I followed a link from tbogg today over to Donald “Poor and Stupid” Luskin’s website. In big letters on the left, it says:
“THE CONSPIRACY TO KEEP YOU POOR AND STUPID BY DONALD L. LUSKINTHE WEBLOG OF THE BOOK: How Big Government, Big Business, Big Media, and Big Academia Block Your Road to Financial Freedom— and Tell You It’s For Your Own Good”
Underneath, it has a quote, which I reproduce in full:
“…straight contrary-to-fact statements embarassing, and damaging to their own credibility…”
— Brad DeLong
This doesn’t link to anything.
A casual reader might think that this quote came from a review of the book. He or she might wonder who this Brad DeLong is, and what he’s referring to. Big government? Big business? Big media? There’s no way to tell.
Significantly less casual readers might know that Brad DeLong is a Democratic economist, and in-no-way casual readers might know that DeLong is a fierce critic of Donald Luskin. If you look up this quote, you’ll see that it comes from a sharp attack on Luskin himself, and on his editors at the National Review for publishing him:
You have to have confidence that those who write on social and political issues for National Review will find these kinds of straight contrary-to-fact statements embarrassing, and damaging to their own credibility—their writings are published beneath the same masthead, after all—and will talk to the editors. (emphasis added)
Hmm. If there had been a link, or if the subject of the quote had been clear, I’d have called this a self-deprecating joke from Mr. “Truth Squad” Luskin. But there isn’t one.
Now I think very, very little of Luskin, so I don’t trust my own judgement. Maybe I’m just being humorless. But I’d be very interested in hearing comments about how others judge this on the cute-to-slimy scale.
UPDATE: Edited to correct spelling of “deprecating”
I always interpreted it as a self deprecating joke.
The “stupid” are those who read Luskin’s columns in National Review. The “poor” are the people who invested in Luskin’s mutual funds.
The missing link is: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001869.html .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Terry,
“This” and “this” are supposed to be what and what exactly?
Remember – Preview is your friend.
;)
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
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review