tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post113264463511547631..comments2024-03-29T05:31:02.923-04:00Comments on The Y Files: What Murtha meant; what Krugman saysCathy Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-37531684075718459862012-05-24T07:04:29.893-04:002012-05-24T07:04:29.893-04:00online business cards
Hi Cathy. It pays to really...<a href="http://opcaus.skyrock.com/3078970213-Business-Cards-Online-Can-Get-You-Cheaper-Printing.html" rel="nofollow">online business cards</a><br /><br />Hi Cathy. It pays to really be of service to your country. You don't have to die to be a hero.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-78721066067830778812010-01-14T07:52:05.447-05:002010-01-14T07:52:05.447-05:00Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the...Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the athletic shoes.<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap puma shoes</a><br /><a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">discount puma shoes</a><br />It has the advantages of durable, skipproof, flexible, elastic, extensive, stable and proper hardness. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox torch</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike tn dollar</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shox</a><br />PU is a kind of macromolecule polyurethane materials which is offten used in the midsole <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shox shoes</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox r4</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma mens shoes</a><br />Sometimes, it is also used in the outsole of casual shoes. <br />PU is durable, strong hardness, upstanding flexbility and more important, it is environmentally <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike max</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount nike shox</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap puma ferrari shoes</a><br />The disadvantage is also outstanding. Strong hydroscopic property, break apart and EVA. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike mens shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox nz</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount nike running shoes</a><br />which is usually used in the midsole of the running shoes and casual shoes. <br />EVA is quite lightweight, elastic, flexible and suitable to a variety of climates.<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount nike shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox shoes</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shoes</a><br />PHYLON. Phylon is the product of the EVA after the second processing. Just as the rubber<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike sports shoes</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma running shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma sneakers</a> <br />The midsole of running shoes, tennis shoes and basketball shoes in the world is made PHYLON.<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike air max tn</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma cat</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma shoes</a> <br />The upstanding hardness, density, traction and extension make it favorite by the manufacture. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike running shoes </a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">wholesale nike shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shoes</a> <br />Just as a coin has two sides, Phylon is nonrecoverable and easily shrink under high PHYLON.<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shoes kids</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike women shoes </a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132735038025549252005-11-23T03:37:00.000-05:002005-11-23T03:37:00.000-05:00Remember how the Republican party achieved its maj...<I>Remember how the Republican party achieved its majority status</I><BR/><BR/>By being religious, pushing for lower taxes, and being tough on defense.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the Republicans gained majority status by appealing to racism is ludicrous. The importance of race issues in the South has declined as Republican influence has increased -- the exact opposite of what we would expect if your claim were true.<BR/><BR/>*Nixon* got elected by appealing to racism. The Republican Party has been suffering fallout from that ever since. The issue has been a net loser for Republicans -- it cost them the black vote they'd enjoyed since Lincoln, and gained them votes they'd have won anyway with their defense-and-religion platform.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132716954084952002005-11-22T22:35:00.000-05:002005-11-22T22:35:00.000-05:00Screw the Iraqis; we have to stay for us.If we lea...Screw the Iraqis; we have to stay for us.<BR/><BR/>If we leave now, Al Qaeda wins. Yes, we won the war against Saddam Hussein, but we stayed after we caught him. That started Phase II, a war against the Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and if we leave now, we'll be adding "Iraq" to the litany of "Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia". With the result there would be an increase in prestige for Bin Laden, more money for Bin Laden, and more trouble from Bin Laden.<BR/><BR/>We need to stay until we can plausibly say we left because we beat <I>Al Qaeda</I>. Which we can't right now. A withdrawal from Iraq now will kill Americans on American soil.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05138730966226244399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132697468389303462005-11-22T17:11:00.000-05:002005-11-22T17:11:00.000-05:00Murtha's proposal for an over the horizon (presuma...Murtha's proposal for an over the horizon (presumably), but still in the region quick reaction force deserves a more critical review than you've given it. Murtha, of all people, should understand that the present strategy adopted by the US military in Iraq, called by some the "ink-blot" strategy, has been effective and is helping to stabilize ever greater areas of the country. Following Murtha's proposal would amount to abandoning what has been working, leaving the now secure areas of Iraq unsecure. It is a cut and run strategy. We've seen this movie before, and we know how it ends -- invariably, with thousands of civilian deaths and a country in the control of the totalitarians. Murtha's background entitles him to respect, but it also makes a higher standard applicable and thereby entitles him to very harsh criticism for a plan that is a barely disguised cut and run plan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132692194957805002005-11-22T15:43:00.000-05:002005-11-22T15:43:00.000-05:00I'm not so sure about Krugman's accuracy, navigato...I'm not so sure about Krugman's accuracy, navigator; see, for instance, <A HREF="http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200509210839.asp" REL="nofollow">this account</A> of Krugman's recent corrections saga regarding the 2000 recount results. The same article discusses another Krugman column which, while not technically inaccurate, is certainly wildly misleading (Krugman asserts that the reason the U.S. does not have adequate programs to help the poor is racism, never mentioning the fact that the majority of the poor in America are white.) See <A HREF="http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_05_04_dish_archive.html#200253615" REL="nofollow">here</A> for another example of Krugman making an assertion without presenting the whole story.<BR/><BR/>(It's only fair to disclose that I myself once had an embarrassing <A HREF="http://kmarx.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_kmarx_archive.html#108269771276987052" REL="nofollow">correction adventure</A> when I used a faulty translation of a quote from European Commission chief Romano Prodi and then, due a typo, repeated the mistake in my correction.)Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132679385094530302005-11-22T12:09:00.000-05:002005-11-22T12:09:00.000-05:00Murtha's speech advocates both (a) staying and fig...Murtha's speech advocates both (a) staying and fighting and (b) immediately recalling our troops. I don't think we need to pick one as the one he really meant. The simplest explanation of the contradictions in his speech is that he was trying to have it both ways -- to appeal to both the "we need to finish the job" and "run away! run away!" halves of the Democratic Party. Kerry tried the same stunt in the 2004 elections.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132675888494241182005-11-22T11:11:00.000-05:002005-11-22T11:11:00.000-05:00What the navigator said. Krugman is indeed a rabi...What the navigator said. Krugman is indeed a rabid Bush-hater, but I have never, ever found him to be deceptive or inaccurate in his factual statements. His arguments are tightly argued and logically consistent, and his bias - that *everything* is Bush's fault - is right out in the open.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes his Bush-hatred gets so extreme that it becomes comical - like the infamous column (linked here by Ms. Young) in which he managed to blame Bush for anti-Semitism among the Malaysian political elite. But even that column contained no factual errors or deceptions.<BR/><BR/>He's not careless, inaccurate, or deceitful. He's just relentlessly one-sided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132673085343254682005-11-22T10:24:00.000-05:002005-11-22T10:24:00.000-05:00Cathy,Based solely on what you've excerpted from K...Cathy,<BR/>Based solely on what you've excerpted from Krugman, I think you're being slightly unfair to him.<BR/><BR/>You don't quote him as "enlisting" Fallows to his side - he just cites Fallows' article as the source of the quote he recites. He's enlisting the marine, not Fallows. If he really wanted to disingenuously enlist Fallows, he could easily have thrown in a "as Fallows demonstrates" or "as Fallows argues." But he didn't. Remember, it's not a blog, it's a column - his space is limited, and he can't give endless qualifiers. And he's not quoting the marine unfairly, is he - he's not taking the quote out of context to suggest that the marine means something other than what Fallows suggests he means, does he? (I don't know, but I assume not.)<BR/><BR/>Secondly, yes, on the surface there's a bit of contradiction in the "things will inevitably get worse/things may improve if we leave" style of argument. But Krugman appears to be arguing in terms of two probabilities which aren't mutually contradictory: things are likely to get increasingly chaotic whether or not we leave, but there's a chance that our leaving will make things marginally better than they'd be if we stayed (by reducing admiration for the terrorists and inducing the other parties to cooperate).<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that that's a correct argument, nor do I know whether Krugman really makes that argument in his full column - or whether he'd make the argument given unlimited space. But I think it's a plausible argument, and if you read Krugman charitably, I think he earns the benefit of the doubt. To say "there's a good case to be made that our departure will actually improve matters" is not necessarily to say that things won't be fairly ugly - things without the U.S. could be unpleasant and yet still be substantially less unpleasant than they'd be if we had stayed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1132670586753222482005-11-22T09:43:00.000-05:002005-11-22T09:43:00.000-05:00I think tempers ran a bit too high over the Murtha...I think tempers ran a bit too high over the Murtha situation--on all sides. You (and Sullivan) have got it right, I think.<BR/><BR/>In reading your post, I suddenly, and with pleasure, realized that I hadn't even THOUGHT of Krugman in some weeks. IMHO, that's a silver lining to the whole TimesSelect endeavour. Pardon my snark.<BR/><BR/>And despite everything, I still WOULD be subscribing to the dead-tree NYT if home delivery were available in my neck of the woods (which it's not, unless something's radically changed very recently--note to self, should check again), even though I can get the news stuff free over the 'net.reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.com