beck

I find it appalling that even the academic elite are now cowering in advance.  In today's Paul Krugman column, I read this:

The alternative would be policies that address the job issue more directly. We could, for example, have New-Deal-style employment programs. Perhaps such a thing is politically impossible now — Glenn Beck would describe anything like the Works Progress Administration as a plan to recruit pro-Obama brownshirts — but we should note, for the record, that at their peak, the W.P.A. and the Civilian Conservation Corps employed millions of Americans, at relatively low cost to the budget.

This is the same guy dubbed 'the shrill one' by his collegues for writing about economic policy (and a few other things) over the past few years and ultimately being right about it.  Apparently, being right hasn't done much for him.  Because now it looks like he's ceding his opinion to what's 'politically possible' even before he's fully laid out his argument.

With all that's going on now:  Fort Hood, Unemployment, Health Care Reform, and Wall Street Shennanigans, take a look at Huff Post's front page headline.

They're playing the freaking race card again! -- putting Glen Beck's comments from last July front and center (because a right-wing guy recently said he agreed with Beck).  Aren't there more important things worthy of headline status? Honestly.  (and I thought I'd seen some improvement at Huff recently -- maybe they figured they took a couple steps forward, so they're due for a step back?)

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/