Comments on: Poor and stupid

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:50:42 +0000

Ted, Thank you very much for your prompt response to my earlier post. In hindsight, I have to agree that “apoplectic” was too strong of a word; however I am curious about something. The “issue” itself over Luskin’s quoting of DeLong on his website seems rather trivial to put it mildly. I can understand discussing something trivial as a springboard for a larger issue such as Bustamante’s ties to a racist organization like MEChA or how Drudge and Robert Novak distorted Clark’s wearing of a hat of a Serbian war criminal prior to his being indicted although after he was accused of war crimes. But each of these issues – trivial as they may be – at least can lead to a discussion of larger issues such as whether or not there is a double standard for what constitutes a “racist organization” (based on the ethnicity of said organization or the political affiliation of the person who was a member) and whether or not our nation’s representatives who have been sent to deal with unsavory sorts ought to have it held against them for doing their jobs when they did not break any laws in the process. I just don’t see what the fascination was with the Brad DeLong quote on Donald Luskin’s website. Was there a larger issue here that I’m missing other than possible concern that people might not “get” the joke? Because it seemed a little bit like nit-picking when I first read it and while I generally think you’re above that, it seems to me that you might be falling into that pattern with several of your last posted issues. I hope I’m wrong because you have posted some fine stuff in the past and I have no doubt you will in the future as well.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:56:59 +0000

Thorley, Reading over the post, I really don’t think that I got apoplectic. The distinction between the tone of this post and a fit of anger so intense that it causes a rupture of blood vessels in the brain is subtle but real, I think. Anyway, the straw poll seems to point to “not slimy”, which is fair enough. To heavy blog readers, it’s hard not to see the quote as a joke. And there’s a reasonable point that people who don’t know who DeLong is will just read it as a non sequiter- the quote refers to “they”, not “he”, so it’s hard for me to understand why someone unfamiliar with DeLong would know that it’s a criticism of Luskin. It’s not a huge deal in either case.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:28:35 +0000

Thorley, Hmmm…. So it underlined them, but didn’t link… Tricky comment bastards! Apparently my intellect is laser-like today as well. Here they are: http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/image001.gif http://www.msnbc.com/news/971384.asp?0cv=CA00

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:19:12 +0000

Terry, “This” and “this” are supposed to be what and what exactly? Remember – Preview is your friend. ;)

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:24:57 +0000

No the funny part is how Donald Luskin when maniacal over a slightly edited quote of his while cutting Delong’s quote out of context.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:22:27 +0000

Wow, Thorley, your laserbeam intellect has sliced through our weakness and found that we are scared and desperate. Of course we are. How could we not be when we see things like this and read things like this. (Shudder.)

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:01:30 +0000

Are you serious? Remember when Krugman attacked Andrew Sullivan as “to vile to read” (or something like that), and Sullivan put the quote up on his website, as evidence that he got under Krugman’s skin? Luskin is obviously doing the same thing, since DeLong is a well known Democratic partisan. Not as well known as Krugman nationally, but certainly as well known among blog readers. Or were you just doing a parody of deeply distressed liberal hyper-sensitivity? (Sorry if I missed it.)

I agree, Ted Barlowe seems to be coming up short in the “finding something substantive and interesting to post about” department lately. This one is particularly weak. However it does illustrate rather nicely how desperate the other side has gotten that they get so apoplectic over a rather obvious in-joke on a blog.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:08:07 +0000

Freudian projection explains an awful lot of the right’s actions and words (note Luskin’s ‘conspiracy’ tagline). In addition, it’s sometimes a good tactic to accuse others of that which oneself is guilty, just to muddy the air. In the case of the quote, however, it’s probably based on the assumption that the readers won’t check on the source of the quote.

By: William Sjostrom

William Sjostrom — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:34:21 +0000

Are you serious? Remember when Krugman attacked Andrew Sullivan as “to vile to read” (or something like that), and Sullivan put the quote up on his website, as evidence that he got under Krugman’s skin? Luskin is obviously doing the same thing, since DeLong is a well known Democratic partisan. Not as well known as Krugman nationally, but certainly as well known among blog readers. Or were you just doing a parody of deeply distressed liberal hyper-sensitivity? (Sorry if I missed it.)

By: Anno-nymous

Anno-nymous — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:33:36 +0000

I agree that it’s probably a joke, or at least intended as evidence of how contrary he is. But I think the better question is, why doesn’t the quote include the subject or verb? Why not include “National Review will find these kinds of”? It sounds like Brad doesn’t know how to speak English. Then again, maybe that was the point?

By: Anno-nymous

Anno-nymous — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:32:20 +0000

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:27:31 +0000

Luskin’s a nutbag. A couple of weeks ago, he was bashing Krugman’s book right and left, asking if anyone was “surprised to learn that Krugman’s publisher, W.W. Norton, has repeatedly refused (his) requests for a review copy of the new book” and then hawking the book on his own page.
Gall: It’s not just a province of Romana.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:37:23 +0000

I’m not exactly on the cute-to-slimy scale. Luskin means you to see that DeLong is attacking him—DeLong’s quote describes the website—but Luskin doesn’t see this as a self-deprecating joke; DeLong’s criticism validates him because DeLong is PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. Just like Paul Krugman. And, as far as I can tell, all other non-supply-side economists. Well, the comment about Krugman’s “The Great Dogearing” is cute, so Luskin has a bit of a sense of humor—but if you are foolish enough to click on the weblog, it looks like it should be subtitlted “A Paul Krugman stalker site.” Yeesh.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:25:48 +0000

Yep, I think it’s a stretch to read that quote and think it’s a reference to the entities Luskin is attacking. If you know who Delong is, you will read it as a self-deprecating joke; if not, it will be entirely meaningless.

By: CS

CS — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:13:37 +0000

It’s a joke. It obviously refers to the thing DIRECTLY ABOVE THE QUOTE, and offers a bit of in humor for those who know who DeLong is and read his Semi-Daily Journal. And it hardly seems misleading as ‘twill be a rare soul indeed who would be surfing Luskin’s site without an ideological axe of his own to grind. Ted: c’mon dogg, lighten up.