I have discussed this issue a couple of times, how my favorite "economist deserving of a thorough Fisking" Paul Krugman used to actually be a respectable economist. I came across this article of his from the 90s while surfing the web today.
So let's continue. Suppose that our economy initially employs 120 million workers, which corresponds more or less to full employment. It takes two person-days to produce either a hot dog or a bun. (Hey, realism is not the point here.) Assuming that the economy produces what consumers want, it must be producing 30 million hot dogs and 30 million buns each day; 60 million workers will be employed in each sector.
Now, suppose that improved technology allows a worker to produce a hot dog in one day rather than two. And suppose that the economy makes use of this increased productivity to increase consumption to 40 million hot dogs with buns a day. This requires some reallocation of labor, with only 40 million workers now producing hot dogs, 80 million producing buns.
Then a famous journalist arrives on the scene. He takes a look at recent history and declares that something terrible has happened: Twenty million hot-dog jobs have been destroyed. When he looks deeper into the matter, he discovers that the output of hot dogs has actually risen 33 percent, yet employment has declined 33 percent. He begins a two-year research project, touring the globe as he talks with executives, government officials, and labor leaders. The picture becomes increasingly clear to him: Supply is growing at a breakneck pace, and there just isn't enough consumer demand to go around. True, jobs are still being created in the bun sector; but soon enough the technological revolution will destroy those jobs too. Global capitalism, in short, is hurtling toward crisis. He writes up his alarming conclusions in a 473-page book; full of startling facts about the changes underway in technology and the global market; larded with phrases in Japanese, German, Chinese, and even Malay; and punctuated with occasional barbed remarks about the blinkered vision of conventional economists. The book is widely acclaimed for its erudition and sophistication, and its author becomes a lion of the talk-show circuit.
Rather cogent and logical stuff. Even a right wing hack like me could agree with that. Unfortunately he has now fallen into Bush hatred driven dementia where facts and logic no longer matter, only his image of paranoid loss and persecution. Maybe Ron Howard will do a movie on him? Come back to the light side Paul. Don't give in to your hatred. I still see the good in you. OK, I am mixing my movie metaphors.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Vets on Campus
As part of my continuing higher education week, I found this an interesting story.
As college students hit campuses across the nation this week, a new generation of young veterans will step off the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and onto the ideological battlefield of our university campuses. For those on the frontline in the war on terror, the antiwar hostility of liberal professors and campus activists will assuredly prove unsettling.
Just ask Marine sergeant Marco Martinez, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a full-time psychology major at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, Calif.
“A woman on campus had apparently learned I might be a Marine. When I told her I was, she said, ‘You’re a disgusting human being, and I hope you rot in hell!’ ”
Indeed, Martinez, who will be the first male in his family to receive a college diploma, says he is receiving more of an education than he bargained for: “There are a lot of people who don’t appreciate military service in college,” Martinez said. “If someone asks me about it, and I think that they’re not too liberal, I might tell them I was in Iraq. But I don’t tell them the full extent of it or anything about the Navy Cross.”
As college students hit campuses across the nation this week, a new generation of young veterans will step off the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and onto the ideological battlefield of our university campuses. For those on the frontline in the war on terror, the antiwar hostility of liberal professors and campus activists will assuredly prove unsettling.
Just ask Marine sergeant Marco Martinez, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a full-time psychology major at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, Calif.
“A woman on campus had apparently learned I might be a Marine. When I told her I was, she said, ‘You’re a disgusting human being, and I hope you rot in hell!’ ”
Indeed, Martinez, who will be the first male in his family to receive a college diploma, says he is receiving more of an education than he bargained for: “There are a lot of people who don’t appreciate military service in college,” Martinez said. “If someone asks me about it, and I think that they’re not too liberal, I might tell them I was in Iraq. But I don’t tell them the full extent of it or anything about the Navy Cross.”
Monday, August 29, 2005
The Trade Deficit
I found this interesting when I was looking at data regarding housing expenditures the other day. Much has been made about the "record trade deficit" recently, and I agree it is a major economic issue, although I don't pretend to know how it will work out. One thing nobody is really pointing out though is this isn't really a result of a lack of competitiveness, in the sense that nobody is buying US goods and services, we are selling record numbers of those. The problem is, we are buying even more foreign goods and services. This is unprecedented, but short of a traumatic currency devaluation, how do you tell US consumers and corporations to quit buying cheap foreign goods? Should you even try?
Anyone got $50,000 I can borrow?
Today is higher education day at the Chief Brief. I am starting grad school in 3 weeks, and am quite shocked by the price of text books. What a scam. In my case easily over $500 a quarter. I saw this article on Poor and Stupid and Marginal Revolution on Kruggy's textbook. All I can say is I am glad I don't have to use it. My faith in academia is restored, at least temporarily. Here is a choice quote.
Sanderson said that the major topics of microeconomics are pretty well agreed upon, and that you probably can’t go too wrong with many textbooks. In this case, though, he said he found Hubbard’s real-world examples to be well-written, and engaging. Still, though Hubbard has “a shorter paper trail” than Krugman, Sanderson is not sure he can be objective enough. One thing is for sure: not everyone is as enthralled with all of Krugman’s writing as Cassing. “[Krugman] writes great economics,” Sanderson said, “but when he writes politics he’s just bad.”
Sanderson said that the major topics of microeconomics are pretty well agreed upon, and that you probably can’t go too wrong with many textbooks. In this case, though, he said he found Hubbard’s real-world examples to be well-written, and engaging. Still, though Hubbard has “a shorter paper trail” than Krugman, Sanderson is not sure he can be objective enough. One thing is for sure: not everyone is as enthralled with all of Krugman’s writing as Cassing. “[Krugman] writes great economics,” Sanderson said, “but when he writes politics he’s just bad.”
Back to the Future
I saw this on Best of the Web Today. Now maybe I am just a dumb white guy, but I seem to recall a movement over the last 40 years to eliminate the segregation of education in the south. IMHO the biggest thing holding back young blacks in their educational opportunities is not being around whites, it is being around other blacks who do not uphold the value of education as much as whites (or especially Asians) do. But that is just me.
Twenty-seven black freshmen at the University of West Georgia will live together, attend classes together and learn to study together this year as part of the Carrollton school's first learning community for African-American men. It is believed to be the only learning community specifically for black men at a historically white public college or university in Georgia.
Twenty-seven black freshmen at the University of West Georgia will live together, attend classes together and learn to study together this year as part of the Carrollton school's first learning community for African-American men. It is believed to be the only learning community specifically for black men at a historically white public college or university in Georgia.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Hell Freezes Over
He couldn't quite bring himself to do it in his last column, but Krugman reluctantly manages to bring himself to admit, not one, but two "inaccuracies" in last Friday's column.
Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
Of course you have to ask yourself, what type of an "economist" just takes numbers out of a left wing conspiracy rant without checking them? And now that much of the basis of his argument has proved suspect, will he admit the weakness of the original source, the "very judicious work" called "Steal This Vote". What type of grade would he give one of his students for such shoddy work?
Not to gloat too much, but do you really think he would have ever done this if it weren't for the outrage from the blogosphere?
The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.
Yes, Mr. Krugman, and every time you lie, and then continue to cover it up with obfuscations, we will get outraged again.
UPDATE: And of course the grand conspirator-in-chief of the Krugman Truth Squad, Don Luskin posts on this, and points out that even this unprecedented correction, is not quite what it seems. More on this at the Grand Duchess of the Krugman Truth Squad, Michelle Malkin.
UPDATE 2: Well I was so stunned by Krugman's reticent correction that I didn't even really pay attention to the content of his new column. Econopundit makes a rather good point:
It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is still weak compared with the supply. (emphasis added)
I'm sort of impatient with this because the BLS directly measures the demand side of the labor market in several ways. Paul: instead of measuring demand for labor by inference and guesswork, you can simply check the numbers and see what they are.
Looking at Krugman's words I would have to agree with his assertion that the average of weekly hours worked is down (although in France he claims that is a good thing) but what about the average duration of unemployment? Well once again, let's go to our friends at the BLS:
Currently in July 2005 we are at 17.6 weeks, down from a cylical high of 20.2 weeks in February of 2004. What if we compare it to the last economic cycle, the dotcom boom that Krugman called a "miracle". Well the recession ended 15 quarters ago, so let's go 45 months into the Clinton expansion, or December of 1994, what number do we find (drum roll please) 17.8! Or .2 weeks higher than we have now. Once again Krugman finds that everything is relative. If it is happens under a Democrat it is good, if it happens under a Republican, it is bad.
Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
Of course you have to ask yourself, what type of an "economist" just takes numbers out of a left wing conspiracy rant without checking them? And now that much of the basis of his argument has proved suspect, will he admit the weakness of the original source, the "very judicious work" called "Steal This Vote". What type of grade would he give one of his students for such shoddy work?
Not to gloat too much, but do you really think he would have ever done this if it weren't for the outrage from the blogosphere?
The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.
Yes, Mr. Krugman, and every time you lie, and then continue to cover it up with obfuscations, we will get outraged again.
UPDATE: And of course the grand conspirator-in-chief of the Krugman Truth Squad, Don Luskin posts on this, and points out that even this unprecedented correction, is not quite what it seems. More on this at the Grand Duchess of the Krugman Truth Squad, Michelle Malkin.
UPDATE 2: Well I was so stunned by Krugman's reticent correction that I didn't even really pay attention to the content of his new column. Econopundit makes a rather good point:
It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is still weak compared with the supply. (emphasis added)
I'm sort of impatient with this because the BLS directly measures the demand side of the labor market in several ways. Paul: instead of measuring demand for labor by inference and guesswork, you can simply check the numbers and see what they are.
Looking at Krugman's words I would have to agree with his assertion that the average of weekly hours worked is down (although in France he claims that is a good thing) but what about the average duration of unemployment? Well once again, let's go to our friends at the BLS:
Currently in July 2005 we are at 17.6 weeks, down from a cylical high of 20.2 weeks in February of 2004. What if we compare it to the last economic cycle, the dotcom boom that Krugman called a "miracle". Well the recession ended 15 quarters ago, so let's go 45 months into the Clinton expansion, or December of 1994, what number do we find (drum roll please) 17.8! Or .2 weeks higher than we have now. Once again Krugman finds that everything is relative. If it is happens under a Democrat it is good, if it happens under a Republican, it is bad.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Who are we fighting?
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?"
-Michael Moore-
"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."
-Cindy Sheehan-
Amjad and more than a dozen other children from east Baghdad's al-Khalij neighborhood made up the majority of the 27 people killed when a suicide bomber drove into a crowd that had gathered around U.S. soldiers who were handing out candy and small toys, police said. The attack also killed one soldier, according to the U.S. military, and wounded at least 50 people.
The Washington Post
-Michael Moore-
"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."
-Cindy Sheehan-
Amjad and more than a dozen other children from east Baghdad's al-Khalij neighborhood made up the majority of the 27 people killed when a suicide bomber drove into a crowd that had gathered around U.S. soldiers who were handing out candy and small toys, police said. The attack also killed one soldier, according to the U.S. military, and wounded at least 50 people.
The Washington Post
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
I Must Be Playing the Wrong Games
I saw this earlier on Drudge:
CANTON, Ohio -- There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant, according to a recent report in the Canton Repository.
The article reported that some would say that movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline may all be to blame.
School officials are not sure what has caused so many pregnancies, but in response to them, the school is launching a three-prong educational program to address pregnancy, prevention and parenting.
Things have really changed since I was in high school, back then teenagers who played video games extensively were less likely to have the opportunity to be involved in a pregnancy. Apparently now it is a cause.
CANTON, Ohio -- There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant, according to a recent report in the Canton Repository.
The article reported that some would say that movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline may all be to blame.
School officials are not sure what has caused so many pregnancies, but in response to them, the school is launching a three-prong educational program to address pregnancy, prevention and parenting.
Things have really changed since I was in high school, back then teenagers who played video games extensively were less likely to have the opportunity to be involved in a pregnancy. Apparently now it is a cause.
Now Why Can't This Economist Write for the NY Times?
Steven Levitt, who like a famous economist I have mentioned before here is also a John Bates Clark medal winner, has been burning up the bestsellers lists with his book Freakonomics. He also has a blog. He even allows comments on it, and unlike Brad DeLong he doesn't even appear to delete and alter comments from people who disagree with him.
In any case he has a rather good post rebutting a NY Times Magazine article titled "Peak Oil" which is basically predicting the end of oil supplies. His post is rather logical, full of economic principles, and completely devoid of ad hominem attacks on his opponents, paranoid conspiracy theories, or irrelevant screeds against President Bush. All of which will immediately disqualify him for a job writing a permanent column for the Times.
In any case he has a rather good post rebutting a NY Times Magazine article titled "Peak Oil" which is basically predicting the end of oil supplies. His post is rather logical, full of economic principles, and completely devoid of ad hominem attacks on his opponents, paranoid conspiracy theories, or irrelevant screeds against President Bush. All of which will immediately disqualify him for a job writing a permanent column for the Times.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
What changed his mind over the weekend?
You would think Paul Krugman could at least keep his story straight over the weekend. From last Friday:
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
But by Sunday night:
The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.
First of all, what is the basis of his "should have"? Sorry Paul, the Supreme Court, Florida election law, and even the requests of Al Gore and his lawyers overrule your John Bates Clark medal and oversized ego. But most of all, how did he manage to change from a definite statement "a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore" to the much more indefinite "the probable answer is" in just two days? Did he perhaps realize that he wouldn't be able to get away with fudging the truth from his first column? Who knows, possibly by Friday he will downgrade it to "maybe"?
There are many more problems with this article, but I don't feel like addressing them. This man is giving me a headache, I'll leave it to other bloggers.
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
But by Sunday night:
The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.
First of all, what is the basis of his "should have"? Sorry Paul, the Supreme Court, Florida election law, and even the requests of Al Gore and his lawyers overrule your John Bates Clark medal and oversized ego. But most of all, how did he manage to change from a definite statement "a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore" to the much more indefinite "the probable answer is" in just two days? Did he perhaps realize that he wouldn't be able to get away with fudging the truth from his first column? Who knows, possibly by Friday he will downgrade it to "maybe"?
There are many more problems with this article, but I don't feel like addressing them. This man is giving me a headache, I'll leave it to other bloggers.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Children Say the Cutest Things
I was at a public event today that the Guard was supporting, just standing there, in uniform, talking to an old NCO friend of mine. I hadn't seen him in a while since he had been in Afghanistan. This young couple walked by with the cutest little girl, about 3 or 4 years of age. They stopped, the mother pointed at us, leaned down to the girl and told her "Thank them for making us safe". The child took a few hesitant steps towards us, looked up at us kind of shyly and repeated her moms words, "Thank you for making us safe".
I know she was just the messenger, but they couldn't have picked a sweeter messenger. Thank you.
A little while later a retired Brigadier General shook my hand and gave me a coin, which was nice, but I will take the thanks of a little girl and her mom over that any day.
I know she was just the messenger, but they couldn't have picked a sweeter messenger. Thank you.
A little while later a retired Brigadier General shook my hand and gave me a coin, which was nice, but I will take the thanks of a little girl and her mom over that any day.
Kaus Rebuttal Rebuttal
As pointed out on Instapundit, Mickey Kaus comes to Krugman's defense, pointing out correctly that he stated a "full manual recount". This is true and is somewhat of a defense to Krugman's statement, which is why I pointed that out in my original post on this subject, although some bloggers missed this subtlety. Kaus doesn't mention my comments, either because he didn't notice my humble blog, or because I was right and thus he had nothing to rebut. Krugman's comments are still in the wide scope of things misleading though, because Krugman does not point out that only under certain scenarios and intepretations is this true, and that Gore would not have won the election under ANY recount process which was being conducted at the time.
Remember, Krugman is not arguing merely that this was a close and poorly conducted election, which nobody would debate, but rather that this was a stolen election on behalf of Bush. He is relying on the (apparently correct) assumption that most readers would not notice the subtlety of his wording and assume that he is saying that it is proven that the Supreme Court stopping the recount somehow gave Bush the election. The weakness of his article is not based on one big lie, but rather than a whole bunch of half truths, innuendos and omissions. Much like a Michael Moore film, he weaves a bunch of items together, which although they may have some loose basis in reality, together form a completely misleading conclusion. It is not a coincidence that Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, a film that Krugman praised as "performing a public service", also attacked Katherine Harris in a similar manner, also inaccurately represented the "felon purge" and falsely claimed "under every scenario Gore won the election." a claim even more misleading than Krugman's precisely worded one.
Ironically, Krugman also had this to say about Fahrenheit 9/11:
There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions.
Aside from the fact that it actually has been caught in major factual errors, Krugman seems to have learned from the master.
UPDATE: Richard Bennett (no relation) looks into the statements of the "judicious" journalist who started this whole thing. Apparently he doesn't know the difference between "under some circumstances" and "every time" either. Powerline does its usual excellent work, as well as pointing to a very detailed breakdown on this in the American Thinker. I am thinking I might be going too easy on both Krugman and Kaus. I can't help it, I am just too nice of a guy.
Remember, Krugman is not arguing merely that this was a close and poorly conducted election, which nobody would debate, but rather that this was a stolen election on behalf of Bush. He is relying on the (apparently correct) assumption that most readers would not notice the subtlety of his wording and assume that he is saying that it is proven that the Supreme Court stopping the recount somehow gave Bush the election. The weakness of his article is not based on one big lie, but rather than a whole bunch of half truths, innuendos and omissions. Much like a Michael Moore film, he weaves a bunch of items together, which although they may have some loose basis in reality, together form a completely misleading conclusion. It is not a coincidence that Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, a film that Krugman praised as "performing a public service", also attacked Katherine Harris in a similar manner, also inaccurately represented the "felon purge" and falsely claimed "under every scenario Gore won the election." a claim even more misleading than Krugman's precisely worded one.
Ironically, Krugman also had this to say about Fahrenheit 9/11:
There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions.
Aside from the fact that it actually has been caught in major factual errors, Krugman seems to have learned from the master.
UPDATE: Richard Bennett (no relation) looks into the statements of the "judicious" journalist who started this whole thing. Apparently he doesn't know the difference between "under some circumstances" and "every time" either. Powerline does its usual excellent work, as well as pointing to a very detailed breakdown on this in the American Thinker. I am thinking I might be going too easy on both Krugman and Kaus. I can't help it, I am just too nice of a guy.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Military Strategy Courtesy of the Seattle Times
I first saw this on the Best of the Web, since I haven't had a chance to read the paper today.
America's purpose in Iraq is over. The soldiers should be brought home. It can be done, as has been proven in Vietnam, Somalia and other places. When and how it is done is not Sheehan's call to make, nor should it be.
Considering both Vietnam and Somalia were political embarassments, if not military defeats, why exactly did they choose them as examples of "bringing the soldiers home"? They couldn't pick Kuwait, Japan or Germany as examples? Yes, we are still there in some form, but only after we defeated the enemy. What is next, using Grozny or Operation Market Garden as examples of how military offensives "can be done"?
America's purpose in Iraq is over. The soldiers should be brought home. It can be done, as has been proven in Vietnam, Somalia and other places. When and how it is done is not Sheehan's call to make, nor should it be.
Considering both Vietnam and Somalia were political embarassments, if not military defeats, why exactly did they choose them as examples of "bringing the soldiers home"? They couldn't pick Kuwait, Japan or Germany as examples? Yes, we are still there in some form, but only after we defeated the enemy. What is next, using Grozny or Operation Market Garden as examples of how military offensives "can be done"?
Air America: The Enron of the Airwaves
I don't really have anything to add to this, I just wanted to use the title. The National Review Online has been particularly good today.
Until a few weeks ago, the biggest worry for executives at Air America was what to do about the liberal radio network's alarmingly low ratings. Launched amid much hype on March 31, 2004, Air America, with Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes, and a host of other anti-Bush personalities at the microphone, has, with the exception of a few cities, had great difficulty finding an audience. Even in New York, where the network's true-blue message should be welcome, its daily average ratings are actually lower than those of the Caribbean talk-and-music station it replaced a year and a half ago.
That would be bad enough. But now Air America finds itself fielding questions not only about its ratings but about its connection to a Bronx-based children's charity known as the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. In early July, a little-noticed local online journal, the Gotham Gazette, reported that New York City's Department of Investigation (DOI) was looking into the diversion of "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from the Gloria Wise club to Air America. The first figure was around $450,000, but it now appears that $875,000 was transferred from the taxpayer-and-contribution-supported Gloria Wise club to the struggling radio network.
Until a few weeks ago, the biggest worry for executives at Air America was what to do about the liberal radio network's alarmingly low ratings. Launched amid much hype on March 31, 2004, Air America, with Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes, and a host of other anti-Bush personalities at the microphone, has, with the exception of a few cities, had great difficulty finding an audience. Even in New York, where the network's true-blue message should be welcome, its daily average ratings are actually lower than those of the Caribbean talk-and-music station it replaced a year and a half ago.
That would be bad enough. But now Air America finds itself fielding questions not only about its ratings but about its connection to a Bronx-based children's charity known as the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. In early July, a little-noticed local online journal, the Gotham Gazette, reported that New York City's Department of Investigation (DOI) was looking into the diversion of "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from the Gloria Wise club to Air America. The first figure was around $450,000, but it now appears that $875,000 was transferred from the taxpayer-and-contribution-supported Gloria Wise club to the struggling radio network.
Environmental Hypocrisy
Jonah Goldberg, great as usual.
The basic situation is that some environmentalists and a company called Cape Wind want to build 130 windmills way out in the ocean to help offset energy costs in the region — and to satisfy all those demands that we find substitutes for evil fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, other environmentalists and conservationists are eager to stop the wind farm from being built, largely because it will mar the view from their extravagant coastal homes. Leading this charge is Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose famous compound would have a nice view of the turbines. (To be fair, though most people say the turbines would be hard to see except on very clear days, and even then they'd be tiny blips on the horizon.)
But Ted wants no such thing spoiling cocktail hour on the veranda. So he drafted his famously green nephew Robert to join the fight — even though Robert is a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which strongly backs the project.
The basic situation is that some environmentalists and a company called Cape Wind want to build 130 windmills way out in the ocean to help offset energy costs in the region — and to satisfy all those demands that we find substitutes for evil fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, other environmentalists and conservationists are eager to stop the wind farm from being built, largely because it will mar the view from their extravagant coastal homes. Leading this charge is Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose famous compound would have a nice view of the turbines. (To be fair, though most people say the turbines would be hard to see except on very clear days, and even then they'd be tiny blips on the horizon.)
But Ted wants no such thing spoiling cocktail hour on the veranda. So he drafted his famously green nephew Robert to join the fight — even though Robert is a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which strongly backs the project.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Geez Paul Krugman lies a lot
The man is a guaranteed Fisking, it is really lazy work for a blogger. Now his latest attack is claiming BOTH of the last two presidential elections are fraudulent. Of course he only manages this through innuendo and half truths. For example:
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
Of course what he is leaving out is that these "media consortiums" only said that this might have happened in certain scenarios, NONE of which were called for by the Gore campaign. Krugman's very own newspaper, which he apparently never reads reported:
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."
And of course he refers to Ms. Harris' s "felon purge" which was not her purge at all, it was called for by the state legislature in response to previous problems with vote fraud and contracted out to a private company. Apparently Mr. Krugman believes you are just supposed to ignore laws passed by the legislative branch. Furthermore anyone who was removed from the lists was allowed to appeal it, and many counties just ignored the lists anyway. Because of this it is entirely possible that more (Democratic leaning) felons were illegally allowed to vote than those who were removed improperly (who statistically should be equally represented)
But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places - lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines - and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic.
Only Krugman could somehow turn long lines into "suppression" of voting. Does this mean if there is a line at my grocery store checkout, it is not because more people showed up to shop then the store planned for at that time, it is because Safeway is intentionally "suppressing" their sales? How can an economist believe in this logic? Long lines are not a sign of vote suppression, they are a sign of the exact opposite, large amounts of people showing up to vote! Furthermore elections are normally run by local officials, who in "areas likely to vote Democratic" would be DEMOCRATS. They are "suppressing" their own vote!
Both reports also point to problems involving voters who were improperly forced to cast provisional votes, many of which were discarded.
Of course he fails to note that this was a nationwide problem, look here at Washington State, even 6 months after the election they were still trying to determine the validity of provisional ballots. Statistically speaking Ohio was one of the better states.
The Conyers report goes further, highlighting the blatant partisanship of election officials. In particular, the behavior of Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell - who supervised the election while serving as co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio - makes Ms. Harris's actions in 2000 seem mild by comparison.
How interesting, quoting from a Democratic report on the partisanship of a Republican. Doesn't that sound a little "partisan"? Now why is he so viciously attacking Blackwell, could it be because he is a popular African-American Republican politician who is considered a front runner for governer next year? At least he didn't call him "inscrutable"
And of course the biggest thing he omits from this article, is that despite the thousands of lawyers working for the Democratic party looking into this, John Kerry refused to contest it at all. When they voted in the Senate whether to block the certification of the election, it failed 1-74. They could only get one senator, not even Ted Kennedy would go along with these theories. But I guess inspector Krugman knows better.
UPDATE: Brainster finds yet one more conveniently inaccurate fact. I am sure there will be more.
UPDATE 2: BTW if anyone was interested in Andrew Gumbel, the journalist for the Independent who wrote this "very judicious work" he is a far left journalist who writes for anti-war groups, and whose writing, among other places has shown up at Al Jazeera. He even wrote a book on the secret conspiracy behind the Oklahoma City bombings. I think it was Karl Rove...
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
Of course what he is leaving out is that these "media consortiums" only said that this might have happened in certain scenarios, NONE of which were called for by the Gore campaign. Krugman's very own newspaper, which he apparently never reads reported:
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."
And of course he refers to Ms. Harris' s "felon purge" which was not her purge at all, it was called for by the state legislature in response to previous problems with vote fraud and contracted out to a private company. Apparently Mr. Krugman believes you are just supposed to ignore laws passed by the legislative branch. Furthermore anyone who was removed from the lists was allowed to appeal it, and many counties just ignored the lists anyway. Because of this it is entirely possible that more (Democratic leaning) felons were illegally allowed to vote than those who were removed improperly (who statistically should be equally represented)
But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places - lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines - and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic.
Only Krugman could somehow turn long lines into "suppression" of voting. Does this mean if there is a line at my grocery store checkout, it is not because more people showed up to shop then the store planned for at that time, it is because Safeway is intentionally "suppressing" their sales? How can an economist believe in this logic? Long lines are not a sign of vote suppression, they are a sign of the exact opposite, large amounts of people showing up to vote! Furthermore elections are normally run by local officials, who in "areas likely to vote Democratic" would be DEMOCRATS. They are "suppressing" their own vote!
Both reports also point to problems involving voters who were improperly forced to cast provisional votes, many of which were discarded.
Of course he fails to note that this was a nationwide problem, look here at Washington State, even 6 months after the election they were still trying to determine the validity of provisional ballots. Statistically speaking Ohio was one of the better states.
The Conyers report goes further, highlighting the blatant partisanship of election officials. In particular, the behavior of Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell - who supervised the election while serving as co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio - makes Ms. Harris's actions in 2000 seem mild by comparison.
How interesting, quoting from a Democratic report on the partisanship of a Republican. Doesn't that sound a little "partisan"? Now why is he so viciously attacking Blackwell, could it be because he is a popular African-American Republican politician who is considered a front runner for governer next year? At least he didn't call him "inscrutable"
And of course the biggest thing he omits from this article, is that despite the thousands of lawyers working for the Democratic party looking into this, John Kerry refused to contest it at all. When they voted in the Senate whether to block the certification of the election, it failed 1-74. They could only get one senator, not even Ted Kennedy would go along with these theories. But I guess inspector Krugman knows better.
UPDATE: Brainster finds yet one more conveniently inaccurate fact. I am sure there will be more.
UPDATE 2: BTW if anyone was interested in Andrew Gumbel, the journalist for the Independent who wrote this "very judicious work" he is a far left journalist who writes for anti-war groups, and whose writing, among other places has shown up at Al Jazeera. He even wrote a book on the secret conspiracy behind the Oklahoma City bombings. I think it was Karl Rove...
Have you driven a Ford lately?
I own a Mustang GT so I found this commercial rather interesting (OK, I nearly cried at the end). During OEF I had a picture of mine taped to the wall of my tent, as it was the closest thing I had to a wife at the time. Unfortunately I had to pay for mine!
The Economics of Hybrids
I have always thought that hybrids were an interesting idea, but are they really economical?
According to a recent study by automotive research Web site Edmunds.com that compared the break-even point of owning and driving a number of popular hybrids against conventional gasoline models, hybrid owners would have to drive thousands of extra miles or pay steep prices for gasoline to make up for the additional cost of a hybrid in five years or less.
According to a recent study by automotive research Web site Edmunds.com that compared the break-even point of owning and driving a number of popular hybrids against conventional gasoline models, hybrid owners would have to drive thousands of extra miles or pay steep prices for gasoline to make up for the additional cost of a hybrid in five years or less.
Has She Listened to Any of Her Speeches?
From a Seattle Times report of a local protest in support of activist Cindy Sheehan:
Joyce Gibson, an anti-war activist since the 1960s, said she is grateful that Sheehan has stepped forward to become an icon of the anti-war movement.
"I've been waiting for someone, an ordinary person, to spark something in me and others that's not angry or mean-spirited," Gibson said.
From a speech in San Francisco, by the aforementioned Cindy Sheehan:
I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bulls**t to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for." If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . .
What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's--yeah--and it's okay for Iraq to occupy--I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.
Or a speech she gave the other day:
But I don't care, I'm goin'. And I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."
And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.'"
"And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."
And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit.
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.'
Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.
You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine
Nope, nothing mean-spirited there.
Joyce Gibson, an anti-war activist since the 1960s, said she is grateful that Sheehan has stepped forward to become an icon of the anti-war movement.
"I've been waiting for someone, an ordinary person, to spark something in me and others that's not angry or mean-spirited," Gibson said.
From a speech in San Francisco, by the aforementioned Cindy Sheehan:
I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bulls**t to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for." If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . .
What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's--yeah--and it's okay for Iraq to occupy--I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.
Or a speech she gave the other day:
But I don't care, I'm goin'. And I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."
And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.'"
"And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."
And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit.
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.'
Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.
You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine
Nope, nothing mean-spirited there.
Are my 15 Minutes Up Yet?
Yours truely actually got a credit on The Best of the Web (scroll all the way down to see it). Even rarer than an instapundit link, although it doesn't draw nearly as much traffic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
