Credulous—adj.—"willing to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence; gullible."

The face of credulity in the media is Andrew Ross Sorkin, hardworking New York Times Wall Street reporter and sometime Wall Street shoeshine boy. You cannot question Sorkin's work ethic. You cannot question his deep connections on Wall Street. And personally, I don't even question his sincerity. I do not believe that Andrew Ross Sorkin is a nefarious, scheming, two-faced spy, sent to do the bidding of Wall Street bankers in the halls of the nation's most important news outlet. I just think he is so dangerously, moronically credulous that his writing constitutes a danger to the public.

Andrew Ross Sorkin sincerely believes that Wall Street banks are full of fundamentally good people doing fundamentally good things. He really believes that Occupy Wall Street was misguided. He really believes that his personal friendships with well-connected Wall Street scions tell him all he needs to know about their merit. He really believes that corporate CEOs should be admired for the deep personal anguish they display while dodging U.S. taxes. And, in today's column, he really believes that the practice of Wall Street banks paying special financial bonuses to executives who leave to go work for the government has the primary effect of encouraging selfless public service, rather than having the primary effect of ensuring that our government and its regulatory agencies are at all times filled with a large contingent of Wall Street loyalists, who will ultimately serve the interests of Wall Street.

To Andrew Ross Sorkin, ace financial journalist, skepticism of this practice amounts to a "populist shakedown" of goodhearted Wall Street banks. He wrote that!

Let's start with a basic question: Do we, as a country, want our most highly qualified employees from the private sector to pursue public service?

The answer, I would imagine, should be yes.

For Andrew Ross Sorkin, it is self-evident that the "most highly qualified employees from the private sector" are Wall Street bankers, and that the skills and temperament possessed by Wall Street bankers are what our government needs more of. "That's not to say that altruism is ruling corporate or even employment decisions or that a revolving door problem doesn't exist," he writes. "It does." After writing those words, he continues merrily on to his previous conclusion, ignoring the implication of the revolving door problem altogether. Because Wall Street is full of good smart guys, and to imagine that they would do anything other than good smart things if they were handed the keys to the agencies that regulate Wall Street is just to be too gosh darn cynical.

It is not all that surprising that Andrew Ross Sorkin holds the views that he holds, based on his upbringing and particular set of friends. It is surprising that the New York Times lets him cover Wall Street.

[Photo: Getty]