Paul Krugman and Charles Krauthammer coincidentally use two similar titles in their columns today regarding Katrina. Krugman's New York Times column is filled with  emotional invective and assiduosly provides no facts to support his allegations. Simplistically, he scapegoats George Bush. For a Princeton economist and New York Times columnist, a very unimpressive performance.

Krauthammer's Washingotn Post column, on the other hand, is much more reasoned and factual: discussing spending levels, history, timelines and comes to the conclusion that blame is widespread but the main perpetrator is Mother Nature.
 
Krugman has been exposed so many time for inaccuracies and fabrications (National Review's Krugman Watch column devoted to Krugman's misuse of facts, American Thinker's Richard Baehr skewering of his columns regarding the Florida voting controversy, any number of bloggers), that he seems to have abandoned the practice of supporting his arguments with facts. He has become a male version of the tiresome, repetitive, and dull  Maureen Dowd. Let's call it by its right name: adaptive devolution.

Ed Lasky   9 09 05