June 02, 2005
Krugulantly
After Daniel Okrent's retirement as the NY Times' Public Editor, he took a parting shot at Paul Krugman, and a debate between them ensued at the NYT Forum. Among other gems, Okrent made this comment:
"When [Krugman] says he agreed 'reluctantly' to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word 'reluctantly;' I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. "
I admire Okrent. He made me understand how tricky the news business is. I've seen him castigated from Left and Right, and he has largely persuaded me that the reporters at the Times, whatever their opinions, do a decent job.
In a small gesture of appreciation, I will offer a few tentative neologisms to try to fill the void in the English language with "an adverb sufficient to encompass [Krugman's] general attitude toward substantive criticism."
Krugmanishly - a straightforward concatenation of the name root, the adjectival suffix "-ish," and then the adverbial suffix "-ly." This is acceptable and follows the normal rules of English construction, but is too boring.
a k.paulla - a pun on "a cappella," but would fit better if the condition or activity (in this case reluctance) had overtones of 'solo' or 'unaccompanied'
Krugmanicly - similar to the first choice, but better because it includes the word 'manic'
Krulugtantly - basically an anagram style solution, starting with "Kru" and then inserting a "g" where practical
Pulishly - from "mulishly." We can't really use "paullishly" because the name "paul" is too common. The neologism should suggest Paul Krugman and reluctance, but I dont think it can just pick up the whole first name.
I favor 'krulugtantly,' which on second reading also suggests a connection to a "cruller," and any time a pejorative term can be related to a donut, that helps to hint at silliness.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Update: Commenter Parrish came up with the best one yet: "Krugulantly," similar to "truculently" and "petulantly."
Posted by Commissar at June 2, 2005 08:55 AM | TraktorBack (0)
I vote for krulugtantly.
Extracted from: rbj at June 2, 2005 02:02 PMKommissar has picked up a fan in IraqWarWasWrong!
http://iraqwarwrong.blogspot.com/
Just a dhinger now, apparently!
i might go with "krugulantly", to simplifly the syllables . . . it also implies "truculently".
Alternative;
Kruculent, as in truculent...
Krugarrulously: Absorbed in one's own abundant wordflow despite the needed criticizm from your editor.
(But just cuz I was thinkin' Krugulantly but Baker beat me to it...)
Extracted from: MBains at June 4, 2005 09:18 AMKrugmen is smelling like a rose because Bush is a failure so far. Let's think it through folks:
A lot of you support Bush. I ask simply what it is you think he's going to do given what he has already done?
Bush was given a budget surplus, record employment and tax revenues, no cold war, undisputed status as the world preeminent superpower. He hails from a family with a hundred years of experience in politics, his cabinet included folks with impeccable credentials. And as if all that wasn't enough, both houses of Congress boasted republican majorities.
After 9-11 he got on top of all that a unified nation and the sympathy of the entire world.
Then he was given an extra four years making him a two term President ... What more does he need to achieve a good clear demonstration of what his 'vision' leads to? How clear of a shot does Bush need to demonstrate if he can hit a target or not?
If, with all that going for him, he hasn't delivered some real progress, one has to wonder what the hell it would take for his policies to work? I mean goddamn, what exactly is it this guy needs for his economic vision to succeed? How much of a head start does he expect or want? No new President has had it this good in almost a hundred years from Day One. What realistically more could he have possibly had to help him?
What is it you think is going to happen to change?
The answer just might be those policies don't work as advertised all these many years. The answer just might be that enormous tax cuts don't solve everything, that they instead make things worse if they run up huge debt. The answer just might turn out to be that letting business run roughshod over Congress and the populace does not translate into a workers paradise. The answer just might be that using the military to enforce our will on other nations should be a last resort for a very good reason. The answer might turn to be that Bush's ideas are failures one and all.
What is it you're hoping will change exactly?
Because the cold, hard, statistical fact is, during George Bush's tenure, every gift he was given has turned into shit. His record on this is virtually 100 percent. Instead, a scant five years later, we find ourselves embroiled in a losing, unpopular, expensive war hemorrhaging cash and blood, record back to back budget shortfalls and record borrowing, the world hating us, the nation more bitterly divided than any time since the Vietnam Conflict, a stale economy, and corruption and incompetence at every level in Washington- where our leaders are debating shit like Terry Schiavo and stem cell research; fucking-a, I literally would not have thought it possible for things to go from such lofty prosperous heights to such dismal conditions that fast. If someone had predicted it a few years ago I would have laughed at them. But those are the facts. You have to live it to believe it.
HE WROTE A TRILLION IN HOT CHECKS AND IT DIDN'T WORK. So what is it exactly you're waiting for from Bush?
In the meantime, more Americans have been laid off under Bush than since Carter. More Americans have lost there health insurance under Bush than since we've been keeping records. More Americans are working shitty jobs that ever before. More Americans have lost their pensions and life savings than under any President since the great depression. More Americans have lost lives, limbs, eyes, and blood, than since Vietnam. More civilians world wide have been killed under Bush than since Nixon.
What is it you're waiting for? What is it you think will happen?
Fact. What we've learned about George Bush's economic and National Security policies so far: In five years we've learned without a doubt:
They.
Have.
Not.
Worked.
So I ask you, Bush supporters, what is it you're waiting for? What is going to happen that will change this dismal record? And at what point do you admit it isn't happening? How many have to die, to be laid off, to be maimed, to lose health coverage, for you to acknowledge the failure?
What the FUCK is it you're waiting for specifically to happen? Tell me, name it, tell me when we will see it, tell me exactly what it is you're waiting for to justify your faith in this President?
Extracted from: ~DS~ at June 4, 2005 03:32 PM"Tell me, name it, tell me when we will see it, tell me exactly what it is you're waiting for to justify your faith in this President?"
Being constantly confronted by overblown rhetoric like the above as our alternative sure helps.
