I like your warning idea...something like "The Surgeon General has determined that by reading this article you are likely to experience diminished capacity brought on by the loss of brain cells which cannot be regenerated..."

Don't you just love it when the truth simply appears, after having been kept under wraps deliberately?

Both Geithner and Krugman will be on one of the talk shows this morning. Geithner, of course, will be the featured head, interviewed by a clueless sunday talk show host. Krugman, in contrast, is buried as a discussion panel talker, where he must deal with the inanities of folks like George Will.

Why is it, I have to wonder, that Krugman wasn't put head-to-head with Geithner? And please don't tell me that it is because the Nobel-winner doesn't have the gravitas to share the camera with a finance-sector errand-boy.

This tidbit was interesting:

"He fell for it every time," said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly.

I can respect this anonymous source, more so because we are told WHY it was anonymous.

Second, the article cites the subject of his Nobel Prize. Honestly, I really had no idea what exactly he got a prize for. Now, economics is definitely not my thing, but also, I don't recall much discussion of it (though it surely was discussed in specialty articles). But, maybe the "establishment" should be trusted with economic theory.

His Wikipedia page links to the Nobel Prize committee (.pdf link) summary of his theory, and I sort of get an idea of where he is coming from now. As the discussion suggests, it clearly has important policy implications. It ends on this note:

"In wider circles, he is better known as a lively blogger and spirited columnist in the New York Times."

That's his JOB: Establishment journalist.

It's kind of like working for the Media Ministry.

Just the first three sentences of Thomas' piece have more revelations:

Traditionally, punditry in Washington has been a cozy business. To get the inside scoop, big-time columnists sometimes befriend top policymakers and offer informal advice over lunch or drinks. Naturally, lines can blur.

Glenn has been pointing this out to us for some time. It's nice of Thomas to own up to something we've known for a long time. But there is a very interesting additional subplot here, as well. Thomas is seeking the comfort of it just being "natural" that he would side with the establishment, because that's just the way things are done. But the sub-head of the article portends danger on the horizon:

Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.

Krugman is one of those pesky liberals trying to upset the establisment's world. The problem is that he just could be right.

Oh dear, what's a good establishment lackey to do? As more evidence comes in that Krugman is right, we're going to need to invest in a lot more fainting couches.

[Off to read the rest of the article, but this opening had too much to pass up...]

There is very little there about where Krugman's arguments are the strongest and where they are the weakest; or how we might weigh his arguments.

If you have nothing to say, GG, don't write it. Thomas wrote a puff piece and that bit about the establishment was merely part of the "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" cliche. Unlike historians, economists can forget their pasts. Krugman was never a radical notwithstanding Thomas' desire to paint him as one. He believed in the Long Boom - that internet stock prosperity would go on and on forever, into the far future, like Asimov's Foundation. The way google is set up, those old ideas are buried forever by newer more widespread post-nobelian ones.

This is right up there with O'Reilly's comment to McCain about being a member of the "white, male, christian power structure" and being absolutely livid that liberals were trying to disrupt that. It was a thoroughly perfect description of the Republican party's basic platform, though I'd throw in "wealthy and heterosexual" as well.

And please don't tell me that it is because the Nobel-winner doesn't have the gravitas to share the camera with a finance-sector errand-boy.

You're right - it isn't. It's because the finance-sector errand boy doesn't want to have his well-chewed ass handed to him on national TV.

If you have nothing to say, GG, don't write it.

If you followed that advice, we would never hear from you again.

Was discovering the NY Times had known about Bush's illegal eavesdropping before the 2004 election and didn't tell anybody.

At that point, I quit believing they were the watchdogs they like to portray themselves as, having apparently decided to become lapdogs instead.

Trust them? Don't make me laugh. Watching all these newspapers go under fills me with supreme indifference. No big loss if you ask me. They can always find more toadies to suck up to the government - they're not exactly in short supply.

Note Thomas' quoting of the YouTube rock song that calls for Krugman to be a member of the Obama administration:

A singer croons, "Hey, Paul Krugman, where the hell are you, man? We need you on the front lines, not just writing for The New York Times." (And the cruel chorus: "All we hear [from Geithner] is blah, blah, blah.")

Oh, those cruel liberals, so meanly suggesting that Geithner has nothing to say.

Thomas, unsurprisingly, takes the establishment side in the "what if" scenarios:

The government does not have the luxury of guessing wrong. If Obama miscalculates, he could truly crash the stock market and drive the economy into depression. Krugman's suggestion that the government could take over the banking system is deeply impractical, Obama aides say.

So, Krugman's approach of taking over the banks is just too risky and could lead to depression. The Geithner/Summers plan, on the other hand, with its own huge risks of depression that Krugman has pointed out, is much safer, presumably because it comes from the establishment.

Thomas' next piece could well include these lines:

"As our economy hurtles over the cliff into a depression now expected to last ten years, Treasury Secretary Geithner has just convened an economic summit under the title "Who Could Have Seen This Coming?". Notably absent from the speaking list is shrill New York Times columnist Paul Krugman."