The Worm
So now the Nobel Prize for Economics has gone to Princeton professor and New York Times writer, Paul Krugman. This follows in the grand tradition of giving this prize to left-wing voices-especially those who are busy bashing George Bush. This is a perfect follow-up to giving the prize last year to Al Gore.
Paul Krugman is a leftist worm who, in addition to specializing in economics, is a regular basher of Bush, conservatives and anything connected to them.
Why do I call him a worm? Because he is.
The last time I saw this guy on TV, he was engaged in a debate with Bill O'Reilly, who took umbrage at some things Krugman had said about him. And you know what happens when O'Reilly takes umbrage. It was like watching a doberman cornering a cowering poodle. Every time O'Reilly let him have it, Krugman would put his head down and nervously shuffle his notes in front of him. It was a reflex action. I thought the guy was going to crawl under the table.
Yes, Paul Krugman is a worm. He says and writes damning things about those who don't share his left-wing positions from the safety of the New York Times newsroom or the hallowed halls of Princeton. When confronted by those he attacks, he curls up into a little ball.
His selection for a Nobel Prize is just a reflection of the political agenda of the Nobel Commission. Next year, it will probably be Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos.
Paul Krugman is a worm.
Holy crap, Gary.
ReplyDeleteI just watched that debate on Youtube, and the only thing that I could conclude is that Bill O'Reilly might be an even bigger idiot than I realized.
Bear in mind that I know little about Krugman, so I'm basing this solely on the debate.
Here's O'Reilly's strategy: yell, create a strawman, yell, insult the guy, yell, ignore facts, yell, create another strawman, make up facts, yell.
How the hell else was this guy going to debate O'Reilly? It's like debating a monkey with rabies! It's not like you can engage the guy on any kind of an intellectual level. The only thing he could do, which he's obviously too smart to do, is shake his head and "cower" as you call it.
O'Reilly is a walking self-parody. It's amazing how he's really not all that different than Stephen Colbert, only Colbert behaves that way to be funny. O'Reilly does it because he has some serious anger management issues. The best part was when he accused Krugman of "living in a world of his own." Ha! This coming from the guy who quoted the fictitious "Paris Business Review"!
Seriously, Gary - turn off O'Reilly and watch Colbert. It's the same show, but this one is supposed to be funny, unlike the unintentional comedy of errors that is the "No Spin Zone".
Thanks for not bothering us with the specifics of why he is a "worm."
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteI thought I was very specific. He takes shots at people, and when they come back at him, he acts like a worm-like the example with O'Reilly.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you always trying to get me to watch Colbert?
The reason O'Reilly was all over him was because Krugman had bad-mouthed in some other forum when O'Reilly wasn't there.
Does O'Reilly have anger management issues? Yeah.
Why are you always trying to get me to watch Colbert?
ReplyDeleteBecause it's more intelligent than O'Reilly.
And whatever O'Reilly's reasons were for going after the guy, it doesn't excuse his behavior. Also, it doesn't change the fact that even when the moderator showed that the facts supported Krugman's statement, O'Reilly ignored it. It also doesn't change the fact that O'Reilly claimed that Krugman was saying something that he wasn't saying. And of course, it doesn't change the fact that O'Reilly made up some stuff to support his point.
I also love how O'Reilly compared Media Matters to the Klan. While they're certainly left-leaning, all they do is call people out on their factual errors. I guess that making stuff up is okay, but having a bias is the most horrible thing you can do.
My guess is that Krugman probably called O'Reilly out on his factual errors. He probably also did the same thing with these "shots" that he's taken at people. How dare a person speak about facts! The facts are biased!
"I'm not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are."
Lance,
ReplyDelete"My guess is that Krugman probably called O'Reilly out on his factual errors. He probably also did the same thing with these "shots" that he's taken at people. How dare a person speak about facts! The facts are biased!"
"Bear in mind that I know little about Krugman, so I'm basing this solely on the debate.
If you know so little about the guy, how do you know he speaks facts?
If you know so little about the guy, how do you know he speaks facts?
ReplyDeleteI'll admit that I'm doing a lot of assuming, but that's the thing that seems to trouble O'Reilly the most - being called out on his distortions. That's why he's mad at Media Matters. That's why he's mad at Olbermann. That's why he's mad at Jon Stewart.
I could be wrong, but at least I have a pattern to go by. And I'm being a lot more specific in my criticism of O'Reilly than you are of your criticism of Krugman.
Media Matters- David Brock. Do you know about that guy? He is the big writer over there. He used to be a conservative -wrote a book piece about Hillary-then decided he was a liberal. Very credible.
ReplyDeleteI think I have seen and rewad more work by The Worm than you, Lance. That's why I commented on his Nobel Prize.
As for Olbermann, Bill never even mentions his name on air, while he is on Countdown every night as Worst person in the World. (gold, silver or bonze).
Hey, shouldn't we both be in class? That's where I'm going now. Gotta go.
I was taking a break during my prep period (and procrastinating on some lesson plans).
ReplyDeleteHere's my challenge to you, Gary. Give me one instance of Krugman, Olbermann, or Brock making the same sort of completely fictitious statement along the lines of O'Reilly's "Paris Business Review" embarassment. Something specific, okay? Not a general, sweeping statement. (And realize that I'm not necessarily a fan of any of these guys - but I have determined that Media Matters is a pretty good source - mainly because they deal in facts, although they tend to just focus on the facts that support their agenda.)
I'm really starting to get the impression that you think it's less forgivable to be liberally biased than to completely make things up and pass them off as facts.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteThis is a shocker, a Leftist winning the noble prize, I never saw that coming!
Okay, Okay I was being facetious!
Well it fits the mold, everything in the country has gone left.
I just can't wait and see how the left will blame the right for the HyperInflation about to befall the country in the next presidential term.
Maybe we rightwingers will be called racist because we said that our President's policy were wrong and the depression we are in is his fault, that should make for some fantastic arrests and riots!!
This is not a knock on left handers, but is it any wonder why back in the ancient times left handed people were viewed as lame and not normal. Strange to see how that parallels most of the leftist media and population of our fair country!
I have an idea instead of raising our right hand when we swear an oath or putting our right hand over our hearts when we say the national anthem or pledge of allegance (I know this last one is on its way out of schools so we might not know what I am talking about here) lets put our left hand up, should fit the way things are going in this country!
I hope we enjoy the mess the liberals have brought us!
For the Conservative Point of view, like Jim Rome says, "I'm OUT!!"
Lance,
ReplyDeleteMedia Matters was founded by John Podesta (a Clinton hack) and David Brock. If you want example of Brock's duplicity, just go to his wikipedia entry. You will be asking yourself, "was he lying nthen, or was he lying then?"
C/mon, Lance, if you are getting your info from MM, you better go back to Colbert.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the "Paris Business Review" is a real publication? I read about that particular total lie on MM. But, I guess if they're biased then everything they say is wrong, even when the facts match up with what they say, 'cause heaven help us if the facts help the liberal cause.
I take it that you can't take me up on that challenge then? Come on, Gary - just one example.
As for "Faithful Remnant," I can't tell if you're for real or a parody of right-wingers. Seriously.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of the Paris Business Review, but I promise, I'll look into it-even if it doesn't exist.
Paris Business Review.......?
The "Paris Busines Review" incident was when O'Reilly was talking about how the "boycott" on French products was working, and France was taking a real hit as a result. What was his source? The "Paris Business Review" - a publication that doesn't even exist. (And no, it's not like he got one word wrong - he completely and totally made it up.)
ReplyDeleteOh, and he was wrong to boot. Not only did the boycott have little effect, but our trade with France had increased.
The thing is, Gary, when my friend taught journalism, if a kid made up a source, they automatically failed the class. That's right. Bill O'Reilly would fail high school journalism.
You convinced me that Olbermann is ridiculous, but I still don't think that he's done anything even in the same neighborhood as that. (And as far as I can tell, Krugman, and Media Matters haven't done anything like that either.)
Lance,
ReplyDeleteAre you sure Bill wasn't talking about the Paris Business Review? I am sure that the Paris Busines Review doesn't exist either.
Here's an excerpt from the transcript:
ReplyDeleteO'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.
MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.
O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...
MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...
O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.
O'Reilly is a clown. Time to face it.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteI may actually have seen that exchange on TV.
And I have googled Paris Business Review and gotton a lot of humourous hits based on O'Reilly's use of the source.
I have one last hope: Could it be that the name of the publication (since it is in Paris)-is in French? Perhaps, Revue des affaires parisienne?
Maybe, huh?
Lance,
ReplyDeleteGotcha (sort of). I am happy to report that there is, indeed, a Revue des affaires de Paris (Paris Business Review). It does exist, and it is they who were quoted by O'Reilly in April 2004.
Problem is- the story appeared April 1st 2004 and was intended as an April fool's joke. O'Reilly or his staffers got the story wrong and ran with it not realizing it was a joke.
Below is an article in French, which I just read and which describes how O'Reilly goofed.
http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/sites/PBR/default_v1_FR.asp
O'Reilly, however, did not invent the source. He just screwed up and embarrassed himself (like I did when I ran with the Red Eye bit about Anderson Cooper being in a high-speed chase.)
So we both need to face it.
Interesting. This doesn't make him look any smarter though.
ReplyDeleteThere are other examples of him pulling "facts" out of his posterior though - like most of the "War on Christmas" examples that he used to get his minions all up in a furor.
Wait a second! Were you playing me just now? That Paris Business Review website is a goof that was intended to mock O'Reilly. (Hence the, "we won two Peabodies - a claim O'Reilly made about himself that was totally and completely wrong.)
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me or did you just get bamboozled?
Lance,
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying is that the Paris Business Review exists (in French). They did publish an article which OReilly quoted, but it was an April Fool's spoof.
As for Red Eye's thing on Anderson Cooper being in a high-speed chase, yes, I was bamboozled-or as I put it, I was "war of the worlded". Didn't you see my two or three entries?
BTW, I wasn't the only person bamboozled on that.
Gary, I think that you're missing something here.
ReplyDeleteThat website that you posted? Parisbusinessreview.net? That's a joke website.
I think that the line between satire and reality has just blurred a little bit more.
"His selection for a Nobel Prize is just a reflection of the political agenda of the Nobel Commission. Next year, it will probably be Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos."
ReplyDeleteInteresting blog, though I suspect you are not all that familiar with the Nobel prize in economics. Over the course of the past 39 years, many conservatives, including Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek, Gary Becker, James Buchanan, and Robert Mundell have won the award, just to name a few. A bit of research will show you that the award is actually fairly evenly split betweem dems and repubs.
"Paul Krugman is a worm."
Perhaps what you mean is you don't agree with Krugman's column in the NY Times or his appearance with Bill O'Reilly. Fair enough. To suggest that his work on new trade theory does not warrant a nobel for economics, however, would make you just as politcally partisan as him. Geography and Trade is an amazing, albeit very tough read. I would give it a shot before you knock his economics, as you will quickly see it is politics free and a brilliant insight into comparative advantage.
Jacob D
ReplyDeleteYour comments are well taken, but I still believe that Krugman, who may or may not be a great economist, was selected largely due to his political stances. How else can you explain Nobels going to Al Gore or Jimmy Carter? True, Carter might have been given a prize for the Camp David accords, but he wasn't and was given one years later-not for any accomplishment, but because he was so critical of Bush-and Israel. That, of course, is my opinion.