By Jeff Simpson
Recently, Paul Ryan gave a speech, so full of dog whistles, everyone in the room's ears are still buzzing!
In his latest column for the New York Times, Krugman slams Ryan for his controversial remarks, describing them as a “racial dog-whistle” intended to pander to white voters who think liberals are primarily interested in taking their hard-earned money and giving it to undeserving minorities. Mocking Ryan’s subsequent claim that he was simply “inarticulate,” Krugman sarcastically writes that the House GOPer “even cited the work of serious scholars — people like Charles Murray, most famous for arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.”Outside of the far right, it is pretty much a consensus what Paul Ryan was saying:
Everytime a politician on the right gets himself in indefensible problems, Christian Schneider attempts to ride to the rescue. This time is no exception as he calls Paul Ryan's racism a "good deed! To keep this in context, let us not forget that Schneider once had THIS to say about Paul Ryan:
But before we go on, let me take a moment to explain Ryan's code words:
"Inner city" = black, Hispanic or very poor whites.
"Culture" = lazy.
"We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture," Ryan said. "There is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with."
These words are harsh by Ryan's standards. He's usually more careful in his approach. Gee, wonder if he's planning to run in a presidential primary?
He's also dead wrong.
I, for one, am trying to determine which of my children to love less in order to make more room in my heart to love Paul Ryan more.
This time though, it is different. This time people are sick of Schneider being a paid hack! This time a subscriber spoke up, and summarized Schneider's work brilliantly(from the comments):
I value reading good columns from all sides of the political spectrum. A good writer can make a case for his or her position, to some degree. Christian Schneider isn't an example of that kind of columnist. This isn't the first time that he's supported a premise by cherry-picking facts. It isn't an accident that Schneider ignored Ryan's use of Murray, knowing some of the outrageous things Murray has written. It was easier for Schneider to make his case this way.
I've subscribed to this newspaper for 37 years. I never thought about cancelling when I disagreed with some editorials because it would be unusual to agree with all of them. But I can't countenance repeated dishonesty. Schneider doesn't belong on a newspaper and I'm starting to conclude that the JS doesn't belong on my reading list.
The paid customers are speaking ---- Is anyone listening?