A RELAPSE OF RUSH PROPORTIONS

Damnit, and I was doing so well, too.

I had gone weeks, maybe an entire month without finding myself staring at the words of Gollum Luskin.

But when I saw that Glenn Reynolds linking to Luskin supposedly praising Krugman for getting one right -- what was I doing there, by the way -- I couldn't look away.

Skimming through some of the college dropout's ramblings and rants, I arrived at this post, which attacked a Krugman column I linked to earlier this week, late monday night I think, on the civility, or lack thereof, among many on the right.

Set phasers to stupid:

But my favorite part of today's Krugman tantrum is this line, referring to both of the two "hateful" quotes cited above:

"Again, there's that weasel word 'some.'"

Krugman doesn't like the unaccountability of the assertion that "some say" or "some are now attacking the President." Well, this one is a howler and a half. "Some" is Paul Krugman's own personal favorite weasel word. I just did a search and dozens upon dozens of examples poured out until I felt that weasels ripped my flesh. How about this triple-play some-fest, from his July 18 Times column:

"And just as some people argue that the war was justified even though it was sold on false pretenses, some say that the biggest budget deficit in history is justified even though the administration got us here with cooked numbers. Some point out that Ronald Reagan ran even bigger deficits as a share of G.D.P."

Ahh, but my favorite is this one, from a posting on Krugman's personal website, one of his many in response to my having ratted out his ghastly "divide-by-ten" tax-cut lie:

"There are some people who would accuse me of lying if I said that grass is green, but there's nothing to be done about that."

That "some" is... moi.

Let's go through everything. Masochistic? Yes, but I get paid by the word ($0/word, I know)...

Quickly, the context: It all relates to this column, and specifically, this passage:

More important, the Bush administration — which likes to portray itself as the inheritor of Reagan-like optimism — actually has a Nixonian habit of demonizing its opponents.

For example, here's President Bush on critics of his economic policies: "Some say, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper. It bothers me when people say that." Because he used the word "some," he didn't literally lie — no doubt a careful search will find someone, somewhere, who says the recession should have been deeper. But he clearly intended to suggest that those who disagree with his policies don't care about helping the economy.

And that's nothing compared with the tactics now being used on foreign policy.

The campaign against "political hate speech" originates with the Republican National Committee. But last week the committee unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares.

Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention — and crucial resources — from fighting terrorism to other projects.

Anyway, this will actually take less time than originally planned...

Lusky does his usual thing, thinking that citing examples of the use of a word without fully considering the context somehow proves a point. Again, to be clear: Donald, just because Paul has used the word "some", it does not mean he used it in the same deceptive and/or vicious context in which Bush and the RNC used it.

Going through the Krugman quote Luskin cites as proof of Paul's double standard: There was polling that supports the first "some", there are economic pundits who fancy themselves as mainstream and take the position articulated in the second "some", and many of them probably also fall under the category of the third "some".

Viewed subjectively, each of the three "some" statements highlighted by Luskin can be viewed as intellectually honest, and do not contain any vicious political agenda in and of themselves.

In none of those three statements was Krugman suggesting that a tiny sliver of public and scholarly opinion be considered substantial by using the word "some". However, that's precisely what Bush did with his quote about how "some" thought his tax cuts kept the deficit from being deeper.

Also, in none of those three statements was Krugman assigning an objectively pro-terrorist viewpoint, possibly possessed by some very fringe elements, to mainstream participants of American political discourse. However, that's precisely what the RNC (and Bush?) did by claiming that "some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists". It was a campaign ad for the 2004 election, so regardless of whether it's appropriate or true, the "some" in the ad was meant to be interpreted as the Democratic candidates.

Do you see the difference, Luskin? Would you like me to draw a picture for you?

That last bit pretty much encapsulates why I shouldn't read Don Luskin. He nitpicks, isolates one little detail so inconsequential that it blinds him from the all-important context which is staring him (and us) right in the face.

Now let's tackle that last bit before we head to bed...

"That 'some' is... moi." . . . First of all, that comes from a piece on Krugman's personal site, and if you're reading that, then you're probably pretty online-politically-savvy and know all about Gollum Luskin, and Krugman knows that. Second of all, what does Luskin call the anti-Krugman operation? The "Krugman Truth Squad". That's squad, which is . . . PLURAL, dipshit! How can "moi" be a "squad"? Get your stories straight, moron. You wouldn't want some crazy STALKER to parse your ass, would you?

Heh. Back on the wagon I go, as I strive to avoid Luskin's "Obsession: The Blog" for as long as I can. Goodnight!