Would somebody send Gladwell back to cool-hunting?:
In the current New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell proffers what he calls (at his blog) a “semi-defense of Enron.”
Insofar as “defense” implies an argument or justification for something, the article is nothing of the kind. Rather, it is a perfect specimen of the sort of fuzzy-headed, attention-mongering contrarianism that frequently pops up at Slate, and that has, for the past several years, leaked from the pens of Caitlin Flanagan and David Brooks into the pages of our nation’s most esteemed periodicals.
The article is so patently ridiculous, in fact, that I was prepared to ignore it. Until I noticed that the libertarian sector of the blogosphere has erupted into a chorus of hosannahs. Did anyone even read this thing?