Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

October 28, 2003

IT'S TIME FOR LUSKIN TO GO....Donald Luskin, like a too-clever adolescent who can't let go of an idea that he's convinced no one has ever thought of before, decides today to compound his inexcusable charge that Paul Krugman condones anti-semitism:

I'm pinpointing the fact that Krugman wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine in 1998, publicly supporting Mahathir's claims that "Jewish speculators" were responsible for the currency crisis — a statement so vile that Krugman has remained entirely silent about it in his recent web posting and in today's Times column.

Here is what Krugman wrote in 1998:

When the occasional accusation of financial conspiracy is heard - when, for example, Malaysia's Prime Minster blames his country's problems on the machinations of Jewish speculators - the reaction of most observers is skepticism, even ridicule.

But even the paranoid have people out to get them. Little by little, over the past few years, the figure of the evil speculator has reemerged. George Soros played a definite role - though probably not a decisive one - in the forced devaluation of Britain's pound sterling in 1992. In 1996, it was revealed that a Sumitomo executive had been rigging the whole world copper market, with considerable initial success....

Krugman then goes on to talk about possible stock market manipulation in Hong Kong.

Luskin hangs his odious allegation on the fact that Krugman thought at the time that currency manipulation was a genuine problem and that one of his examples — George Soros — is Jewish. That happens to be true, and it also happens to be true that Soros is rather famously linked with the run on the pound in 1992. However, using this celebrated example in no way supports Mahathir's comments about the alleged Jewishness of the speculators in his currency, and there is no way for a reasonable observer to conclude from Krugman's article — or any of his others — that he supported Mahathir's claims that Jews were responsible for Malaysia's woes.

It's no secret that NRO and I are on different sides of the ideological fence, but even so I have to ask: why do they continue to publish this guy? Hasn't he finally descended to the point where common decency requires them to ship him back to the hole he came from, free to bay at the moon where no one will pay attention to him?

Enough's enough, guys.

UPDATE: Jon Gradowski has more on Luskin's adolescent ravings. And uggabugga has a chart!

Posted by Kevin Drum at October 28, 2003 10:46 AM | TrackBack


Comments

A Krugman admirer complaining about a lack of common decency, now that is priceless!

Posted by: RossF at October 28, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, Kevin: NRO is long past the point where they worry about things like accuracy or integrity. They are a pure propaganda sheet that sometimes, thanks to monkeys and shakespeare, produces something worth reading.

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

That "action" shot of him lecture pointing cracks me up every time I see it.

Posted by: Jason McCullough at October 28, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Luskin is such a maroon.

Posted by: PS at October 28, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

PS - why bring color into this?

Posted by: LowLife at October 28, 2003 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

What's really sneaky is that Luskin gave himself an out - '...Krugman has remained entirely silent about it in his recent web posting ...'.

The Bushites are masters at BS.

Posted by: Barry at October 28, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

If Krugman had not in the past egregiously misrepresented the timing and nature of a limited partnership, in an effort to imply criminal activity on the part of people he opposed politically, and then failed to run an ethical and straight-forward retraction, I would have more sympathy when people like Luskin pulled the stunts that Kevin mentions. As it is, Krugman and Luskin can both be consigned to the category of hacks, with the difference being that Luskin's hackery doesn't benefit from the luster of acdemic achievement.

To those that would dispute my characterization of Krugman, I'm not going to revisit it again, with all the citations, except to say that googling Krugman's original NYT column on the Texas Rangers partnership, and his unethical response on his website, provides great insight at to what the object of Krugman's primary devotion is. Hint; it sure isn't an honest examination of the facts.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, jeez. Yet again, more moral equivalency from a conservative.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at October 28, 2003 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Please come up with some fresh BS, Will. What you've got is old and stale. Of course, Bushites will eat *anything*.

Bush benefitted from the Ranger partnership way out of proportion with what he put in [1]. The only question is whether the terms were decided when he was the sone of the President or when we was the Governor of the State.


[1] Don't bring up the idea that Bush got a bigger cut because he had unlimited potential liability - it doesn't hold water. Bush didn't have the assets to back up his potential liability.

Posted by: Barry at October 28, 2003 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Yawn...Will Allen has his moments, but his obsession on the Texas Rangers issue defies reason. Pay it no heed.

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

How much time is Luskin spending on Krugman? It seems like a minimum of 90 minutes a day. Luskin's obsession with PK is almost beyond belief.

Posted by: Quiddity at October 28, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Will Alllen, there you go again.

Give it a rest man. Give it a rest.

100 columns a year for almost 4 years and you keep harping about the Texas Rangers comment?

I mean come on, at least find something else.

Posted by: GT at October 28, 2003 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Lowlife, you knew I meant Luskin's a maroon in the Bugs Bunny sense of the word, didn't you? Maybe I should have called him a macaroon, but didn't want to bring cookies into it, either.

Seriously, the words "Paul Krugman" have been synonymous with "required reading" for a while now, as far as I'm concerned. And Luskin's willful distortions of his words are slanderous.

Posted by: PS at October 28, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

"why do they continue to publish this guy? Hasn't he finally descended to the point where common decency requires them to ship him back to the hole he came from, free to bay at the moon where no one will pay attention to him?"

This in a post about PAUL KRUGMAN... the ANN COULTER of the left!

LOL!!!

Posted by: Al at October 28, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

"How much time is Luskin spending on Krugman? It seems like a minimum of 90 minutes a day."

I know! It must be, like, three times the amount of time that Paul Coulter-Krugman puts in to writing his columns!

Posted by: Al at October 28, 2003 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

al, i know i'll regret this in the morning, but ann coulter simply makes shit up. Pretending that because they are both critical voices, they are actually equivalent is ridiculous.

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Al's posts are like a traffic accident. You know you shouldn't look, but somehow you can't help yourself.

Posted by: chris at October 28, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

No problem. There is peace in Iraq and the WMDS have all been found and destroyed. Afghanistan is secure and democratic. There are no jobless in America, all have medical insurance, supermarket clerks in California will find nice benfits and raises in holiday stockings, the environment is better protected than Teddy Roosevelt could have dreamed, no child is left behind, and on and on and on.

The only problem is Paul Krugman. Duh.

Posted by: Emma at October 28, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

If NRO were to fire Luskin for being a hack, it would start a domino effect that would result in pretty much every conservative writer in the country losing their job. It's the same reason AEI still employs Lott.

Hacks are the foundation of the conservative media pyramid. Take out the hacks and the whole thing crumbles into dirt.

Posted by: Hackticus at October 28, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Nyuk, nyuk. Thanks chris! Now if can just get someone to tell me how to make italics, I can stop using those annoying CAPS!


"ann coulter simply makes shit up." -- Howard

Hence the similarity to Krugman.

Posted by: Al at October 28, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

D*mn, but it's amazing, sometimes, to whatch the Bush apologists go at it. In a sick way, of course.

Posted by: Barry at October 28, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Fascinating. No post above even touches the question of obliquely (or otherwise) supporting a "anti-semitic" position. Does Krugman support the idea that powerful people (who happen to be Jewish in this instance) do manipulate currencies? This is a legimate question - but it will never be directly answered. If Krugman answers - "Why, Yes...." it is ammunition for anti-semites. If he answers, "Why, No." Then Krugman haters will smugly sit back and say - "I see, it appears someone edits their observations depending upon who could possibily be offended."

On this topic is it easy to paint Krugman into a metaphorical corner after he loudly proclaimed himself an iconclast to the powerful. By all means, do not discuss Krugman's position when you can talk about Bush, et al. Sort of like a right-wing wack-job using the words "Ruby Ridge" or "Waco" in the first paragraph of EVERYTHING they write.

Posted by: Californio at October 28, 2003 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

The GOP is trying to frame just about everything these days as anti-Semitism. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing that reading Paul Krugman is just like the Holocaust.

Posted by: bink at October 28, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

There is a measurable and non-insignificant difference between a person like Krugman whose work is wide ranging, thought provoking, fact based, and topical and a man like Luskin who writes primarily, obsessively, and personally about one other person--whose entire career is devoted simply to attacking and destroying that other person. There is also a distinct difference between any ordinary commentator on the political scene (whether on the right, left, or center) and Ann Coulter who has frequently and ritualistically called for the death of actual persons on the basis that the very idea of different political opinions within a democracy is tantamout to treason. If you don't like what Krugman writes, don't read it. But don't confuse his work--and it is real work, with some real thought and research behind it--with the hack abuse of the right wing commentariat.

OK its silly to get upset at trolls.

Posted by: aimai at October 28, 2003 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Reading Paul Krugman is just like the holocaust.

;)

Posted by: ANNthrax at October 28, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Al's just about as big a maroon as Luskin.

Krugman may make the occasional mistake, but at least he doesn't make things up.

Posted by: PS at October 28, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Californio, we don't touch on your question because it isn't a question. Read what Krugman wrote, and unless you are as captured by fantasy as Donald Luskin or Al, you will see that there is no there there.

Al, i know i should follow chris's implied recommendation, but you realize how foolish you look when you try to compare coulter and krugman?

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

"Does Krugman support the idea that powerful people (who happen to be Jewish in this instance) do manipulate currencies?"

Doesn't the quote from Krugman in Kevin's original post indicate clearly that his answer is something along the lines of: yes, of course they do?

I had trouble making up my mind whether to dignify the ludicrous Coulter-Krugman comparison, but I decided to offer the following: of course you can argue with Krugman's speculations and inferences. But what he rarely gets wrong are the _facts_. Maybe he is too enthusiastic in trying to argue that the facts show X Y or Z about the horribleness of the Bush administation, but the facts themselves are generally spot-on. Whereas Coulter wouldn't know a fact if one bit her skinny conservative butt.

Posted by: JW at October 28, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, what on earth gives you the idea that NRO's raison d'etre is intellectual credibility in the first place?

As far as I can tell, they exist to supply usable quotes for WorldNetDaily and Fox News.

And, of course, vice versa...

Posted by: p mac at October 28, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Come now; do you seriously expect decency from the NRO?

The NRO is, after all, the same sewer where John Derbyshire talked openly about killing Chelsea Clinton.

Not all extremists live in North Georgia and are named Ricky Lee or Jimmy Jeff. Some wear ties and write for the NRO.

Posted by: JadeGold at October 28, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

A reading a Krugman defense is always enjoyable experience in watching a new twist in sophistry.

Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog at October 28, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

I loved the part where it went: ...it must have been quite a thrill for Krugman to blah blah blah. And it must have been quite an ego-stroke for blah blah blah. But now blah blah blah Krugman dismisses his trip as "an unpleasant professional duty."

Bu.. bu.. but it must have been ... Must Have Been ... Yep, absolutely MUST HAVE BEEN.

Holy sheepshit batman, it's faith based criticism.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at October 28, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Any publication that carries Derbyshire, Stanley Kurtz, and Jonah Goldberg can't be all bad.

(end sarcasm)

I have only recently come across this Luskin fellow. It appears that he runs some kind of consulting company (at least that's what I got from his web site). I wonder who his clients are.

Posted by: raj at October 28, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

"The NRO is, after all, the same sewer where John Derbyshire talked openly about killing Chelsea Clinton"

Except he didn't, the column is here http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/GetChelsea.htm where he has added additional notes such as- "The only thing I have taken away from this silly flap is that there are far more humorless morons out there than I supposed." Jadegold you are one of them.

Posted by: RossF at October 28, 2003 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, folks. Why even bother with Al (infantile "zings"), Californio (complete reframing of everything to avoid cognitive dissonance), or timmy (new idiot I've never seen before)?

They're not interested in exchanging ideas or even challenging common notions, they just get off on trying to anger or ridicule their intellectual opposites (which in their cases would be anyone with a brain).

How about a good ol' fashion "you're idiots, fuck off", dropping the whole pretense that these people are worthy of civil discourse.

They don't give anyone the courtesy of sticking to reality, why should you give them the courtesy of being decent with them?

Posted by: Tim at October 28, 2003 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

The typical obsfuscations of the Krugman idolizers, along with the silly assumption that anyone who has the temerity to describe the plainly observable regarding Krugman's past behavior must either be a conservative or a Bush supporter. If Krugman had the ethics to run a proper retraction, I'd be happy to drop the matter. He doesn't, which means Krugman is a hack, period, and yes, one instance of dishonesty in an attempt to imply criminal activity, when not properly retracted, makes one a hack. Who is more "obsessed", one who ritualistically denies what is plainly observable, or one who describes what occurred, when similar behavior is denounced?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ooog understand Wonderdog's caveman grammar. Ooog no understand what couch has to do with thing.

Posted by: Ooog The Commie Caveman at October 28, 2003 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Krugman-bashing has disappeared, to a great extent, at least from where it was one year ago. And for a good reason. Now it really doesn't matter to the right what Krugman says. The point of all of the criticism on Krugman (and the rest of Raines/BBC/CIA cabal) was to suspend judgement on Bush's policies, not to offer an actual position besides 'We have to give Bush a chance despite what the negative equivocating nellies might arrogantly say and what their facts might prove.' Now that the policies are passed and Iraq is invaded, the time of Don Luskin might be going away--except maybe to keep up appearances that there was a debatable 'for' side, and to allow for Bush's critics to be right, a fact which seems to make the faithful even more faithful to their cause.

Posted by: Thomas at October 28, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Tim, I for one look forward to any analysis you may add to a conversation. Until then.

Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog at October 28, 2003 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! It's like trollpaper!

Posted by: Barry at October 28, 2003 01:10 PM | PERMALINK

If you read "The Return of Depression Economics", the passage on Soros was mostly about the incredible fact that one man decided to short the currency of a country and then proceeded to bring about its collapse. It's an incredible thing. And race didn't enter the discussion.

Posted by: Stoffel at October 28, 2003 01:12 PM | PERMALINK

What an ultramaroon!

Bush's corrupt Texas cronies turn a life time of failure into ten figures of boodle...but look there, Krugman sez he invented the internet!

Posted by: wetzel at October 28, 2003 01:15 PM | PERMALINK

RossF:

A prerequisite of jokes about such things as killing children, genocides, horrible diseases and the like is that they should be perceived as humorous.

Even rightwing hacks like Andrew Sullivan took him seriously. As did many others. This very fact alone renders Derbyshire, at best, guilty of extremely poor taste.


Frankly, I'm not alone in believing he was serious; a common tactic of extremists like Derbyshire is to claim he was either joking or taken out of context when they're caught on the wrong side of excess.

Posted by: JadeGold at October 28, 2003 01:21 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/smearagain.htm

Uh, folks - Krugman is Jewish. Ergo...

Posted by: Jon at October 28, 2003 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: testing at October 28, 2003 01:24 PM | PERMALINK

raj writes: ". It appears that he runs some kind of consulting company (at least that's what I got from his web site). I wonder who his clients are."

I don't know who, but I know *what* they are.

Posted by: Jon H at October 28, 2003 01:40 PM | PERMALINK

My favorite Derbyshire column was the one where he talked about himself and his wife going house-hunting in New York and finding themselves in a neighborhood with a lot of black people in sight, at which point they turned around and immediately got back on the train.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire082802.asp

Posted by: Brooklyn Sword Style at October 28, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINK

What the heck is with this "Donald Luskin" script
on his web page? And someone designed it?

img src="http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/dllsig.gif" alt="Logo by Tommy Carnase 1995"

I've read Luskin's account of the Krugman meeting.
He IS a stalker.

Posted by: J Edgar at October 28, 2003 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oops! I mean Derbyshire & Wife turned around and waited a half hour in the station to get on the first train out of town.

And no, NRO has no shame.

Posted by: Brooklyn Sword Style at October 28, 2003 01:49 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Brooklyn, I clicked on your link. That article was absolutely incredible. Some of the more meaty quotes from Derbyshire include:

"One time we got off the train in a town that was pretty solidly black. It took us about five minutes to figure this out. Then we went back to the railroad station and sat half an hour waiting for the next train."

"My wife, who never even saw a black person till she was 24 years old, is the same. On the other hand, no, I don't want to live in a black neighborhood, not even a middle-class one."

"King was calm and well-spoken..."

(I just love the "well-spoken" bit. Wow, Dr. King had, like, a doctorate and everything and he didn't sound like a complete moron when he spoke! Amazing!)

"You understand, I am sure, that when I talk about race, I am talking about blacks and nonblacks, the two races that inhabit the United States."

(Uh....thanks for the classification, Derby.)

Priceless.


Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2003 02:14 PM | PERMALINK

I would hardly hold up Luskin as a model of intellectual integrity, but he's nailed Krugman on factual misrepresentations and unfair presentations of the facts on so many occasions (as have numerous others) that it's hard to see why you would want him to stop unless you think that Krugman should be permitted to sling mud from the high perch of the NYT with immunity from criticism (you know, like in his latest column when he said that Bush should be blamed for job losses in 2001 but at the same time asserted that Bush defenders can't point to events in 2001 to explain job losses in 2001 because there's a "statute of limitations".). And you can't deny that Krugman is influential, which makes his columns important enough to demand scrutiny.

(BTW, the latest issue of NR has a review of Krugman's book by Luskin, which is mostly a "greatest hits" compilation of Luskin's criticisms of Krugman's columns.)

I might take the pleas for mercy from Krugman's defenders more seriously if he himself was either honest, fair-minded or civil. He shouldn't dish this stuff out if he can't take it.

Posted by: Crank at October 28, 2003 02:24 PM | PERMALINK

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam (Safire) out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote (Krugman) out of thy brother's eye."

Posted by: Mailer at October 28, 2003 02:33 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen: if Krugman is a hack, why is it that your attacks on him always go back to the same two old (and by now almost forgotten) issues? First, the Texas Rangers and Bush, and second, Army Secretary White (whom you didn't mention today, perhaps because even you have realized that your case is weak here).

Krugman publishes a couple times a weak. If he were really a hack, you'd always be finding fresh material. But in your dozens of anti-Krugman posts, you always come back to those two.

I'm not a Safirologist or a Will scholar, mostly because I can't stand to read those guys, but with a little effort I could easily come up with a couple dozen dishonest articles each by those two jewels of the punditocracy.

Posted by: Zizka at October 28, 2003 02:40 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for getting in on this so late, so I'll put my responses in "graze" mode:

Crank,
It's becoming more and more difficult to put the blame for the economy at the feet of 9/11. Time passes, and outside of tax cuts this administration has no other plan for growth and jobs.

Will Allen,
Krugman may be a "hack", but he has this administration down cold. Which doesn't say much for those non-hacks at the Post, Times, ChiTrib, Boston Globe, etc...

Al,
Paul Krugman as lefty Ann Coulter?!? I almost peed my pants. Surely this must be comedy, because no reasonable non-knuckle-dragging human would have tried it for fact.

Oh well, all I can do. Now it's time to go pick on the monkeys at hannity.com.

Bye!

Posted by: Sebastian at October 28, 2003 02:48 PM | PERMALINK

Crank, what in the world are you talking about? Krugman's column says nothing like what you claim, and you, like luskin, are simply caught up in the continuous misrepresentation of krugman because he has the sheer effrontery to point out that the emperor has not clothes, a conclusion that increasing numbers of americans are coming to share about bush.

In comparison to you and luskin, will allen is a font of reasonableness on krugman, even though zizka is, of course, absolutely right in his response.

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 02:51 PM | PERMALINK

Go Paul Krugman!

The fact so many right wingers boil over at the mention of his name gives him high marks in my book.

Just consider all the right wing creeps who've posted on this comment board.

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2003 03:06 PM | PERMALINK

WHAT THE HELL is this freakazoidal footnote at the end of the Derbyshire article in NRO?

"* You understand, I am sure, that when I talk about race, I am talking about blacks and nonblacks, the two races that inhabit the United States."

Is this what Conservatism means these days?

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire082802.asp

Genuinely shocked.

Posted by: bink at October 28, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry Zizka, I missed the part where I ever maintained that Safire and Will weren't hacks as well. I never read Safire, and stopped reading Will years and years ago. I stopped with Krugman pretty much with the Rangers column, although I paid attention to the White affair, which was less egregious in my opinion. I'll repeat: one instance of printing falsehoods, in an attempt to imply criminal behavior, qualifies one as a hack, if an ethical retraction does not follow. Krugman is a hack, and his hackery is all the worse for the fact that he trades on his deserved academic reputation to promote his hackery. That one who has printed lies, in order to sell innuendo regarding supposed criminal activity, pertaining to those one opposes politically, is upset because of dishonest attacks upon himself, is not suprising in the least, but it is pathetic.

Once it has been established that a writer plainly endeavors to deceive, it is best to avoid their writing, particularly when they write in a format, like that of most major media outlets, that precludes immediate critical response. What I particualrly appreciate about the blogosphere is that when someone tells a whopper, they can be immediately called on it, and respond in the same forum. Krugman's half-assed, dishonest, and unethical retraction on his website made it very clear to me that Krugman was pursuing a result-based agenda, without regard to facts, instead of an honest exercise in critical analysis. Humans, being imperfect, are all subject to this, but I find it particularly bad when such dishonesty involves dishonest innuendo regarding criminal activity, and yes, I said the same thing during the Clinton years. When such dishonesty is followed by an unwillingness to set the record straight, well, then I then have exactly zero concern regarding how such hacks are are in turn treated by other hacks. Let them all rot.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 03:22 PM | PERMALINK

Luskin is something of a nut. IMHO, he has about a 30% hit rate on Krugman, who tends to rush his columns and makes more mistakes than a Nobel short-list economist should.

Still, Luskin manages to make Krugman look good.

Posted by: J Mann at October 28, 2003 03:34 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian - My point isn't that current conditions can be pinned on Sept. 11. It's that Krugman says current job gains should be balanced against job losses early in Bush's term, but that you can't go back as far as the date of those job losses to explain them.

Huh?

(I love how this thread starts with a call for people on the Right to stop obsessing over each Krugman column's fresh misrepresentations and distortions and ends with people saying that more evidence is needed of recent ones by him. Personally I don't blog all his columns (life's too short), but I can see why some people do; there's easy pickins in most all of them.)

Posted by: Crank at October 28, 2003 03:45 PM | PERMALINK

Um, Will, are you trying to tell us in your inimitable way that once you discovered that Krugman was supposedly lying about Bush's connections to the Texas Rangers, you decided never to read him again? Is that why, after several requests, you have yet to come up with another alleged "lie" by Krugman in the hundreds of columns he's written since? Not that I'd believe that you or that idiot Luskin had actually shown that whatever Krugman said about the Rangers was a lie. Well, unless he said that Shrub showed basebal genius when he traded away Sammy Sosa.

Posted by: Basharov at October 28, 2003 03:52 PM | PERMALINK

Crank, you really have to work on your reading skills. Here's exactly what krugman says:

"Mr. Bush's employment policies would truly have been a success if he had left the job market no worse than he found it. In fact, even his own Treasury secretary thinks he'll fall five million or so jobs short of that mark.

I know, I know, the usual suspects will roll out the usual explanations. It is, of course, Bill Clinton's fault. (Just for the record, the average rate of job creation during the whole of the Clinton administration was about 225,000 jobs a month. Mr. Clinton presided over the creation of 11 million jobs during each of his two terms.) Or maybe Osama bin Laden did it.

But surely there must be a statute of limitations on these excuses. By the time of the election, Mr. Bush will have had almost four years to deal with the legacy of the technology bubble, and more than three years to deal with the economic fallout from 9/11."

It takes a vested interest in misrepresentation of krugman to turn that into: "Krugman says current job gains should be balanced against job losses early in Bush's term, but that you can't go back as far as the date of those job losses to explain them."

On the other hand, it also takes a vested interest in misrepresentation to turn kevin's discussion of the nitwit luskin ("why do they continue to publish this guy? Hasn't he finally descended to the point where common decency requires them to ship him back to the hole he came from, free to bay at the moon where no one will pay attention to him?") into "I love how this thread starts with a call for people on the Right to stop obsessing over each Krugman column's fresh misrepresentations and distortions and ends with people saying that more evidence is needed of recent ones by him."

In short, your characterization of this posting has literally nothing to do with this posting.

Talk about yer easy pickings.

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINK

but he's nailed Krugman on factual misrepresentations and unfair presentations of the facts on so many occasions (as have numerous others) that it's hard to see why you would want him to stop unless you think that Krugman should be permitted to sling mud from the high perch of the NYT with immunity from criticism

Well .... no.

I'd like to see thoughtful criticism. Just because I don't like stupid criticism, doesn't mean I'd like to see all criticism stop.

You're conclusion doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at October 28, 2003 04:17 PM | PERMALINK

Basharov, I didn't say that Krugman lied about Bush's Texas Rangers connections. I said he lied about the nature and timing of the Rangers partnership, in an attempt to sell dishonest innuendo pertaining to criminal activity. He followed that performance with an unethical response on his website, which has a tiny readership, compared to the site in which he sold his dishonest innuendo, the NYT.

After this exercise in deliberate deceit, I have read very, very, little of Krugman's commentary, and have no concern if he receives similarly dishonest treatment from others. As I have said previously, I'd be happy to never speak of the matter again except the Krugman kool-aid sippers, such as yourself, apparently, either won't take the time to read the original column, or if they do, won't admit to what is plainly observable; that making statements about deals made when someone was sitting governor, when in fact the deal was made prior to the person was elected, is dishonest, and to characterize as unusual gigantic financial rewards for partners who make small financial contributions, but gigantic contributions in obtaining government subsidy, is dishonest as well. I wish it were unusual, but it is not. Furthemore, for all of Krugman's outrage regarding such state subsidies, or crony capitalism, he has no problem taking money from an organization, the NYT, which pursues the same practices as the Texas Rangers. Google "New York Times" and "Times Square", and "imminent domain". You see, when people Krugman opposes politically pursue such action, it is a source of outrage, sound , and fury, deserving several hundred words in the most valuable space in American punditry. When people who send checks to Krugman do the same, however, well, gosh, what are you getting so "obsessed" about? Krugman is a hack, and it is exactly of zero import if he gets attacked by other hacks. Why should anyone care?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 04:27 PM | PERMALINK

Will, in all honesty, if you don't care about Krugman, then don't care, but please stop this incessant, endless moralizing and condescending towards people who read him differently than you do. We are not all drinking kool aid or any of the other insults you seem to delight in slinging our way. It is silly and suggests that you do care, a great deal, far more than you care about matters of far greater import, about which you post far less frequently, even if we believe your version of the rangers deal (which i, and many others, do not).

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINK

Will, if one supposedly untrue statement is enough for you to permanently disregard somebody, where DO you get your news? Certainly not Fox, or the administration in general. Which is funny for a right-winger, no?

Posted by: scarshapedstar at October 28, 2003 04:40 PM | PERMALINK

howard, if threads are going to be developed regarding how awful it is that people write nasty and dishonest things about Paul Krugman, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask why it is acceptable for Krugman to write dishonest and nasty things about others. When people like Basharov don't engage what Krugman actually wrote, and instead imply that any assertion regarding Krugman's dishonesty must be dismissed because Luskin is an "idiot", and, after all, Krugman is the great, unassailable, Krugman, then the description of Krugman kool-aid sipper is not far off the mark. That those who defend Krugman usually accuse all his attackers as merely being ideologically devoted to the Bush Administration merely adds to the irony.

I have had Krugman defenders with enough honesty to admit that the Rangers affair was shabby, dishonest, and the subsequent response on his website was unethical, but they are few and far between. Most are compelled to defend Krugman at all costs, to the point that it is maintained that a transaction which has dozens, if not hundreds, of similar occurences is still somehow "unusual", and that the words "sitting Governor" no longer has meaning. The final defense of Krugman usually ends with a statement of how he was just condemning crony capitalism, which, of course, begs the question of why it is acceptable for the NYT to practice it, but an outrage when practiced by the Texas Rangers. I don't care if Krugman is unfairly attacked; but I wonder why others do. I suspect I know the answer, and the rhetoric of most Krugman defenders merely confirms my suspicions.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINK

Will, no offense, i've enjoyed many of the other things that you've written, but you've made it perfectly clear where you stand on this obsession of yours, you have convinced no one new, and i, for one, am tired of being insulted for not buying into the wisdom of will allen on all matters krugman.

This was not a thread about how awful it is that "people" write nasty and dishonest things about paul krugman, it is a thread about how a specific person, donald luskin, a raving idiot, writes nasty and dishonest things about paul krugman as a seemingly full-time occupation. If you think there's something defensible about luskin, go ahead and write it, but don't pretend this is a post and discussion about whether criticism of paul krugman is per se out of bounds.

It isn't such a posting, it makes no such argument, and your continued condescension on the topic is irritating.

Posted by: howard at October 28, 2003 05:10 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, jeez, it seemed like it was only weeks ago (probably because it was only weeks ago) you were here professing the "obvious racial baggage" that Arnold had because of his father. And now you're giving the tsk-tsk?

Come down off the cross, Kevin....we need the wood.

Posted by: Ricky at October 28, 2003 05:13 PM | PERMALINK

Scarshapedstar, I certainly don't get my news off editorial pages. Why is it assumed that criticism of Krugman makes one a "right-winger"? Does crtiticism of Safire, whose writing I have despised as well, those very few times I have sampled it, make me a "left-winger"?

For the record, I get my news from a variety of sources. I consider the news pages of the WSJ (which really is more Democrat-oriented than many would imagine) to be relatively good; I hardly ever look at the editorial pages. I think the Washington Post is relatively good. I listen to the top of the hour broadcasts on radio when in my car. There are a few magazines, like The Atlantic, which I think prints some good stuff. I am non-statist in my political orientation, so I like publications such as Reason. Reason ran a great debate between John Lott and a physicist regarding Lott's methods far before the recent criticism of Lott arose, which caused to think that Lott may have overstated his argument.More importantly, I expect my news sources to be forthright and ethical in their retractions when errors or falsehoods are printed. Most opinion pundits and editorial pages are absolutely horrible in this regard.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 05:22 PM | PERMALINK

Well howard, it is also irritating that when the topic is one "idiot"'s writing dishonest and nasty thing about Paul Krugman, inquiring why it is acceptable for Krugman to write dishonest and nasty things about people is deemed an "obsession", to the point that the words "unusual" and "sitting Governor" no longer have meaning. What is condescending about inquiring whether words that are printed in the NYT actually mean something?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 05:32 PM | PERMALINK

Give it up, Will. Your obsession is well-known because you trot out the same old tired horseshit on every lefty blog that has a thread about Krugman. You're almost as bad as Luskin with this obsession. Hell, Will, I could have written every damn one of your responses to this thread.

Oh, and Crank? Howard nails you. Your interpretation of both Krugman's remarks and the remarks on this thread is ridiculously inaccurate.

Interesting how none of the Krugman bashers has much to say about the supposed topic of this thread -- Luskin's ridiculous obsession with Krugman and the lengths to which he has gone in obfuscating and lying about Krugman's words.

Posted by: PaulB at October 28, 2003 06:00 PM | PERMALINK

Given that you haven't actually adrressed what I asserted regarding Krugman's standards of honesty, Paul, but merely have engaged in the typical scatological ad hominem, you can be reasonably consigned to the category of Krugman kool-aid sipper as well. In case you missed it, I have described Luskin as a hack also, and merely have wondered why some hackery is more acceptable than others. Thanks again for confirming my suspicion.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 06:08 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen: "I'd be happy to never speak of the matter again".

Will, that's all I ever hoped for from you.

Because Krugman seems to be the only person in the media who understands Bush's long-term economic policy and tells us what he knows, I would continue to read his stuff even if I completely agreed with you about the Bush/Rangers issue (and the White issue), which I do not. Because, Will, it is actually possible for someone to do one bad thing and also do other good things.

I'm virtually 100% certain that sometime in the next ten years I will come to strongly disagree with Krugman about some major question (as I did about NAFTA etc.) But at the moment he's saying what has to be said, and he's almost the only one.


Will, you say the same thing every time, over and over again -- everyone's heard it, and almost nobody agrees with you. Everyone who will ever think that Krugmans Bush/Texas Rangers story has discredited him forever **already thinks so**. It's old news. There's nobody left to convince. Give it a rest.

Posted by: Zizka at October 28, 2003 06:41 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yes, Zizka, it is nearly unanimous, as proven by your scientific methods, that Krugman does not engage in dishonest and unfair attacks on those he disagrees with politically.

Tell ya' what, when people stop posting about awful it is when pundits dishonestly attack Krugman, or they concede that Krugman does the same, I'll stop raising the inconvienient fact that words have meaning and consequence, even when written by someone who has achieved iconic status in some people's eyes. They hate Bush. Krugman is an academic with a deserved large reputation, appearing in the NYT, which lends added weight to his commentary, so his dishonesty is given a pass, while dishonest attacks on him are an outrage.

I hardly ever listen to a politician's public pronouncements, because I have come to the conclusion, not without empirical basis, that a substantial percentage of what they say is for tactical advantage, without basis in fact. That is a consequence. When a commentator such as Krugman insinuates criminal behavior through misstatements, then follows with an unethical response, their commentary can be reasonably deemed unreliable, and frankly, who cares if the propagator of dishonest insinuations of criminal behavior is similarly dishonestly attacked?

Finally, maybe Krugman should run a banner next to his byline when he engaging in honest analysis, instead of dishonest score-settling; something along the lines of, "I took the lies out of this one, so go ahead and read it!"

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 07:12 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen says: "Basharov, I didn't say that Krugman lied about Bush's Texas Rangers connections. I said he lied about the nature and timing of the Rangers partnership, in an attempt to sell dishonest innuendo pertaining to criminal activity. He followed that performance with an unethical response on his website, which has a tiny readership, compared to the site in which he sold his dishonest innuendo, the NYT."

My question: how do you know that Krugman is lying when he says on his web site that the assertion of Bush's partners was something he didn't know when he wrote the NYT column? It sounds plausible to me. Do you have some further evidence to support your claim that Krugman was trying to 'sell dishonest innuendo'?

Krugman probably should have written a follow up column. My guess as to why he didn't was that he didn't fully believe Bush's partners ('it would be nice to see the contract'), so he didn't want to concede their claim in a column, but he also didn't want to take them on with an accusation.

Posted by: Ben Vollmayr-Lee at October 28, 2003 07:25 PM | PERMALINK

Funniest of all - it appears Luskin DID NOT KNOW Paul Krugman was Jewish!

Posted by: Matt at October 28, 2003 07:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, gee, it would be so inconvienient to actually respond in the forum in which the insinuations originally ran. Ben, I'll at least congratulate you for responding in a substantial way. As it is, I do have some clients to attend to, so I'll try to get back on the exact words in Krugman's original column later tonight, or tomorrow morning at the latest.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 28, 2003 07:42 PM | PERMALINK

Will, if you directed your energy at improving the "corrections" policy of the NYTimes itself, which shows all the integrity and fair-handedness of a Soviet show trial judge, you could earn the gratitude of many, including myself. If Krugman has put one word on his web site that makes any amends for his 'error', he is doing more than the NYTimes does about the rest of the op-ed skanks.

Posted by: J Edgar at October 28, 2003 08:12 PM | PERMALINK

To save time, let’s have the links:

Original Column:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/071602.html

The follow-up from his site:
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/Rangers.html

So, one point to the stalkers, there was a factual error. Unfortunately for them it doesn’t change the question of whether Bush’s investment warranted his return – it didn’t; it doesn’t change the question of whether the abuse of eminent domain was egregious – it was; and it doesn’t change the question of whether Bush got rich off crony capitalism – he did. In other words, as errors of fact go, it’s pretty trivial.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at October 28, 2003 08:13 PM | PERMALINK

Luskin's mania is certain, but we can all enjoy this little apercu.

"Within minutes of Krugman's column being posted on the Timeswebsite in the wee hours Friday morning, I had download the FERC reportfor myself and read the second and third sentences of its summary"

You got a life there, pal?

Posted by: dirk strom at October 28, 2003 09:19 PM | PERMALINK

Luskin's mania might be certain, but the major thrust of the post is why National Review continues to publish his ravings about Krugman.

Perhaps they do it because they are loons.

Posted by: raj at October 29, 2003 04:28 AM | PERMALINK

Can we just point out among all this that Luskin called Paul Krugman "evil"? Literally, "evil"? I'm sorry, but I just find it strange that so many of Luskin's defenders overlook the fact that he's turned Krugman into a fetishized object of hatred.

Luskin is a serial liar in the paranoid vein - his economic analysis is shoddy in the extreme, and irrational hatred of Paul Krugman perverts everything he writes. What I also find sad is that Donald Luskin considers himself the head of a Soviet-style "truth squad" while being and working for some pretty nasty propagandists in his own right.

Paul Krugman had a turkey sandwich! EEEVIL!

Posted by: jesse at October 29, 2003 04:46 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, but I just find it strange that so many of Krugman's defenders overlook the fact that he's turned Bush into a fetishized object of hatred.

Krugman is a serial liar in the paranoid vein - his political analysis is shoddy in the extreme, and irrational hatred of George Bush perverts everything he writes.

Posted by: RossF at October 29, 2003 05:07 AM | PERMALINK

To get back to Ben, I know Krugman is lying about his supposed ignorance regarding Bush's partners chracterization of the timing of the partnership because Krugman had previously recommended to his readers that they peruse ("must reading") a 1998 Houston Chronicle article in which the partners characterization was fully explained. Thus, Krugman knew that the partners had previously said that the arrangement was made several years prior to Bush running for Governor. Krugman chose to omit the partners' chracterization in the NYT article, in an attempt to insinuate criminal activity by Bush and private citizens, and then lied about his prior knowledge of the Bush partners' side of the story on his website, while finally saying, in a format with a miniscule readership, compared to the NYT, "Was any of this illegal? Probably not?"

He also compounds his dishonesty by saying on website that such large compensation, for people who are instrumental in securing large government subsidies, is unusual. This is another lie, as dozens, if not hundreds of similar examples can be given. I wish it were unusual, but it is not, and Krugman, not being an ignorant dolt, knows it. Furthermore, as pointed out above, Krugman really doesn't mind crony capitalism when it is practiced by people who send him checks, like the NYT (again, google "New York Times", "Times Square", and "eminent domain", and see how Krugman's paper pursues wealth in the same manner as the Texas Rangers), but only develops outrage when crony capitalism is practiced by people who Krugman opposes politically.

I really don't enjoy spending time dredging all of this up again, but the Krugman brigade is so devoted to saying that none of it happened, when it plainly did, that it is worthwhile, if tiresome, to do so. Again, Krugman dishonestly attacks his political opponents in an unfair manner, and then is unethical in his response when called on it, so it is more than a little rich for people to get exercised when Krugman is dishonestly attacked, unless one simply concludes that dishonest, unfair, attacks are only a concern when practiced by those one opposes politically.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 07:16 AM | PERMALINK

I misstated Krugman's sentence on his website. He wrote "Was any of this illegal? Probably not." The change from a question mark to a period more clearly indicates that Krugman clearly conceded, in a much smaller venue, that it was most likely nothing illegal had occurred, after insinuating otherwise in his NYT column. Furthemore, his statements regarding the 1998 Houston Chronicle article clearly indicate that Krugman knew of the partners' chrarcterization prior to their response , in the form of a letter to the NYT, which challenged Krugman's insinuations. What a hack.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 08:05 AM | PERMALINK

If you “know” this then perhaps you could provide the link to the original story and the Krugman column. You still haven’t demonstrated anything more than a simple error of fact (which you delusionally call a lie). You haven’t demonstrated that this error changes any of the analysis of the rest of the deal. The abuse of eminent domain still exists, the crony capitalism still exists, the questionable relationship between someone who benefited from Bush’s governance and then bought the team still exists. So you have merely demonstrated that your blind hatred for someone who has exposed Bush’s questionable dealings makes you uncomfortable with the facts. What a hack.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at October 29, 2003 08:28 AM | PERMALINK

Will mate, apparently you have convicted Krugman because, in your eyes, he screwd up on the Rangers deals. Once a thief, always a thief, right? Does that make Dubya once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic?

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 29, 2003 08:29 AM | PERMALINK

I'm confused. Are we holding public figures accountable for what they insinuate, or only what they literally say? Are we allowed to discredit someone who gives us a false impression?

Posted by: bs at October 29, 2003 08:40 AM | PERMALINK

RossF wrote: "Krugman is a serial liar in the paranoid vein - his political analysis is shoddy in the extreme, and irrational hatred of George Bush perverts everything he writes."

Don't you just love people who write things like this and yet are unable to come up with a single example?

Ross, a free clue: there are all sorts of reasons to dislike George W. Bush, and none of those reasons are "irrational."

Posted by: PaulB at October 29, 2003 08:58 AM | PERMALINK

Will writes: "Given that you haven't actually adrressed what I asserted regarding Krugman's standards of honesty, Paul, but merely have engaged in the typical scatological ad hominem"

I've engaged you in the past, Will. I'm not going to do so again. Your obsession is well-known, as is your carelessness with the facts in the case. It simply isn't worth my time or trouble to debate this issue with you again. I'll simply content myself with pointing out the obvious: that you are obsessed with this and that your obsession is well-known.

I have no need or desire to say more because you have amply demonstrated on a number of forums that you are not listening.

Posted by: PaulB at October 29, 2003 09:02 AM | PERMALINK

I misstated Krugman's sentence on his website. He wrote "Was any of this illegal? Probably not." The change from a question mark to a period more clearly indicates that Krugman clearly conceded, in a much smaller venue, that it was most likely nothing illegal had occurred, after insinuating otherwise in his NYT column.

Oh, you "mistated" something, thereby giving readers a false impression. Hack. If you can't be accurate in your own obsessive, kool-aid chugging attacks on someone you don't like, then don't expect others to take you seriously.

You sure do base a lot of your phoney outrage against Krugman on "insinuations" he made, and that YOU deem his response on a particular column to be "unethical". But then you say you read newspapers which printed complete lies, not to mention insinuations of crimes, throughout the 90's whitewater "scandals".
If you gave half as much time to those lies and non-retractions as you give to one op-ed column then you might have some credibility on the issue. But as it is, you're just a Krugman-hating hack.

p.s. don't whine about adhom attacks against you when you do the same towards others--it just makes you looks like an even bigger hypocrite.

Posted by: Ringo at October 29, 2003 09:20 AM | PERMALINK

Will hasn't addressed one word about Luskin's obsession and craziness regarding Krugman, and I can bet garbage to doornails that he never will on this thread or anywhere else.

Posted by: Dark Avenger at October 29, 2003 09:24 AM | PERMALINK

DA, I doubt that you're the only one who noticed that. I certainly did

Posted by: raj at October 29, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINK

Will unless you come up with new stuff about Krugman (which you can't do, because you refuse to read him) nobody will listen.

Just now you admitted to misquoting Krugman. Jesus Christ! we're in pot-kettle-black territory now.

SInce Krugman ended up doubting that what Bush did was illegal, most of us just have filed the whole story in the crony-capitalism file. There's still a charge against Bush, but a lesser (political, not legal) one. Most of this made this adjustment over a year ago.

Posted by: Zizka at October 29, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Ringo, apparently the kool-aid has destroyed your reading comprehension. I stated that if a mistake had been made, it could easily be rectified by a simple, ethical, straightforward, retraction that appears in the same forum in which the misstatement appeared. I just did so, and my mistake of substituing a question mark for a period portrayed Krugman in a more favorable, not less favorable light. Krugman has yet to issue an honest and ethical response to his original insinuations of criminal activity, so the offense still stands, and if you could read, you would also see that I acknowledged the same sort of offense in the Clinton years.

Dark, apparently, you can't read either, since I clearly stated that Luskin was dishonest and a hack as well. It seems clear that Krugman devotion destroys brain tissue.

Lori apparently is unable to use her computer competently. Read slowly, Lori. Krugman, on his website, said (in 2001) that it was strange that the public was only then hearing about the details on the Texas Rangers Partnership,
when the partners' responded to Krugman in a letter to the editor. This is a lie, because an August 16, 1998 article in the Houston Chronicles outlined the details, and Krugman described this article as essential reading in his July 28, 2001 column. Thus, Krugman knew that the partners' characterization of the deal was in the public forum in 1998, but said in 2001 that it was strange that the details were only then coming to light. He engaged in this fiction because he wishes to insinuate criminal activity on the part
of people he doesn't like, all the while conceding that criminal activity probably had not occured. This is despicable, and the fact that he made the concession of there probably being no criminal activity in a forum with miniscule readership, in comparison to the forum in which his original insinuations appeared, makes it all the more so. Then again even that concession is wrapped in deceit, so the website comments are hackery as well.

Your comments regarding the nature of the Texas Rangers crony capitalism and abuse of eminent domain, like Krugman's comments, would have more weight, Lori, if you or Krugman could muster some outrage when the NYT pursued the same practices. You see, Krugman doesn't really mind those pratices when they are pursued by those who send him checks or are aligned ideologically with him, like the NYT does and is. It becomes a great outrage, however, when George Bush and his partners do it. I think it all sucks; I only wish Krugman had the same consistency, and left out the phony insinuations of criminal activity.

Paul, if you have something to say, feel free. Otherwise, have another sip of sugared, artificially flavored, water. Again, who is more "obssessed"? One who merely points out that it is dishonest to insinuate criminal activity, then run a response in a much smaller forum which concedes that criminal activity probably had not occurred, while dishonestly asserting that the details of the business deal in question were only now coming to light, while labeling such an occurence strange, or the person who is ritualistically compelled to maintain that these events did not occur? Do ya' think google has been infected, altering the archives of the NYT, Krugman's website, and the Houston Chronicles?

To those that grudgingly acknowledge what Krugman did here, but maintain it really isn't important, I await the day when a NYT columnist insinuates that you, a private citizen, have engaged in criminal activity, and then, when you contest the insinuation, the columnist acknowledges, not in the NYT, but on his website, that criminal activity probably had not occurred, while passing off another dishonest insinuation, by saying the your version of events were only now coming to light. I'm sure you will find the matter unimportant. Oh wait, I forgot; when those being insinuated against are rich Republicans or associates of George Bush, it really is just fine, but when it happens to private citizens assciated with a Democratic President, it is an outrage. Have to remember that brilliant ethical insight.

Finally, Mr. vandriver, yes, it is well known that alcoholics remain so until the end of their lives, whether they refrain from drinking or not. Your point?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

And Will, you wonder why we call this your obsession?

Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Zizka, it is rather pathetic that you are unable to discern the difference between an immediate acknowldgement in Calpundit's comments section that a question mark was accidentally substituted for a period in Calpundit's comment section, and a NYT columnist insinuating criminal activity on the pages of the NYT, followed by an acknowledgement on a website, not the pages of the NYT, that criminal activity probably had not occurred, while passing off another dishonest assertion, that those who were being insinuated against were only now claiming their version of events. Yes, I understand that you find such actions on the part of a NYT columnist unremarkable, and your "crony capitalism file", like Krugman's, is rather incomplete. Golly gee, I wonder why that is the case?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Will Allen--

"I'm a stupid, obsessed, kool-aid swilling Krugman hater and nothing that he or anyone here says will change that!"

and if you could read, you would also see that I acknowledged the same sort of offense in the Clinton years.

Oh, wow, you "acknowledged" it, now why don't you go waste a shitload of comment space, and repeat it over and over again ad nauseum on someone else's website?

Applying the same standard which you apply to Krugman, you couldn't read ANY NEWS AT ALL, because all those souces which you claim to read have committed similar violations--many much worse, actually.


Posted by: Ringo at October 29, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

No howard, I wonder why you cannot acknowledge that words have meaning; that it means something to insinuate a crime has occurred, and then fail to acknowledge that this was probably not the case in the same forum that you printed your insinuations. It means something to dishonestly say that those being insinuated against are only now contesting the insinuator's version of events, when that is not the case. Why are you so obssessed with denying that these plainly observable events did not occur?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Will, ever notice how newspapers print an error on the front page, then make a correction days later on page A-16?

If you read newspapers, then you're a total hypocrite and not to be taken seriously. But I think that's already been determined.

Posted by: Ringo at October 29, 2003 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Ringo now claims that every writer practicing journalism today makes false insinuations of criminal activity, and then runs acknowledgements to the contrary in forums other than the one in which they made their false insinuations. Really, Ringo, you should get the word out.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, Ringo, I have noticed that. It is a despicable practice, but even that is preferable than the correction running on, say, the managing editor's private website, which receives a tiny fraction of the newspaper's readership. That this needs to be explained to you is really quite remarkable.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Ringo now claims that every writer practicing journalism today makes false insinuations of criminal activity, and then runs acknowledgements to the contrary in forums other than the one in which they made their false insinuations. Really, Ringo, you should get the word out.

Really, where did I say that? Oh, that's right, I didn't. But you're an obtuse, hypocritical jackass, so I shouldn't expect much better.

Based on the standard to which you hold Krugman, the correction or apology should be issued in the exact same forum as the supposed error. An incorrect story on the front page should mean a correction of that story on the front page, just as a supposed error(er, "insinuation") in an op-ed column should mean a "correction" in a subsequent op-ed column. The fact that you waste so much time on an "insinuation", as opposed to blatant falsehoods on the front pages, just further shows what phoney you are.

Oh, and as with your ad-hom whining, if you're going to accuse others of not being able to read, try to learn first yourself.

Posted by: Ringo at October 29, 2003 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Well Ringo, when you say that applying the same standard that I apply to Krugman means that I can't read any news at all, you are implying that every writer does what Krugman has done, rendering it impossible for me to obtain news from writers other than Krugman. I don't think every writer does what Krugman has done, so therefore I am free to obtain news from those writers that behave differently than Krugman. Is this really so hard to follow?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, I see, now we are into the silly notion that one can only write about abuses if one writes about all abuses. What a horrible anti-Semite Krugman must be since he didn’t write about the anti-Semitism of Palestinian leaders, other members of the conference, the Klan, etc…but we all know that’s false, and a dishonest form of argument and so can be dismissed. However the argument fails too because it does not honestly represent the article; the article debunked Bush’s “man of the people” rhetoric, it was not merely a blanket attack on crony capitalism, it was an attack on the George Bush myth (hey, I wonder if Mr. Allen noticed that Bush was President at the time of the article, not a private citizen). The demonstration that Bush was guilty of these abuses was the evidence, not the conclusion.

Now, let’s see what Krugman published on July 28, 2001; going to the website which contains all of the columns I find that no article was published on that date (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html). Using my poor computer skills I did a google (Houston Chronicle site:www.pkarchive.org) and the only page that turns up is from July 26, 2002 (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/072602.html). Now, if I were to hold Will Allen to the standards he has set for Krugman I would be forced to call him a liar – his statement is demonstrably false, easily disproved, and given his superior computer skills one he could not have made by accident; though perhaps he merely thinks that google has been infected altering the archives of the NYT, and Krugman’s website. Being a more gentle soul I will merely point out that it is quite possible that in the intervening two weeks a few polite souls directed Krugman to the Chronicle story. Perhaps if Mr. Allen had deigned to provide links to the article in question he might have noticed his error and saved himself some embarrassment.

Oh, and without having the text of the Chronicle article in front of me (since Mr. Allen’s skills have proven insufficient to provide it for poor little me), I’m afraid I can’t merely accept Mr. Allen’s characterization of it…posting dishonest insinuations for the purpose of smearing a private citizen and all that.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at October 29, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

My point Mr.Allen (family of Woody?)? I bet you never forgave your mother when she told you that Santaclaus didn't exist.

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 29, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well Lori, since you fail to, or are unwilling to grasp, the difference between a mistake forthrightly acknowledged in the same forum that the mistake was made and a dishonest insinuation which is acknowledged in an unethical and dishonest fashion, I'll provide further instruction. Krugman, on August 4th, 2002, on his website, acknowledges that his insinuations in the NYT were probably false, and then says that it is strange that Bush's partners were just then making the details of their agreement with Bush publicly known. The only problen with this further dishonesty is that Krugman, on yes, July 26, 2002, identifies a Houston Chronicle article from 1998 which contain the following paragraph:

"Bush, who is considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000, borrowed money to invest $ 606,000 in the Texas Rangers. Rangers President Tom Schieffer said that Bush earned a return of $ 2.7 million on that investment when the team was sold. The deal also included a bonus for Bush. Once the other owners' original investments were paid off with interest, Bush's ownership share jumped from 1.8 percent to 11.8 percent. Schieffer said that resulted in a bonus payment to Bush at the sale closing in June of $ 12.2 million. So Bush walked away with $ 14.9 million."

Thus, Krugman describes it strange on August 4th that Bush's partners (in case it escapes you, Lori, those are the private citizens I am referring to) have just then revealed the details of the agreement, in response to Krugman's dishonest insinuations, when, on July 26, Krugman says that a 1998 Houston Chronicle article, containing the above paragraph, is required reading. So, by some time-space alteration, perhaps involving worm-holes or other rarely experienced phenomena, Krugman can describe, on July 26, a 1998 article as required reading, which has the above-cited paragraph, and then, on August 4th, maintain that the details of the agreement are only then becoming known, all out of Krugman's continuing despicable attempt to insinuate criminal behavior. So, you see, Lori, your yapping about two week intervals is rather pointless.

As to your yapping, inane, analogy between denouncing crony capitalism and denouncing anti-semitism, when the NYT start distributing copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then, yes, I will expect Krugman to discuss this fact when he denounces anti-semitism as demonstrated by those he opposes politically. Similarly, when Krugman makes a point of denouncing crony capitalism in Texas, as practiced by politicians he detests, I expect him to mention that the corporation which publishes him and sends him checks pursues exactly the same practices in New York City. Otherwise, you see, it is reasonable to conclude that one's objection to crony capitalism is closely correlated to the flow of money and access to prestigous pubilishing venues, or lack thereof, provided by the entity practicing crony capitalism. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 02:10 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB- "Don't you just love people who write things like this and yet are unable to come up with a single example?"

But when people like Luskin and Will Allen do provide example of Krugman's dishonesty they are apparantly stalkers, why would I want to be a stalker? Anyway if you look at the comment above my post you will see that mine is a parody of that.

Posted by: RossF at October 29, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINK

will, you might try working on your reading in the midst of your agitation. While in the past we have gone back-and-forth about krugman and the rangers, just like others have, and while i don't find your argument convincing (here's my paraphrase of your argument, so you can tell me if i have read you wrong: "I believe that paul krugman willingly and maliciously mischaracterized george bush's deal with respect to the texas rangers partnership because he can't stand george bush, and this apalling lack of ethics renders everything else he writes meaningless and beneath my attention"), that's neither here nor there.

The original post was about donald luskin and the nro. Luskin is a dishonest slimeball in everything he writes, and i don't have to reach back 2 or 3 years or however long it's been to justify that: he justifies it with everything he writes. In addition, the NRO itself is a home for an unbelievable amount of dishonest, tendentious tripe - luskin is hardly unique. So that's what this thread is about.

You've turned it into the same thing you turn every thread concerning paul krugman into: a chance for you, once again, to repeat your same conclusions about paul krugman.

For this, we label you obsessed on the matter. It's hard to see how someone who devotes as much time and energy and column inches as you do to writing the same thing each and every time is anything but obsessed on the topic.

I don't agree with you about krugman and the rangers, but even if i did agree with you, i would weigh it against the totality of krugman's work and find it wanting as a reason to ignore everyhing else he writes. I would also weigh it against the totality of every other colunnist out there, and find it wanting as a reason to regard krugman as anything but one of the very best columnists working today.

For my beliefs - and those of others like me in this posting - you have nothing but nasty insults and condescension.

Trust me: stick with your instinct and write nothing more about paul krugman and we'll all be happier - you, me, and the rest of us in this thread.

Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 02:15 PM | PERMALINK

vandriver, if one wishes to gain forgiveness, even your dear, sweet, mother, it is first incumbent on the forgiveness seeker to forthrightly acknowledge the misdeed, and then make a sincere effort to rectify the matter. Let me know if you need instruction in anything else.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 02:15 PM | PERMALINK

howard, if you dispute the facts of the matter as I have outlined above, please inform me where my facts are in error. Otherwise, it can be concluded that you simply find false insinuations or criminal activity against private citizens in the pages of the NYT to be an acceptable practice, as long as the targets are people you disapprove of. Such an attitude is grotesque in the context of protests against dishonest accusations hurled against the the person whose insinuations appear in the NYT. I ask again, given Krugman's behavior, why should anyone give a damn if he is lied about in turn? I'll save my non-infinite reserves of concern for people who don't dishonestly attack others, and don't have the NYT to help them do it.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 02:30 PM | PERMALINK

It wastes my time to point out facts to an ideologue such as yourself. You have lied about both of our positions and about both Krugman’s words and his intent (read your own posts, look at what you claim was written in 2001 – you have yet to admit your error). You have not displayed even a modicum of decency in either your arguments or your ceaseless personal attacks.

The fact is you hate Krugman; you have concocted an elaborate fantasy about what he should and shouldn’t write; you have apparently spent a significant amount of your recent life to this fantasy. If your need for this to be true is so great that no demonstration of the facts will be convincing, then far be it from me to force you into the light.

Your response will not be noted – I’m finished with you.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at October 29, 2003 03:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'll simply note, Lori, that you do not dispute Krugman's remarks of Aug. 4th are contradicted by his recommendation on July 26th of a 1998 article, which I quoted. I made an error in referring to 2001 instead of 2002, but it has no impact on whether August 4, 2002 is preceded by July 26th, 2002, or whether 2002 follows 1998. You have brought no relevant facts to the table, so instead you stomp your foot. As to decency and personal attacks, note the verbiage in your 8:28 post, then reflect on why someone may respond in kind. If you don't like that sort of exchange, don't start one. Can you grasp that concept?

As to my alleged hatred of Krugman, I'd be happy to never mention him again if people would stop complaining when Krugman is dishonestly attacked, or, even better, Krugman would run a few simple statements in the pages of the NYT, along these lines:
" I erred in insinuating that Bush's Texas Rangers partners engaged in criminal activity when compensating Bush, for I have no evidence of that. Furthermore, I should have made this acknowledgement in these pages, instead of my website, and should not have claimed on my website on Aug. 4th 2002 that the partners explanation of the transaction was only made public at that time, when I raised the issue, for it was actually made public in 1998, as I knew, since I previously recommended (in my July 26, 2002 NYT column) the article in which this information appeared." That is what is known as a retraction, honestly and ethically issued. If one demands that nationally published columnists behave in an honest and ethical manner, prior to one becoming concerned about unethical attacks on the columnist, and that demand makes one a hater, well, that is a very, very, odd conception of hate.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 29, 2003 04:21 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Will, you're really sloppy. You admit at least two mistakes in one thread.

Why should I believe anything you ever write again?

Posted by: Won't Allen at October 29, 2003 07:13 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, that should have had a "?"

Posted by: Won't Allen? at October 29, 2003 07:14 PM | PERMALINK

Well Herr Allen, Krugman made a misinterpretation on the Bush/Rangers case and he rectified that on his website. Can't remember ever see a rectification from the Bush government, nor his Leocon cable. Seems Krugman is able to get on with his life and write brilliant analyses in the NYT and other media, whereas you get stuck in your own little world like an old broken record.

Calling him a hack is an ignorant statement, especially coming from Mr.Perfect whose contributions to the society as far as me concerns is only limited to some pedantic messages on this form. Unless you can refer me to one of your profound studies of US micro or macro economics?

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 30, 2003 01:34 AM | PERMALINK

Will Allen:
Are you honestly claiming that when Lori Thantos wrote "What a hack" at the end of her 8:28 post, this somehow indicates a lack of of decency and a propensity to engage in verbal attacks? You suggest that she should note the "verbiage" of her post, which consists of the verbs: provide, demonstrate, call, change, exist, benefit, buy, expose, and make. Ye Gods! You then call her incompetent, and suggest that she needs to read slowly.

Four hours later, Lori says that she tried to find a Houston Chronicle story that you mentioned, discovered that it didn't exist, and wonders whether you're telling the truth after noting that this is the sort of thing you think makes Paul Krugman unreliable. You respond by again questioning her intelligence and honesty, then go on to describe her as "yapping" and "inane."

Now, how is it she, and not you, who started an uncomfortable exchange?? Do you have any sense of proportion, any ability to read criticism without responding with vitriol and condescension?

I note also that her main point, that you haven't demonstrated that Krugman is wrong about abuse of eminent domain, crony capitalism, and a suspicious relationship between "someone who benefited from Bush's governance and then bought the team," remains true. There is a lot about the riches George W. Bush gained while a part owner of the Texas Rangers that is highly questionable.

There is also more than a hint of hypocrisy when someone whose wealth derives almost entirely from an odd mingling of crony capitalism and public taxes for private purposes leads a campaign to lower taxes. The question of whether the New York Times also engages in crony capitalism or abuse of eminent domain (evidence, please) is a gigantic red herring, because the New York Times isn't championing the rights of property holders while it abuses eminent domain, and isn't waxing lyrical on the virtues of unfettered capitalism while it runs a business that generates little or no profit, other than a massive influx of funds from the public domain.

You're probably never going to have the respect of many of those who post on this thread, but there are others who don't write you off immediately at first glance. Do you not see that behaving like some enraged five-year-old having a temper tantrum is a poor way to convince the undecided readers that you are to be taken seriously?

Posted by: Keith at October 30, 2003 02:11 AM | PERMALINK

Keith, in case it has escaped you, when one calls someone else a hack, it indicates that one desires to have a hostile exchange. I merely followed Lori's wishes. Yes, I called Krugman a hack, because I wish to have a hostile stance toward people who print false insinuations of criminal behavior in the pages of the NYT, particularly when the they involve private citizens, and are followed by dishonest and unethical non-retractions. Kevin Drum says worse about Luskin, to which I have no objection (being mostly in agreement), but even if I disagreed, if I were to respond in Kevin's comments section by calling him a name, it would no longer be incumbent upon Kevin to be civil in his interactions with me. That this must be explained is somewhat odd. If one wishes to have a civil dialogue, then don't engage in name-calling with the party you are having a dialogue with.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 30, 2003 08:53 AM | PERMALINK

Furthermore, Keith, if Krugman's remarks had been limited to how awful crony capitalism was, I would be critical of his silence regarding the same practices pursued by his publisher, but I wouldn't be nearly as hostile. I understand that many people in this thread think that Krugman is so wonderful that he should be given a pass when he falsely insinuates criminal behavior by private citizens in one of the most widely read newspapers in the world, follows on his website (with an absolutely tiny readership in comparison) that criminal activity "probably" had not occurred, and then makes another false insinuation, through a bald misstatement of facts, regarding when the partners first gave their version of events. I don't think such truly despicable behavior should be given a pass, regardless of how otherwise wonderful I may think the writer is, until the writer makes a honest and ethical attempt at setting things straight. Krugman hasn't, so the offense still stands, which makes him a hack. Frankly, I don't want the respect of people who give a pass to such behavior.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 30, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINK

"If one wishes to have a civil dialogue, then don't engage in name-calling with the party you are having a dialogue with." I get it. Flaming is an exclusive right to Herr Allen. Kinda calling the kettle black....

It might be that it's not Krugman who decides about a rectification in the NYT but the editors?

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 30, 2003 02:59 PM | PERMALINK

No vandriver, you don't get it, for some unexplainable reason. I never said anything was my exclusive right. Keith inquired as to my tone with Lori. I explained that Lori had decided to have a hostile exchange with me, hence her calling me a hack. Prior to such action by Lori, my tone with her had been non-hostile. After Lori signaled her desire for a hostile exchange, I accommodated her wish. Is this really too difficult for you to follow?

Finally, we now get to the last stand of the Krugman Kool-aid brigade; the notion that poor, poor, Paulie Krugman doesn't have sufficient heft within the NYT to ensure that his retractions are printed in his column, if only in the form of a three or four sentence postscript tagged on the end of one of his regular pieces, so he is forced to put his retractions (dishonest ones, at that) on his website. Never let it be said that the Krugman defenders are not endlessly innovative in developing ever-more pathetic rationalizations. Congratulations.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 30, 2003 03:42 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen:
You've missed the point. I don't know whether it's deliberate or not. Lori pointed out several things that you hadn't addressed... and still haven't addressed, and posited that the reason you haven't done so it that you're a hack. That's not particularly nice, but it hardly rises to the level of "yapping" "inane" "incompetent" and the several other truckloads of scorn you heaped on her.

You may describe this as Lori "signaling a desire to have a hostile exchange." You're welcome to your own interpretations, but that's a pretty piss-poor one. It's as if I called you a jerk, and you responded by calling me a f***ing a**hole. Yeah, I started it. But your response would be disproportionate. That's how children behave. It's also what most people would describe as flaming. Your last post is another splendid example.

If you think that's A-OK, I suppose that explains why you think Luskin's "stalking" of Krugman is nothing to be upset about. Just be careful that you apply the same line of ethical reasoning whenever it turns out that other people treat you badly.

Posted by: Keith at October 30, 2003 05:49 PM | PERMALINK

Keith, in case you missed it, I largely agree with Kevin's assessment of Luskin, except that, given Krugman's lack of fidelity to truth or fairness, I believe there are numerous other people that are more worthwhile targets of my non-infinite reserves of concern. Lori hasn't addressed any pertinent facts, which are as follows: 1) Krugman falsely insinuates illegal action on the part of the Texas Rangers Partners, in the pages of the NYT. 2) Krugman follows with a NYT column in which he recommends a 1998 Houston Chronicles article (which I quoted), that outlines in detail the partners' version of events. 3) Krugman then follows, on the website, instead of the NYT, with an acknowledgement that it is probable that nothing illegal happened (gee, how nice), and then attaches yet another false insinuation, by dishonestly (since Krugman had the previous week cited the 1998 article with the pertinent information) claiming that the partners were only now coming forward with their version, which Krugman labels, in the typical despicable Krugman fashion, "strange". Lori has disputed none of this, other than to raise the false issue of someone recommending to Krugman the Chronicles article in the interval between the first and second NYT column, which says exactly nothing about the false statements and insinuations on Krugman's website. I have now explained this several times on this thread, challenged several people to dispute this version of the facts, and no one has yet done so. If you, Lori, or anyone else wish to avoid these facts, it reflects more on your ideological devotion to Krugman than anything else.

Lori then disingenuously claims that the only matter of import in Krugman's dealing with this issue is Krugman's condemnation of crony capitalism, as if tossing insinuations of criminal behavior at people in one of the world's most widely read newspapers is a minor manner.
She then draws the, yes, inane (by the way, why is it too hostile to label someone's arguments as "inane", but not so to label them "silly"?)analogy of having to condemn all instances of anti-semitism if one condemns one instance, which ignores the point, which is that when one's financial and professional benefactor is engaging in activity that one condemns in others, and one remains silent about the benefactor's behavior, it calls into question one's actual degree of moral outrage. And, no, I'm not going to dig up the citations regarding the NYT Times Square real estate dealings; I've already spent too much time pulling up quotations and the like for people who are either unwilling or unable to find the easily available sources, and then lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge these sources when they are provided. If I remember correctly, Slate ran a pretty good summation of the sorry mess last year, assuming you really want to learn about it, instead of simply insinuating that I am lying.

Finally, Keith, if I were to call you a jerk, I would not complain at all if you were to respond by calling me a f****** a******, because, you see, I am enough of an adult to take responsibility for the tone of conversations that I create through my choice of words. If I decide to treat someone in an insulting, hostile, manner, I do so with the full knowledge that it is I who have created the insulting, hostile, environment, and that the response will likely also be insulting and hostile. Is Lori such a child that it cannot be assumed that her choice of words are made with an adult's conscious intent?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 30, 2003 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Will:
By my count, that's a post of nearly 600 words, which almost entirely fails to respond to anything I asked you. Congratulations on your brevity.

I am not in any way insinuating that you are lying about the NY Times and real estate. Thanks so much for the accusation! I am stating (not insinuating) that you are probably mistaken in equating that with the Texas Rangers deals in Arlington. Since you're the one who made the initial comparison, and since I suspect that most people would look at your comparison with skepticism, I think it's your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims.

Whether or not Lori failed to address the facts that you think are pertinent, she did ask you questions that she thought were pertinent (else why would she have asked them?) What Lori did not do is "claim that the only matter of import... was accusations of crony capitalism." Here's what she wrote:
You haven’t demonstrated that this error changes any of the analysis of the rest of the deal. The abuse of eminent domain still exists, the crony capitalism still exists, the questionable relationship between someone who benefited from Bush’s governance and then bought the team still exists
By my reckoning, this statement remains true, as you still have not dealt with abuse of eminent domain, crony capitalism, or benefiting from Bush's governance... and no, saying there was also some shady dealings with eminent domain on the part of the Times is not dealing with the issue. In fact, nearly 40 hours have passed since Lori asked these questions, and in that time you've written more than a dozen posts totalling well over 3000 words, without once managing to answer her questions. Tell me, how would you evaluate such behavior on the part of Paul Krugman?

You may feel that Lori's anti-semetism analogy is far-fetched, although the accusations that Krugman is anti-semetic seems to make the analogy apropos rather than "inane." And if you think that "inane" is no harsher than "silly," I suggest that you consult a dictionary.

Finally, if you would not complain at all if someone dropped an f-bomb on you for calling them a jerk, then you've demonstrated with your own words that you really have no sense of proportion. Thank you for confirming my suspicion. However, you should not assume that others also lack this valuable faculty, and you might even entertain the notion that when someone says "jerk" it is not, as you claim, a "desire to have a hostile exchange." Since you yourself seem to be full of the desire for hostility ("I wish to have a hostile stance toward [Krugman]"), perhaps I should not be surprised. But simmering with rage is no way to go through life.

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2003 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Herr Allen, people who attack others and complain when being attacked themselves are being called a "whiner". I bet when you were young your mother had to comfort you a lot.

And you may agree with Kevins assesments about stalker Luskin, yet you show the same kind of obsession Luskin has about Krugman.

Looking at above thread and your comments leaves me no other conclusion that you exposed yourselve as a stalking whiner.

My well meant advise, get a life.

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 31, 2003 02:43 AM | PERMALINK

Keith, since my comments regarding Krugman, which Lori responded to, were directed to Krugman's dishonest insinuations of criminal behavior, and his unethical and dishonest response when his insinuations were objected to, and Lori, nor anyone else, has contested the facts as I have described them, we can, after several thousand words, conclude that Krugman uses the pages of the NYT to spread false insinuations of criminal behavior against people who he opposes politically, and then is unethical and dishonest when these false insinuations are exposed. People who engage in such behavior are hacks.

In case you missed it, I clearly stated that crony capitalism stinks, but that issue has exactly nothing to do with the point I originally raised, whether it was acceptable for a NYT coumnist to use his venue to spread false insinuations of criminal behavior, and then to behave unethically and dishonestly when the false insinuations are objected to. If I had raised the issue of whether crony capitalism was an acceptable practice, then Lori's point might have been relevant. It isn't; it simply is an effort to change the subject. As it stands, even this point of Krugman's lacks credibility, coming from Krugman, due to his shifting standards. If you contest my account of Krugman's benefactor's actions relating to Times Square real estate, which includes abuses of eminent domain and state subsidy of purely private enterprises, tell me where I am wrong; I already gave you a suggestion of publication, which used to publish Krugman, Slate, which has run a fairly good account of that situation. Absent any such information from you, it can be concluded that you concede my account of that situation.

Vandriver, you really need to improve your reading comprehension. I am not complaining about Lori's attacks. I simply note that Lori, by deciding to start calling me names, indicated that she wished to have a hostile exchange, so I accomodated her desire. If one does not wish to have an agressively hostile dialogue, then it well advised to refrain from calling the person one is having a dialogue with names. Does this really need to be explained to you?

Keith, I don't call people names unless I have decided that I desire to have an agressively hostile relationship with, or stance toward them, and I don't have those desires unless I observe them causing harm, or I observe that they wish to have to have such an interaction with me. Why you would call someone a "jerk", if you did not wish to have an agressively hostile dialogue with them, is extraordinarily odd. Do you normally engage in name calling with those you wish to have civil exchanges with? Gosh, it's gotta be a lot of fun to work or socialize with you!

I call Krugman a hack because I believe using the pages of one of the most widely read newspapers in the world to spread false insinuations of criminal behavior, followed by unethical and dishonest responses, is harmful, even when directed at rich Republicans who engage in crony capitalism. I wish to have an agressively hostile stance toward Krugman, hence the the name-calling. I believe Lori wished to have an agressively hostile dialogue with me, because I think Lori is an adult who can be accorded an adult's responsibility regarding their choice of words. If you wish to view her as a child, well, that is your choice, but I don't think that does Lori or anyone else any favors.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 31, 2003 07:41 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, Keith, if you are going assume the role of word Sheriff, you may want to open a dictionary. From Websters:

silly: absurdly foolish, stupid, or senseless

inane: empty; foolish; void of meaning

Now, is labeling someone's point as "silly" really considerably different than labeling it as "inane"?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 31, 2003 08:09 AM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah, I'm sorry Allen, I forgot you were hurt by the remark of Lori, calling you a hack. Of course it's perfectly alright you call Krugman a hack, yet you start crying when someone else use the same word. You're beginning to look like Luskin more and more. I understood he (Luskin) threatens to sue Atrios because of the word "stalker" on their website, the very word he used himself. Seems you both have a fetish about Krugman. What a whining bunch of pussies...

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 31, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINK

From Webster:

Whine
Whine, n. A plaintive tone; the nasal, childish tone of mean complaint; mean or affected complaint.

Whiner
Whin"er (?), n. One who, or that which, whines.

Stalker
characterises one who has an intense voyeuristic obsession with a particular person. This obsession leads them to physically follow a person from place to place and observe them.

Posted by: whitevandriver at October 31, 2003 02:26 PM | PERMALINK

Will:
There are plenty of reasons I might use the word "jerk" and yet not use an f-bomb. Most people who are native speakers of English would understand the different levels of hostility implied by the two words, and would respond differently. For example, if someone runs a shopping cart up my ankle, then does it again a few minutes later, I might wince and say "don't be such a jerk." That would not signal a desire for a hostile exchange. However, if I said "don't be such a f*cking a**hole" that would be a different matter. Your continuing failure to understand the difference is astonishing. Is English not your native language?

I have absolutely no doubt that my co-workers like me more than yours like you. For one thing, I don't commonly call them "inane," "incompetent," or anything of the sort. For another, I simply don't decide that "I desire to have an agressively hostile relationship with, or stance toward them." The fact that you make such decisions and act on them would disturb me greatly if I worked with you.

I'm not "assuming the role of Sheriff," whatever that means, but neither am I going to refrain from telling someone whose acting like a dishonest jerk that they're acting like a dishonest jerk.

My Webster's defines inane and silly respectively as:
"Without contents; empty; void of sense or intelligence; purposeless; pointless; characterless; useless."
"Proceeding from want of understanding or common judgment; characterized by weakness or folly; unwise; absurd; stupid; as, silly conduct; a silly question"
Children are often silly, stupid people are inane. To my understanding, an inane question is far worse than a silly question, and pointless and useless is worse than proceeding from want of understanding.

"Dishonest," "unethical," and "false" are your terms for Krugman. Neutral observers can judge them for what they're worth, although it's exceeding odd that someone who objects to "assuming the role of sheriff" is so willing to use such terms. Perhaps you're the only one qualified to wear that shiny badge? That must be it, because otherwise such behavior would be dishonest and unethical, right?

Yes, you called Paul Krugman a hack. You also called William Safire and George Will hacks. Truly, one wonders if there are any human beings who measure up to the lofty standards of Will Allen, with the exception of Will Allen himself... and possibly George W. Bush. That being said, it is exceedingly strange that we have now gone nearly three full days without providing any answer to the questions Lori asked (crony capitalism stinks, but does George W. Bush's behavior as part owner of the Texas Rangers stink? We're waiting...). Let me once again ask: how would you evaluate such behavior on the part of Paul Krugman? Would you call him a hack? How then shall I evaluate such behavior on your part??

Posted by: Keith at November 1, 2003 05:26 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently, Keith, it is you who have problems with the English language, since you are unable to read it. How many times must it be written that I think crony capitalism sucks before it penetrates your gray matter that I disapprove of crony capitalism? I know it is a intimidating logical problem, but think it through: if person A asserts, on an unqualified basis, that action b sucks, and person C pursues action b, does not A disapprove of C's action? Furthermore, can you achieve the gigantic, titanic, feat of logical reasoning involved in concluding that one can condemn crony capitalism (by the way this was precisely why I disapproved of Bush way back when he ran for Governor), while also concluding that a NYT columnist who makes false insinuations of criminal behavior, followed by an unethical and dishonest response when the insinuations are objected to, is a hack? Believe it or not, the two positions are not mutually exclusive! What a breakthrough in the philosophy of logic! Contact the Nobel Comittee!

The fact that Krugman condemns crony capitalism, at least when practiced by Republicans he dislikes, has exactly nothing to do with what my assertion was, which is that writers who falsely insinuate criminal activity in the pages of one of the most widely read newspapers in the world, and then follow with unethical and dishonest responses, are hacks. Is logic really so foreign to you?

Furthermore, I didn't object to you assuming the role of word sheriff, I simply suggested that you might endeavor to become a more competent one. When a common dictionary supples definitions for two words that include, respectively, " absurdly foolish" (for silly) and "foolish" (for inane), it is simply, yes, inane, to say that one word is measurably more harsh than another. Your point is silly, for not everyone favors the same definitions as you (which I'm sure is yet another stunning revelation for you), and words can have mulitple definitions which are equally vaild . Gosh, yet another eye-opener!

On another logically revelatory breakthrough, from what set of facts have you determined that I commonly label co-workers inane or incompetent? I clearly wrote that I reserve such hostile language for people who are observed causing harm or those who wish to engage me in an hostile manner. I can't remember obeserving a co-worker who acted with malice, nor can I remember working with anyone who engaged me in a hostile manner, so I have had no need to respond in kind. You, on the other hand , seem to think that it is reasonable to engage in name-calling absent any hostility, which is extraordinarily odd. As to your example, if someone physically assaults you with a shopping cart, it would be more odd to not have a hostile relationship.

As to my standards, yes, they are so unreasonably high; how can anyone be expected to refrain from, in major newspapers, falsely insinuating criminal behavior on the part of one's political opponents , and then also be expected to respond ethically and honestly when those insinuations are objected to? What a superhuman feat! I know for a fact that Safire (it was a regular gig for Safire in the Clinton years)and Krugman have engaged in such behavior, so yes, by my incredibly unreasonable standards, Safire and Krugman are hacks. I am less certain as to whether Will has done so, but if Zizka says it is the case, I suspect it is probably true.

Posted by: Will Allen at November 1, 2003 08:54 AM | PERMALINK

vandriver, your meds may be becoming ineffective, for hallucinations seem to be developing. I wasn't "hurt" by Lori's remarks. Lori complained about my remarks, so I informed her that she indicated to me, through her choice of words, that she desired a hostile exchange, and that if such an exchange was not desired, it is well advised to refrain from indicating otherwise. As to you other foamings, once one sinks to the level of remarks about genitals, it usually means that one's rhetoric cannot become more pathetic. However, given that you achieve new levels of pathetic rhetoric on a fairly regular basis, it can reasonably be assumed that you are an exception. Once again, congratulations.

Posted by: Will Allen at November 1, 2003 09:05 AM | PERMALINK

Allen, not only do you suffer from supressed sexual feelings (do you actually know where your genitals are?), you also seem to suffer from Alzheimer. Your reaction to Lori was out of all proportion and clearly indicated that you were very hurt by the word "hack". Your patronizing and pedantic (which seems to be your hallmark) little arrows were clearly pointed at Lori as a sign of disgust. Which of course is only reserved for Mr.Pure and is not applicable for other mortals on this planet.

You might consider to return to your tibetian monastry where you can meditate about a world without evil and sex.

Posted by: whitevandriver at November 1, 2003 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Will:
I've pointed this out twice now. Lori wasn't asking you about crony capitalism per se, she was asking about crony capitalism by George W. Bush and the Texas Rangers. Here's what I said in the post you were responding to: "crony capitalism stinks, but does George W. Bush's behavior as part owner of the Texas Rangers stink? We're waiting..." It looks as if we're still waiting.

Your little logical statement falls apart since you are the one who has now had almost 2 1/2 days to signal your disapproval of this particular example of crony capitalism. Your adamant refusal to do so suggests a different set of axioms:
if person A asserts, on an unqualified basis, that action b sucks, and person C pursues action b but person A refuses to say anything about person C, is it not possible that A believes C's action was not in fact b? Since Krugman and Lori have asserted b, and you believe the former to be a hack and the latter to be stupid, one might logically infer that you do not believe that C committed b. Damn, logic is a bitch when it's applied reflexively, ain't it!

If it's logical and obvious, go ahead and say it. We're so close now. You've given us "this was precisely why I disapproved of Bush way back when he ran for Governor". Just tell us what the "this" is! Is it that George W. Bush practiced and benefited from an egregious example of crony capitalism when he managed the Texas Rangers, and that is essentially the only profitable business result he has ever achieved? Or is it something else?

Again, "false", "unethical", and "dishonest" are the terms you choose to apply to Paul Krugman. Since you're not yet master of all reality, those are opinions and others have no responsibility to observe terms applied by someone who repeatedly states his desire for hostile encounters. You might, however, consider that all those charges and more could be leveled at Isaac Newton in his dealings with colleagues in the Royal Society as well as with scientists on the continent. Isaac Newton: hack! Truly, is there anyone who meets your lofty standards, other than yourself? C'mon, name some names!

As to your "logically revelatory breakthrough" and other silliness:
1) I'm unaware of the Nobel committee that awards prizes for philosophy of logic. Please provide details.
2) I thought I was the behavior sheriff. Now I'm the word sheriff? Or am I both? Please keep me up to date on what the sheriff's job entails.
3) "Silly" is generally a gentle term of disaproval or disagreement, while "inane" is a fairly aggressive assertion of wrongness. I say again, children are often silly, and we don't hold it against them. For my part, I can't ever recall someone using the word "silly" as a serious insult -- it may be dismissive, but it's not harsh. "Inane" can be and is used differently, and I think it's clear that your application of the word to Lori was meant as something other than a gentle rebuke. If you cannot distinguish between the terms, I suggest you watch the Sunday morning politics shows for a couple of weeks and see how the two words are generally used. I will be eagerly awaiting a report on your research findings.
4) I obviously don't know what sort of language you use with co-workers. However, almost everyone has a co-worker they don't like very much, and almost everyone encounters moments where they find themselves in disagreement with co-workers. Given the low threshold you apply in determining hostility, and the high threshold you apply when determining competence, I suspect that you are not the most pleasant man to work with. Of course, I could be wrong, and it could be that you are the embodiment of sweetness and light at all times and in all places, except when you are writing comments on Kevin's blog.

I'm not sure whether you deliberately misunderstood my shopping cart analogy, so let me clarify it for you. I won't even resort to grandiose terms like "logically revelatory breakthrough."
It's quite possible for someone to accidentally run up the back of your ankle with a shopping cart, especially when the aisles are crowded. A careless person might even do so twice. This would hardly constitute "physical assault with a shopping cart." Unlike you, I would not take this as a hostile relationship. (yes, I know you think this is odd). I might, however, be frustrated by such carelessness, and in my irritation I might even use the word jerk. In fact, this has happened. You will no doubt be amazed to learn that the person who ran her shopping cart up the back of my ankle did not regard this as an invitation to hostility, and did not regard it as the equivalent of dropping an f-bomb. Rather, she apologized. Given your inability to understand connotative and denotative differences between somewhat similar terms, I can understand if you have found that such encounters escalate to hostility. If so, perhaps that says a great deal about you.

And what about Lori's questions? We're still waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

Posted by: Keith at November 1, 2003 06:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry Keith. I didn't realise that you were too dim-witted to realize that if I condemn an action, and I concede that a person has engaged in an action, which I did by saying that Bush and the NYT had engaged in nearly identical practices of crony capitalism , then I am condemning that person's action. Next time, I will s a y
i t v e r y s l o w l y, and perhaps you will have a synapse fire. We can only hope, along with hoping that you develop enough of a wit to understand that sarcasitc comments are not necessarily to be taken literally. As to the difference between "silly" and "inane", hey, go argue with Webster's; they're the ones that give both words as synonyms for "foolish".

As to Krugman's dishonesty, I'll simply note that you have not, nor has anyone else, contested the facts as I have presented them, and instead have tried to change the subject to whether George Bush practices crony capitalism, which is an assertion that I have never contested. You're analogy with Newton is inane, since, to my knowledge, Newton was not journalist who printed false insinuations of criminal behavior against his opponents, followed by dishonest and unethical responses to objections made to the insinuations. And even if I am unaware of such behavior by Newton, it must be pointed out to you (since logic is apparently completely foreign to your mental processes) that being a brilliant scientist, just like being a very good economist, and being a hack journalist are not mutually exclusive conditions. Please, if you are going to draw an analogy, could you please make an effort to draw one that has something to do with the matter being discussed? Really, does it take 45 minutes for a waitress to explain the breakfast specials in diner to you?

Finally, I am not in the habit of calling people jerks if they do something by accident, even if they do it twice. Apparently, you are. Now who, exactly, is being unpleasant here?

Posted by: Will Allen at November 1, 2003 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

vandriver, it must be said that if one's sexual obsessions are revealed in the comments section of Calpundit, as appears to be the case with you, you really aren't getting out enough. Hey, for a small amount of money, even someone as dull as yourself can obtain intimate companionship, so don't despair.

Posted by: Will Allen at November 1, 2003 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, well here we go again. Allen's Alzheimer is bothering him again. Now think, who did throw his genitals into the arena? Apparently as soon as Allen has made a new message his Alzheimer makes him forget what he wrote before. But, there's a cure to that Allen. On the middle of your mouse there's a little scroll wheel. If you take your right hand away from your lap this time and push the wheel upwards magically the earlier messages will appear on your screen! Do this for once and read your former messages. You'll be surprised about what you wrote before!

And btw Allen, thanks for the tip, but does your mother knows you're visiting sex websites? And does she knows you use your allowance for that? Naughty boy, Allen!

Posted by: whitevandriver at November 2, 2003 01:52 PM | PERMALINK

The Tao's principle is spontaneity.

Posted by: Taylor Stephanie at December 10, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINK

To go to war with untrained people is tantamount to abandoning them.

Posted by: La Battaglia Juliana at December 20, 2003 07:46 PM | PERMALINK

We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane.

Posted by: Meehan Keely at March 17, 2004 04:49 AM | PERMALINK

I can't understand why a person will take a year to write a novel when he can easily buy one for a few dollars.

Posted by: O'Brien Megan at April 28, 2004 09:15 AM | PERMALINK

Advertising is 85% confusion and 15% commission.

Posted by: Kohn Amy at May 19, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINK

I can't understand why a person will take a year to write a novel when he can easily buy one for a few dollars.

Posted by: Allen David at June 30, 2004 04:38 AM | PERMALINK

Excellent site. Keep up the good work. http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz
http://www.mapau-online.biz http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk http://www.cd-online-casino.co.uk
http://www.buy-v-online.biz

Posted by: online casino at August 16, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

688 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

787 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 06:40 AM | PERMALINK

4874 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 02:05 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter