Prof. DeLong suspects that Glenn Reynolds does not, and offers the recent ADL letter about Paul Krugman as an example. And, since it is a blog, we see in an update that Glenn has made a correction.
But Prof. DeLong tries for an extra base:
I don't know how much Glenn Reynolds reads of the stuff he links to. I suspect the answer is "most"--that he has turned into a guy who never lets the facts get in the way of a bad slur.
But it is clear, as Tim Lambert notes, that Reynolds doesn't remember his own archives...
Via Eschaton, Prof. DeLong then reprises two InstaPosts:
May 7, 2003: ...Donald Luskin is stalking Paul Krugman...
Oct 21, 2003: PAUL KRUGMAN'S UNRAVELLING: He's accusing Donald Luskin of being a stalker, in the literal, not figurative sense.
I believe the actual term is "critic."
Ahh, an amusing contradiction! Actually, it is amusing - if we follow the link Glenn provided in May over to Don Luskin's article, we find this:
The good news is that Krugman is clearly shaken by the new experience of having somebody dare to challenge his insouciant lying. He's even starting to get personal — referring to me in his latest posting as his "stalker-in-chief."
And that is in this posting at Prof. Krugman's website, helpfully linked by Don Luskin as "five". Which naturally precedes, and evidently inspired, both Don Luskin and Glenn Reynolds.
Good job by Tim Lambert in helping us figure out who started the "stalking" meme.
Read it all.
MORE: Let's not lose sight of the Krug-quote that re-opened this on national television:
That's a guy, that's a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.
Presumably, the "personally" is what Glenn had in mind when he wrote "in the literal, not figurative sense". But you knew that. Didn't you?
My original comment is here. And Glenn is on this like Hideki Matsui on a hanging... well, anyway, he is on it.
Fine, so Krugman started using the term "stalker" first. But Reynolds and Luskin accepted the usage, so are hardly in the position to suddenly turn around and complain about it. You will notice that Reynolds intoned: 'I believe the actual term is "critic."', implying that it was wrong to call him a stalker.
I also note Reynolds use of the reverse Humpty-Dumpty: when Krugman use a word (like, oh, "stalked") it means whatever Reynolds says it means.
This whole thing is giving me Usenet flashbacks, so let me just reflect on it in Usenet terms and see what we should do if this were Usenet....
...Usenet wisdom says that Luskin is a troll and any discussion he taints will be derailed. Usenet wisdom says: ignore Luskin.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 23, 2003 at 03:37 AM
The Usenet, huh? That explains one thing.
In the interest of full and fair disclosure, I should mention that Tim Lambert has a well-earned reputation as a debunker of myths, especially those propagated by John Lott, gun rights enthusiast. In the course of his sweeps, Mr. Lambert occasionally picks up a few others often found on that side of that issue, including Glenn.
In fact, I have ridden in Mr. Lambert's wake at least once, if I recall. I would put a link to his site to make my point, but I have never quite figured out how his site works - that Usenet thing, I guess.
Anyway, he has been right an awful lot, which gives the current scenario a certain man-dog-biting quality. And if he would be kind enough to post a link or two, folks could see for themselves.
And no, I don't mean to imply that he is stalking John Lott, although it makes an interesting parallel.
Posted by: TM | October 23, 2003 at 07:08 AM
But surely you can give Don Luskin and Glenn Reynolds a Claude Rains, "Shocked! Shocked that gambling is going on in here!" prize? I mean, to all of a sudden profess mock horror at a meme that they themselves were embracing just a few months ago... that *is* a bit much.
Still, it's better than accusing Paul Krugman of being an anti-semite or of claiming that Treasury bond yields aren't interest rates...
Posted by: Brad DeLong | October 23, 2003 at 11:13 AM
Well, there is a certain strained quality to Luskin's outrage. It was clearly just a useful vehicle to mock Prof. Krugman back when he first said it. In fact, I took a free ride at the time.
Now, I suppose that P. Krugman saying it on national television, and describing it as physical act, rather than web-based, raises the stakes. But, IMHO, Luskin would have more success playing this for laughs - instead, it looks vaguely like a mutual unraveling society.
But on the stalking subject, one wonders whether Bobby, who seems to post every word the Prof utters, is also considered to be a stalker; and one wonders how the Earnest Prof would react if, e.g., Scott McClellan described Prof. Krugman as a "Bush-stalker" at a press briefing.
One also wonders if we all have too much free time - I suspect there is a broad consensus that this name-calling is really silly. Unlike the usual silliness I normally engage in.
Posted by: TM | October 23, 2003 at 11:31 AM
Thanks for the nice introduction, Tom. I am pleased to hear that you think I have enough gravitas to leave a wake.
However, if you think I am mistaken about something here, would you mind telling me what it is?
For convenience, here is my position: Krugman did not "literally" accuse Luskin of stalking him. He was using the term in the same way that Reynolds did in May.
If you are looking for some particular posting on my blog there is a search button in the sidebar.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 23, 2003 at 11:33 AM
Well, my deeply considered, too much free time position is this - when P. Krugman comments that Don Luskin is his "stalker-in-chief" at his own (little read) website, that became the source for a few bloguffaws.
However, I doubt that many of the television viewers have any notion who Don Luskin. There first introduction is:
PAUL KRUGMAN: I don't know where you are getting that from ...
MIKE GALLAGHER: Well ...
KRUGMAN: ... but I never said that.
GALLAGHER: PoorAndStupid.com, uh ...
KRUGMAN: Well, call him ...
GALLAGHER: You know, certainly is that, is that ...
KRUGMAN: PoorAndStupid.com, that's a, that's a stalker.
GALLAGHER: Well no ...
KRUGMAN: That's a guy, that's a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.
GALLAGHER: No, it's, it was ...
KRUGMAN: Come on guys.
Now, to assume that the typical viewer will take this as an "all-in-good-fun" jibe seems a bit unlikely. "Once stalked me personally" is a concept that may mean to many people that Krugman was literally stalked - can we agree that it is not a totally unreasonable interpretation? And I will grant that P. Krugman may reserve a special meaning to the word (e.g., "critic"), but absent an explanation to the viewing audience, I think popular usage applies.
So, we have two distinctions - web stalking versus live, physical stalking; and minor dissemination through the blogosphere versus exposure on national television.
I agree with Don Luskin that it is not the same; where he and I seem to differ is over just how much more serious this is, and what the most effective response might be.
Posted by: TM | October 23, 2003 at 01:42 PM
But if you never try for extra bases...
Brad DeLong
Posted by: Brad DeLong | October 23, 2003 at 02:08 PM
I also note Reynolds use of the reverse Humpty-Dumpty: when Krugman use a word (like, oh, "stalked") it means whatever Reynolds says it means.
~~~~
C'mon, it should be easy to settle this.
If, like Reynolds, Krugman meant "stalker" figuratively, rhetorically, ironically, rather than literally -- i.e.; as "one who criticizes another at every possible opportunity" rather than as something with the connotation of "nasty felon" -- then he ought to be happy to apply it in the first person.
"I have chosen to become a stalker of George W. Bush (though I was hired to write a business and economics column, according to the press release) because he is such a bad person and deserves it. Now that jerk Luskin is stalking me. But being the fool that he is, he's not nearly as good a stalker as I am."
Posted by: Jim Glass | October 23, 2003 at 02:39 PM
Prof, you are the Juan Pierre of the blogosphere.
Posted by: TM | October 23, 2003 at 07:42 PM
Tom, there are two questions here.
1. "What did Krugman mean?"
and
2. "What might a viewer think he meant?"
On 1. it's clear he was using the term figuratively, just as he done on earlier occasions and in the very same sentence. You yourself have provided the quote where Krugman made it clear that he did not mean it literally: "So far, so far just stalked, uh, intellectually, but it's, it's pretty scary sometimes."
Krugman using the word "personally" was a reference to the the time Luskin showed up and in person. If you read Luskin's original account of that, you might find his behaviour and description somewhat creepy.
Claims by Luskin and Reynolds that this shows that Krugman is falling to pieces are therefore incorrect.
On 2. Yes, someone might have misunderstood him. Is the case against Krugman now that he made an impromptu comment that someone maybe could have misunderstood?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 23, 2003 at 08:43 PM
Jim, can I play?
"I have chosen to become a stalker of John Lott because he is such a bad person and deserves it. Before, that jerk Lott was stalking me. But being the fool that he is, he's not nearly as good a stalker as I am."
Hmmm, not exactly the words I'd use, but still....
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 23, 2003 at 08:47 PM
So let's see. Prof. Krugman has said that "it's pretty scary sometimes". Later he says the guy showed up in person. And you think that the personal encounter as described by Luskin was "creepy"?
And from this a reasonable person might conclude that Prof. Krugman was kidding? NO! You seem to be arguing that a reasonable person might think that Prof.Krugman was serious, and with valid reasons.
Well, fine. The "unraveling" argument is that he needs to lighten up - Krugman has a regular critic who also showed up at a book signing, and Krugman wants to characterize that as a crime?
So as to your (1), it is far from clear, based on the evidence you presented, that Krugman was speaking figuratively about the personal encounter. At this point I don't know that Krugman doesn't think he is being stalked.
As to (2), whether the charge is that a reasonable person might think Krugman was seriously alleging a crime, well, yes, slander is a crime, and I suspect it hinges in part on how a person is understood, as well as on their intention.
Sort of as an example, if someone asked John Lott about one of his critics on national television, and Lott replied, "I'll shoot down more than his arguments, I'll show him who the gun nut is", you might not be wholly sympathetic to a reassuring "Chill, he was only kidding, he was speaking figuratively, he meant "I'll shoot down arguments he hasn't even made yet" ' defense if it was later offered by one of Lott's supporters.
Hmm, do I get a "Longest Sentence" prize?
Posted by: TM | October 24, 2003 at 06:36 AM
Let me add some emphasis here: "So far, so far JUST STALKED, uh, INTELLECTUALLY..." How much clearer does it have to be? Krugman specifically said he wasn't being stalked physically, but that's not good enough for you? Maybe you could tell me what evidence you would find acceptable here?
And who needs hypothetical quotes from Lott when there are real ones that are better:
"YOU ARE AMAZINGLY DISHONEST. HAVE YOU ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME?"
Should I be suing him for that?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 24, 2003 at 08:50 AM
Tim, I had no idea you were dishonest.
Anyway, I may not have sourced the two quotes clearly. The one you just cited was back on Meet The Press a month ago (Luskin's post was titled "RUSSERT JOINS THE KRUGMAN COUNTER-CONSPIRACY"), when Luskin had not yet met Prof. Krugman at a bookstore.
The more recent quote, from Hannity/Colmes (with Gallagher as guest host), was post-book signing, after Harry met Sally and Luskin met Krugman. Physically met, I should say.
With that clarification, I suspect you will find that the rest of your objection is somewhat off-target.
Hmm, and staring at my post, it appears that to get to Luskin's latest, you have to click on the link to Glenn's latest "stalker" post. That mutes what would otherwise be my extreme outrage. Oh, well.
EXCERPTS:
Meet the Press, Sept 2003
RUSSERT: They monitor every word you write. And they will pick apart every column, and say 'He no longer is just an economist. He's an ideologue, and he just is trying to twist facts in order to prove a political point.'"
KRUGMAN: They would say that, wouldn't they? Um, no, I mean it's, it's, [sigh] I'm subject to a level of scrutiny I don't think anyone else in, in journalism is. Um [long pause], I think that given, given that I'm writing 100 columns a year, uh, the number of things they've actually been able to make stick is pretty small. So it's, I think I'm doing okay. It's, it's not fun. It's more, part of the reason why few, not very many people do the kind of thing I'm doing. If you take on our current leadership, um [deep breath], you will be pursued, you will be stalked. So far, so far just stalked, uh, intellectually, but it's, it's pretty scary sometimes."
Hannity/Colmes, Oct 2003
PAUL KRUGMAN: I don't know where you are getting that from ...
MIKE GALLAGHER: Well ...
KRUGMAN: ... but I never said that.
GALLAGHER: PoorAndStupid.com, uh ...
KRUGMAN: Well, call him ...
GALLAGHER: You know, certainly is that, is that ...
KRUGMAN: PoorAndStupid.com, that's a, that's a stalker.
GALLAGHER: Well no ...
KRUGMAN: That's a guy, that's a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.
GALLAGHER: No, it's, it was ...
KRUGMAN: Come on guys.
GALLAGHER: ... through National Review Online, but I think it's accurate in terms of ...
KRUGMAN: I know, but that doesn't change it.
Luskin's NRO piece on stalking:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200310201054.asp
I am just guessing here, but it has ocurred that Tim arguing Krugman with me would be like me arguing John Lott with Tim. The result may not be wholly predictable, but we sure would know who the home team is.
Posted by: TM | October 24, 2003 at 12:40 PM
Few comments:
1: I suspect both Don and Paul are nice fellows, and we'd enjoy their company, provided politics was left at the door. On the net, they have a different experience.
- Luskin can go too far, in his criticisms, in my estimation. Sometimes he gets too personal and sometimes he fixates on fairly minor issues.
However, he's been a very nice fellow to me, never failing to respond to an e-mail. I find not everybody is that polite, and that speaks well for him.
- Krugman always goes too far in his columns. I'm sure he's a pleasant fellow, but he is "radicalized". That's hardly a good basis for objective criticism. Hell, one of his criticisms of the current administration is how "radical" it is. Talk about becoming what you profess to hate.
2: Krugman *did* say "actually stalks me". It's kinda hard to say he was being "figurative", when he specifically say it was "actual".
3: As noted above, Luskin takes it a bit farther than he really should, given the circumstances. It's a humorous comment he can jab Krugman with....but, good lord, it's not libel.
4: Delong is right about the "anti-semitism" remarks. It's out of line to call Krugman either "anti-semitic" or a supporter of such. WAY out of line.
Finally...may I point out, Maguire, that you have some of the most interesting, intelligent commenters in the blogosphere. It's a pleasure to read.
Posted by: Jon Henke | October 24, 2003 at 01:00 PM
"Jim, can I play?"
Sure. It's the internet!
Now if you and Lott both really find it "scary" to be "actually stalked" by each other, then you two both use the word like Krugman -- though I think not like Reynolds and most of the rest of us stalkers/stalkees of the 'net.
Personally during my usenet days I always found those who stalked me to be much more boring or amusing than scary.
Stalking others could be fun though, I will admit -- especially when they were as thin-skinned as Krugman. It was always entertaining to see how high one could make them jump.
Posted by: Jim Glass | October 24, 2003 at 02:02 PM
Yes, your earlier post gave me the impression that the "just intellectually" statement was in the most recent MTP. None the less, Luskin is still wrongity wrong. First, let me distinguish between two usages of "stalking". I'll use "f-stalk" to refer to felony stalking. In his column Luskin claimed that Krugman had accused him of f-stalking and that this showed that Krugman was falling to bits. And I'll use i-stalk to refer to one of those things on snails. And also to refer to intellectually stalking. This is, at the very least, what Krugman meant in his MTP statement.
Now let us examine Luskin's column. First, he took objection to Krugman's "stalks me on the web", insisting that the correct word was "critic" not "stalker". Reynolds parroted this claim. Of course, the claim is refuted by the fact that Reynolds and NRO also referred to Luskin as a stalker. I don't think anyone is disputing that Krugman's meaning here is "i-stalks", just as Reynolds' was when he said that Luskin was stalking Krugman.
Second, Luskin claims that Krugman accused him of a felony: f-stalking. We already saw that "stalks me on the web" meant i-stalks, so, by elimination, "once stalked me personally" must be where Luskin claims that Krugman accused him of f-stalking. So apparently we are expected to believe that in that sentence Krugman called Luskin an i-stalker and an f-stalker. This is, I guess, logically possible, but if you are going to make the serious charge of f-stalking, why bother with the trivial matter of i-stalking?
More importantly, Krugman said "ONCE stalked me personally" (my emphasis). Felony-stalking requires you to repeatedly follow the victim around. "Once" is not the same as "repeatedly". It does not make sense to interpret Krugman's statement as accusing Luskin of repeatedly following him around in person. Therefore Krugman meant "i-stalked" again. If you read Luskin's account of their encounter (the original one, not the new one where he tries to pretend that he behaved like a normal person), you perhaps gain a sense of why Krugman might refer to it in a effort to discredit Luskin:
"I have looked evil in the face. I've been in the same room with it. I don't know how else to describe my feelings now except to say that I feel unclean, and I'm having to fight being afraid. ...
I flashed on the movie Alien, in which contact with an extraterrestrial monster infects people trapped with it on a spaceship, and monsters just like it start to grow inside them."
Luskin comes across as somewhat unhinged here.
To summarize, Luskin can't object to Krugman's use of the word "stalker" since his own side used it the same away. And the felony-accusation accusation turns on a (perhaps deliberate) confusion between the figurative and literal usages of the word.
What is really funny is that after Reynolds got nailed for insisting that the word was "critic" and not "stalker" after using "stalking" to describe Luskin himself, his next posting (linked above) was an extended rant insisting that DeLong did not understand the difference between "figurative" and "literal" when in fact it was Reynolds who had confused the figurative and literal usages of the word "stalker". Well, it amused me at any rate.
And while you have home advantage, you also have Luskin on your team. I'd go with a baseball analogy but I'd probably mess it up, so I'll go with a cricket one for maximum obscurity: Maguire is bowling a good line and length from his end, but his efforts are undercut by Luskin sending down rank long hops, full tosses, wides and no balls from his end.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 25, 2003 at 04:48 AM
I have no game, and I can barely type while laughing, so I'll walk off (or do I get velcro'ed to a sticky wicket?)
Posted by: TM | October 25, 2003 at 01:51 PM
TM, I think that for someone to be a "stalker," in the sense that we're talking about currently, it is necessary for there to be unwanted activity by the stalker against the stalkee. Much of the material that I put on the site I receive from Paul Krugman personally by email, he and I correspond regularly, and he was even nice enough to mail to me a signed copy of "The Great Unraveling" with a nice inscribed message.
I also find it strange that TM would make such a disparaging comment about the thoroughness of my site. I personally fail to see any downside to its comprehensiveness. Its comprehensiveness is what makes it unique and great, and I receive the most wonderful compliments and praise from my readers about that comprehensiveness. The Unofficial Site's readers have been more appreciative and inspiring to me than any webmaster could ask for, and they spur me on to do even more.
Posted by: Bobby | November 02, 2003 at 05:07 AM
But on the stalking subject, one wonders whether Bobby, who seems to post every word the Prof utters, is also considered to be a stalker; and one wonders how the Earnest Prof would react if, e.g., Scott McClellan described Prof. Krugman as a "Bush-stalker" at a press briefing.
Good point by Bobby, who answers our question and does not consider himself to be a stalker; I certainly apologize for the implication.
One is left wondering whether it is entirely up to Prof. Krugman to separate critics from stalkers from fans, or whether objective standards apply; and whether it is only Bobby that is sensitive to the "stalker" implication, or that others, such as Don Luskin, might be as well.
Posted by: TM | November 02, 2003 at 08:49 AM