October 22, 2003

Glenn Reynolds Has Already Unravelled

Henry Farrell wonders if Glenn Reynolds even reads the stuff he links to:

Crooked Timber: Krugman watch : Looks as though Dan’s prediction has come to pass; Glenn Reynolds claims grandly in Instabolded type that the “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE is blasting Paul Krugman for anti-Semitism.” To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.” Of course, this isn’t the first time that Reynolds’ enthusiasm for a good slur has gotten in the way of the facts, but surely he can do better than this. Does he even read the stuff that he links to? I wonder.

I don't know how much Glenn Reynolds reads of the stuff he links to. I suspect the answer is "most"--that he has turned into a guy who never lets the facts get in the way of a bad slur.

But it is clear, as Tim Lambert notes, that Reynolds doesn't remember his own archives:

Eschaton: Instapundit, May 7, 2003:


"Donald Luskin is stalking Paul Krugman..."

Instapundit, Yesterday:

PAUL KRUGMAN'S UNRAVELLING: He's accusing Donald Luskin of being a stalker, in the literal, not figurative sense.

I believe the actual term is "critic."

(thanks to a comment by Tim Lambert over at Crooked Timber)
Does this mean that Glenn Reynolds has already unravelled?

It is remarkable--the shift from "Oh Great! Someone is stalking Paul Krugman!" to "Paul Krugman has lost his mind--he thinks somebody is stalking him...

Posted by DeLong at October 22, 2003 09:25 AM | TrackBack

Comments

It should be remarkable, but are you really surprised? This is the guy who took months to come around on John Lott, and he did even that begrudgingly. Oh well.

Posted by: Skip on October 22, 2003 09:34 AM

Prof instanitwit is a disgrace: to his daddy, to his school, to his legal training, even to his own past (in which he wasn't such a nitwit).

He has discovered a cheap-thrills formula that brings him plaudits from loads of students of the right-wing echo chamber, and since he is apparently beyond embarassment, he keeps grinding it out.

Me? I stopped reading him 15 months ago when i reminded myself that life is too short to put up with nitwits on my own time.

Posted by: howard on October 22, 2003 10:03 AM

To be fair to GR, the context of the original quote shows (fairly clearly) that "stalking" as in "stealthily following prey" in the Wild Kingdom sense was intended. It's more a case of poor writing than inconsistency.

Posted by: rilkefan on October 22, 2003 10:15 AM

Don Luskin is about as stealthy as the Tasmanian Devil.

Posted by: rvman on October 22, 2003 10:47 AM

Sure, Luskin's a moron, and I hate to say anything against the sainted PK, but PK should not have slimed Luskin, on national TV, by saying that Luskin "stalked me personally." All Luskin did was go to a lecture and get a book signed.

Posted by: joe on October 22, 2003 10:56 AM

I agree with Joe. He went up and got a book signed. I would love to see more debates among top economists and their critics (not Luskin is an economist but you get my point).

Maybe this is going on already but I'm not aware of it. Personally I love the online debates.

Brad... this is for you too. I'd like to see you go after someone like Bruce Bartlett in an online debate.

Posted by: Frank on October 22, 2003 11:22 AM

I can't understand right wing commentators obsession with Paul Krugman. The National Review actually has a guy who writes regular columns that attack Krugman's columns. Why not just ignore the guy.

He is just an Ivy League professor writing New York Times editorials that are probably only read by a few hundred people that don't already agree with him. He is rarely on TV and comes off as a little strange when he is (his appearance and manner not what he says, there is something odd about his eyes). I would think paying him all this negative attention only serves to elevate him.

Posted by: Joe Blog on October 22, 2003 12:46 PM

The attacks on Krugman are intended to send a message to everyone else. If you criticize President Bush, you will become a target of the right, any skeletons will become dirty laundry and you will be hounded incessantly. Ignoring Krugman would be a possible strategy in an environment where collegial debates of policy are encouraged. However, this is the CEO administration, not a messy democracy. The Boss has the final word and the minions must line up behind him. The intent of the hard right is to squelch all dissent, silence all critics and take a scorched earth policy to anyone that deviates from the right wing talking points. Their goal is to eliminate the competition, not debate it.

Posted by: bakho on October 22, 2003 01:02 PM

Actually, on his poorandstupid.com site, Luskin proposed "pieing" Krugman (repeatedly) during his entire book tour. Luskin, (who I really want to rename "the former terrible hedge fund manager") put up a list of all the book signings that Krugman had scheduled, and had a different flavor suggested pie to throw in Krugman's face every evening.

While its likely that this speech is 1st amendment protected, it reveals that at best, he lacks any class, and at worst, is just another media whore willing to say whatever outrageousness he can think up to promote his next book.

Here's the link to the pieing schedule: http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_08_31_chronArchive.asp#106273646825512553

Posted by: Barry Ritholtz on October 22, 2003 02:52 PM

I'd say the criticism of Glenn Reynolds for being "overenthusiastic" is overly disingenuous. The letter from the ADL reads:

" Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes."

Btw, as Milton Friedman has pointed out, it is a supreme irony that the person who perfected the exchange control was Hitler's Finance Minister, Hjalmar Schacht.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 22, 2003 03:46 PM

Godwin's Law, Patrick, not to mention an astounding leap of illogic.

Posted by: Barry on October 22, 2003 04:14 PM

The pieing suggestion, accompanied by dates and places of Krugman's appearances, fully justifies the "stalking" term. Calling someone a stalker is not quite the same thing as bringing charges for stalking, which I do not think would be justified. In fact, I don't think that you can charge stalking until a warning or a cease and desist order has been issued. But Luskin's showing up personally after soliciting "pieing" and after months of raving criticism of Krugman -- that's early-stage stalking.

Read Kristoff's peices in the Times and ask whether maybe there's been an intimidating effect. Kristoff describes himself as a liberal, but seldom takes a strong, unapologetic liberal stand, and often enough takes one of those weak, "split-the-difference" contrarian liberal stands.

Krugman-haters make themselves ridiculous as relentlessly as Clinton-haters. You'e think they'd be mortified with shame, realizing that people are increasingly hip to their stupidity, but they seem to be a shameless bunch.

When I discovered the blogosphere (nsdctp) 18 months ago, Kaus, Sullivan, and Insta were the statistical kings, and a lot of the liberal sites were just getting started. I was unaware of the stats and wondered why people kept obsessing over those buffoons. By now the liberal sphere is healthy and fully-staffed, and there's really little reason to read those guys at all except the way you read the WSJ editorial page.

Posted by: Zizka on October 22, 2003 06:16 PM

Luskin on meeting Krugman:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmhm/515894.html

Sounds like stalking to me, especially in the context of Luskin's obsessive posting about Krugman.

Incidentally, the original post seems to have gone down an Orwellian memory-hole. I read the original on poorandstupid and found it frightening - I guess it was sufficiently rabid that Luskin took it down.

Posted by: rilkefan on October 22, 2003 06:26 PM

Luskin's invective goes way over the line, all the time. For all the constant bitching Glenn and the Kool Kids do about the poor poor loss of the civility of the Clinton years (snark) they certainly show no compunction in linking to Luskin's mad ravings. Brad knows the definition of "figurative." Does Glenn know the definition of "party line self parody?"

Asshat.

Posted by: SamAm on October 22, 2003 06:39 PM

A.W, I looked at what Krugman said and what Luskin said about it. Krugman was not accusing Luskin of a felony. When he wrote "stalks me on the web" he was using the term in the same way that REynolds did in May. (And incidently, the title of Luskin's NRO article in May was "We stalked, he balked".) Are you seriously trying to tell us that "web stalking" is a felony? Krugman then said "once stalked me personally". Are you trying to pretend that meaning of stalking changed in the middle of the sentence? And did you notice the word ONCE in that phrase. I believe that criminal stalking requires you do do it more than once. Luskin indulged in a deliberate misinterpretation of Krugman's remarks.

Posted by: Tim Lambert on October 22, 2003 06:40 PM

Please reconsider your use of the following sentence:

"I don't know how much of the stuff he links to Glenn Reynolds reads."

I couldn't care less about this Luskin/ Krugman matter, but I do know a real stinker of a sentence when I see one.

Please, for the good of humanity, fix it immediately. Thank you.

Posted by: Electrolux on October 22, 2003 06:41 PM

Why would you buy a book written by someone you hate and then and have it signed by that person?


Luskin unraveled LONG ago.

Posted by: plan b on October 22, 2003 07:04 PM

Why would you buy a book written by someone you hate and then and have it signed by that person?


Luskin unraveled LONG ago.

Posted by: plan b on October 22, 2003 07:09 PM

This is all too complicated for me to understand - literal, figurative - I don't know what but I do know that what I said was right and what you said was wrong. Heh. Indeed.

The guy who can't grasp a letter to the editor is now giving English lessons! If only Hinckley Luskin had studied law - he could have been a law professor in Metropolis too.

Posted by: Instaidiot on October 22, 2003 07:42 PM

You can be amusing at times, Brad, but Glenn is way out of your league in terms of logic, clarity and humor.

Step back from the keyboard before somebody gets hurt...

Posted by: PNP on October 22, 2003 08:37 PM

Most of you liberal assholes wouldn't know a stalker if he crawled up yr dumb butts.

Posted by: Fendarko on October 22, 2003 08:44 PM

Oh this is orwellian. i diss this whole blog and all you who missed the obvious point and what do you guys do? erase me completely from the memory.

Gee, can't stand a little criticism, eh?

Look if you don't want to be embarrassed on your own comment boards, try this... try THINKING before you post.

Posted by: A.W. on October 22, 2003 08:49 PM

Ooh someone must have pissed off Insty - the wingnuts are out in force tonight. Oh Fendarko good job fella, you can sleep tonight with nothing to cloud your mind. And I mean that literally, of course, not just figuratively.

Posted by: Instaidiot on October 22, 2003 08:56 PM

Zizka wrote:
"Krugman-haters make themselves ridiculous as relentlessly as Clinton-haters. You'e think they'd be mortified with shame, realizing that people are increasingly hip to their stupidity, but they seem to be a shameless bunch."

All very true. But if there is one thing that we might all agree on is that most don't learn from history.

Hating Clinton ceased to be effective means of critiquing him about 1996. This of course is lost on the newest set of the shamelessly stupid...or is that stupidly shameless...who have created their own version of such ridiculous behavior; it's called Hating Bush.

If the Answer to why one opposes Flemkowski's politics is simply that "Flemkowski is _evil_" then, as Monty Python observes in The Argument Sketch:

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic
gain-say of anything the other person says!"

Which explains a great deal about Blog Wars and why each side is "fully staffed". Contradiction is ever so much easier...........

QM

Posted by: Jody Dorsett on October 22, 2003 09:25 PM

While (outside of economics) Krugman is about as useful to reasoned political discussion as David Horowitz, Luskin doesn't even seem to have the redemption of being good at one thing.

As for Reynolds, ignoring the flaws of "allies" (especially when one has once championed their work) is a common flaw, one Professor Reynolds certainly is as prone to as anyone (see, for example, his reluctance to speak ill of John Lott). Reynolds certainly has his own prejudices and tendencies that need to adjusted for when you read him.... one of these is a tendency to respond in kind, and attack polemicists with polemics.

And on Krugman's commentary in the political sphere would imply his knowledge of the world outside economics only includes this century; how else could one straightfacedly claim that nasty electoral tactics in 2000 were uniquely bad (and only done by Republicans). Anyone familiar with even recent names like, oh, Lee Atwater or Richard Nixon, let alone in past centuries, could not agree; nor could anyone familiar with the other side of the coin.

It's one thing to claim that the other side is all meanness, and you're side is all sweetness and light.... it's another to expect to be taken as anything other than a partisan political hack when you do.

Brilliance in one field, contrary to the opinions of those so brilliant, does not automatically transmit to knowledge in any other. This is why, for example, many successful generals historically became poor political leaders. Krugman is an economist, not a historian, not a longtime student of politics. When he leaves his chosen field, he seems to rely more on emotion than reason, feeling than fact. This is not helpful to the debate.

Krugman constantly assigns the most evil motives to Bush, even when there are other reasons to explain (mis)behavior that make more sense given the history of Bush's behavior over his career. I mean, really... which is more believable? That Bush is running up massive deficits by cutting taxes and spending like a drunken lottery winner all at the same time in a plot to crash out the social safety net, or that he's doing so because he is simply too lazy and irresponsible (and too much of a vote-whore) to do the hard political work of balancing budgets and explaining why popular political programs can still not be a good idea?

What part of his life prior to becoming President leads you folks on the Left to think "evil" instead of "lazy and irresponsible", anyway?

Posted by: Craig on October 22, 2003 09:42 PM

Brad,

I have to agree with some of your other commenters - you don't come off very well on this attack against Reynolds. It smacks of a cheap shot. You're better than this.

JS

Posted by: JSmith on October 22, 2003 09:47 PM

Or on the other hand, Brad, maybe you're not better than this. Is there anything Krugman could do or say that would be over the line?

Posted by: P Harrigan on October 22, 2003 10:00 PM

I’ve suddenly found my self embarrassed that I’m even spending time reading this string of comments. Many of the arguments here are thought out, many are not. As was stated above, much of this 'blog war' stuff is just so much BS – like student government in college.

Posted by: dancan on October 22, 2003 10:11 PM

PK equivicates that the PM of Malaysia made anit-semetic statements to cover his domestic flank. But he was speaking to an international body that gave him a standing ovation. He is also retiring, so why worry about a doestic flank. I think PK is trying to cover his flank lest it come out that he may have received funds or comped hotel/airfare/meals from his visit to Malaysia in '99 at the behest of this PM.

Posted by: Meatsss on October 22, 2003 10:40 PM

PK equivicates that the PM of Malaysia made anti-semetic statements to cover his domestic flank. But he was speaking to an international body that gave him a standing ovation. He is also retiring, so why worry about a doestic flank. I think PK is trying to cover his flank lest it come out that he may have received funds or comped hotel/airfare/meals from his visit to Malaysia in '99 at the behest of this PM.

Posted by: Meatsss on October 22, 2003 10:41 PM

I know Tim Lambert and others will want to complete the catalog of links: Glenn Reynolds mentioned that Luskin is stalking Krugman in response to a Luskin piece titled "We Stalked. He Balked".

However, if people read the stuff they linked to, they would have noticed this passage from Luskin:

"The good news is that Krugman is clearly shaken by the new experience of having somebody dare to challenge his insouciant lying. He's even starting to get personal — referring to me in his latest posting as his "stalker-in-chief." '

This would have led them to the Paul Krugman piece which seems to have preceded (and inspired) Luskin's article, and which introduced the stalking meme to their always-engaging discussion.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/poop.html

Can we all say "Krugman started it! Neener, neener, neener!"?

Posted by: Tom Maguire on October 22, 2003 10:43 PM

Luskin is accusing Krugman of implicitly or explicitly endorsing anti-semitism...and/or supporting or excusing an anti-semitic politician...and/or blaming that politicians actions on the Bush Administration.

Luskin is an asshat, as are those who are jumping on this bandwagon.

First, the most recent column and the ADL response:

1) Krugman states that Mahathir's rhetoric is inexcusable.

2) Krugman notes that this is not a new tactic on Mahathir's part, both in this column and in previous columns.

3) Krugman notes, correctly, that Mahathir has been welcomed with open arms into the highest diplomatic and political circles in Washington, and praised as a staunch ally in the war on terror.

4) Krugman notes, correctly, the disturbing and growing strength of blatant anti-semitism in the SE Asian muslim dominated societies.

5) Krugman opines that US foreign policy, specifically the attacks on Iraq, the unflinching support of Israel, regardless of their actions, and the speech and ideas thrown around by Administration officials, has exacerbated the anger that has contributed to the increase in blatant anti-semitic rhetoric.

Luskin tries to connect Krugman to Mahathir's anti-semitism by noting that Krugman advised/consulted Malaysia in the late 90's...and that Krugman said something like "even paranoids have enemies" with respect to Mahathir's comments about Jewish conspiracies and the economic crisis of 97-98.

Luskin is a moron. Mahathir said that it was a Jewish conspiracy of currency speculators. Krugman noted that massive currency speculation (exemplified by Soros, a Jew) was a major problem in that crisis...

Krugman was talking about speculation...and some speculators are/were Jewish. Mahathir was talking about Jews engaged in sneaky and deliberate speculation conspiracies.

See the difference?

As for the idiotic remarks about currency controls being pioneered by Nazi financiers...So what? So were jet engines, ballistic rocketry, and any number of other modern things we use today...Ever heard of Werner von Braun?

Riiiiight.

Posted by: Dan on October 22, 2003 10:49 PM

Luskin is accusing Krugman of implicitly or explicitly endorsing anti-semitism...and/or supporting or excusing an anti-semitic politician...and/or blaming that politicians actions on the Bush Administration.

Luskin is an asshat, as are those who are jumping on this bandwagon.

First, the most recent column and the ADL response:

1) Krugman states that Mahathir's rhetoric is inexcusable.

2) Krugman notes that this is not a new tactic on Mahathir's part, both in this column and in previous columns.

3) Krugman notes, correctly, that Mahathir has been welcomed with open arms into the highest diplomatic and political circles in Washington, and praised as a staunch ally in the war on terror.

4) Krugman notes, correctly, the disturbing and growing strength of blatant anti-semitism in the SE Asian muslim dominated societies.

5) Krugman opines that US foreign policy, specifically the attacks on Iraq, the unflinching support of Israel, regardless of their actions, and the speech and ideas thrown around by Administration officials, has exacerbated the anger that has contributed to the increase in blatant anti-semitic rhetoric.

Luskin tries to connect Krugman to Mahathir's anti-semitism by noting that Krugman advised/consulted Malaysia in the late 90's...and that Krugman said something like "even paranoids have enemies" with respect to Mahathir's comments about Jewish conspiracies and the economic crisis of 97-98.

Luskin is a moron. Mahathir said that it was a Jewish conspiracy of currency speculators. Krugman noted that massive currency speculation (exemplified by Soros, a Jew) was a major problem in that crisis...

Krugman was talking about speculation...and some speculators are/were Jewish. Mahathir was talking about Jews engaged in sneaky and deliberate speculation conspiracies.

See the difference?

As for the idiotic remarks about currency controls being pioneered by Nazi financiers...So what? So were jet engines, ballistic rocketry, and any number of other modern things we use today...Ever heard of Werner von Braun?

Riiiiight.

Posted by: Dan on October 22, 2003 10:50 PM

Luskin is accusing Krugman of implicitly or explicitly endorsing anti-semitism...and/or supporting or excusing an anti-semitic politician...and/or blaming that politicians actions on the Bush Administration.

Luskin is an asshat, as are those who are jumping on this bandwagon.

First, the most recent column and the ADL response:

1) Krugman states that Mahathir's rhetoric is inexcusable.

2) Krugman notes that this is not a new tactic on Mahathir's part, both in this column and in previous columns.

3) Krugman notes, correctly, that Mahathir has been welcomed with open arms into the highest diplomatic and political circles in Washington, and praised as a staunch ally in the war on terror.

4) Krugman notes, correctly, the disturbing and growing strength of blatant anti-semitism in the SE Asian muslim dominated societies.

5) Krugman opines that US foreign policy, specifically the attacks on Iraq, the unflinching support of Israel, regardless of their actions, and the speech and ideas thrown around by Administration officials, has exacerbated the anger that has contributed to the increase in blatant anti-semitic rhetoric.

Luskin tries to connect Krugman to Mahathir's anti-semitism by noting that Krugman advised/consulted Malaysia in the late 90's...and that Krugman said something like "even paranoids have enemies" with respect to Mahathir's comments about Jewish conspiracies and the economic crisis of 97-98.

Luskin is a moron. Mahathir said that it was a Jewish conspiracy of currency speculators. Krugman noted that massive currency speculation (exemplified by Soros, a Jew) was a major problem in that crisis...

Krugman was talking about speculation...and some speculators are/were Jewish. Mahathir was talking about Jews engaged in sneaky and deliberate speculation conspiracies.

See the difference?

As for the idiotic remarks about currency controls being pioneered by Nazi financiers...So what? So were jet engines, ballistic rocketry, and any number of other modern things we use today...Ever heard of Werner von Braun?

Riiiiight.

Posted by: Dan on October 22, 2003 10:53 PM

> much of this 'blog war' stuff is just so much BS – like student government in college.

Exactly. But it's much much worse.

Political blogs are suffering from a case of thinking too much of themselves, here's a good example, blogs reading "enemy" blogs trying to catch the smallest if not stupidiest semantic contradictions. Then they opposing blog updates correcting the other side, with picky pedantic arguments. And this goes on and on.

Many of these bloggers just need to relax, get over themselves, and start writting toughts not nitpicking at each other in such neurotic ways.

As it is, this is just the old usenet flamewar, but worse because you have to go to many sites to follow the inane arguments, instead of one single piece of turd thread.

Posted by: Augusto on October 22, 2003 11:07 PM

Sorry for the triple post...sheesh.

Augusto,

Catching others in improper usage, logical inconsistency, hypocrisy, or stupidity is a good thing. As is getting caught.

We as a society could use a better education, and nothing spurs one's self-education than getting made to look like a fool in public.

Posted by: Dan on October 23, 2003 12:03 AM

Augusto,
Well stated.

Posted by: RW on October 23, 2003 05:56 AM

Prof. DeLong, you're smarter than that.

Reynolds said that Krugman was accusing Luskin of "literally" stalking Krugman personally. Presumably, it's fair to assume that Reynolds didn't mean that Luskin was *literally* stalking Krugman in his earlier post. (As Tom Maguire points out, the ultimate provenance of all stalking allegations ends up back at Krugman anyway).

If you just wanted to joke around, this would have been a good zinger, but to accuse Reynolds of unravelling is just silly.

(It is a little disappointint that Reynolds reposts Luskin. Krugman annoys me and Luskin is right somewhere around 50% of the time, but Luskin's ahab-like monomania doesn't reflect well on Luskin, the NRO, or Reynolds.)

Posted by: J Mann on October 23, 2003 07:29 AM

These days Instapedant's idiocy is belied by the amount of times he spends correcting his posts and those of his link suppliers. In the last few weeks he had more self-corrections (the acknowledged errors!) than the NYT ever had to do over Jason Blair. Instapedant has become perfect proof against his own belief that bloggers are "journalists." They are only talk radio on the net.

Posted by: paul on October 23, 2003 07:33 AM

As usual, Tom Maguire cracked me up in the middle of what was otherwise a pretty nasty thread. Look: Krugman is both dishonest and vicious, and he's been given the megaphone of a regular op-ed column in the nation's most prominent newspaper. So, whatever he gets back in criticism, he deserves (not being pied in the face, but getting back the same sort of invective he dishes out); in fact, such criticism is important in a country where a guy like Krugman can greatly amplify false charges against the president. So it's no surprise that he's attracted some fairly harsh critics, like Luskin and 'Robert Musil'. And Krugman's response to his critics, even when they've caught him dead-out misrepresenting things, has been to sneer at them, refuse to acknowledge that people he sees as beneath him could have a point, call them "stalkers," etc. (Which is not to say I take Luskin's oft-intemperate words as gospel either, but as an academic, Krugman would do better be more level-headed in responding to critics who take on his specific assertions). Don't forget that what triggered this latest controversy wasn't just Krugman calling Luskin a 'stalker' but Krugman using that charge to essentially shout down a question about something Krugman said.

Posted by: Crank on October 23, 2003 08:03 AM

" As for the idiotic remarks about currency controls being pioneered by Nazi financiers...So what?"

Ah, the self-esteem required to accuse Milton Friedman of being idiotic! From Capitalism and Freedom:

"There is much experience to suggest that the most effective way to convert a market economy into an authoritarian economic society is to start by imposing direct controls on foreign exchange." "... full-fledged exchange controls and so-called 'inconvertibility of currencies' ... were invented by Hjalmar Schacht in the early years of the Nazi regime."

And Schacht's purpose was to confiscate the wealth of German Jews who wanted to flee Hitler. So, yeah, what is the point of raising this irony in a thread about anti-semitism.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 23, 2003 08:47 AM

Eddgra-
I think my post must be pretty close to the truth to get that reaction from you. You don't deny the attempt to silence critics of Mr. Bush but argue instead that "liberals do it, too". Personal attack is all too common when the argument is being lost.

Posted by: bakho on October 23, 2003 10:30 AM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:40 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:40 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:40 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:45 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:45 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:45 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:45 PM

Personally I think Mr. DeLong is far to nice in his description of the ADL note, in fact I have to wonder what Mr. DeLong was reading...

Note the following: "Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial." (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm)

Personally I think Glen Reynolds description of Krugman getting blasted is rather closer to the mark than Mr. DeLong's, "To put it as kindly as possible, this is a rather … overenthusiastic interpretation of the ADL’s letter to the New York Times, which merely suggests that Krugman “underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad"...

Posted by: russ on October 23, 2003 04:45 PM

damn, russ, tell us how you really feel.

Posted by: julia on October 23, 2003 05:32 PM

I don't read that many comments threads - is it unusual to have posters who disagree come in and make absurd statements tangentially connected to the subject of the post and then sign themselves "anonymous partisan mouth-breathing moron" or some close cognate?

I'm not sure what the rhetorical value of that is.

Posted by: julia on October 23, 2003 05:38 PM

Perhaps if you weren't a total idiot, you would understand the English language.

Posted by: Danny on October 23, 2003 08:55 PM

Patrick,

And Werner von Braun was working on ways to kill Nazi foes from afar...yet we used him and his ideas and technological advances to get to the moon and to build ICBMs....and we used Nazi spies to gather info on the USSR during the cold war....and and and....

Now, to directly address your points (and Friedman's...)

"There is much experience to suggest that the most effective way to convert a market economy into an authoritarian economic society is to start by imposing direct controls on foreign exchange."

What is that really saying? That the best way to control a market is to control the value of currency...DOH! He's a genius!!!

In reality, the control over the markets and the currency REQUIRES the existence of an authoritarian structure and government BEFOREHAND...otherwise, the ability to impose such strictures would be limited, no?

"... full-fledged exchange controls and so-called 'inconvertibility of currencies' ... were invented by Hjalmar Schacht in the early years of the Nazi regime."

Indeed...and the "early years of the Nazi regime" were? Characterized by a democratic and market oriented free society? I think NOT. Friedman either has his timing completely wrong, or you have quoted him entirely out of context.

"And Schacht's purpose was to confiscate the wealth of German Jews who wanted to flee Hitler. So, yeah, what is the point of raising this irony in a thread about anti-semitism."

That was Schacht's main purpose? I think not.

You continue to be wrong.

Russ -- your ADL quote...I do not think it supports your contention that Krugman is excusing or shielding Mahathir's anti-semitism...in fact, the quote you provided us goes a long way toward backing Krugman's thesis.

"Mahathir's comments cannot be explained away by themes of domestic politics. They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. Conspiracy theories about blaming Jews for 9/11 are believed by tens of millions. Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media. Images of Jews in op-ed pieces, editorials, and cartoons reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes – drinking the blood of Muslims, all-powerful, secretive and conspiratorial."

Indeed, Mahathir's comments CAN be explained in terms of BOTH domestic and Islamic world politics in the context of the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, and the highly visible and brutal low-level war going on between the Israelis and the various Palestinian factions.

Indeed, the ADL says "a surge of Anti-semitism in the Islamic world"...so did Krugman. Why is there a surge of Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world NOW, as opposed to, say, 5 years ago? Why the conspiracy theories NOW, as opposed to 5 years ago? Why the belief in Jewish control, the belief in US-Israeli concocted 9-11 events NOW, as opposed to 5 years ago?

Discuss Mahathir's comments and beliefs in the context outlined by your own source, and do so in a rational, logical fashion, and you will wind up....sounding a lot like Krugman.

Posted by: Dan on October 23, 2003 09:18 PM
Post a comment