Golden Gate Bridge at sunrise
-- Golden Gate Bridge at dawn. By Dennis Callahan.

RANDOM JOTTINGS a weblog by John Weidner

Main Page Archive

Natalie Solent
Dave Trowbridge
Betsy Newmark
Bill Quick
Suman Palit
Moira Breen
Andrea Harris
Richard Bennett
Iain Murray
Joanne Jacobs
Craig Schamp
Dean Esmay
Brothers Judd
Doctor Frank
Rand Simberg
Punning Pundit
Right Wing News
Brian Tiemann
Henry Hanks

Iraqi Democracy graphic

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Index to Krugman posts

Index to World War One posts


Friday, October 25, 2002

There are news reports that Russian soldiers have stormed the theater and freed the hostages. I can't express how good that makes me feel.

The situation had seemed almost hopeless, and I was opressed by the thought that it was, as my son Rob put it, "a 9/11 in slow motion." (And I'm perfectly aware that the Chechens have legitimate grievances. Doesn't matter here; terrorism must be stopped.)

I felt sick at the thought of all those lives to be lost; and yet, logic coldly says the WORST thing you can do is to capitulate to terrorists and hostage-takers. That vile worm Jimmy Carter, by allowing Americans to be held hostage with impunity, has probably condemned tens of thousands of people to death.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

P. Krugman
#52: Forget economics, go where the action is!

This is getting ridiculous. In "Dead Parrot Society" (10/25/02) Paul Krugman once again goes after the Bush administration for lying. But he only comes up with one new "lie." The rest are either based on vague third party charges (Krugman loves those) or rehashes of "lies" he ranted about previously. In particular, we note "The Memory Hole" (08/06/02) and "Just Trust Us" (08/30/02). The squad dealt with these previous "lies" in reports #32 and#36. We made the point that the definition of "liar" seems to be anyone who disagrees with Krugman.

The new "lie" is based on a Colin Powell interview on Meet the Press in which he commented that regime change did not have to include the exit of Saddam personally as long as his weapons were gone and he conformed to other UN resolutions concerning behavior. Now, to Krugman, this amounts to a lie because it is in conflict with previous administration statements linking regime change directly to Saddam's departure. Bill Clinton, who invented the term "wiggle room", must have found this amusing. Lyndon Johnson, no doubt, is rolling on a floor somewhere in laughter.

What's going on here is pretty clear. The left wing of the New York Times readership (and that's most of them) is more interested in war than in economics and PK is going where the action is. More and more of his columns are centered on Iraq, terrorism and radical Islam. Economic issues are now seen through a war filter. The Bush administration is still blamed for everything, of course. That's the one constant in Krugy's world.

[The Truth Squad is a group of economists who have long marveled at the writings of Paul Krugman. The Squad Reports are synopses of their discussions. You can find Paul Krugman's writings, including the latest columns, here]

Thursday, October 24, 2002


There is another good article on Iran by Michael Ledeen, The Iranian Comedy Hour:
...All this will no doubt surprise most Americans, because events inside Iran are not reported in our leading media. It has now been over a year since the monster demonstrations in the streets of Tehran (dismissed as "soccer riots" by the few reporters who have brought themselves to report them at all), and for the past several months there have been many stories noting the intimate relations between leading terrorist groups and the Islamic Republic. Just last week, the Chicago Tribune noted that German officials had reported that al Qaeda operatives in northern Italy had been in regular contact with Iran, and most people who follow the news are aware that leading terrorists from Afghanistan have taken refuge in Iran. And just in case you were wondering about Bali, my information is that the bombs were delivered by Hezbollah operatives, having been trained by experts from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The people who gave me this information, the day after the event, also predicted, spot on, that the next assault would be in the Philippines.

So, dear friends, we are left with the same two questions I have been asking for the past many months: Why is Iran so systematically ignored by our free press? And why is it that Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, violently oppose any real program of assistance to the Iranians fighting for our common ideals?

Faster, please. What the hell are you waiting for? Another September 11?
Well, I can answer one of those questions. When has the State Department EVER declared that a situation is beyond talk, and action is needed? When do they EVER side with the people against the tyrants?

How could they? I mean, these are, like, friends. They've had fruitful and wide-ranging discussions. They've toasted each other at banquets! I can just imagine the conversations on the embassy terrace:

Diplomat from brutal Islamic tyranny: It's so veddy veddy frustrating, we're trying hard to build a revolutionary society, and the rabble keep rioting and protesting. And they are so ragged and smelly, it would just turn your stomach, old chap!"

Cartilaginous American diplomat: "Yeah I know how you feel. But be thankful, at least you don't have elections! They can really mess up your day. Buncha right-wing yahoos get into office, and all our hard work, decades of toasts and banquets, down the drain."

Actually, I can answer the other question. The news media like revolutions against freedom and Western Civilization. You still don't hear them say anything bad about Castro. The Iranian people are rebelling to get into the free, democratic Western world. They even want economic freedom. Need I say more?

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

We've come back to life! A corroded wire somewhere high up on a phone pole wiped out our DSL signal. But now it's fixed. (It was bad there for a few days; I actually had to go back to reading books...)

P. Krugman
#51: PANIC with a Capital P !

Did we use the word PANIC to describe Paul Krugman's election mood last week? Correction. Make that PANIC! In "Business as Usual" (10/22/02), Krugman is convinced the Republicans are going to regain control of congress and lets loose of all of his pent up demons in a rush of frustration.

Here is our synopsis:

The raison d'ĂȘtre of the Bush administration is to is to promote corruption in government to the benefit of its cronies. To that end, it is reducing budgets of regulatory bodies so the cronies can get away with more corporate shenanigans and reducing the IRS budget so that same can cheat more easily on their taxes. To carry this out Bush has appointed a record number of former CEOs to government positions. Moreover, these are not competitive, entrepreneurial CEOs (presumably the "good" kind); they are CEOs who, like Bush, made their money through "crony capitalism." Thus....."this is a government of, by and for corporate insiders."

We obviously rejoice in reading such "irrational desperation." The closer Krugman moves toward Dowd, Herbert and the rest of the looney-left columnists for New York Times, the less credibility he will have. He has little now among economists. Indeed, it has been weeks since he has written on an economic issue.

When he does, we'll be here.

[The Truth Squad is a group of economists who have long marveled at the writings of Paul Krugman. The Squad Reports are synopses of their discussions.]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Tuesday, October 22, 2002

Our internet connection has died. So, no posting or answering e-mails for a while. Sorry. Back soon.