Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by chickmagnet
at least until the caliphate of the islamic republic of europe is firmly established.

Hey fucko. Get an original name.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dissent. Krugman is considered a jackass these days. He lost his fucking mind over W.

You can hold your opinion about Krugman, and I will admit that I don't race to read him (or any of the NYT columnists), but Okrent smeared him with that parting shot, and couldn't back it up. In that exchange I linked to, Krugman just kicked his ass.

It appears that Okrent was getting fed stuff by Donald Luskin, and is not enough of an economist to realize that Luskin done him wrong.

I didn't really have a bad sense of Okrent, and I'm not sure why he chose to pick this fight.

If you don't feel like wading through all the details, read Jonathan Chait's summary of the exchange:

OKRENT'S LAST WORD: I didn't think Daniel Okrent, the departing New York Times public editor, could get any more cowardly. But he just did.

If you didn't notice, Okrent included in his final Times column a parting shot at columnist Paul Krugman and two other Times columnists. Okrent wrote, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Okrent declined to offer a single example of such slicing and dicing, or even to expound upon his accusation in any way. By way of explanation, he wrote: "I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist."

This is, of course, a shockingly dumb explanation. No, op-ed columnists don't give their targets a chance to respond. But they do make some effort to substantiate their claims. Krugman wouldn't write that President Bush told a lie in a recent speech and leave it at that. He would pass on to the readers what Bush said and explain why he felt it was a lie. Is Okrent really so dim that he couldn't grasp this point?

Maybe, but more likely he doesn't have the guts to do it. In an online debate, Krugman pressed Okrent to substantiate his accusation. You can read the debate here. It's truly pathetic. Krugman explains why Okrent's accusations were wrong, and Okrent repeatedly dodges the substance.

For instance, Okrent writes, "His 5/9/05 column on progressive indexing. The column itself (without the ex post facto explanation) suggestively conflates 'retirement income' and 'social security benefits' without sufficient explanation, but with plenty of apparent point-making."

Krugman replies:

• I explained that the term "retirement income" normally refers to income from all sources, not just Social Security benefits (the Social Security Administration says on its Web site that "you should not count only on Social Security for your retirement income.") I supplied him with a study (pdf) that used Social Security Administration data to show that because high-income workers depend much less than middle-income workers on Social Security, they would have smaller percentage cuts in overall retirement income than middle-income workers. This was similar to a point I made, using different data, a week earlier (5/1/05), so I was surprised that Mr. Okrent even raised the issue.

So Okrent simply launches even more personal attacks. For instance, he writes: "For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others. And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it."

But of course Krugman didn't challenge Okrent's right to disagree with him, only his right to launch unsubstantiated attacks on his integrity.

The sneakiest thing in Okrent's latest entry is this:

• Believe me--I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.)

Note what's going on here. First, Okrent implies that there are lots of examples of Krugman abusing data but declines to provide them. Next, he conflates that accusation with a completely different one--that Krugman plays to his liberal base and dismisses those who disagree too easily. I think there's some truth to the latter criticism. But that's a completely different accusation. Being too ideological or partisan is a common flaw among pundits, and it's in the eye of the beholder. Manipulating data is far more serious. Readers can judge for themselves if Krugman is playing to the liberal crowd. They can't judge whether he's using numbers dishonestly. To say he does so is to tell readers they can't trust him.

Okrent continues on with other snide remarks, including this parting shot: "If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I'll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word. I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I'm hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him." Look, many journalists have been in the position of wanting to dodge a reader who harbors a burning desire to debate some obscure point and lots of time on his hands. But Krugman isn't some crank, and he's not debating some obscure point. Okrent smeared him in his own newspaper, and he has a right to clear his name.

I'm not saying there are no quarrels that anybody could ever make with any of Krugman's data. He deals with very complicated questions in a very small space. He simply can't devote endless technical paragraphs to establishing his every premise. (That's why I happen to think his recent series of columns on health care, which allowed him to develop his thoughts at greater length without rushing through his premises, have been his best ones.) So Krugman can't chase every rabbit down every hole, but given the constraints of his column, he does a very good job. Okrent ought to be ashamed of himself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hey fucko. Get an original name.

I think he spells that "fuckeau."

eta: Sorry, wrong fucko.

[chickmagnet]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hey fucko. Get an original name.

dissent. you are considered a jackass these days, you must be losing your fucking mind sucking cornhole at the temple of W.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If they were little people, why did they spring for natural weight loss?

Because they were little people of substance. Or little people of significant size. Or little people of enhanced buoyancy - whatever the term is supposed to be.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by chickmagnet
dissent. you are considered a jackass these days, you must be losing your fucking mind sucking cornhole at the temple of W.

These days?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Europe is destined for global irrelevance, for a generation or so at least.

Oh, please.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If they were little people, why did they spring for natural weight loss?

They were short, but very thick about the middle.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Daniel Okrent, until recently the NYT's ombuds-type, took a cheap and unsubstantiated shot at Paul Krugman on his way out the door, and Krugman has now responded. I didn't think Okrent was an idiot, but picking (and losing) this fight doesn't reflect well on him.

1) I thought it rather telling that the ombudsman of the Times withheld all comment on Krugman and Dowd until his final column. Either Okrent is a pussy unwilling to gore the Grey Lady's sacred cows, or his bosses forced him to clam up.

2) How did Krugman win this fight, other than getting in - by concession - the last word?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I disagree. The constitution can't be rewritten in any way more favorable to France (since any future renegotiation would include the new eastern European countries). France completely shot its wad getting the constitution into the condition it was in already. (And a sorry-ass condition it was, too.)

I agree but the French population don't understand that.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic Then again, I think the EU was effectively dead as a potential unified political entity when they admitted Britain. It is now in French interests to kill it as an economic entity as well, since all future developments will be contrary to its interests (reduction of subsidies and further opening of markets). They are well on their way to doing this (see: the destruction of the Maastricht criteria).
I agree with (1), but their social net is pretty fucked anyway in the long term since it structurally entrenches increasing unemployment. I think (2) is a superficial concern (though Americans certainly underestimate the zenophobia of Europe). I think the rejection of "Europe" is much deeper than details of the constitution or immigration concerns.

I think the real underlying concern is that, in an expanded Europe, France can't steer policy (foreign, internal, regulatory or economic). The French have long fancied the EU as the tool by which they will reestablish their role as a real global power (with the oomph of a bunch of other contries quietly following their lead). There's no longer a chance in hell for that, and so the EU is now something that frustrates the exercise of French power rather than magnifying it. Why would they vote to further entrench that situation?
I agree 100%. But it will never happen. Therefore Europe is destined for global irrelevance, for a generation or so at least.

It is not in French interest to kill it as an economic entity. This view comes with looking at economics as a zero sum game. In addition, the Europeans are so intertwined economically, if it started to unravel the people would immediately feel the pain. People don't see the benefits right now, but if the EU unraveld the pain would hit and they would go right back. I think Britain is going to have to join the Monetary Union eventually. Its business community will eventually start screaming about the currency risk they go through that their European counterparts don't have to worry about. As someone who has worked in international finance, currency risk is huge factors of multinationals. Since the closer Economic Union is in the business communities interest, all stuff below the radar screen will still move towards a closer union.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) I thought it rather telling that the ombudsman of the Times withheld all comment on Krugman and Dowd until his final column. Either Okrent is a pussy unwilling to gore the Grey Lady's sacred cows, or his bosses forced him to clam up.

Is it telling that he never commented on Brooks at all? I've seen factual claims made by Brooks refuted. Okrent couldn't come close with Krugman.

As Safire proved for years, op-ed columnists at the NYT get to say whatever the hell they want, without fearing of getting called on it.

2) How did Krugman win this fight, other than getting in - by concession - the last word?

Did you bother to read the exchange? Okrent had no idea what he was talking about. Krugman answered everything he said, so Okrent resorted to crappy, ad hominem attacks.

[Spanky]

Sidd, Tryone and Slave: Being blessed enough to live on the California coast, one of the advantages is completely not caring what these bozos, Krugman and Okrent, say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Darwin in a vise:

[chickmagnet]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sidd, Tryone and Slave: Being blessed enough to live on the California coast, one of the advantages is completely not caring what these bozos, Krugman and Okrent, say.

nice admission, like lord emperor W you aspire to stupidity. keep your head swilled in their regime of scurrilous lies while your rightwing media pals Hannity and Rush conspire to legitimize our military's campaign of murder, torture and tyranny.

does is 100,000 murdered Iraqis and over 1600 sacrificial Americans sound like freedom to you?

but of course you live on the westcoast so are blessed with not having to care. this must be how democracy ends, with the sound of repukes shoving their heads up their asses.

[Tyrone Slothrop]