Semi-Daily Journal

For those keeping score, that's DeLong quoting Lambert quoting Kopel quoting Levitt writing to Reynolds. Lambert also quotes Reynolds, and Kopel also quotes himself writing to Levitt. I'm going to go outside now.

Personally, were I to rate Reynolds as "unreliable" it would be an upgrade.

Can it be assumed that Lambert will apply the same standard to Paul Krugman?

Got it. Paul Krugman is responsible. Got it. Must blame Paul Krugman. Must blame Paul Krugman. Grrr. Why Princeton has faculty posts waiting for all the looney PK critics. We invite applications.

>It turns out that "some time ago" was Reynolds' special way of saying "yesterday".

Reynolds often comments on how quickly the blogosphere moves. For him, "yesterday" can honestly be "some time ago".

Why is it "looney" to inquire whether Krugman can be deemed "unreliable" for printing falsehoods about political opponents, particularly when followed by dishonest and unethical retractions? Is it "looney" to expect a consistent standard regarding truthfulness in statements pertaining to others, regardless of political affiliation?

Thanks JD

We have to dispense with Princeton altogether. Then, the New York Times. We can send our children to Bob Jones University and tune in Fox [we report, you decide] News and be ever ever so much smarter. Wish you had been smart enough and mean enough for Bob Jones?

Of course, Paul Krugman is as fine and honest an economist and columnist as there might be. The critics are mere hacks of reaction. Poor dear critics.

I think the real question, Will, is why Reynolds's veracity shortcomings drive you to say nothing about Reynolds but rather Krugman. Speaking as a liberal, if someone reasonable criticizes, say, Michael Moore, my inclination would be to evaluate the criticism. It wouldn't really occur to me to simply respond with a blast at someone from the right who I might consider equally guilty of the charge.

If Lambert were making subtle and subjective arguments, your comment could be considered a fair questioning of his motives and character, and thereby a fair questioning of his conclusions about Reynolds. But Lambert's information looks to be pretty straightforward and objective, so I doubt you intended to argue that Lambert's criticism of Reynolds was made untrustworthy by his lack of criticism of Krugman.

As Mr. Brubeck noted, this is a somewhat convoluted chain of events, and seems to revolve around Reynolds' chracterization of a recent event as having taken place "some time ago". I am not sufficiently interested in the argument to spend any energy deconstructing it, for it seems to be a run-of-the-mill pissing match. I find it interesting that people become energized by matters such as these, while tolerating behavior that is far worse, such as making dishonest insinuations of criminality against political opponents, followed by dishonest and unethical "retractions". lise, for instance, thinks that making dishonest insinuations of criminality against political opponents is the behavior of a fine and honest political commentator, or at least the best behavior that can be expected. I doubt if she holds those people with whom she disagrees to such a low standard, which says a lot about her, and supporters of political parties in general.

Poor dear looney rightists. No problem. Why bother to even read the New York Times? Ah. Must try to silence any intelligent discussion. Pleeease....

Actually, lise, I stopped reading the NYT because of behavior such as Krugman's, and other agenda-driven dishonesty. I notice that you don't dispute the characterization of Krugman as one who prints falsehoods about political opponents, but instead reduce yourself to the typical ad hominem rhetoric. How does one become such a Kool-aid guzzler, to the point that allegiance to one's faction trumps any allegiance to intellectual honesty? Hey, send Howell Raines a resume; you seem to be the ideal NYT employee!

Ah the next iteration of "Godwin's Law" the kool-aid reference.

Perhaps we should also rename "Godwin's Law" Krugman's law since that pretty much sends all into a tizzy.

And Will, let me say that all Insty needs to do is provide ANY evidence to back up his accusation on Levitt, ANY evidence at all. Since rehashing the Rangers and Thomas White will bring no solace, I will stipulate that the evidence can even be of a quality that me (and my fellow kool-aid guzzlers) treat with the same disdain as your (different flavor kool-aid guzzling) side treated Krugman's explanations for White and Bush.

By the way Lambert's a pretty tenacious guy. He screws up occasionally but he nails Lott pretty good every now and then. Pity for your side that Krugman's self-appointed Lambert, aka Donald Luskin, is such an incompetent, ignorant fool.

Achilles, why do you assume, when it comes to making false accusations against political opponents, that I am on anyone's side? If Reynolds has made a false accusation against someone, I condemn it. What I don't understand is those people that, in Kool-aid guzzling mode, tenaciously defend those who, belonging to the same political faction, make false accusations against opponents. Furthermore, why is a false attribution of rabid anti-gun beliefs enough to render someone "unrelaible", while a false insinuation of criminality, followed by a dishonest and unethical "retraction", is not? For that matter, by Lambert's standard, how does one maintain their reliability after making the nonsensical claim that the name "Jeb" did not exist prior to the Civil War, all out of an attempt to insinuate that one's political opponents are racist? Please inform, precisely, how the ol' relia-meter calibrates itself according to which political faction one belongs to.

As to your question, the answer is very simple: I will never take anything that Brad DeLong has to say about the historical origins of Jeb Bush's name seriously just as Lambert (and, lately, I and many others) have stopped taking Lott on guns seriously.

And if instead Paul Krugman had called Steve Levitt "rabidly anti-gun" and Glenn Reynolds had called Thomas White "a crook", I would criticize Krugman more than Reynolds. Someone like you who thinks that I am part of a "kool-aid guzzling" group will never believe the above statement, but that's okay, Will, because despite that carefully maintained facade of neutrality I believe you are just as biased as anyone here, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Perhaps we should also rename "Godwin's Law" Krugman's law since that pretty much sends all into a tizzy."

I second the nomination. Can we get a voice vote?

Will, just so you're not confused about a willingness to "defend" Krugman from your charges....

The idea that Paul Krugman "prints falsehoods about political opponents" and follows that with "dishonest and unethical retractions" couldn't be more false. It makes it impossible to take any other point you make seriously.

If you are truly a friend of honesty, then surely you know that there are dozens of members of the chattering classes who routinely produce falsehoods about political opponents, and in comparison to the masters of this art (the likes of Coulter, Horowitz, Bartley, Krauthammer, Hannity, Sullivan, and Limbaugh all come to mind), Krugman isn't even in the game.

I heard that Krugman was somehow involved in the JonBenet Ramsey story. Does anyone here have the details?

Howard mentions a lot of sub-prime-time lowlifes who are worse than Krugman, but bigtime guys like Safire and George Will are also guilty of smearing, dishonesty, ungrounded accusations, and conflict of interest to a far greater degree than Krugman is.

Will Allen keeps dragging out the same two stories, one of which Krugman recanted (but not to Allen's satisfaction). I'm not sure I even believe Will is right on these two stories. However, even if he is, Krugman's ethics are better than many of the major pundits, including but not limited to the two just named.

By dragging Krugman's supposedly unprecedented crimes into every discussion whatsover, Will and a few others here have fallen into the Captain Queeg category.

The main reason Krugman is getting as much heat as he's getting is because he's almost the only columnist or spokesman in any major venue who aggressively attacks the Bush administration's disastrous and dishonest economic and fiscal policies. Krugman happens to be right about these policies -- even their supporters say these policies are good because they will cause enough problems to force changes somewhere down the road.

Some people really want a one-party state with a one-party press. Godwin's law forbids me to say more but anyone who wants to try to guess what I think will probably not guess wrong.

I write this without animosity.

Will Allen's posts always take a side, then deny they are taking a side, then accuse others of taking a side, usually the side he hasn't taken, if he did take a side, which he doesn't, because he's objectively pro-neutral, but certainly not on your side, which would be confusing, because then there is an argument, so then it's I think I know of thee, but it's all wrong, that is, I think I disagree. Let me take you down to Strawberry Fields.

Matt Brubeck wrote: "that's DeLong quoting Lambert quoting Kopel quoting Levitt writing to Reynolds." It's better than that. Levitt has the "rabidly antigun" quote in his email, so it's DeLong quoting Lambert quoting Kopel quoting Levitt writing to Reynolds quoting Kopel and Reynolds quoting an anonymous source widely believed to be Lott.

Thanks for proving my point, folks. Krugman's column regarding the Texas Rangers Partnership plainly misstated widely known and easily available facts in a dishonest attempt to insinuate criminality. Krugman then ran an unethical and dishonest retraction. It was unethical because he posted on a website with a miniscule circualtion compared to the forum in which he ran his original lies. It was dishonest because Krugman stated that it was unusual for people who successfully lobbied the government for subsidies to be grandly compensated, or that such subsidies were unusual. Krugman is correct that such subsidies are wrong (although he doesn't seem to get all hot and bothered when they go to the NYT), but he is lying when he states that it is unusual. Krugman's defenders in this forum find these lies tolerable because they agree with Krugman's politics.

Am I neutral? Of course not. I am strongly anti-statist in my orientation. What I am unwilling to do, however, is defend lies because they come from someone with whom I agree politically. Why are so many here so desperate to do so? If Reynolds has lied about someone being rabidly anti-gun, I condemn the lie. If Reynolds is to be labeled unreliable as a result, however, logic dictates that those who dishonestly insinuate criminality, or that those who sow tales regarding the origin of a name, in order to insinuate racism, should be labeled unreliable as well.

Will, Krugman isn't just attacking a "political opponent," he's attacking someone who nominally wields more power than any other living human. As such, he's writing in a completely different context. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept on its face anything Krugman claims. Rather, Bush is a politician, and Krugman's attack on him is first and foremost political. Lott, to take an example, is supposedly writing first and foremost as a scholar.

And, just for the record, while I don't have the time to verify every charge Krugman writes, his overall thrust is correct: Bush is a liar.

As to "but he is lying when he states that it is unusual," since there's no really good metric for "unusual," this can hardly constitute a "lie."

You also wrote, "I am strongly anti-statist in my orientation." Then why are you spending energy attacking someone (Krugman) who is attacking someone (Bush) doing his best to strengthen state power in the US?

Also, "What I am unwilling to do, however, is defend lies because they come from someone with whom I agree politically." That's silly. There are many columnists who "lie" far more than Krugman does, so why do you focus on attacking him? (My guess: you, like many so-called libertarians, are in love with the Right's agenda to allow the rich to collect even more economic rent.)

"Why are so many here so desperate to do so?" Because we agree with Krugman's overall agenda: attacking a very dangerous president.

Sorry, replace 'shouldn't in "That doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept on its face anything Krugman claims." with 'should'

Here's a pop quiz for all you Krugmaniacs:

" As the war began, members of the House of Representatives gave speech after speech praising our soldiers, and passed a resolution declaring their support for the troops. Then they voted to slash veterans' benefits."

Given that the 2003 figure for VA spending was about $58 billion and the 2004 budget that the Republicans just voted for will be $64 billion, which is closer to the truth: 1) Krugman's claim, or, 2) VA spending received a 10% increase?

We love the Paul Krugman columns. Find the critics a bunch of looney rightists. So sorry. Go read the looney Ann Coulter. We do not care.

Here goes Mr Sullivan again, brandishing another canard all over the internet, this one courtesy of another one of these pathetic bloggers whose life consists of poring over Krugman's columns. The next posting from Mr Sullivan will, if form holds true, contain a link to the President's budget, but the President's budget is immaterial here, since Krugman said CONGRESS voted to cut VA benefits, not that the PRESIDENT cut benefits.

The fact is Congress did, on the day Krugman said they did, vote to cut tons of discretionary spending including veterans benefits, medicaid etc. to see if they could get a proposal that would allow deficit hawks in the Senate to vote for the $700+ billion tax cut. The subsequent outcry, along with pressure from some house moderates and the senate who found the cuts way too deep resulted in the VA cuts being rescinded and funding reinstated in the bill that eventually went to committee.

If you have a problem with the above reality, and would like history to be rewritten to match your worldview Patrick, please get in touch immediately with

1)The AP, which on March 24th said

"Veterans groups are feeling relief after six GOP lawmakers secured a promise from the House Budget Committee chairman to increase money for former soldiers' benefits and health care. The House budget blueprint approved early Friday, 215-212, cuts disability benefit payments to former soldiers and reduces money for GI bill benefits and health care. But Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa andHouse budget chairman, promised in a letter to Rep. Chris Smith that money for the veterans programs would be restored and increased in a conference committee. Smith is chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
"This is a direct result of tremendous grass roots efforts of members of veterans groups across the country," Dave Autry, spokesman for Disabled American Veterans, said Monday.Autry also credited Smith and five other GOP lawmakers who fought the cuts.

2) The Copley News Service, which ran the following on March 24th

The House committee, under Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, was more forthright. It instructed legislators to cut nondefense discretionary spending - the portion of the budget that goes for education, science, transportation, parks and the like - over the next decade by $200 billion. And then it ordered $450 billion in cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, food stamps and children's health insurance. The Medicare cuts were too much even for House Republicans, and Nussle removed them to win approval of his plan on the House floor last Friday.

3) The Denver Post, which wrote

"As many as 15,000 Colorado veterans may suffer drastic service cuts or huge increases in their health care costs under the budget passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a report from House Democrats. But Republicans on the House Budget Committee shot back that these numbers are 'speculative' and do not take into consideration spending increases for veterans next year.About 2,000 Colorado veterans are expected to be shut out of VA care because of a provision in the House budget that would cut off enrollment of certain veterans after Jan. 17, 2003, according to a report from Democrats on the House Committee on Government Reform.

4) The Chicago Sun-Times, which ran an Op-Ed on April 13th, which said:

"Late into the night of March 20, the U.S. House heard speech after passionate speech in favor of a resolution proclaiming support for U.S. troops in Iraq, but offering them nothing substantive.
Minutes after passing that symbolic resolution, Republicans passed their budget calling for a $28 billion cut in veterans' benefits and health care, with Republicans providing all but one vote."

There are also op-eds by David Broder at the Post and Robert Kuttner at the Boston Globe.

Good luck. Hope you can make them see the light, when you are done, I am sure Krugman (and his kool-aid guzzling fans) will humbly apologize to you.

Lise

Simply skip around the Krugman bashers. They single Krugman out because the criticism of "neo-conservative" policy is so telling. Better for the rest of us that we be ignorant as the neo-cons wreck havoc on the middle class. Say what?

Achilles

Why bother. Paul Krugman is right. The bashers are nutty. I always send Krugman's columns to all on my mail list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/opinion/18KRUG.html

Terrific article by Paul Krugman inthe NYTimes on Friday. Always terrific. Poor looney bashers.

Ahh good old Sullivan and his looney made up theories.

No matter how many times he's proven wrong he still continues.

Just want to thank achilles and Stephen Fromm for an outstanding job showing just how loony the loonies are.

So, if I've been proven loony, I missed what the actual figures are for VA spending in the torrent of words achilles posted. Reminder: in 2003 it was less than $58 billion, in the resolution passed this week it will be almost $64 billion.

If those aren't the numbers, what are they?

If those ARE the numbers (btw, GT do you know the difference between theories and facts?) how is it justified in calling going from 58 to 64, a "slash"?

Will, we're not asking you to defend Krugman's two supposed lies. We're just asking you to shut the fuck up about them for awhile. You give the impression that those are the only two lies you've heard in your lifetime. Were you raised in some kind of bubble?

And when you get down to it, Gov. Bush's access capitalism and Sec. White's Enron involvement still look extremely fishy. Apparently Krugman exaggerated the fishiness somewhat. Considering that Safire insinuated that Clinton was guilty of a number of felonies, Krugman comes out smelling like a rose. To say nothing of Ann Coulter.

Since Patrick apparently doesn't have the compehension to handle a "torrent" of words let me repost the critical part:

"But Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa and House budget chairman, promised in a letter to Rep. Chris Smith that money for the veterans programs would be restored and increased in a conference committee. "

The money was restored in committee, that does not change the reality of how it was voted in the House. Thank God for those Chirac loving senators Voinovich and Snowe! ;)

Achilles, I think you're probably right about the sequence of events about the vet benefits, but can you actually find *primary* source material? I looked (e.g. quick google search, then thomas.loc.gov) and couldn't find it. My point isn't that it's not true, but that these things are hard to figure out (in terms of finding primary material).

Zizka wrote, "Apparently Krugman exaggerated the fishiness [of White's involvement] somewhat." That's not so clear. The journalist Krugman got his material from claims he was railroaded, and Krugman (IIRC) had his arm twisted by the *Times* to make a retraction.

That doesn't mean the claim is *true*, but it's funny how some people are so quick to side with people actually in power.

The need is to support tough Democrats for office and set back the "compassionate" conservatives who are intent on doing as much damage to middle class America as possible. Time to regard the looney conservatives as looney and set those in office who will keep building American values and economic well-being.

Yes, these neo-compassionate-conservatives are truly wolves out to devour the American middle class.

Fromm: I was giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt. Krugman's two pieces of months ago have faded in my memory, and I'm too lazy to dig. Whereas Will Allen seems to read those two articles every morning when he gets up.

Ann Coulter by the by can barely make breakfast truthfully. Such is what the extreme right profiteers are all about. Looney ideas set to cover the rampages through the middle class.

Thanks for the "looney" classification. How fitting.

I note the sophisticated understanding of how special interests influence legislation, on the part of achilles. But I have to take his latest response as total capitulation. $64 billion is more money than $58 billion.

The Krugmaniacs are routed. Again.

And that's not even mentioning the numerous violations of this blog's politeness policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/opinion/20SUN1.html

Daddy, what did you do during the war? Or, why I care so much for Paul Krugman and not a wit for the bashers of the right right right.

Wow, Patrick your standards for declaring victory are slipping to historically unseen (and even for you) embarassing levels.

You made a statement that "the House DID NOT vote to cut benefits" and are now declaring that the statement "the House DID vote to cut benefits but the pressure from the Senate, moderate Republicans and veterans groups resulted in those CUT benefits being restored in COMMITTEE" as being not a refutation but a validation of your claims!! Ha ha ha ha ha.

And special interests did influence the restoring of VA benefits, thank God for that! After all, we all know that the tax cut, the reason for which those benefits were being cut to make room for, would NEVER, EVER have been influenced by special interests now would they boyo?

Come back when you find another dead mule to flog.

New York Times
April 20, 2003

"Conservatives once viewed deficits as the height of bad fiscal policy. Now, they embrace them. There is no danger that a government swimming in red ink will come up with new programs to protect the environment, to extend health care for the poor or provide affordable housing to the homeless. No matter how much the president says he wants to improve education, the deficit is an all-purpose excuse to avoid helping public school districts overcome crippling cuts imposed by local governments that are teetering on insolvency...."

New York Times
April 20, 2003

"The nation learned shortly after Mr. Bush's inauguration that he was not going to govern from the center, as many had assumed given the election results. Instead, he has permitted his far-right base to take over vast swaths of domestic policy making. What the public has not noticed is how far that effort has already succeeded. Using low-profile executive actions and administrative changes, Mr. Bush has quietly accomplished what he wants behind the scenes."

The strategy of the conservative extremes is to attack any opposition in as malicious a way as possible, hopefully to silence. Then, quietly go about carrying forth attacks against the poor and the middle class. "No class warfare" is a fierce attack cry of the extremes, as the extremes wage class warfare. "Protect the environment" cry the extrene right as the extreme right does all it can to gut protections of the environment. "Protect the judiciary" cry the extreme right, as the extreme right finds the most extreme possible candidates for the judiciary. And on, and on.

For god's sakes, is there a single comment thread where posters will refrain from topic hijacking? Paul isn't even remotely related; he's a complete non-sequitur to Lambert. I don't know whether it's a conscious attempt to change the subject or a big red button that people can't refrain mushing, but it's intellectually tiring. Give it up.

"Late into the night of March 20, the U.S. House heard speech after passionate speech in favor of a resolution proclaiming support for U.S. troops in Iraq, but offering them nothing substantive.
Minutes after passing that symbolic resolution, Republicans passed their budget calling for a $28 billion cut in veterans' benefits and health care, with Republicans providing all but one vote."

Am I to understand that achilles actually believes that the House at any time this year voted to cut VA spending from the 2003 level of $58 billion, to $30 billion? Then, under pressure, voted not only to rescind the $28 billion in cuts, but added another $6 billion on top?

I hope the Easter Bunny brought achilles a lot of nice eggs.

>>Given that the 2003 figure for VA spending was about $58 billion and the 2004 budget that the Republicans just voted for will be $64 billion, which is closer to the truth: 1) Krugman's claim, or, 2) VA spending received a 10% increase?

It all presumably depends on how the number of veterans have changed; if the number of veterans had increased by 10% or more, then the benefits per veteran would have to decline. In general, the misuse of dollar amounts in this sort of context is a pox on our society.

I keep reading these statements from Patrick Sullivan and Will about Krugman and it is one long attempt to brand him as "unreliable" by finding a small factoid that is "wrong" and then using it to broad brush his analysis as "unreliable."

Sullivan et al seem to be ignorant of Levitt and thus wish to talk about Krugman ad naseum. Unfortunately, Levitt, who is genuinely nonpartisan has produced research that contradicts portions of the right's agenda, hence the attacks on him. For example he published an empirical paper that linked declining crime rates to the timing of the legalization of abortion.

Thus he inpires in some the same monomaniacal entensity Patrick Sullivan feels towards Krugman. The significance of this however is greater-Krugman's opinion pieces are just that opinion. Here the effort is an attempt to slant the results of a panel reporting on the best practice science involved in the gun debate .

Of course the defense for this might go something like "it happens all the time." Unfortunately the examples would demonstrate the falsity of it. The inquisition against Galileo, Stalin's attacks on genetic science. All the examples have had disasterous conserquences on human society.

Patrick and Will would have made great prosecuters during Stalin's purge trials, or perhaps grand inquisitors. And I really don't mean this as an attack. Both argued from preordained systems of belief in order to find the heresies they needed to stamp out. Sometimes find a fact, sometimes invent a conspiracy, whatever.
Lawrence

Well, this is what I found, from Roll Call 82, on H Con Res 95, Congressional Budget for FY 2004 (click on title II: Reconciliation):

"(M) COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS- The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by $463,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $4,347,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $15,062,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013."

That's a $15.1 billion cut over 10 years. I'm not a professional budget reader, and I don't know if there's another area where cuts are made. But that looks like a cut to me. Competent budget analysts (not you, Patrick) are invited to weigh in.

Krugman may have got a fact wrong, though: It seems as though this came just before the vote of support for the troops (Roll call 83). Bad, bad Krugman!

Did anyone else notice that the second poster is Uday Saddam?

Patrick, Careful old chap! You are clinging so forlornly on to those two numbers that you are losing what little grasp you had with reality.

In the dark of the night, the House did make the cuts, in the light of the day they slipped it back in committee. That's reality, and I gave you the news stories.

You seem to be also losing what little sense of perspective you have. I posted all the major news organizations that made mention of the cut in benefits. If you have a problem with reality, as I suggested, I strongly urge that you write to all of those organizations and demand retractions` for spreading lies, filthy lies.

I am sure that if the two numbers you got from Hoy's blog are more accurate than reality they may run a correction. Heck you may even get yourself in the paper! But I am warning you boyo, it may be tougher to get a letter to the editor in the Globe or the Sun-Times than it is on Don Luskin's blog ;)

Keep fighting the good fight, don't let reality bog you down too much.

achilles continues to fail miserably to document the "cuts". For reasons all too obvious; there were none. And d squared has just given the game away.

What Krugman called "slashing benefits" was actually an increase, but a smaller increase than some interest groups wanted. Typical Public Choice gamesmanship.

"...to reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by $463,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $4,347,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $15,062,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013."

" That's a $15.1 billion cut over 10 years. "

I'm interested in finding just how gullible are the usual suspects here. How about a show of hands from all those who are willing to swallow that the March 24th vote in the House would have resulted in VA spending being reduced from $58 billion in 2003 to $57.5 billion in 2004... eventually to be reduced to $43 billion by 2013?

Flog flog flog. Does PETA care about dead mules?

Its obvious reality has no place in your view of the world Mr. Sullivan. I guess I should have known that about a man who thinks truth comes from Ann Coulter. So here's my final take on the matter:

A secret cabal of feminist, no wait, liberral feminist, no wait, liberal French speaking Euro-snotty feminist House members voted to slash VA benefits. That evil, despicable bearded man Paul Krugman then tried to spin matters to his own interest, Fortunately Tom DeLay came galloping on his white mule to the rescue. The cuts were restored and we are all safe again.

There, that should let you sleep in peace ;)

Au Revoir!

"Reality" in "my world" is $58 billion spent in 2003, and $64 billion in 2004, achilles. I'm still waiting for you to give me the figures for your reality.

Which you can't, or won't, do.

The following is from the "Corner" of National Review:

"LEVITT, FOR THE RECORD [Dave Kopel]

Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds posted an update about an article
we wrote in August 2001, raising concerns about possible bias in a National Academy of Science panel which was beginning a study of firearms law. Perhaps our warnings had some effect; the panel's "charge," which we linked to from our article, focused only on examing the negative effects of firearms in society. That link is no longer operative, and a more detailed charge has replaced it; the new charge requires the panel to also consider beneficial aspects to firearms ownership.

Expressing concerns of the make-up of the panel, we pointed to the appointment of Benjamin Civiletti (President Carter's Attorney General), who is not a scholar, and who has well-established anti-gun credentials. Regarding Steve Levitt, a young scholar at the University of Chicago, we wrote that he "has been described as 'rabidly antigun.'"

Shortly after this article was published, Steve Levitt wrote to Glenn:
"I don't understand your National Review article in which I am described as 'rabidly anti-gun.'
"No one who knows me would describe me that way. I love to shoot guns and would own them if my wife would let me. I recently published an op-ed piece in Chicago Sun-Times entitled 'Pools more dangerous than guns' (July 28, 2001) that could only be construed as pro-guns. I have never written anything even remotely anti-gun. I think your sources must have me confused with someone else."
As Glenn notes in an Instapundit post today, Glenn promptly posted an Instapundit item noting Levitt's statement about his view on guns.

Levitt's Sun-Times article argues that the risks of gun accidents are grossly exaggerated by the media compared to other accident risks. I wrote back to Levitt something which I should have asked then to be posted on this article, so I'm belated posting it now:
"As Glenn's instapundit site details, we have checked with our original source. Nevertheless, since I try (not always successfully) to shed light rather than heat on the gun issue, I think that in retrospect the adverb 'rabidly' shouldn't have been used. So I promise to avoid it in the future. I'm glad to know about your swimming pools piece, and I enjoyed reading it. I did check your publications page on the web before I submitted the article, but the pool piece wasn't there -- understandably, since your page just cites journal articles.
"And, as the article said, whatever your views on guns, there's no dispute about your scholarly abilities. My forthcoming article
"Lawyers, Guns, and Burglars: Why Mass Tort Litigation Fails to Account for Positive Externalities and the Network Effects of Controversial Products'" 43 Arizona Law Review (no 2, 2001) cites and discusses your excellent LoJack article.

I think that Levitt is mistaken in his belief that he has "never written anything even remotely anti-gun." In “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,”
116 Quarterly Journal of Economics (No. 2, May 2001): 379-420 (co-authored with John Donohue), Levitt wrote: "Elevated youth homicide rates in this period appear to be clearly linked to the rise of crack and the easy availability of guns." p. 395, note 21 ("this period" refers to the late 1980s and early 1990s).

In “Guns, Violence, and the Efficiency of Illegal Markets,” 1998 AEA Papers and Proceedings 88 (May): 463-67 (also co-authored with John Donohue), Levitt concluded that the presence of firearms lead to greater levels of violence. He argued that this effect stems not from the lethality of guns per se, but from how they make the outcomes of fights less predictable. A small person who knows he would very likely lose a fistfight to a larger person, will usually choose not to the fight. But if the smaller person has a gun, he may choose to fight: "Guns are an equalizing force that makes the outcome of any particular conflict difficult to predict. All else held constant, this increases the willingness to fight among weaker combatants, leading to greater levels of violence." p. 467.

I'm not arguing (at least not in this post), that Levitt's statements are incorrect, and they are certainly not "rabid." But if a person selecting panelists for the NAS study were looking for panelists who might be expected to see benefits from reducing "easy availability of guns," it would have been reasonable to pick Levitt. There is nothing logically inconsistent with a scholar favoring gun control to address the very large problem of criminal homicide with guns, while also recognizing that the magnitude of the problem of fatal gun accidents involving children is not nearly as large as the media imply."

>>Levitt wrote: "Elevated youth homicide rates in this period appear to be clearly linked to the rise of crack and the easy availability of guns." <<

I think that if being against the availability of guns to crack addicts and dealers makes you "rabidly antigun", even the National Riflemen's Association might not qualify for this panel.