Where's the Balance?

Okay, third time trying to get this posted without crashing Firefox/Blogger (grrrr) ....

Though I frequently disagree with him, I [used to?] respect Quiggin for his interesing posts on CrookedTimber. Then this:

Speaking as a reader, I wouldn't want to pay for the NYT Op-Ed page. The Editorials are worthy, but not very exciting. Of the columnists, only Krugman is consistently excellent, and most of his columns consist of necessary repetition of important truths well-informed readers are aware of, but most commentators are unwilling to harp on for fear of being called "shrill".

That could be because Krugman is shrill. Even that perennial blowhard, O'Reilly, showed him for what he really is in this interview. Just to pick one thing out of the debate, Krugman’s complete prevarication on his characterization of Bush tax policies. O'Reilly said that Krugman predicted they would deepen the recession, to which PK, author of a Bush Admin critique called The Great Unravelling (not Deviation from the Norm, or Slight Departure, or Policies with a Neutral to Slightly Negative Effect) responded: "nuh-uh, no I didn't".

Okay, I paraphrased, but he did deny that use of language as if his real language might be much less ... uh, ... shrill. However, we know that was not true because he did in fact use that kind of language. But what of it? It's just one more point on the curve.

My real problem with Crooked Timber right now is that they dedicated no less than 8 articles to the Lancet study on additional Iraqi deaths due to the war, but 0 to the more recent, broader UN study. Personally, I think the Lancet study is probably closer to the truth, but it is at least worth noting the UN study (hattip: Johan Norberg), which found about 24,000 additional deaths vs. the 98,000 found in the Lancet study. Blinded by ideology? I think so.