[WOSG]

Sorry, I wont bite.

Sowell's Marxism and his book "Knowledge and Decisions" is wise, precise *and* passionate in its own way.
But never shrill and partisan he'd throw out fibs like Kurgman is.

Compare a Krugman froth-at-the-mouth with this from Sowell:

http://www.intellivu.com/main.asp?brand=&fnum=117&pathb=/articles1/tsowell/sowell071503.htm
" ..In other words, soak-the-rich tax rates do not in fact soak the rich. They soak people who are currently earning the rewards of having contributed to the economy. High income taxes punish people for becoming prosperous, not for having been born rich."

Very simple. He makes his points and backs it up with facts.
He critiques Democrats, but gently and certainly not accusing them of being child molesters or greedheads or part of some cabal to undo American democracy.

I dare you to pull apart this column the way I did Krugman's ; you cant. They are not comparable.

Sowell talks at the level of ideas and ideals, but Krugman in his NYT columns is the political equivalent of tabloid TV, he is talking about personalities, motivations, dragging up . And I note you dont argue the substantive points but change the subject. If he's doing something else in his other work, that's another matter, but calling the dreck he writes 'great' just because he's an academic is very weak - "argument from authority".

[liberallarry]

The difference between us is one of degree - does Krugman's partisanship cross the line into tabloid smears?

Leet me try to establish some common ground which will keep the discussion manageable - I don't have the time or interest to research everything written by Sowell and Krugman.

I hope you'll agree to the following

Krugman's academic writings are considered by his peers to be first rate
His writings for the general public are - rightly - written to a different standard.
I don't have to show that Krugman is the equal of Sowell. He can be different and inferior and still be considered an excellent exponent of his point of view.

I'd like to confine my arguments to just the stuff you and I have cited even though the man should - properly - be judged by his entire body of work (Everyone, after all, has good days and bad days).

You use the case of Iraqi reconstruction to try to make your point. You say Krugman tells a bunch of lies

1) Reconstruction is under control of the DoD and DoS, not the White House. But then you agree that both actually are under the control of the White House. Not much of an argument
2) Krugman says the Bush administration corruption is comparable to Harding's. You reply that he's totally ignored corruption under Clinton and cite a long list of Clinton Administration failings as evidence of Krugman's over-the-top partisanship. In a short article Krugman cannot be expected to deal with all aspects of his argument and he deals with this objection elsewhere (in the interview I cited, for example).
3) Cheney is no longer employed with Halliburton. So what? It's quite plausible to believe he's still acting to benefit his friends and former employer.
4) 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. - Just plain silly.
5) Your arguments about the special qualifications of Halliburton and the short-term nature of the contract could be correct. Krugman could be wrong. So what? Being wrong doesn't make him a tabloid hack.
6) Iraqis have written articles supporting Krugman on this - saying that their qualified engineers who could be hired for a fraction of what's being paid Halliburton and who need the work are being deliberately ignored. I posted the article elsewhere but will not look for it. I hope you'll take my word - without necessarily agreeing that the Iraqi author who wrote about it was right.

The point is that when I go through your stuff I don't see the same things you do. In particular I don't see Krugman as an unqualified or ignorant liar. I see a partisan making plausible arguments supported by reasonable factual evidence.