I don’t read Paul Krugman much because his column falls in the category of people-whose-politics-are-entirely-too-predictable, when it comes to financial or political analysis. I have this weird aversion to reading (or listening to, for that matter) the thoughts of people about whom I can predict their stance even before the conversation begins.
However, occasionally Krugman reminds me why he’s wicked smaht and says what I was thinking before I even thought it (if that makes sense, which I’ll admit, it doesn’t.)
Krugman points to a National Review piece attacking Nate Silver – of Five-Thirty-Eight.com fame – for his bias toward Obama. The gist of the National Review piece is that Silver’s methodology is flawed, intentionally, to support Silver’s Democratic agenda.
Krugman’s point, and I whole-heartedly agree, is that when good statistical analysis like Silver’s – and science for that matter – is attacked for political reasons, we lose something important.
Clearly, I’m a Nate Silver fan, because he’s cutting through the distracting media infotainment industry better than anyone right now. So Krugman’s larger point resonates with me – that if you can discredit and reduce good data-driven analysis to a base level with the rest of the noise, you’ve given ignorance a fresh start.
 Diane Rehm is guilty of this. I hated on Joseph Stiglitz’ book recently for that reason. I can barely read Nicholas Kristoff’s poltical columns as a result. While their Op-Eds can be useful, nearly every editorial in the Wall Street Journal is unreadable. Unless they are unintentionally comedic, like this one.
 As we say in my hometown.
Post read (1997) times.