Newsweek changed into a parody

Posted by Zotta Rendevouz

Newsweek changed into a parody of itself several weeks ago—call it what you will, NewsBeast, The Everyday Poor, whatever—but is anyone even disturbing to chuckle now? This weeks time, it follows (as if to stability the scales) its “Is Mitt romney a Wimp” protect with a boost at Barack obama by ever-more-right-wing Niall Ferguson, named “Hit the Street, Barack.” Since Newsweek seems motivated by Ray Charles, perhaps it will put Associate Todd Similar on next week’s protect under the going, “What’d I Say?” Or the GOP title who skinny-dipped in the Sea of Galilee and “Don’t Let the Sun Capture You Weeping.”

Would you be amazed if it did?

I had written the following pillar yesterday day but so many others have critiqued Ferguson since that I believed an upgrade was more than guaranteed. So see content from Wayne Fallows, Phil Sullivan and many others at the end.

Paul Krugman, just returning from holiday, yesterday in a writing criticized Ferguson for serious and “unethical” informative mistakes. Getting to just one for now, he indicated to a ridiculously inaccurate declare about the CBO’s saying Obamacare will be including to the lack when actually it said no such factor. Krugman says an formal modification of this “cheap shot” by Newsweek is guaranteed. I’m wondering he will weblog about it some more these days.

Here’s the Ferguson item, via Everyday Monster, such as, yes, maps. Here is a brief studying guide:

• Even at a glance I can see that he uses 2008 numbers (from the Bush years) against the president, to show what we have lost—going back to before the economic collapse.
• Also, he makes the despicable claim, which isn’t even true, that half of Americans don’t pay taxes (by pointing merely to IRS net “taxable income”). And that half get some kind of government assistance—as if he wants to do away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps.
• He writes, “Welcome to Obama’s America,” when it’s more accurate to say, “Welcome to the Bush-Romney America.” Indeed, he finds only “some truth” in any blame for Obama’s predecessor.
• Plus he regrets that we left Iraq—and apparently wants us to stay in Afghanistan forever. Yet remains a deficit hawk.
• And then the inevitable: “I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.” Unsaid, of course, is that Ryan supported every major budget-busting move of the past decade. I love this: He writes of a dinner with Ryan in 2010, “Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.”
Get a room, guys! This is the Kristol-Palin affair, redux, with a little Rich Lowry on the side. Send Niall one of the shirtless Ryan shots, please.
And then: “But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.”
Come on Niall, even school boys know it should be “psychs out Obama.”