Who's Crazy Now? Paul Krugman

May 8, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Who's Crazy Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN



http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#11468903681573

Full article available via NYTimes,but it is subscription only.

That will not happen soon there are two possible reasons.

1. The record indicates there were high crimes, or,
2. The conspiracy theorist are needed to marginalize liberal media.

or maybe some of both.

It worked for a while.

Someone shot John Kennedy, many Americans still say they do not know who did it.

JFK
Bobby K.
Malcolm X
John Lennon
were all shot and killed by crazy lone nuts.

go back to sleep, you.

:tinfoilhat:

:boring:

its so much easier to sleep thru the ugly truths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_x#Assassination

A week later on February 21 in Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom, Malcolm had just begun delivering a speech when a disturbance broke out in the crowd of 400. A man yelled, "Get your hand outta my pocket! Don't be messin' with my pockets!" As Malcolm's bodyguards rushed forward to attend to the disturbance, a man rushed forward and shot Malcolm in the chest with a sawed-off shotgun. Two other men quickly charged towards the stage and fired handguns at Malcolm, who was shot 16 times. Angry onlookers in the crowd caught and beat the assassins as they attempted to flee the ballroom. The 39-year-old Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at New York's Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. He was killed by the shotgun blasts, the other bullets having been directed into his legs.

Although a police report once existed stating that two men were detained in connection with the shooting, that report disappeared, and the investigation was inconclusive. Two suspects were named by witnesses — Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson — however both were known as Nation of Islam agents and would have had difficulty entering the ballroom on that evening.

Three men were eventually charged in the case. Talmadge Hayer confessed to having fired shots into Malcolm's body, but he testified that Butler and Johnson were not present and were not involved in the shooting. All three were convicted.

i don't think it changes my point all that much, but youre right, there was more than one.

This was an obvious response to a David Brooks editorial on May 4 about the new Kevin Phillips book.
Sorry, needs Times Select.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks&oref=slogin

My second favorite web site at which to post is The Nation, where no one is excluded from discussion for holding pro-regime views. Indeed, there's a regular contingency of them over there. For those who want to argue with some real live Bush Bubbahs without feeling like one is crashing the party at Free Republic, I recommend it.

There are two tacts taken by these people. One is the conspiracy theory. At best, this might be something like a theory holding that Saddam handed his weapons off to Syria, supposedly supported by some testimony coming from one of his generals. The theory is dubious for several reasons: Saddam would have had no reliable guarantees that he would ever get the weapons back; the transporting of the weapons would have been detected by satellite; and, if he really had such weapons or even a significant arsenal of more conventional weapons, using them would have been his only chance of repulsing an attack.

Lately, however, most of the Bush Bubbahs at The Nation using this tact are simply asserting that the charges against Bush are "false charges and conspiracy theories adding up to zilch", without offering refutation. Without refutation, this is not a reasoned discourse; it's just noise.

The other tact is just to raise red herrings. When all else fails, talk about Clinton's peccadilloes or Patrick Kennedy's recent problems or, in the case of Hookergate, how in the middle and late 1980s Barney Frank's ex-boyfriend ran a prostitution ring from Frank's apartment (without ever mentioning that Mr. Frank faced no charges in the matter).

over and over.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#020505

It is going to my entire email list.

Most libraries should have access to online databases with full text articles from many, many newspapers across the country -- namely "ProQuest". With a San Francisco library card, you can access these databases from your home computer. I'd think this would be true most places, but I don't know for sure. If not, any California resident in the entire state can apply for a San Francisco Library card and use these online services.

If you're on a limited budget like me, those automatic, recurring subscriptions start to add up and you have to say "enough" at some point, even if any single subscription in and of itself isn't that big of a burden.

Besides, who wants to pay for "Times Select" when the only thing they offer worth reading are Krugman and Frank Rich. Why would I pay money for the privilege of ignoring David Brooks? Using the library's online databases, I just check in every Monday, Friday, and Sunday, for Krugman and Rich just as conveniently as accessing the TimesSelect online, but at a much better deal.

At least not through its website. Just fyi.

here:

http://search.library.phila.gov/advSearch.cfm

then click on the "+" next to "Newspapers / Magazines" under "step 2". This will give you the list of newspaper databases that your library subscribes to. In your case "National Newspaper Index" is the one you want. Select that, then put "krugman" in the box in "step 1", and off you go. It will ask you for your Philadelphia Library Card Number before it lets you read the article.

Most libraries have something like this, usually listed under something obscure like "databases". The name of the right database will vary from lib to lib, but if you search for "database" and "New York Times" you'll find the right one soon enough.

Have fun!

N/t

For some reason or other, the NYTimes wants us to pay extra to read the only 4 honest writers they have. I'm sure Paul Krugman could offer a good economic explanation for this: something about the rareness of the commodity driving up the price.

Judy Miller, on the other hand, was always free.