Ta da! What kind of scarf is that anyway? "Hey Paul, let's get a little more rabbi... perfect!"
The more important point -- well, not very important, but certainly more pressing than the Jewishness of Krugman's attire -- is one that several others have already made; namely, that it's oh-so-typical of the MSM that Krugman, a vociferous critic of the Bush administration, didn't get anywhere near the oracle-like status or coverage that he gets now that he's firing at the Obama administration. A few points can be made on this:
1. For nearly the entirety of the Bush administration, Paul Krugman was not Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman. Irrespective of the fact that his Nobel was won in a economics field that is very different from what he writes his columns about these days, the press trips all over itself to throw a "Nobel" appeal to authority into any critique of Obama. If I work at a drugstore and criticize the Geithner plan, nobody cares. If I then win the Nobel Peace Prize, somehow I'm transformed into an economic authority by Jon Meacham and Fred Hiatt.
2. The fetish of right-on-right, left-on-left, Yglesias Award-style reporting. If Steele attacks Limbaugh, that's news. If Frank Rich rips Obama, that's news. If Bob Barr throws some stones at Ron Paul, that's news. Okay, that last one wouldn't actually be news. But the point remains salient. The media is obsessed with -- how shall we say it -- the politics version of "black on black crime." Interparty disagreements are very worthy of A1 boxes and prime Op-Ed space. However, it should be noted that Krugman was essentially a press release writer for Hillary Clinton during the primaries. So it's not hard to imagine he has some sort of an axe to grind.
3. Did I say he was a Nobel laureate?
--
It's worth noting that there's a somewhat interesting phenomenon going on with Krugman. Basically, his ideas have been shunned by the Washington Establishment for such a long time that he has little track record of having "his policies" implemented. That's why every column he writes is about the New Deal. However, this cuts both ways. In the end, he can quite plainly say that everyone should've been listening to him, without having to bear the proof of positive long-term consequences of his desired economic policies.
The more important point -- well, not very important, but certainly more pressing than the Jewishness of Krugman's attire -- is one that several others have already made; namely, that it's oh-so-typical of the MSM that Krugman, a vociferous critic of the Bush administration, didn't get anywhere near the oracle-like status or coverage that he gets now that he's firing at the Obama administration. A few points can be made on this:
1. For nearly the entirety of the Bush administration, Paul Krugman was not Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman. Irrespective of the fact that his Nobel was won in a economics field that is very different from what he writes his columns about these days, the press trips all over itself to throw a "Nobel" appeal to authority into any critique of Obama. If I work at a drugstore and criticize the Geithner plan, nobody cares. If I then win the Nobel Peace Prize, somehow I'm transformed into an economic authority by Jon Meacham and Fred Hiatt.
2. The fetish of right-on-right, left-on-left, Yglesias Award-style reporting. If Steele attacks Limbaugh, that's news. If Frank Rich rips Obama, that's news. If Bob Barr throws some stones at Ron Paul, that's news. Okay, that last one wouldn't actually be news. But the point remains salient. The media is obsessed with -- how shall we say it -- the politics version of "black on black crime." Interparty disagreements are very worthy of A1 boxes and prime Op-Ed space. However, it should be noted that Krugman was essentially a press release writer for Hillary Clinton during the primaries. So it's not hard to imagine he has some sort of an axe to grind.
3. Did I say he was a Nobel laureate?
--
It's worth noting that there's a somewhat interesting phenomenon going on with Krugman. Basically, his ideas have been shunned by the Washington Establishment for such a long time that he has little track record of having "his policies" implemented. That's why every column he writes is about the New Deal. However, this cuts both ways. In the end, he can quite plainly say that everyone should've been listening to him, without having to bear the proof of positive long-term consequences of his desired economic policies.
