I am glad you agree that NYT hired him for his liberal views. I would faint if the NYT hired on Sowell or Walter Williams. Too bad the media doesnt have a such for this black economist to "succeed":
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html Slight correction - "Krugman is an excellently shrill exponent of the liberal point of view and the times hired him because of both his excellence in shrillness and his liberalism."
DEFINITION OF SHRILL EXTREMIST. Let's take this Krugman frothing:
"Iraq's reconstruction, by contrast, remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration. That giant, no-bid contract given to Halliburton, the company that made Dick Cheney rich, was just what you'd expect.
And even as the situation in Iraq slides downhill, and the Iraqi Governing Council demands more autonomy and control, American officials continue to block local initiatives, and are still trying to keep the big contracts in the hands of you-know-who."
- Paul Krugram, shrill-extremist-in-residence, NYSlimes
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B14FC35590C738FDDA00894DB404482 THIS ARTICLE HAS FALSEHOODS OUT THE WAZOO:
"Iraq's reconstruction, by contrast, remains firmly under White House control." FALSE. *CONGRESS* has pursestrings, and in the executive branch DOS and DoD are running things. Of course, the President is leader of the executive branch, so you expect him to have final say on policy, but that malice
" And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration."
This pile of dung written by Krugman ignores that ethically corrupt administration, the Clinton administration: It gave $400m in DoD to global crossing, which just happened to give millions to Terry McAwful and other Clintonites. The same administration that got payoffs from telecom firms the day before signing off on telecom legislation; Clinton also met tort lawyers for dinner in 1995 and got a fat check right before vetoing tort reform. He met LORAL CEO in Feb in the White House just at the time that space technology to China needed to be approved. Lo and behold, a Gray Davis-like convergence of money and decisions. This is the tip of the iceberg vis a vis China- "Year of the Rat" and old free republic articles can give you much much more. And this doesnt even touch Clinton's various arkansas dirty laundry (his regulatory support of madison S&L that blew up and cost taxpayers $50 mill) and personal/politico corruptions such as illegal DoD releases of info on Linda Tripp and harrassment of 'bimbos' who threatened to erupts, etc. ... conclusion: Clinton puts Harding in the dust in the corruption department, making Clinton's administration the most corrupt in history. Only a partisan liberal shill, when faced with the plain facts, would deny it. Before you doubt me --- go back and read the LIBERAL PAPERS when Clinton was finally out of office, power was not at stake, and the disgusting sale of Presidential pardons was made public (including 6 figure payoffs to Clinton's brother, and the visit by Marc Rich's wife to Clinton).
All that - and Krugman has amnesia. He is too full of hate for Bush he has no time for Clinton's follies.
Compared to this, you have a Bush admin that when Enron was drowning and wanted help, Bush admin did the ethical thing - nothing. Bush then signed the most sweeping corporate governance law in a generation. (In fact, IMHO a bit too sweeping on some matters, as most regulation is.)
"That giant, no-bid contract given to Halliburton, the company that made Dick Cheney rich, was just what you'd expect."
That slimy insinuation misses a few basic points: like (a) Cheney is no longer with Hallibruton, (b) the contract was made by DoD, (c) Halliburton and Schlumberger are the *only* firms in the world who are *qualified* to certain kinds of oil sector service work involved, (d) the contract was only no-bid for short-term (necessary due to, long-term contract is being re-bid in a competitive process.
So, you have a contract made to highly qualified contractors for very serious reasons by non-political bureaucrats in DoD who have nothing to do with the VP who in turn has *no financial interest* in the company involved. Krugman mentions none of this, he insinuates the opposite.
This is no careful academic; this is a shrill partisan extremist who happens to be a professor. (Well, there are plenty of professors who are shrill partisan extremists; I've run into a few.)
"And even as the situation in Iraq slides downhill,"
UTTERLY FALSE. Problems have reduced, the casualty rate is going down, while we capture more and more bad guys, and the lights are now on at pre-war levels, and security has improved alot. NYTimes has been expert at reproting Iraq in the most negative way. Congressman have come back and said the media is lying to us.
" and the Iraqi Governing Council demands more autonomy and control,"
His whole phrasing mischaracterizes the relationship. ... the IGC members have said that their relations with American administration is quite good, they want to take on responsibility and yet agree with administration on general pace and timing of evolution of sovereignty.
" American officials continue to block local initiatives, and are still trying to keep the big contracts in the hands of you-know-who."
More lies ... the contracts are determined through apolitical channels and an open bidding process ... and so it goes.
ALSO ...
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/967244/posts According to American economics professor Paul Krugman, public services have been cut back in many areas to the benefit of "tax breaks for the rich."
.... there he goes again ...