My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes.
Has anyone READ the article?
I think that my summary is dead-on accurate.
If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
Has anyone READ the article?
I think that my summary is dead-on accurate.
If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
1. Your summary of what the article "boils down to" includes this: "The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill". There is no such thing in the article.
2. The article suggests reasons to think that the reason why the market is down is not "BECAUSE of Obama's bill". You neither mention these reason nor offer any objections to them. (The reasons are: (a) the market is noisy enough that typically day-to-day movements are mostly noise; (b) there is another good explanation for the market drop, namely China's recent doings.)
3. Your summary of the article includes this: "the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist". The actual article's complaints about the WSJ's politics don't include anything about authoritarianism or fascism, and the author says not that he's going to pretend they don't exist but that he's not going to take them so seriously any more.
4. You offer no evidence of the alleged consensus, no indication of whose consensus it is, and no reason to think that the alleged consensus is correct.
You can't talk about politics without talking about politics.
You can't talk about journalism by talking only about politics.
In a slate profile (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/cassandras/inde...) he's listed as disliking the stimulus because it wasn't big enough and wanting the banking system nationalized. Without passing judgment on the merits of his philosophy the man is clearly a leftist.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/did-obama-sellout-to-wa...
The original comment was saying "this guy is partisan and that's why he doesn't like the article".
You tried to refute that by saying "He dislikes both sides"
I'm saying he doesn't really dislike both sides. He dislikes one side and agrees with but is disappointed in the other. Those are vastly different things.
I probably shouldn't have said, "He dislikes both sides" when I should have said, "He attacks/criticizes both sides." My intent was to show he's not some blind partisan hack.
I'm not sure if he's a leftist either. Some people accused him of being a libertarian in the past.
Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower.
...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score.
You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
the only thing i can imagine is that this article doesn't line up with your own personal belief system, and you're violently rejecting it.