July 24, 2002

Paul Krugman Separates the Weblogging Sheep From the Rhinoceroses

Paul Krugman separates the weblogging sheep (me, J. Micah Marshall) from the weblogging... rhinoceroses (a la Eugene Ionesco and Zero Mostel).

The core of the judgment is that Mickey Kaus has ceased to be a port-side kind of guy, and has forgotten that he is a Democratic neoliberal and not a Republican neoconservative.


THE RHINOCEROS EFFECT

THE RHINOCEROS EFFECT (7/21/02)

I don't know how many people have read or seen Eugene Ionesco's   Rhinoceros, a parable about conformity and the authoritarian impluse. It tells of a town in which people begin turning, one by one, into rhinoceri - yet few are willing to acknowledge what's happening. The most memorable scene is one in which the hero's friend (famously played by Zero Mostel) begins making excuses for his neighbors -- maybe it's not so bad to be a rhinoceros, after all -- and, as we watch, turns into a rhinoceros himself.

What reminded me of the play was a visit to my old publication  Slate .  I've pretty much restricted my blog reading to  Brad DeLong  and  Josh Marshall  - but I couldn't help noticing that Zero Mostel had nothing on Mickey Kaus.

Meanwhile, some of us refuse to ignore the rhinoceri running the country.

Posted by DeLong at July 24, 2002 01:06 PM | TrackBack

Comments

If I weren't doing research this fortnight, my spin on this post would be "Krugman supports DeLong for AlternaPundit!"

(By the way, some of the posters on Live From the WTC are hammering you for being partisan. When libertarians attack you, you're doing something right!)

Posted by: Paul on July 24, 2002 10:35 PM

I can't help but note that an enemy of freedom and democracy could not have hoped for a sweeter victory as a result of the attacks... (My last words before I metamorphose into a rhino myself, haaa...)

Posted by: JP on July 24, 2002 11:43 PM

I'd wish I didn't suspect Krugman's analysis was influenced by Kaus's fact-check on the recent dispute between Katie Coric and Ann Coulter.

>

Ann Coulter is totally partisen, but makes no

pretense of being otherwise. And it appears

she count higher than one. (Maybe she uses her

fingers...)

Posted by: melcher on July 25, 2002 09:08 AM

As for Ann Coulter, she is far more sinned against than sinning. I've found little that is factually inaccurate in her book (though I've not read it all). I have found all kinds of factual inaccuracies in those purporting to be fact checking her (details available upon request).

Little that Krugman puts into his NY Times columns survives scrutiny. Among other things he has blatantly misrepresented are: Thomas White's role at Enron, the "Fat Boy" et al, strategies (Frank Wolak even explained it for him and he still missed it), the Harken Energy stock sale by W., Halliburton's accounting for copnstruction change orders, Stanley Tool's "tax evasion" (his own tax expert explained it wasn't that, but tax minimization).

Now, we've got this to add:

http://www.austin360.com/auto_docs/epaper/editions/wednesday/editorial_4.html

In which, someone with the facts destroys Krugman's version of a story:

<<

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 25, 2002 10:59 AM
Post a comment