Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Thursday, December 27, 2007WOULD REAGAN VOTE FOR RON PAUL? Matt Towery thinks the answer is "yes." And so do I. Thanks to Tom Demas for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:49 PM | link
SICK STUFF Dave Lindorff, writing in the Baltimore Chronicle, finds what he calls a "silver lining" to global warming -- that rising sea levels and inland droughts will see "much of the so-called 'red' state region either gone or depopulated." He says
"...huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles...Talk about schadenfreude! If he's sincere about fearing global warming and the toll it will take on human lives, there's no place for this kind of cynical political vendetta. This is shameful.
Thanks to Chris Ciancio for the link.
Update... Reader Patrick Duggan writes,
The twisted fantasy of Dave Lindorff is a great example of the real silver lining within the global warming scam. Lefty moonbats are revealed for what they really are: hate-filled, anti-progress, anti-business, anti-human lunatics. They might not come to an understanding of the Laffer curve in several cat lifetimes but we’ll all know soon enough that this whole movement is just a big alarmist myth. I had great fun making handshake bets at holiday parties that by next Christmas the press, (yes even the mainstream media will capitulate), will be telling a different tale as more scientists come to the forefront and proclaim their disagreement and even disgust with the whole deal. Certainly in my dog’s lifetime this scam will be revealed for what it is and those who truly do care about the environment will realize that the greater cause suffered a setback in credibility from Gore and his ilk.Update 2 [12/28/2007]... Reader Liv Douglas adds,
Lindorff apparently ignores the fact that rising sea levels will inundate the expensive coastal properties owned by so many liberals in California, New York, and Massachusetts. I'd rather live in a land-locked red state myself.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:48 PM | link
Wednesday, December 26, 2007TIMES TROUBLES The New York Times covers itself in shame once again, for the loathsome bias evident in a story about Ron Paul on one of the Times' blogs. The retraction now heading the blog post, reproduced below, is longer than the post itself, which suffice it to say refers to Paul's "Nazi troubles."
Editors’ Note: The post below, which appeared on The Medium on Monday, contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.Can anyone recall a single instance in which such a correction was required of the Times' coverage of a liberal? Thanks to Josh Hendrickson for the link, who sent it to me saying, "You like Ron Paul. You hate the NYT. That is why I am sure that you can appreciate this post (complete with a retraction of almost everything that was written) on a Times blog."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:58 PM | link
Sunday, December 23, 2007AH, THE CHRISTMAS SPIRIT The season of charity doesn't seem to have had any impact on "PGL," the coward who hides behind acronymical anonymity at the Angry Bear blog and accuses anyone who disagrees with him (her?) of being "stupid." As he (she?) has so many times before, on the way to making some mostly meaningless point he (she?) finds a way to work in a gratuitous slur against me. Get this -- in the context of talking about antitrust enforcement:
We know Donald Luskin is too stupid to understand that consumers enjoy premium ice cream...The link he embedded under my name takes you to a post I made almost five years ago, saying how silly I thought it was for antitrust regulators to define micromarkets such as "premium ice cream" and insist that there be a prescribed amount of competition in them. I never said consumers don't enjoy premium ice cream. Doesn't PGL realize that any of his (her?) fans who follow the link will instantly discover that he (she?) has simply lied?
But what's really remarkable to me about this is PGL's seeming obsession with me. Why must I be dragged in to so many unrelated arguments he (she?) chooses to make? Why such animus? Why risk his (her?) credibility by lying about me, and then linking to the truth? And how did he (she?) ever happen to remember this posting from almost five years ago, on the subject of ice cream of all things? People of substance and reputation who appear frequently in the media, especially on TV -- as opposed to obscure mental-masturbator bloggers like PGL -- do sometimes attract the morbid attention of disturbed individuals with various kinds of personality disorders. I wonder if PGL, whoever he (she?) is, has a crush on me? Well, Merry Christmas, PGL. Remember, I take the Second Amendment literally. And be sure to take your meds in the New Year.
Update... Reader Dave Lundry says,
PGL's comments simply demonstrate that they are committed to the (usually unstated) axiom of modern liberalism: Everything good must come from, or at least be protected by, government. Premium ice cream is good, therefore government MUST protect its production from the ravages of the evil capitalists. You disagree, therefore you must hate premium ice cream. (Obviously, since you are against government health care, you must hate health as well.)Update 2... Chris Janutol suggests that I wear this shirt, since I take the Second Amendment literally.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:44 AM | link
AS WE APPROACH YEAR-END ...it's time for last-minute submissions for the honor of being recognized as the most insanely exaggerated news story concerning the housing market slump. Perry Eidelbus writes in with one that is sure to win -- from Reuters:
The headline reads, "Tent city in suburbs is cost of U.S. home crisis." But the article admits, "While no current residents claim to be victims of foreclosure..."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:35 AM | link