Beware the Krug-Man

Far be it from me to mock the typos of others, but this one in Mike Tomasky's great essay on Paul Krugman for The New York Review of Books brings a smile to this comic book fan's face:

Many liberals would name Paul Krug-man of The New York Times as perhaps the most consistent and courageous—and unapologetic—liberal partisan in American journalism. He has made his perspective on the Bush administration and the contemporary right, and on the need to see politics as a battle, manifestly clear in column after incendiary column.

Conservatives, being a superstitious and cowardly lot, naturally fear and loathe the Krug-Man and his powers of shrill, but the good people of Liberal City look to him as a friend and protector....

Comments

About a week ago I saw him getting filmed crossing the street. It took about 15 people for the filming, plus more than a few cops. And then spectators, to watch him cross the street. I think it was him. I looked deep into his soul from across the street. He seemed to feel the absurdity of getting filmed crossing the street and gave me a look like "what can you do?"

Posted by bjk | November 9, 2007 6:48 PM

1. Might have been editor's error, or software glitch.

2. And the source of his ultra-human powers--he fell into a vat of radioactive Champagne!

Posted by vorkosigan1 | November 9, 2007 6:52 PM

I see those typos often in the online versions of traditionally print sources and I think they're due to being formatted for print first and on-line second, so you end up with a lot of unnecessary hyphenation.

Posted by mori | November 9, 2007 7:10 PM

Is Krug-man in the Justice League? What is his superpower?

Posted by z adura | November 9, 2007 7:18 PM

It's why my buddy Dean never gets the props he deserves. How the hell do you sell comic books titled ' Baker-Man '

Krug now that's a name to reckon with.

Posted by Bruce Webb | November 9, 2007 7:22 PM

On the other hand, there are many of us on both sides of the political spectrum who consider those wielding the "powers of shrill" -- Krug-man and Ann Coulter -- to be wastes of time, just noise.

Posted by Fabius Maximus | November 9, 2007 7:38 PM

What do ya "little-to-know", my favorite NYTimes columnist is apparently a superhero...

Posted by MS | November 9, 2007 7:48 PM

Mister Trouble never hangs around
When he hears this Mighty sound.

"Here I come to save the day"

That means that Mighty Krug-Man is on his way.
Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right
Mighty Krug-Man will join the fight.
On the sea or on the land,
He gets the situation well in hand.

Posted by piotr | November 9, 2007 7:55 PM

I've long wanted to do a "DC Comics" riff about beltway superheroes. So far I have the Invisible Hand (CATO associate by day, free-market crimefighter by night), the Secretary of Offense (and his dark-side twin, the Undersecretary), and the Gerrymangler.

Posted by Senescent | November 10, 2007 12:29 AM

On the other hand, there are many of us on both sides of the political spectrum who consider those wielding the "powers of shrill" -- Krug-man and Ann Coulter -- to be wastes of time, just noise.

Fabius Maximus is hereby banished to False Equivalence Town, where he will be mercilessly terrorized by the Broder Gang. Justice in Pundit-land is harsh but swift...

Posted by DMonteith | November 10, 2007 12:59 AM

He's shrill, but he'll probably win the Prize in, say, 5-10 years.

Particularly if Myerson could, and I even really like him, he's my favorite professor here, but compared to the other ones UChicago has produced...?

Posted by Greg | November 10, 2007 1:53 AM

He seemed to feel the absurdity of getting filmed crossing the street and gave me a look like "what can you do?

Fool, he was downloading your cerebrum and footnoting every thought for use on his blog.

Posted by beowulf | November 10, 2007 2:49 AM

"I've long wanted to do a 'DC Comics' riff about beltway superheroes. So far I have the Invisible Hand (CATO associate by day, free-market crimefighter by night), the Secretary of Offense (and his dark-side twin, the Undersecretary), and the Gerrymangler."

Look! Up in the air!

"It's a liberal!" "It's a conservative!" "No, it's Lieber-Man!"

Yes, Lieber-Man, strange visitor from a parallel reality who came to Earth with powers of obfuscation far beyond those of mortal men!

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 10, 2007 5:30 AM

I dunno. "The Krug-man" suggests someone laid out on barley, malt and hops to me.

Posted by metriculo | November 10, 2007 6:05 AM

KRUG-MAN SMASH!

"those wielding the "powers of shrill" -- Krug-man and Ann Coulter -- to be wastes of time, just noise."

What DMonteith said. False Equivalence Town being located in Absurd Land on the Planet You've Got to Be Kidding in the Galaxy False Centrist Prime.

Posted by Rihilism | November 10, 2007 7:14 AM

Hear hear for the praise.
The morning after the Democratic election victory next year PK will have a difficult Jonah moment. Nineveh hath repented and the wrath of the Lord is turned away! He will have to fold up the cape and leotard of mighty Krug-man, scourge of the corrupt rulers of Gotham City, and revert to the humdrum life of Professor Krugman, reputable economist, composing articles on the relative merits of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade or the dollar policy of the Federal Reserve.

Posted by James Wimberley | November 10, 2007 9:47 AM

Krug-man wields the unassailable power of facts and anaylsis, while the Coulter-geist -- fearsome wraith though she may be -- has only the mists of innuendo, the fog of slander, clouds of obfuscation, and the murk of superstition. These may obscure the Krug-light, especially for those who do not care to see. Either the Krug-man and his allies will emerge victorious, or the Coulter-geist and her army of spin-sters will drive us into the slough of vitriolic despond, where we will miserably perish. Stay tuned for episode XLIV!

Posted by Invigilator | November 10, 2007 11:05 AM

Damn. This really has conclusively proven that we're all a bunch of geeks here, hasn't it?

Posted by nolaboyd | November 10, 2007 12:56 PM

Invigilator: I am surprised that you do not see the bias of Krugman's approach. Or perhaps not: the bias is insidious.

Yes, it is a habit of Krugman to marshal some arguments, some statistics or other citations, and giving the sources, no less, in support of his conclusions. But this begs the question: is he collecting the evidence in a fair manner? Sadly, the answer is no.

An unbiased pick of arguments would support his claims roughly half of the time. This is what we can observe among unbiased commentators: arguments marshalled for the claim in the first half of a column refute the claim made in the second half and vice versa. But in the case of crafty Mr. Krugman, his arguments happen to support his claims almost without fail. Happenstance? I do not think so.

By the way, sadlyno.com gave link to a very nice unbiased column by certain Medved who first argues that were were never nasty imperialists, as we did not conquer Canada, and then proceeds to bash people pining for our un-imperialist path, observing that almost constantly we were sending some militiary expeditions, threatening someone with our fleet, running some occupations etc. Actually, in a truly unbiased manner, already the claims were contradicting each other, which spared him the bother of dealing with evidence.

For the same reasons Krugman's columns are boring. If you see premises, you have a good shot at the conclusion, and if you know the conclusion, often you can figure the argument. By the way of contrast, reading an unbiased commentator is like riding a rollercoaster for the first time. Say: some Founding Fathers invoked the Lord's name in public, so secular humanists are traitors. It is a true epiphany! Surely, no plodding logical implication here.

Posted by piotr | November 10, 2007 3:39 PM

the good people of Liberal City look to him as a friend and protector

How unfortunate for them.

At least Republicans have Conan the Barbarian and, alternately, Michael Graves.

Posted by Shinyk | November 10, 2007 5:46 PM

An unbiased pick of arguments would support his claims roughly half of the time.

Now that's some grade-A primo bullshit. Try this one on: I assert that "an unbiased pick of arguments" proves you wrong 95% of the time! Hey, I like this game! I just claim that you are 95% wrong based on evidence that I assume is out there that proves that to be the case. If you disagree then I can claim that you never looked at or presented the evidence that I know is out there that you're wrong 95% of the time. Cool!

Seriously, your beef with Krugman boils down to the fact that he cites evidence that supports his arguments. In the media universe we now inhabit I'll admit that seems almost like bad form, but traditionally this is what you're supposed to do. It's definitely not the case, however, that his presentation of evidence proves that he's wrong. Has it occurred to you that Krugman might avoid making arguments that he knows the preponderance of evidence refutes? Maybe he's decided that being obviously wrong just isn't his style. This thought has apparently never crossed your mind.

Posted by DMonteith | November 10, 2007 6:06 PM

Well, DMonteith, just let me say, if piotr was a superhero he would imitate Swift or Defoe.

(And I didn't get him at first either)
Swift-man? Lilliput-man? Laputa-man? Pillory-man? Modest proposal-man? The Shortest way man?
My heroes don't seem to translate well into the age of superheroes.

Posted by IM | November 11, 2007 10:25 AM

Bush should probably be something like a simplistic bumbling Rogue -- and he would probably have a catch phrase like "wha happened?", a la Mike Fontaine.

Posted by theCoach | November 11, 2007 10:58 AM

repudiator caecal pyrrolylene decumaria italianize wedgwood redispose adoptant
http://www.adelaidehostel.com/ >Adelaide Hostel + Hotel
http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/learning.htm

Posted by Homer Schultz | November 22, 2007 4:07 AM