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:
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
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
A Krugman admirer complaining about a lack of common decency, now that is priceless!
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
That "action" shot of him lecture pointing cracks me up every time I see it.
PS - why bring color into this?
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.
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.
Oh, jeez. Yet again, more moral equivalency from a conservative.
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 . 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.
 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.
Yawn...Will Allen has his moments, but his obsession on the Texas Rangers issue defies reason. Pay it no heed.
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
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.
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.
"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!
"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!
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.
Al's posts are like a traffic accident. You know you shouldn't look, but somehow you can't help yourself.
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.
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
Hacks are the foundation of the conservative media pyramid. Take out the hacks and the whole thing crumbles into dirt.
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.
D*mn, but it's amazing, sometimes, to whatch the Bush apologists go at it. In a sick way, of course.
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
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.
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.
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.
Reading Paul Krugman is just like the holocaust.
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.
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
Al, i know i should follow chris's implied recommendation, but you
realize how foolish you look when you try to compare coulter and
"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
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
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...
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.
A reading a Krugman defense is always enjoyable experience in watching a new twist in sophistry.
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.
Any publication that carries Derbyshire, Stanley Kurtz, and Jonah Goldberg can't be all bad.
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.
"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.
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
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?
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?
Ooog understand Wonderdog's caveman grammar. Ooog no understand what couch has to do with thing.
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.
Tim, I for one look forward to any analysis you may add to a conversation. Until then.
Wow! It's like trollpaper!
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
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
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.
Uh, folks - Krugman is Jewish. Ergo...
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
I don't know who, but I know *what* they are.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
(Uh....thanks for the classification, Derby.)
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.
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."
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
Sorry for getting in on this so late, so I'll put my responses in "graze" mode:
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
Is this what Conservatism means these days?
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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
Come down off the cross, Kevin....we need the wood.
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.
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?
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
Oh, and Crank? Howard nails you. Your interpretation of both
Krugman's remarks and the remarks on this thread is ridiculously
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.
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
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.
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!"
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
Funniest of all - it appears Luskin DID NOT KNOW Paul Krugman was Jewish!
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
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.
To save time, let’s have the links:
The follow-up from his site:
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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."
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
I have no need or desire to say more because you have amply demonstrated on a number of forums that you are not listening.
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.
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.
DA, I doubt that you're the only one who noticed that. I certainly did
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.
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?
And Will, you wonder why we call this your obsession?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
My point Mr.Allen (family of Woody?)? I bet you never forgave your mother when she told you that Santaclaus didn't exist.
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
"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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, Will, you're really sloppy. You admit at least two mistakes in one thread.
Why should I believe anything you ever write again?
Sorry, that should have had a "?"
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
"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
It might be that it's not Krugman who decides about a rectification in the NYT but the editors?
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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"?
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...
Whine, n. A plaintive tone; the nasal, childish tone of mean complaint; mean or affected complaint.
Whin"er (?), n. One who, or that which, whines.
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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
You might consider to return to your tibetian monastry where you can meditate about a world without evil and sex.
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
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...
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
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?
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.
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!
The Tao's principle is spontaneity.
To go to war with untrained people is tantamount to abandoning them.
We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane.
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.
Advertising is 85% confusion and 15% commission.
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.
Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.mapau-online.biz http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk http://www.cd-online-casino.co.uk
688 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here
you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
787 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)