Powered by TypePad

« Iran Seizes 3 British Navy Boats | Main | Maybe Bush Really Has Driven Us All Mad »

June 22, 2004


Barry N. Johnson

Krugman's latest column is remarkable. He can't accuse Ashcroft of not doing his job (the terrorist plot was thwarted), so he blasts him for not holding a big enough press conference afterward.

When Krugman starts writing tripe like this, it's as sure a sign as any that the economic recovery is well under way.

Jim Glass

I'm waiting for Krugman to go after Keller and Pinch for not reporting this story just because they didn't get a release about it from Ashcroft. You know, the way Kristoff went after Pinch in his column a couple months ago that savaged CEOs who hold on to their power and big-dollar pay through personal connections in spite of a record of performance that couldn't get them a salaried job anywhere else. (Though to be fair, perhaps the recent happy newsroom days with Howell and the rest of Pinch's hand-picked team weren't a leadership failure but a followship failure?)

In the meantime, which may last a while, one can wonder at how the nature of an investigation varies by the eye of the beholder:

Krugman: "Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke..."

CNN: "... hundreds of subpoenas were issued ..."

"A Monty Python sketch - we're having fun now!"

Now that PK's gone big time into the media world and become a critic of publicity management and all, maybe he'll go outright Hollywood? The Pythons aren't around any more but he could sign on as a screenwriter for Michael Moore. Next best thing.

Sam O

Thanks for the Kessler/UPI link.

It apears that Krugman is regurgitating old op-eds with very little value-added. While it ain't plagerism, surely the Times expects more from its columnists. And its readers should expect the Times' editorial page to be out in front of UPI's, at the very least.

Or should they?


Sam O,

Your comment is easily the most idiotic (and this coming from someone who tries to keep things civil). What proof is there that he basically copied the UPI piece? It had a lot of the same information? Well, if you write about the same story, you tend to have a lot of the same facts. Was the style the same? Not really. Even a brief scan shows that. Did he use some interesting phrase that would be a dead giveaway? I don't see one.

As for the others, you are pretty much distorting what Krugman says. It's that simple.

Jim Glass

"It apears that Krugman is regurgitating old op-eds with very little value-added."

Perhaps not just op-eds:

PK's been recycling other people's stuff with little value added for a long time.

A lot of his howler mistakes have come from doing it carelessly, not getting what he was recycling right, then exaggerating what he got wrong to make Republicans look bad and justify hurling a personal insult at somebody.

The first time was right after he started at the Times when he went on and on about how "right-wingers" led by John McCain were pushing the Internet Tax Freedom Act to repeal sales taxes on retail sales over the Internet -- concluding with the personal shot that McCain was either "pandering" or "confused".

The only problem was that the ITFA had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sales taxes. And it wasn't a "right wing" proposal but passed on bipartisan overwhelming vote.

And of course there was never any, "Oops, I was one who was confused" apology to John McCain either.

The delicious irony was that Krugman's whole column was an impressive-reading lecture on the economic principle that things should be taxed uniformly, without special exemptions here and double taxation there.

And that was the express *purpose* of the ITFA -- to bar discriminatory taxes against Internet businesses while leaving them subject to the same taxes that applied to other businesses, like sales taxes.

So Krugman had it not merely wrong but bass-ackwards -- he obviously couldn't even *imagine* that "right wingers" could be on the virtuous side of an issue, they must be the bad guys, so why check any facts before name calling?

He'd clearly gotten his whole wrong idea from garbling different lobbying lines that were being spun out by state tax people to fight the ITFA. "Why shouldn't we have the freedom to target special taxes against the Internet ... do you know, if we couldn't collect sales tax, how much tax we'd lose?"

So, having no understanding at all of what the heck he was writing about he, well, pandered to the pro-tax side just *because* they were the pro-tax side -- and told a Whopper topped by a personal insult that he never retracted or apoligized for.

That was back in 2000. I was kind of stunned when I read that piece, taxes being my business and realizing the whopper-ness of it. I'd formerly had a much higher opinion of Krugman. I was surprised.

But how many times has he done the same thing since? It was about 20 before I stopped reading his column.

So now he's damning Ashcroft for obeying the law in not using gun registration lists. He'd rather have an AG who throws away the law as an obstacle to be disregarded when looking for those whom be believes might be guilty.

And he's damning Ashcroft for not giving enough publicity to a story that the New York Times has deemed not worthy of *one word* in a news story. But he has no criticism of the Times, of course. ;-)

SOP. [yawn] What else is new?

Jim Glass

If that link above doesn't work or runs off the page, just go to...

... then down to "Dare to Compare", Posted on 06.22.2004

The comments to this entry are closed.