The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid is a trademark of Donald L. Luskin

Latest
Media Infiltrations:

Republicans and the Populist Temptation
Wall Street Journal
February 9, 2010
Why Taxing Stock Trades Is a Really Bad Idea
Wall Street Journal
January 6, 2010

Krugman Truth Squad logo, courtesy Tom Miller, Atomic Art: admin@atomicart.com

Peter Sellers and Peter Bull in ''Dr. Strangelove'' Columbia Pictures, 1964 -- Click to order!

"What has been your worst blogging experience?
Donald Luskin."
-- Brad DeLong

"That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally."
-- Paul Krugman

"I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
-- Charlie Gasparino

What I'm reading:
cover
The Happy Body
Aniela and Jerzy Gregorek

What I'm listening to:
cover
Langley Schools Music Project

What I'm watching:
cover
Star Trek

What I'm playing:
cover
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.

Copyright 2002 thru 2009
Donald L. Luskin
don-at-luskin-dot-net
All rights reserved.
"The Conspiracy to
Keep You Poor and Stupid"
and "Krugman Truth Squad"
are trademarks of
Donald L. Luskin
www.poorandstupid.com

Logo by Tommy Carnase 1995

"The road is cleared," said Galt.
"We are going back to the world."
He raised his hand
and over the desolate earth
he traced in space
the sign of the dollar.

From Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand

From each as they choose,
to each as they are chosen.

From Anarchy, State and Utopia
by Robert Nozick

"there is some shit I will not eat"

From i sing of olaf glad and big
by e. e. cummings


In Association with Amazon.com

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!

Saturday, November 12, 2005

SO TO MOCK IS TO STALK?   New York Times writers never run out of ink. They relentlessly pound their victims in the public forum, day after day, month after month. But let someone criticize one of them with the same vigor and the critic is labelled a stalker. Does this sound familiar?
Meet Julia Langbein, chief mocker of Frank Bruni — the chief restaurant critic of The New York Times.

It's early Wednesday morning and Langbein, 24, is tapping at her laptop in the cramped Brooklyn apartment she shares with three other people. The Times's Dining Out section has hit the Internet and newsstands.

Bruni has passed judgment on his latest dinner. Langbein is passing judgment on Bruni...

"In the past, it was random pop shots," [former Times restaurant critic William]Grimes said. "Now, it seems that you're in grave danger of being stalked on the Internet by a philosophical assassin.

Thanks to Perry Eidelbus for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:30 PM | link  


Friday, November 11, 2005

WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY?   The Wall Street Journal editorial page:
So, let's see: These Congressional giants are demanding that Americans be taxed more to pay subsidies to defray the soaring heating bills caused in part by Congress's refusal to allow more drilling for domestic oil and gas. In another bitter irony, the House has already voted for Alaskan drilling five times since 2001, only to be stymied by the Senate. Now that the Senate has maneuvered to pass ANWR with 51 votes by using the budget process to elude a filibuster, the House 25 are doing Harry Reid's dirty work.

America can survive these policy setbacks; the question is whether the Republican majority will, or even should. If a GOP Congress can't vote to sustain its own wildly successful tax cuts, or to explore for more domestic energy, let's just turn Congress over to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and at least have truth in liberal advertising.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:48 AM | link  

WORRIED ABOUT HIGH NATURAL GAS BILLS THIS WINTER?   Don't be. Just substitute capital for consumption. Try one of these. And remember, good taste is timeless. Thanks to Perry Eidelbus for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:49 AM | link  


Thursday, November 10, 2005

ECONOMIC IDIOT OF THE DAY   It's Charles Krauthammer, for sure. His bright idea is to federally mandate a floor price for gasoline of $3/gallon. Wait till you hear his rationale for it.
The beauty of a tax that keeps gasoline at $3 is that it obviates the waste and folly of an army of bureaucrats telling auto companies what cars in which fleets need to meet what arbitrary standards of fuel efficiency. Abolish all the regulations and let the market decide.
How do you like that? Fix the price -- and claim you're doing it to "let the market decide." Thanks to reader Jonathan Redder for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:43 PM | link  

JOKE OF THE DAY  

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:45 PM | link  

SIGH...   While the House stalls on voting spending cuts and the Senate Finance Committee stalls on voting tax reform, Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post:
I am relieved beyond words to find that Ted Stevens is still in the Senate. Before I left, the senator from Alaska had threatened -- on the floor of the Senate, no less -- to resign his seat if his colleagues passed a measure that would have eliminated some of Alaska's already approved transportation projects, including the now-famous "Bridge to Nowhere," and awarded the money to hard-pressed Louisiana. Stevens may be the first senator to equate pork with honor. A statue should be raised to him.

As the ever-humble Stevens would himself acknowledge, this statue -- appropriately funded with money taken from Louisiana relief -- would be not so much in his honor as the entire Senate's, and -- why stop there? -- all of Washington's. Indeed, the funding of ridiculous and unnecessary projects while the government is deeply in debt (and guided by an economic numskull) has become so much a part of contemporary Washington that -- the scolding John McCain notwithstanding -- it ought to be memorialized. A man feeding pigs is what I have in mind.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:37 PM | link  

I GUESS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHITE ALL-MALE FAMILIES...   ...when Paul Krugman lauded "French family values." A little reality from Reuters:
A series of gang rapes in these bleak housing estates shocked France a few years ago. In 2002, a 17-year-old girl was set alight by an 18-year-old boy as his friends stood by...the dominance of traditional cultures among families of Arab and black African origin, combined with the growing role of Islam in the suburbs, have contributed to the harsh treatment girls get there.

Pressure is mounting for Muslim women to wear veils. Forced marriages that snatch them from college and career -- where they do much better than their male schoolmates -- are on the rise.

The support group "Ni Putes, Ni Soumises" ("Neither Whores nor Submissives") says the number of forced marriages has risen in recent years, with roughly 70,000 girls pressured into unwanted relationships each year in France.

Thanks to reader Bryan Arledge for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:29 PM | link  

HERE'S SOMETHING FROM FRANCE WE SHOULD EMULATE   Specifically, a little bit of honesty about the way the left-wing media selectively covers and positions the news for political purposes. From the Guardian, concerning the French media's coverage of Paris riots:
Jean-Claude Dassier, the director general of the [French] rolling news service TCI, said...his own channel, which is owned by the private broadcaster TF1, recently decided not to show footage of burning cars.

"Politics in France is heading to the right and I don't want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television," Mr Dassier told an audience of broadcasters...

Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:14 PM | link  

TRADESPORTS LISTS A "LIBBY GUILTY" CONTRACT   And it doesn't look good for "Scooter"...

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:20 AM | link  

SPENDING NONSENSE   So the Senate and House have voted for modest spending cuts over the next five years. "Modest" doesn't begin to describe them. Our friend Brian Reidl at Heritage says:
Despite the “sky is falling” rhetoric warning of the dismantling of government, the budget reconciliation savings are exceedingly modest. The House’s $54 billion of reconciliation savings represents just half of 1 percent of the $7.8 trillion entitlement spending planned over the next five years. The challenge is no greater than that facing a family of four making $50,000 a year and suddenly faced with the need to pay off a $250 emergency room bill over a five-year period.
What galls me the most about these spending bills is that, at first, the "moderates" and the "centrists" said we couldn't possilbly cut taxes because we aren't cutting spending. So now they are cutting spending, and now they say they can't cut taxes because they did cut spending. Can't cut taxes "for the rich" when we cut spending "for the poor." Hey guys -- spending is always for the poor. And taxes are always for the rich. So why don't you just forget all the spending rationales and just say we can never cut taxes, and be done with it?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:10 AM | link  

MALEFACTORS OF GREED IN SKIRTS   There ought to be an investigation.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:07 AM | link  

SO NOW IT'S A CRIME TO INVEST DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU MUSE   Must be a slow muck day. From the Wall Street Journal:
Investor Jim Rogers's...tussle with bedeviled commodity-brokerage Refco Inc. suggests his funds have been flirting with danger lately. The fight boils down to whose fault it is that the Rogers funds had more than $360 million at risk, primarily in an unregulated Refco unit based in Bermuda that engages in privately negotiated trades... Such trades are anathema to the strategy Mr. Rogers has emphasized in public appearances, regulatory filings and a book in which he wrote that the traditional pitfalls of commodity trading can easily be avoided if investors stick with exchange-listed futures contracts and refrain from using too much borrowed money.

...If the brokerage didn't follow instructions from the managers of Mr. Rogers's two funds, Refco may have violated federal commodity-trading rules protecting customers. If, on the other hand, Refco did the managers' bidding, then the funds may not have been adhering to their namesake's much-publicized musings.

Another crook violating the SEC's anti-musing laws. Throw away the key.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:06 AM | link  


Wednesday, November 09, 2005

A CAPITAL IDEA!!!   A stroke of genius from reader Gregory Richardson:
You might be aware of attempts by Steven Spruiell of National Review Online to get his readers to bombard newspapers with letters calling for corrections of inaccurate stories about Joseph Wilson. With that in mind, your item about Gail Collins lamenting how few pro-Bush letters are received at the New York Times suggets a way of testing the accuracy of her lament.

How about asking Poor and Stupid readers to cc you whenever they send letters to the editor of the Times? With only a modest amount of space on your web site, you could archive these letters and keep tabs on how many are actually printed. We could then know, for example, whether one's chance of being published shortly after the SOTU address is in fact "really, really, really good", or whether Collins was embroidering the truth a bit. Besides, you already show us the text of your letters that the Times won't publish. Give us more!

By the way, the eloquence of Collins in this quote reminds me of something Homer Simpson said when he met somebody from Reader's Digest. He said, "I love your magazine. My favorite section is 'How to improve your word power'. It's really, really, really...uhhhh...good."


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:49 AM | link  

KRUGMAN CORRECTION FINALLY ARCHIVED!   It took six of my National Review Online columns (here, here, here, here, here, and here) to get the New York Times to correct the errors (i.e., the lies) in Paul Krugman's August 19, 22 and 26 columns about the 2000 Florida presidential election. Editorial page editor Gail Collins finally did it in her column of October 2. But it took an entire month before the correction made its way into the archived version of Krugman's columns on the Times website. Here's a month's worth of email correspondence between me and Times "public editor" Barney Calame -- this is what it took to get the "newspaper of record" to include a correction which it had already publicly acknowledged into its own record.
 
Luskin to Calame
October2
Krugman corrections not "official"


Barney,Check the Times web archives.

The three Krugman columns affected by the Florida 2000 error, Aug 19, Aug 23, and Aug 27 are not running the correction from Collins’ column Sunday.The other Krugman columns concerning the Michael Brown matter, Sept 5 and 9, have been.Is this really so hard to get right?

Please let me know.

Don


Calame to Luskin
October3
Re: Krugman corrections not "official"


Dear Don:

Thanks for your e-mail.

Regards,
Barney


Luskin to Calame
October3
Re: Krugman corrections not "official"


That’s it? “Thanks for your e-mail”?


Calame to Luskin
October3
Re: Krugman corrections not "official"


Dear Don:

Yes. The reason for my e-mail was to thank you for your e-mail.

Regards,
Barney


Luskin to Calame
October3
Re: Krugman corrections not "official"


In that case, you are welcome.

Luskin to Calame
October4
Still not corrected


The Collins correction of Krugman’s Aug 19, 22 and 26 columns are still not in the Times archives. This is simply scandalous.

Luskin to Calame
October5
Another day goes by…


And still the Florida election “error” goes uncorrected in the archives for Krugman’s columns of Aug 19, 22 and 26.

Just my daily reminder. Is Gail Collins aware of this?

Luskin to Calame
October6
Still no archived version of Krugman correction


Barney,

Still no correction in the archives.

Would you please tell me what you are doing to remediate this situation?

Don
Luskin to Calame
October7
Still no archived correction


Barney,

This is getting utterly absurd. How long do you intend to stand by while Krugman’s August 19, 22 and 26 columns remain corrected in the web archives?

Please respond to me and tell me what is being done about this.

Don

Calame to Luskin
October7
Re: Still no archived correction


Dear Don:

Thank you for your update.

Regards,
Barney

Luskin to Calame
October7
Still no Krugman correction


What are you doing about this travesty?

Luskin to Calame
October8
Eight days on, still no Krugman correction


The Times web archives (and Lexis/Nexis, Factiva and ProQuest) still do not reflect the correction for Krugman’s Aug 19, 22 and 26 columns.

Please let me know what your position is on this. And please don’t just thank me for my email. In advance, you are welcome. I want to know what is being done about this. Thank you.
Luskin to Calame
October9
Still no correction


Barney, why are you letting this slip. Still no archives correction for Krugman’s Aug 19,22,26 columns. Please tell me why you are doing this.

Calame to Luskin
October9
Re: Still no correction

Don:

Thank you for your reminder.

Regards,
Barney

Luskin to Calame
October10
Still two out of three


Still no correction in the archives of Krugman’s Aug 19, 22 and 26 columns. When are you going to go public with notice of this to Gail Collins? What rationale has she offered you? Are you still negotiating the form of the correction? Why the apparent inaction? Youth wants to know!

Luskin to Calame
October14
Krugman and Miller


1) I like to see you take the aggressive tone you took in your note about Miller. I’m no expert, though, but I do wonder whether it’s true that "legal concerns should no longer rule the roost" simply because there has been a "lifting of the contempt order against" Miller. As you know I have no sympathy for the Times, but I do imagine that they find themselves in a very tricky legal liability situation here.

2) As long as you are getting aggressive, how about making the slightest gesture of follow-up on the matter of the unconscionable fact that Krugman’s lies in his August 19, 22 and 26 column continue to go uncorrected in the archives almost two weeks since Collins admitted they were lies? Please let me know.
Luskin to Calame
October16
Two week anniversary


It’s now been two weeks since Gail Collins proclaimed that posterity demands the official correction of errors in the Times archives. And still, after two weeks, Krugman’s errors about the Florida 2000 election in his Aug 19, 22 and 26 columns go uncorrected in the web archives of the newspaper of record. Why are you letting Collins and Krugman snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Luskin to Calame
October18
Now is the time


It’s been more than two weeks. Now is the time for the archives of Krugman’s columns of Aug 19, 22 and 26 to be corrected.

Will you please explain to me why the archives have not been corrected?
Luskin to Calame
October 19
This is ridiculous

Barney, how long are going to let Krugman’s columns of Aug 19, 22, and 26 remain uncorrected in the archives after everyone involved has admitted that they require correction? Please stop ignoring me or sending me dismissive one-liners thanking me for my emails. Please acknowledge that you are aware of this situation and let me know where you stand on it.

Luskin to Calame
October20
Why the silence?


Barney, for almost three weeks now I have been reminding you every day that Krugman’s Aug 19, 22 and 26 columns remain uncorrected in the Times online archives.

You argued twice yourself that it was important that the archives be corrected. Gail Collins said the same thing. Krugman and Collins have both admitted the error.

So why aren’t the archives corrected? And why won’t you substantively respond? Am I an “enemy” of the Times not worthy of a response on a simple question asked in good faith?

You are the readers representative. I am a reader. I am asking an entirely reasonable question, and I am doing it respectfully. I am at a loss to understand why this is happening in the first place, and even more so why you won’t show me the courtesy of responding with a straight answer, or at all.

Don

Luskin to Calame
October24
Still no correction


Why not? Why are you letting Collins get away with this farce, this slap in your face?

Luskin to Calame
October25
Still no Krugman correction in archives


Don’t you think you owe the readers an explanation, after all that you and Collins wrote about this? Makes you look pretty foolish at a time when the Times can’t afford to look much more foolish than it already does.

Luskin to Calame
October26
Shame on you


You are so scrupulous that you returned the T-shirt I sent you. Yet Krugman’s columns go uncorrected in the archives. What a joke.

Luskin to Calame
October27
Still no Krugman archive corrections


And still your silence. Disappointing. Defeat from the jaws of victory.

Luskin to Calame
October28
Still no Krugman archive corrections


Why have you given up on this? Why no response from you?

Luskin to Calame
October31
Judy Miller


Fooled you. This is about Krugman, but I wanted you to read it for a change. The fact is that his Aug 19, 22 and 26 columns are still uncorrected in the archives. His column today is called “Ending the Fraudulence.” When are you going to do that?

November 2
Still no Krugman corrections

Barney, why have you fallen down on this? What’s the barrier?

Luskin to Calame
November 2
Still no Krugman correction


It’s been a month. How do you explain this? Archives still uncorrected. Collins win, Calame loses.


Luskin to Calame
November 8
Krugman correction


I see you finally did it. Good.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:37 AM | link  


Monday, November 07, 2005

YES, VIRGINIA, THERE IS A PETANQUE BLOG   Within minutes of my having asked, the answer comes back in the affirmative. Here it is. It's run by Petanque America (whose slogan is "We get the 'boules' rolling"), and it turns out they are organizing the first ever international petanque tournament in the US, this weekend. Don't you just love the web?

Update... Philippe at Petanque America tells me,

Thanks for the link. The more people discover that petanque is truly cheap, fun and healthy family entertainment, the better. No batteries, no upgrades, no monthly fees... A bit of witty trash-talking while playing is 'de rigueur'. You may enjoy these Cosby clips: http://petanque.us/video/cosby; see clip # 3.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:36 PM | link  

COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM KRUGMAN'S CARELESS ARROGANCE   Even New Republic editor Peter Beinart is not to be spared (despite the fact that he wrote a glowing review of The Great Unraveling in the New York Times). Either you're with me, or you're smeared. From the New Republic's blog, a posting by Jason Zengerle:
Paul Krugman takes an unfair swipe at our boss, Peter Beinart, in his New York Times column today [link]. Krugman, in the guise of an agonizingly long addendum to Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Suit, lambastes the pundits and politicians who have refused to admit that the emperor, President Bush, wears no clothes when it comes to his Iraq policy. At one point, Krugman writes:
The editor of one liberal but pro-wardrobe magazine admitted that he had known from the beginning that there were good reasons to doubt the emperor's trustworthiness. But he said that he had put those doubts aside because doing so made him "feel superior to the Democrats." Unabashed, he continued to denounce those who had opposed the suit as soft on sartorial security.
The "pro-wardrobe" editor in question is Beinart. But let's take a look at what Peter actually wrote in his June 2004 TRB:
In the run-up to the Iraq war, I tried hard not to be partisan. I distrusted the Bush administration and feared it would be politically empowered by the war. But such thoughts felt petty and limited at such an important time. And so I evaluated the arguments for war on their merits, irrespective of my feelings about the people making them. Doing so made me feel superior to the Democrats, who, I suspected, would have supported an Iraq war waged by Al Gore, and to the Republicans, who had opposed the Kosovo war because it was waged by Bill Clinton.
How could Krugman have so badly twisted Beinart's words? Here's one theory: he never read them. Instead, he relied on a Nation article from a few months ago [link] in which Ari Berman attacked Peter for "admitting that he overcame his distrust of Bush so that he could 'feel superior to the Democrats.'" Well, at least Krugman got the gist of what Berman was unfairly saying.
Thanks to reader Harris Moyer for the link.

Update [11/8/2005]... Reader Sylvain Galineau says:

Now we know the real offense that Bush committed by invading Iraq: he allowed some people on the Left to feel superior to Paul Krugman. How criminal. This must undoubtedly be the most pressing issue of the day: who felt superior to whom two years ago is clearly of the essence. I am sure even those displaced by Hurricane Katrina would agree, and demand that a bi-partisan commission be set up to ensure such egregious abuse never happens again. Or could this all be a convenient distraction from those solid "family values" from across the Atlantic that we --- especially Senator Rick Santorum, if I recall -- should all be aspiring to?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:17 PM | link  

YEAH, RIGHT   Gail Collins is interviewed by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:We run editorials which reflect the traditional values of The New York Times, which, anybody in their right mind, I think, would regard as liberal -- although I get yelled at every day for being too conservative by people who are more liberal than we are...

The terrible fact is we don't get many pro-Bush letters to the editor. When we do, we try to publish them. As soon as it's [the next State of the Union address] over, go to your e-mail and send us a two-paragraph, pithy letter, saying what a great speech that was. And your chances of being published will be really, really, really good. Our letters editor really looks for those kinds of letters and he doesn't get nearly enough of them.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:15 PM | link  

MORE FRENCH FAMILY VALUES (A LA CLOCKWORK ORANGE)   From Agence France Presse:
"We have found our thrills: playing with riot police in the evening," one 22-year-old told AFP, under cover of anonymity.

"As long as the police come and provoke us in the evening, we'll bring out the Molotov cocktails, stones, petanque balls, planks," he said.

Around him, half a dozen youths nodded in agreement.

"In the day we sleep, go see our girlfriends, play video games... And in the evening we have a good time: at 9:00 pm we go and fight the police," said one.

"It's like being in Matrix," the science-fiction film, he said, adding that he liked to see the "riot police in a panic, hiding behind their shields."

Uh, okay... so what's a petanque ball??

Update...Readers Chris Masse, Gary Focht, Robert Schwartz, Robert Lawrence, Sylvain Galineau, and Don Mackison all have the answer. Here's Focht:

Petanque is a game played with steel balls (called boules) weighing about 700 grams (1.5 pounds) each. The object is to get your balls closest to the small, wooden ball, called a cochenet, tossed about 6-10 meters away. Very popular game, especially in the southern part of France. Quite fun actually, but those balls would make good weapons. However, good petanque boules cost about 20 Euros apiece. Very cheap ones can be had for about 1.5 Euros each. I wonder which ones they are throwing at the police - cheap or expensive?
Schwartz points to a petanque website. Any petanque blogs out there?

Mackison has pictures:


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:09 PM | link  

PARANOID, OR JUST WORRIED ABOUT LIBERTY?   From Information Week, concerning the proliferation and potentially dark uses of radio frequency ID chips:
I don't think anyone cares about the really neat uses of RFID - to track Alzheimer patients or newborns, manage inventory or track the shipment of goods. Sun, for example, is trialing an RFID-fueled asset tracking service that supposedly lets the company verify any item's location and physical characteristics within an hour, without linking to a network. And Ford just announced an RFID Just-In-Time Delivery system, which will enable better coordination of 40-50 shipments a day of truck parts. Lots of people would like their appliances and cars to alert them before a major failure.

But none of this changes the fact that RFID can be used badly, invasively and secretly. Something "Spychips" makes plenty clear. Even potentially useful applications, like installing biometric or RFID chips in passports and licenses have as many cons as there are pros. It's worth stopping to take a breath and think this stuff out. Which is what some people are doing.

[Reporter Laurie] Sullivan has reported on a bill pending in the California Senate that is seeking to put a three-year moratorium on using RFID chips in various government issued documents - driver's licenses, library cards etc. And in a somewhat related action, Microsoft is pushing for a national, federal standard on protecting consumer data. Obviously, one of the concerns about RFID tracking is who will have access to any data that is collected.

Thanks to reader David Duval for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:27 AM | link  

CAN'T KRUGMAN GET ANYTHING RIGHT?   Apparently not. Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:50 AM | link  


Sunday, November 06, 2005

AND YOU STILL DON'T THINK ENVIRONMENTALISM IS A RELIGION?   More on the Religious Left, from Novak's latest column:
At an Oct. 26 hearing, Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, drew from an animal rights activist an admission that he advocated murder of medical researchers who performed experiments on animals.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak of North American Animal Liberation was quoted as saying at an animal rights convention: "I don't think you'd have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, or 10 million non-human lives."

Inhofe asked whether he was "advocating the murder of individuals."

Vlasak replied: "I made that statement, and I stand by that statement."


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:34 PM | link  

AT LAST! WE'VE FOUND THE WMD!   And they are in Paris! After 10 nights of spreading riots,
Police...found a gasoline bomb-making factory in a derelict building in Evry south of Paris, with more than 100 bottles ready to turned into bombs, another 50 already prepared, as well as fuel stocks and hoods for hiding rioters' faces, senior Justice Ministry official Jean-Marie Huet told The Associated Press. Police arrested six people, all under 18.

The discovery Saturday night, he said, shows that gasoline bombs "are not being improvised by kids in their bathrooms."

Thanks to Perry Eidelbus for the link. Perry, by the way, recognizes that Paul Krugman won't be mentioning the riots in his beloved Paris ("Well, I don't know if it's my beloved Paris"). So Perry has adapted a little real Krugman into an apropos bit of faux Krugman:
It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents, or in this case, euros, after an act of mass rioting. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from the last several days' horror.

These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the rioting -- like the original one in 1968, which brought an end to France's illusions about its society -- could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for politican reform, but as an opportunity for political profiteering in the name of national unity. About the direct economic impact: France's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Its economy is sufficiently large that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they appear in news photos, are hardly a pinprick. Nobody has a euro figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is even a calculable fraction of a percent of France's annual economic output, let alone wealth -- hardly comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane, such as we've seen this year.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:50 PM | link