|
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 We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously.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.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
UNPLEASANT STUFF Much as I detest Enron crony Paul Krugman, and much as I enjoyed the great majority of today's blog ("Treason -- And I'm Not Talking about Ann Coulter" 7/22/2003), I must point out that the "unpleasant stuff" to which Krugman referred was probably an op-ed by Caspar Weinberger in the July 18 Wall Street Journal. Calling Wilson "a retired ambassador with a less than stellar record," Weinberger poked holes in the whole story of his "investigation" and mentioned Wilson's "self-serving op-ed article in the New York Times." I found Weinberger's article utterly credible -- how could some retired ambassador hope to investigate this kind of arms deal anyway? - but I'm sure that the Enron advisor saw the piece as a calculated smear.As a Bush voter likely to pull the lever for GWB again in 2004, I must also say that I wish Krugman and his ilk long and happy journalistic careers. As the right learned during the Clinton years, hatred doesn't win elections. The more these people spew, the further they and their allies get from the White House.
Michael Ladenson
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:54 PM | link
HOW THE COMPANY REALLY WORKS If Paul Krugman knew anything about the CIA ("Treason -- And I'm Not Talking about Ann Coulter" 7/22/2003), he'd know the identity of covert operatives (also known as NOCs for 'nonofficial cover') is unknown to most government officials, even at the CIA itself. Hence the 1996 Mission Impossible plot with Tom Cruise going to acrobatic lengths to steal the "NOC list" from the agency's mainframe.
In fact, most remain unknown to the public, even in death. See the CIA Memorial Wall at its Langley headquarters, for the CIA officers who died on duty; 46 names are public knowledge, the other 34 are secret to this day.
The very fact that unnamed government officials revealed her name, or even know whom she's married to, indicates Ms. Plame is most definitely not a "covert operative." From what is said about her, she is more likely to be just another analyst, toiling away in CIA cubicle-land. Some operative.
This Krugman piece, while better written, is not very different in substance from Michael Moore's usual fare of paranoid conspiracy theory of the left. But because they don't spend their week-ends hiking the woods in camouflage gear, training with guns and discussing plots and counter-plots, it's harder to see them for the crackpots that they are. Or is it ?
Sylvain Galineau
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:54 PM | link
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
DOING THE EDITING, CAUSE NO ONE ELSE WILL I'm just a regular guy, with strong aversion to socialism, who grazes the news and enjoys the occasional political discussion. Sadly, those discussions have become more and more rare because fewer and fewer people on the left have any desire to discuss facts, history, or issues that are objectively good or bad for the USA. Mostly they just get angrier and louder as the conversation escalates and then, finally, they conclude that I am not worth talking to because I am uninformed, unenlightened, or just plain evil. Yikes!But all that is fine, since I guess people will come to different conclusions about the same facts. What really grinds me is when arguments are formed based on no facts, perceived realities, or outright lies. That is what Mr. Krugman does. Although his articles (the few times I had read them) seemed like complete fantasy, there was very little I could do to correlate his articles with each other, or with sources of fact. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
I believe efforts such as yours are invaluable to the future health of this country. There has for a long time been, I think, pressure on this country to go in the direction of socialism because we have been presented with "facts" proving socialism's success and morality, when they were in reality wishes and lies, which in turn form public opinion, which in turn direct politicians to move in a certain direction (I know this is not any real revelation) to get votes. The only defenses for this strategy are a) reviewing objective history, and, b) having light shone on lying weasels like Mr. Krugman.
Again, thank you for your efforts, since the editors of the New York Times seem incapable of performing their jobs properly.
John Docker
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:01 AM | link
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE Unlike Sean Davis ("Did Bush Make Congress Lie?" 7/21/2003), I don't have the numbers to back me up, but by God, I know a conspiracy when I see one! It is obvious what happened here. Bush, the OMB, the CBO, and Congress conspired to lead us down the road to war and financial ruin. And I know where the whole conspiracy was planned out, too. Hanger 51 in New Mexico. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was not being controlled by beings from outer space. In fact, I am certain that Krugman IS from Mars.
Mike Webster
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:00 AM | link
WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE TIMES IS NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA I thought there was a bit of irony in the July 15th Reuters story about the New York Times Company's 2nd quarter earnings release. Do as I say, not as I do.
It's very telling that one of the prescriptions for the company's declining profits is cost cutting. From Reuters: "New York Times Co. Chief Executive Russell Lewis said on Tuesday the company expected 'an improved ad environment' later this year, but would carry out capital expenditures more slowly than planned and cut other costs to bring back profit growth." And, "James Marsh, an analyst at SG Cowen Securities, said the Times posted slightly softer revenues than he had expected, but noted the newspaper group's efforts to cut costs aggressively."
Funny how the Times doesn't champion this approach for the US economy -- cut government expenditures? Bite your tongue! Alternatively, why doesn't the Times pursue its own advice: declining ad revenue? Raise ad revenue prices (i.e., raise taxes), increase government spending, increase the number of its employees, etc. Curious that what is "good" for the American economy isn't so good for the NYT company.
Ken Keane
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:57 AM | link
Monday, July 21, 2003
MORE MEDIA PORK The New York Times is not the only liberal newspaper to use its editorial pages to promote its own welfare ("Pork, W. 43rd Street Style" 7/18/2003). In Washington, they are now building a very expensive new bridge across the Potomac to replace the aging Woodrow Wilson Bridge, on the east side of the city. The cost of the project was greatly increased by the need to allow large ships to come up the river. But the only such ships that ever come up river are those carrying newsprint for the Washington Post. Of course, the Post could have found other, more expensive methods of getting its newsprint. But why bother when you can get the taxpayer to carry the cost? In short, we are building a more expensive bridge just for the benefit of the Washington Post. And when I say "we" I mean everyone, since almost all the cost of the bridge is being borne by the federal government.Bruce Bartlett
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:36 AM | link