|
Media Infiltrations: Of Interventions and Conservative Principles  National Review Online September 23, 2008 Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line The Washington Post September 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
The Conspiracy Letters
Join the fray! Email us at letters@poorandstupid.com. We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously. Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Friday, March 21, 2003
KRUGMAN ANGER MANAGEMENT Bless you. You are doing the Lord's work! Paul Krugman ruins every Tuesday and Friday of my life. In fact, I've been barred from writing about him (I'm a columnist for Bloomberg) because I get into ad hominem stuff. I had heard your name from a friend of mine but didn't visit the site until recently and am now telling everyone I know. Krugman is a bad habit that I can't seem to shake. And the way you describe the experience is perfect. My editor once asked me why I hated him. I said: he lies, he makes stuff up, he doesn't talk to the people he writes about (he sort of boasted about that in the profile of him in some Washington mag), and he's insufferable. He's also sick. A shrink would tell him to let go of his anger at Bush, that he could have beaten Al Gore. Anyway, can't thank you enough.Caroline Baum
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:38 AM | link
JENNINGS PLAYS RAINES Thank you very much for the analysis of New York Times reporter John Burns' PBS appearance Wednesday night in contrast to what Howell Raines sees fit to print of his reports ("John Burns Unedited: Moment of Liberation" 3/19/2003). Last night I saw something that I thought was extraordary: basically an on-air version of Raines attempting to stifle the expression of a similar theme. Except it was Peter Jennings doubling as Raines!
Jennings interviewed one of their military consultants, a very sensible man whose name I forget. Jennings was trying to elicit from this guy an explanation of why we haven't seen "shock and awe" thusfar. Now, having heard other networks analyze this same issue tonigh, the best explanation seems to be that we are making some progress with secret surrender negotiations, and that the propaganda/information part of the war has, in general, been going well. Furthermore, as you noted, John Burns said on the PBS NewsHour last night that there has apparently been a remarkable change in attitude in the Baghdad street in favor of the idea of being liberated by Americans.
One might think that ABC and/or Jennings might be monitoring this kind of speculation, and at least be aware of the information war's progress. But no...when the analyst suggested to him that the man in the street is indeed a target of the information campaign, Jennings saw fit to interrupt him and object to the idea on the grounds that the man in the street has no bearing on the outcome. It was clearly his way of trying to discredit the notion that repressed people might actually be amenable to the idea of freedom. The guy very diplomatically replied that once Saddam is killed and/or a surrender is negotiated, the peoples' attitude towards the invaders could change quite rapidly. Reluctantly, Jennings acknowledged the point.
Paul Fraker
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:14 AM | link
Thursday, March 20, 2003
KRUGMAN: GREAT ECONOMIST, POLITICAL CRANK Your article on Paul Krugman ("Meet the Krugman Truth Squad" National Review Online, March 20 2003) was outstanding. From where I stand, it's a real shame that Paul Krugman is so patently impartial because he is a great economist. I wish he could use the space for what he does best -- economic analysis -- not for one-sided political diatribe. Here is a man who could have ended up winning a Nobel prize one day. But because of his one-sided nature, unfortunately, many will remember him as a political crank, and not as an intellectual giant who made huge contributions to the discipline.What scares me most is that the New York Times is one of the most read/influential newspapers in the world. To them, what Krugman says is the gospel -- after all he is a Princeton Professor and so it follows that he must be right because he teaches at one of the elite universities. However, given that that I, too, am a trained economist, it scares when I read commentary that is factually inaccurate. We are all entitled to an opinion (right wing and left), but when opinion is conveyed as fact, deliberate or not, I think the editorial staff has a responsibility to the reader, which is to make sure that the facts have been properly represented, and the reader is not being misled to believe something that isn't true. Either Krugman's editorials aren't being closely edited for factual inaccuracies, or the editorial staff is just as guilty. Either way, I cancelled my subscription two years ago, and began reading the Wall Street Journal.
Keep up the great work. There are many of us out there who fully support your efforts to represent a balanced truthful approach.
Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:54 AM | link
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
WHAT RULES? Re: "Anti-war, Anti-Warming" 3/18/2003: I think what we've got here in Friedman, Krugman et al are the new nattering nabobs of negativism (Spiro would have been proud that his observation thirty some years ago has a new relevance -- maybe he finally got it right). But it's clear the American public doesn't buy it. This morning CBS news poll shows support for an invasion of Iraq has risen to 65% (to 30% opposed). More than two to one believe an invasion is necessary and justified. And by the way, exactly whose rules is bush not playing by? Saddam's, Kim Il Jong's, the Chirac-Schroder dynamic duo, MTV Hans, or the always fair and balanced editors at the New York Times? Perhaps I'm missing something here but who elected any of these people to anything much less important policy making positions in our government? I think the answer is to let 'em all run for office. It would be fun to see how they do.Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:25 AM | link
Sunday, March 16, 2003
WILL THE CARPING EVER CEASE? Re: "Thomas Freidman: Beshat" 3/16/2003: I thought the Azores was actually an interesting place to hold the obviously quickly called summit. Metaphorically it said Bush was willing to meet Europe at least part of the way and in fact I think that is been something that has been overlooked in this process. As tough as he has talked, he had left the door open to further dialogue until France rudely slammed it closed with the declaration that it would veto anything that was brought before the UN that didn't exactly suit its position. Mow American support for Bush is climbing, not of course that one would realize that if you only read the pseudo-intellectuals supported by the leftist publications. I'll be very interested to see how far and how long this carping continues when the fighting starts. It would not be surprising to see a continuing effort to undercut Bush even when troops are in harm's way. If so, it would be shameful behavior at best.Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:50 PM | link
KRUGMAN: JUST GROW UP Re: "Breaking the Leftists' Babble Code," 3/15/2003: Paul Krugman says Bush wants to go to war with Iraq "Because. Just because." I would respond, Mr. Krugman, "Grow up. Just grow up". Because, just because you sound very childish. And very politically frustrated. Get over it and come to the realization that the majority of Americans do not agree with you. Assuming of course they can understand what sounds like an argument from a five year old.
Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:17 AM | link