Ed contributor a sad. 

First there is Vishal Singh,

a popular basketball player, devoted to Michael Jordan and Enfield motorbikes.

Playing basketball is not a route to popularity in India.  It would be more believable if Vishal Singh played cricket. Besides, Michael Jordan hasn’t played professional basket ball since Vishal Singh was in elementary school. Vishal Singh is probably as real as Mr. Ganges Boatman. Vishal Singh, apparently can’t string two sentences in English but he is still better off than a scholar of Sanskrit.


Sheshamuni Shukla, studied classical grammar in the Sanskrit department. He had spent over a decade mastering rules of grammar set down by the ancient Indian grammarians some 2,000 years before. He spoke pure and beautiful Hindi; in another country, a number of careers might have been open to him. But in India, without English, he was powerless.

What is so unique about Shukla, doesn’t everyone have to learn the rules of grammar when mastering any language? Why is Mr. Shukla powerless? If he can master the extra special rules of ancient Indian grammarians, surely he can use his linguistic skills to master English.  According to Mr. Taseer, Sheshamuni has spent ten years in the Sanskrit department, so I am guessing that he must at least be  a doctoral candidate in Sanskrit. I don’t see how knowledge of English is relevant to his career prospects as a scholar of Sanskrit.  Also, Mr. Shukla was surely aware that spending years studying a classical language would not make him marketable like an engineering degree would.  Would a  scholar of Aramaic or Latin be flooded with job offers after graduation ? I don’t see what these anecdotes are supposed to establish.

As for political power, the halls of power in India are not the preserve of the English speaking elite as Mr. Taseer would have us believe.   In fact not being fluent in Hindi is much more of an impediment to success in India’s national politics. In fact, eleven of India’s fifteen Prime Ministers originate from the Hindi belt and/or are native Hindi speakers. I remember that people would point and laugh at Rajiv Gandhi because he was not fluent in Hindi, when he was thrust into political limelight after his mother’s assassination.

Indian writers who write in English  get no love from Mr. Taseer either, he either dismisses them as owing their success to the West;

India, over the past three decades, has produced many excellent writers in English, such as Salman Rushdie, Vikram Seth, Amitav Ghosh and Arundhati Roy. The problem is that none of these writers can credit India alone for their success; they all came to India via the West, via its publishing deals and prizes.

or they are beneath contempt;

India, when left to its own devices, throws up a very different kind of writer, a man such as Chetan Bhagat, who, though he writes in English about things that are urgent and important — like life on campuses and in call centers — writes books of such poor literary quality that no one outside India can be expected to read them. India produces a number of such writers,

Mr. Pompous Windbag does not stop here, he then proceeds to speak for all of India, deeming it voiceless.

But this is not the voice of a confident country. It sounds rather like a country whose painful relationship with language has left it voiceless.

And who better to give voiceless Indians a voice, than a Russian?

The Russian critic Vissarion Belinsky felt in the 19th century that the slavish imitation of European culture had created “a sort of duality in Russian life, consequently a lack of moral unity.” The Indian situation is worse; the Russians at least had Russian.

Next up, lamentations about the good old days,

In the past, there were many successful Indian writers who were bi- and trilingual. Rabindranath Tagore, the winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote in English and Bengali; Premchand, the short story writer and novelist, wrote in Hindi and Urdu; and Allama Iqbal wrote English prose and Persian and Urdu poetry,

Hindi and Urdu are not two separate languages but the same language, Hindustani, written in different scripts. 

But around the time of my parents’ generation, a break began to occur. Middle-class parents started sending their children in ever greater numbers to convent and private schools, where they lost the deep bilingualism of their parents, and came away with English alone. The Indian languages never recovered. Growing up in Delhi in the 1980s, I spoke Hindi and Urdu, but had to self-consciously relearn them as an adult. Many of my background didn’t bother.

As I had suspected before, all this garment rending about voiceless India is about Mr. Taseer’s own angst and has precious little to do with the state of Indian literature.  Just because he can’t be a serious writer in Hindi does not mean that the literature of the said language is dead or dying. 


This meant that it was not really possible for writers like myself to pursue a serious career in an Indian language. We were forced instead to make a roundabout journey back to India. We could write about our country, but we always had to keep an eye out for what worked in the West. It is a shameful experience; it produces feelings of irrelevance and inauthenticity. V. S. Naipaul called it “the riddle of the two civilizations.” He felt it stood in the way of “identity and strength and intellectual growth.”

Mr. Naipaul is of Indian origin but  how many Indian languages does Mr. Naipaul speak? He is an observer of Indian mores, with a distant ancestral connection nothing more.  Why does Taseer choose him as the supposed  Indian voice of authenticity?


That day almost a year ago in Varanasi, the boatman felt that Mr. Modi’s coming to power would rid India of the legacy of English rule. Mr. Modi, who had risen to power out of poverty with little to no English, seemed to pose a direct challenge to the power of the English-speaking elite. The boatman was wrong. Though the election was in some ways a dramatization of India’s culture wars, English, and all that it signifies, will endure here for generations still.

This is ridiculous, as I mentioned before,  being fluent in Hindi has always been more important than mastery over English to succeed in politics.  Prominent Indian politicians whose English Mr. Taseer would approve of, are few and far between.  On the other hand political stalwarts whose oratorical skills in Hindi far surpass their skills in English are too numerous to recount here. The same is true at the state level too, where knowledge of the state language can make or break your candidacy.  Try to get elected in Tamil Nadu without speaking Tamil, for example. Linguistic politics are a minefield in India, English is as close to  a neutral language as one can get. With as many as twenty two officially recognized languages, there is no clear cut successor to replace English. To India’s millions of non Hindi speakers (60% of the population according to the 2001 census), why  would Hindi hegemony be necessarily better than English?

In reality, many Indians, especially  the ones whose mother tongue is not Hindi can speak three and sometimes even four languages. Take the hypothetical example of a Bengali person who grew up in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra and went to a school whose medium of instruction was English. This person would know their mother tongue, Bengali and  Marathi,  the state language of Maharashtra besides  Hindi and English.

In addition to formal Hindi education, the Hindi film industry is a potent pan Indian cultural force. Movies made in Hindi and other regional languages far exceed the revenues generated by Hollywood flicks. The relationship between Indian languages and English is far more complex than Mr. Taseer lets on.

If Mr. Taseer is not a competent Hindi speaker or writer, it is his own damn fault and he should quit projecting his neuroses on the entire country.


This is as deep an entrenchment of class and power as any the world has known; it will take more to change it than a change of government. It will take a dismantling of colonial education, a remaking of the relationship between language and power.The boatman spoke from anger, but I was not out of sympathy with his rage. It was the rage of belonging to a place that, 70 years after the British left, still felt in too many ways like an outpost.

Sure, lets go ahead and dismantle the teaching of English in India, and make the language a sole preserve of those Indians who can afford an undergraduate education at an elite liberal arts college.  Then they can write columns and be dismissive of their fellow countrymen for their poor English.

John Bolton Wants To Bring You The Sequel to Shock And Awe

The Shock will take some time to wear off

By two_kittehs

The neocons are back at it again, baying for another war in the Middle East. John Bolton, the man with the ridiculous mustache and even more ridiculous ideas wants to start a war to end war. Hmmm, I wonder where I have heard that one before.

Since their last project turned out so well, they want to go even bigger this time.  All this hysteria about Iran reminds of the buildup to the other neocon pet project, Iraq. We know how that turned out. I am rendered speechless by the temerity of the cheer leaders of the Iraq war calling the President  naïve.  These are the same people  who made pie-in-the-sky predictions about Iraq a mere decade ago, and are responsible for the needless death and destruction.

I have a suggestion for John Bolton and the Iraq fail brigade in the media and think tanks, if you want to talk about war: enlist first, talk later.

We Don’t Need No Education

Education “reformers” in the MSM have set their sights higher. Their next target, higher education. There were two columns in the NYT in the last week, on this topic. One by a think tank guy, who I had never heard of before and the another one by the Times columnist, Joe Nocera, praising the aforementioned think tank dude, Kevin Carey.

The gist of the both the columns in one sentence; since college has grown too expensive, the solution is  online degrees for the masses. I am sure NYT columnists and their think tank buddies will still go to college, preferably Harvard or Yale or the other Ivies.

Some of the grievances that Nocera brings up seem legitimate,  but both Carey and Nocera are also complaining about the money universities spend on research? Really? Who should we leave the research too? Think tanks?

Over time, the mission that came to matter most within the university culture was research. Great research institutions derived the most status.

Its not that the universities have no problems, but I fail to see how online degrees are going to change anything.  As far as I know, universities charge the  same  per credit hour whether it is online or in person.  If Carey wants to do away with universities altogether.   I wonder what exactly is going to replace a traditional university?

Free online courses won’t revolutionize education until there is a parallel system of free or low-fee credentials, not controlled by traditional colleges, that leads to jobs. Now technological innovators are working on that, too.

Yes that’s exactly what higher education needs, an Uber!  Has Tom Friedman aka Mustache of Understanding weighed in on this? This is my solution.

Your solution to the Rising Cost of Tuition; Only one nip mouse per credit hour

By two_kittehs

Joe Nocera Is Concerned

The story is depressingly familiar, a business that has been bleeding red ink for years, changes hands.   The new owner brings in new management to run the shop.  Management buzzwords are thrown around.  A major round of cost cutting follows.  Usually that involves firing old employees, assigning the remaining ones more duties, without any raises for the rank and file but a big fat bonus for the new CEO and upper management.
Hardly newsworthy material, one would think? Especially when the said business, has a consumer base of less than 50,000. However you would be wrong.

When the business in question is a magazine with a storied past, it is the subject of numerous opinion columns  in many national news outlets of repute.  The opinion writers who regularly write columns extolling the virtues of cut throat capitalism are not so sanguine when it affects them at a personal level.

Joe Nocera of the NYT devoted an entire column yesterday, to discuss this storm in a tea cup, details here. How dare some tech guy tell esteemed Beltway Pundits how to do their job? I mean, they are hardly  public school teachers, who Joe Nocera and every other Pundit worth his salt has no problem lecturing on about the same. After all TNR, performs the  vital job of introducing ugly right racist memes to polite discourse.
Good old Joe, is appalled that his esteemed colleagues at the TNR have to become click whores now, oh the humanity!

The New Republic’s business executives were trying to get the editors to do things that would attract more clicks. One executive suggested that Michael Kinsley — a former New Republic editor himself — come up with a listicle, à la BuzzFeed. (“10 reasons why health care isn’t a free market.”)


I wonder what NYT’s financials are like? Are they ripe for takeover by some tech Moghul?

Since I am not a TNR writer, obligatory click bait, Kitteh!

And filed away under I could care less

By two_kittehs