Last week, Niall Ferguson (an "economic historian" at Harvard) provided a controversial analysis of Keynesian economic policies, arguing that John Maynard Keynes was just too GAY to be a good economist because of something having to do with too much buttseks and no babymaking (no, seriously, this was pretty much exactly what he said.)

But don't worry, it's cool, he's sorry you were offended so he has issued an apology, mansplaining that:

1. he cannot possibly be homophobic because he has gay friends,

2. he cannot possibly be racist because he has a Somalian wife,

3. Keynes WAS in fact gay,

4. So there.

Do you think we are perhaps jesting, or exaggerating? No, we are not, actually! Here, let us take a tour through Niall Ferguson's "apology," noting throughout that THIS IS A HARVARD PROFESSOR.

Last week I said something stupid about John Maynard Keynes.  Asked to comment on Keynes’ famous observation “In the long run we are all dead,” I suggested that Keynes was perhaps indifferent to the long run because he had no children, and that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes’ wife Lydia miscarried.

*cough* anassclownsayswhat *cough*. Sorry, we should really get that taken care of. It's just that we have an uncontrollable reaction to smarmy blowhards. What were you saying, Niall Ferguson?

To be accused of prejudice is one of the occupational hazards of public life nowadays. There are a remarkable number of people who appear to make a living from pouncing on any utterance that can be construed as evidence of bigotry. Only last year, though not for the first time, I found myself being accused of racism for venturing to criticize President Obama. This came as a surprise to my wife, who was born in Somalia.

FYI: he compared President Obama to Felix the Cat and then wrote another one of these "apologies" explaining why it was not racist to do so. What does this have to do with his wife, we wonder? No idea, he doesn't explain.

The charge of homophobia is equally easy to refute. If I really were a “gay-basher”, as some headline writers so crassly suggested, why would I have asked Andrew Sullivan, of all people, to be the godfather of one of my sons, or to give one of the readings at my wedding?

Translation: hey I'm not gay! I have a gay friend! And it's Andrew Sullivan, who is also kind of a blow-hard, but whatever he's GAY, ok?

Not for one moment did I mean to suggest that Keynesian economics as a body of thought was simply a function of Keynes’ sexuality. But nor can it be true—as some of my critics apparently believe—that his sexuality is totally irrelevant to our historical understanding of the man. My very first book dealt with the German hyperinflation of 1923, a historical calamity in which Keynes played a minor but important role. In that particular context, Keynes’ sexual orientation did have historical significance. The strong attraction he felt for the German banker Carl Melchior undoubtedly played a part in shaping Keynes’ views on the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath.

In other words: Keynesian was so gay (HOW GAY WAS HE?) he was SO GAY that he was in love with this German banker and this is why he had certain views on the Treaty of Versailles. So SEE, his gayness WAS relevant.

Except it wasn't, of course, any more than, say, Lincoln's "straightness" was relevant to the Civil War.

Shock, horror: Even the mighty Keynes occasionally said stupid things. Most professors do. And—let's face it—so do most students.

What the self-appointed speech police of the blogosphere forget is that to err occasionally is an integral part of the learning process. And one of the things I learnt from my stupidity last week is that those who seek to demonize error, rather than forgive it, are among the most insidious enemies of academic freedom.

See you guys? EVERYONE IS DOING IT, so get over it. Also, students are stupid too, so there.

Once again, this is a HARVARD PROFESSOR. Not only is Niall Ferguson a HARVARD PROFESSOR, he is apparently a Very Serious Person who gets invited to places like the Aspen Ideas Festival and advises Very Serious foreign policy persons.

If this is the best and brightest, we are in serious trouble. But we knew that already.

[Harvard Crimson]

Donate with CC

HOLY ACHTUNG TWITTER IS FREAKING OUT! Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office (SCO) has issued a statement, almost 24 full hours after Buzzfeed's story on Donald Trump ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the failed Trump Tower Moscow deal started blowing everybody's minds. Mueller's spokesman says actually BuzzFeed got it a bit wrong. This is significant because 1) Mueller's office NEVER talks, and B) well, they're not actually saying BuzzFeed got it WRONG wrong. Just, you know, kinda wrong.

Wow, that statement is lawyered as fuck. BuzzFeed described "specific statements" wrong, and its "characterization of documents and testimony" was just an eensy bit off, and maybe if BuzzFeed moved this sofa over here it would take advantage of more natural light in the room, and honestly, BuzzFeed should trim up this one paragraph of its article, because those sentences DO NOT SPARK MARIE KONDO'S JOY.

Otherwise, it's great!

First of all, we want everybody to relax. Donald Trump is still a criminal.

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

It's been a joy watching the reactions come in from TrumpWorld about the news that Donald Trump has committed YET ANOTHER CRIME, in this case suborning perjury by instructing his former lawyer thug fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. How many other people did he do that with? WE DUNNO! But that's not what this post is about.

First of all, let's see what the big guy himself did. As with all presidential statements from the un-president, it happened on Twitter:

Oh wait, that's (grapes) not it. Here it is:

That's right, the president of the United States reacted to a bombshell news report exposing that he had tampered with a witness by suborning perjury by ... tampering with that witness some more in public, by threatening his father-in-law! (To be fair, Trump has been trying to intimidate the witness by encouraging the feds to investigate Cohen's father-in-law for a hot minute now. It's one of his things, like tweeting and pooping at the same time and comparing WALL to WHEEL.)

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc