Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51515)	6/24/2004 1:06:21 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 795130

Yes, but it does reflect a trend if you read between the tea leaves. For instance: The June 21 report had Bush at 203 Kerry at 210 The June 17 report had Bush at 188 Kerry at 227 The June 9 report had Bush at 177 Kerry at 227 In other words, in 12 days, Bush gained 26 electoral votes while Kerry lost 17 electoral votes. So there is the trend. While Kerry still leads in the Rasmussen poll electoral vote by 210 to Bush's 203, the TREND is away from Kerry and toward Bush. This TREND confirms the Zogby polling results. That TREND has more likely than not continued since June 21.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51515)	6/25/2004 6:52:42 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 795130

Donald Luskin is told by Okrent to use a false name when emailing the Times Editorial chief in order to get though. God, Okrent must feel frustrated! KRUGMAN RUNS ONE (BUT ONLY ONE) OF OUR CORRECTIONS (SORT OF) Paul Krugman's column today concludes with a correction -- the first clearly stated correction that has resulted from my working through "public editor" Dan Okrent. Speaking of numbers: in 1980, middle-income families with children paid 8.7 percent of their income in income taxes, not 8.2 percent, as I reported on June 8. But it's still true that their combined income and payroll taxes rose under Ronald Reagan. Okay, there's some small satisfaction in this. But here's everything that's wrong with it. 1) It took three weeks of hounding Dan Okrent, and his hounding editorial page editor Gail Collins, to get this done. I emailed the correction to Collins the very day it occurred in Krugman's June 8 column. In the past, Collins has completely ignored such emails from me, so I sent this one under a false name, at Okrent's suggestion. She still ignored it. So much for her lie to Okrent that "It is my obligation to make sure no misstatements of fact on the editorial pages go uncorrected." 2) If you pull up the original June 8 column from the Times web archive (you have to pay for it at this point), today's correction is not appended. So anyone reading that column for the first time will get the same mistake and no correction. In the only past example of a true Krugman correction (here), the original column in the archive carries the correction, just as corrected news stories in the archives carry the correction. Since that is obviously not happening now, Collin's much-ballyhooed "columnist corrections policy" is a step backward. 3) Krugman reports the factual error, but then asserts that it doesn't matter -- that he's right anyhow. This is a deception. The difference between 8.7 percent and 8.2 percent eats up 71 percent of the combined tax rate rise that Krugman is talking about. While it's "still true," it is reduced to near-vanishing triviality -- such triviality that I doubt Krugman would have even cited the statistics if he'd had the numbers right the first time. 4) I reported to Collins and Krugman a second error in that column, which remains uncorrected. Krugman stated "current projections show that under current rules, Social Security is good for at least 38 more years." This is an error. In fact, current projections show Social Security is good for only 27 years. I can only imagine the tortured negotiations that went on between Okrent, Krugman and Collins, that resulted in a "compromise" where one error was corrected (with the assertion that Krugman was right anyway) and another error was completely ignored. I am waiting to get an explanation of all this from Okrent. Frankly, I find it simply disgusting that grown men and women would act this way. Make a mistake, run a correction. What's so hard about that? Just how small are these people, anyway? poorandstupid.com