A correspondent writes, asking where is my quarterly post reminding the internet that Donald Luskin--National Review's contribution to the grand coordinated right-wing Paul Krugman-trashing enterprise ably reported by Nicholas Confessore--more often than not simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
Now it is true that the right-wing campaign has collapsed--even its two original leaders, Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan, now admit that Paul Krugman's batting average since he started at the New York Times has been above 90%.
Here are three problems with the three assertions that relate to me in this passage:
1) Was I part of a "grand coordinated" campaign? Not that I know of. Who coordinated me? Whom did I coordinate with? And here I thought I was just bitterly lashing out because Krugman called me a Rhinoceros!
2) The "ably reported" Confessore piece cited by DeLong says I'm "non-right wing." That became "right-wing" in DeLong's summary. I'm with Confessore.
3) Do I now admit that Krugman's "batting average since he started at the New York Times has been above 90%"? I don't think so. (I'd have to concede that Enron was more important than 9/11!) Because I don't think it, I doubt I've ever said it--and I doubt DeLong can cite somewhere where I've said it.
That seems an oddly high hysterical b.s./word ratio for a tenured Berkeley professor. What are DeLong's economics like? ... 1:36 A.M.
Wednesday, Ap ril 4, 2007
Cranky! What's eating at JPod? 4:54 P.M.
Tuesday, Ap ril 3, 2007
Southern California and this newspaper's role in its development made the Chandlers rich beyond any normal human being's wildest dreams. All the heavy lifting, of course, was done by their rapacious forbearers and, later, by Otis Chandler, who broke with the rest of his venal clan to make The Times a great newspaper. ... [snip]
The truth of the matter is, however, that — except for Otis — the Chandlers never have conceived of this newspaper as anything much more than agent or — in recent years — adjunct of their own financial interests. [E.A.]
The problem is that, judging by the prana-sappingly dull, smugly respectable product he foisted on his readers for decades, Otis wouldn't have recognized a great newspaper if it had risen from the sea and eaten his surfboard. ... P.S.: The Cult of Otis knew Rutten would look foolish, but they made him write it anyway. Mind control is an ugly thing! ... Update: Hugh Hewitt interviews Rutten. ...5:43 P.M.
Sanity? Has Tony Blair decided that it's more important not to lose Afghanistan to terrorists than to have marginally fewer junkies?Well, maybe not quite. The Independent's account of Britain's possible "U-turn" on the misguided Afghan drug war--in which we try to win farmers' hearts and minds by destroying their crops--suggest that Blair's new policy would still hold out out the hope that, by buying up the poppy crop legally, Britain and the U.S. might also "curb an illegal drugs trade which supplies 80 percent of the heroin on Britains streets." But the demand for heroin will still be there--won't Afghan farmers still have an incentive to fill it on the black market (by growing more than the official, legal channels are buying)? ... A simpler, more promising solution to the poppy harvest would seem to be Christopher Hitchens':legalize it and tax it. And, presumably, let the Afghans sell it to whomever they want. The price of heroin would fall. There would be more addicts. But fewer American British soldiers would have to die in Afghanistan--and we might actually win the war they're dying in. ... [via The Corner] 4:02 A.M.