Following this link from Eschaton, we have that pathetic excuse for a (mercifully departing) ombudsman, the New York Times' Daniel Okrent, who defended serial bullshit artist William Safire by suggesting that, hey, Safire wrote things he thought to be true, and so does (NYT op-ed writer) Paul Krugman so, gee, whatcha gonna do?
Over here, TwoGlasses nails this ridiculous comparison as the "Equivalence Dodge," but I'm more interested in what Krugman himself thinks about having his reputation tarnished by association by his paper's own ombudsman. Krugman could, naturally, take the high road and ignore it, secure in the knowledge that Okrent will shortly be nothing but a bad memory at the Times.
Or he might take pen to paper and drop a short note to Okrent, perhaps:
Dear Dan:
Paul here. Just read the Salon interview, where you defended Bill by drawing a parallel with his writing and mine. Truth be told, I found that kind of grating since I'm an award-winning economist and Princeton professor who works very hard to get my facts straight, while Bill is a Republican hack. So you can see where that kind of comparison might leave me a little miffed.
It might be that you just spouted off without thinking about it and, if that's the case, we can just let bygones be bygones and forget about it. But if, before you head out at the end of the month, you make that kind of comparison again, I will drag you out of your office down to the sidewalk, drop you to your knees with one swift boot to the nads, and kick you in the kidneys until you piss blood for being that kind of asshole. Do we understand each other? Good.
Anyway, best of luck in the new job and say hi to the wife and kids for me.
Yours truly,
Paul
Sadly, you and I both know that won't happen as Krugman is just a little too much of a gentleman and a scholar. Unlike either of Okrent or Safire, who fail badly on both counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment