05
Aug
Krugman: A Reckoning for the Media Machine
“I try to write only about economics,” says Paul Krugman with a smile and a shrug.
But in the next breath Krugman admits that his best-selling book, The Great Unraveling, “is really about politics and not economics.”
The same may be said of Krugman’s scathing Op-Ed columns in The New York Times, which have undoubtedly earned him a high place on the White House’s media enemy list.
Krugman is an unlikely radical. The Princeton economist identifies himself as a “moderate liberal,” and a “free-market Keynesian,” and swears he didn’t plan things this way. “The original idea for my column came in 1999 from (ex-Times editor) Howell Raines,” he tells MediaChannel. “Howell explained it to me like this — ‘We have five guys writing about the Middle East and no one writing about the economy!’” But Krugman was soon radicalized by events, and what he calls persistent and deliberate lies by the Bush Administration.
“I had a bad feeling about Bush, from an economic standpoint, as far back as the 2000 presidential campaign,” says Paul Krugman, “I just felt — My God, he’s lying through his teeth!”
Krugman, who worked as a staffer at the Council of Economic Advisers during the Reagan administration, says his government experience taught him that “What you see in one agency or area can usually be applied to an entire administration.”
In other words, if they are lying about the budget, they’re probably lying about other things as well — like, say, the presence of WMD in Iraq, or ‘links’ between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
“It came into particular focus right after 9/11,” says Krugman, “When I began hearing spin and political explanations of the attacks while the buildings were still burning.”
We now know, of course, that what Krugman was hearing was the beginning of the buildup to the Iraq War. “I had no special background in this stuff,” he says. “But to me, it sounded exactly like the selling of the tax cuts! I said to myself, ‘They’re pulling the same stuff again!’
“And then along came this political nightmare,” he says. “And for a while it looked like I was one of the only people who could say what was really happening.”
Krugman admits that the right’s vituperative reaction to what he wrote, and the aggressive and personal attacks that resulted, “were very scary for a while.” He feels fortunate that he is not a professional, career journalist. “I had another job to go back to,” he says thankfully — which was a good thing, since “the New York Times was beginning to get nervous!”
Krugman’s writing — like all noteworthy journalism — consistently makes publishers nervous. That’s what happened to his book publishers when he handed them The Great Unraveling, complete with a fiery introduction he had finished the day after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces.
As he notes in the introduction to the new paperback edition (which features three new chapters, consisting of columns he wrote after the war ‘ended,’) he had gone “out on a limb” with the book: “I wasn’t just extremely critical of the Bush administration at a moment of triumph, when TV screens were showing, over and over again, scenes of the toppling of Saddam’s statue. I went beyond criticism of specific policies to argue that the Bush administration poses a challenge to America as we know it.”
And like all noteworthy journalism, Krugman’s writing is as much about the media as it is about the events they cover, uncover, miscover, and ignore. As he wrote in The Great Unraveling, “I was also saying that much of the public and most of the media were missing the real story of what was happening in America.
“When the book first came out, it was pretty crazy,” says Krugman. “I was saying the same things I had been saying for several years — but now people began telling me, ‘Thank God someone is finally being honest!’”
Others, of course, were busy denouncing Krugman. But then those same people were busy calling the BBC the “Baghdad Broadcasting Company” and terming the New York Times the “Saddam News Service.”
“So far it has come out all right,” Krugman admits. “But the first time you get an avalanche of angry mail from people the National Review has sicced on you, it can be daunting . . . A lot of journalists get their first taste of it and simply shear off into self-censorship. If you say something different, if you see the world the way I do, you can get marginalized. It’s scary, very frightening . . . but it requires as a matter of public duty that you put yourself on the firing line.
“My situation is different from others, however, and I’m very lucky for it,” he says. “If The New York Times had fired me, my income would have gone up and my life would have gotten easier!”
Does Krugman perceive a crisis in American media? Yes . . . and no. “My impression is that the pressure has always been there — so why is the situation so much worse now? Are the people in power more apt to abuse their position now? What happened to the days of Edward R. Murrow?”
Krugman believes part of the answer is to be found in the extreme polarization of our political discourse “There is no longer any middle to appeal to, no moderates left to speak to,” he avers. “Instead we get this false objectivity, a sort of ‘On the one hand this, and on the other hand that’ style of reporting. Or we get extreme partisanship, where the ‘facts’ are treated as part of a movement . . . or a large part of the media is anxious to be perceived as ‘objective,’ while at the same time being consistently mau-maued, and much more by an aggressive right than by the left.”
In any event, Krugman says his bosses at The New York Times “are pretty happy with me at this point, [Small wonder, in light of their recent ‘clarification’ of other Times reportage from that period!] after having been ‘rattled’ in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War.
“Their belief at the time was that the left wasn’t a commercially viable force, and that liberals, for example, wouldn’t buy books!” he says with a best-seller’s smile.
That canard put to bed, Krugman says it’s time for a showdown. “Can we break the machine that is imposing right-wing radicalism on the United States?” he asks. “The scariest part is that the media is part of that machine. There will have to be some kind of reckoning soon, a possible Watergate moment to come . . . Things aren’t all the way unraveled yet . . . and alternative scenarios still exist.
“We need above all sunlight! We need to see what is actually going on,” he concludes. “When are people going to wake up?”
Note: If you’re in New York, you can join a discussion with Paul Krugman and political satirist Al Franken at Barnes and Noble, Union Square (33 E. 19th Street, NYC). Thursday, August 5 at 7pm. Directions to the store
I have just received an e-mail that is impossible to reply to..It is about the bombing of Hiroshima. I survived ww2..I know all the details….The bias news media against America are saying that the bombing was unnecessary..Not true..It was the only way to stop even more innocent people from dying..It hasn’t been mentioned in your article how Japan was warned to stop the fighting or this would happen…more than Japan did at Pearl Harbor where we lost 2000 innocents. If the league of nations had gone to war and taken down Hitler and his regime as Churhill warned them repeatedly to do, Pearl Harbor would have never happened, and we would have not lost 450,000..The only mistake Roosevelt made was not going in before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Thank God, Tony Blair and George Bush did not make the same mistake…You are aware that Hussein had planned an attack on America shortly after 9/11. Russia had that knowledge. You are aware according to Husseins own followers that he had wmd only 2 months before we went into Iraq…Study the history of Hitler and what led to ww2 and you will see similarities to the Hussein regime that will astound you. I hope we can have 4 more years of Bush…I trust him to go to where the enemy is and not wait for them to come here…Bonnie Wheeler
August 6th, 2004 at 1:15 pmWow! The preceding comment has made me see the light. Now I know that bombing civilians is the only way to go! I know this is going to cheer up Robert McNamara immensely.
And I thought the destruction of 9/11 couldn’t possibly be justified, but Bonnie has shown the way!
August 6th, 2004 at 8:28 pmBingo,galld..Sometimes war is the only way to go. It won the independence and establishment of America, it kept America free, it also freed the slaves; all good things…sad to say innocent people must sacrifice their lives because evil people such as Hitler, Osama, Hussein will have it no other way.
August 6th, 2004 at 9:46 pmGee whiz, Bonnie, it’s so nice to read another Bush Jonestownian! I say we all drink the Kool Aid now and be done with it! Who needs all these intellectual Liberals anyways?
August 7th, 2004 at 12:51 amBonnie, I bet all of your young relatives are fighting in Faluja, aren’t they??? Let’s hear your story. Let’s hear how your family always was the first one to send its kids, brothers and sisters to war whenever it happens.
August 7th, 2004 at 9:41 amcc,galld, You are right on target…Yes.. My ancestors (uncles) fought in WW1 my husband in ww2, my son wounded in Nam…No one in my family could ever be accused of being cowardly..and aren’t you glad that you are now enjoying those freedoms that were provided for you by them who .However, if you have a new revelation that would have provided freedom from slavery, freedom from Hitler, averting an attack by Hussein, without war, I’m sure the world would like to hear it, otherwise, a simple ‘thank you’ will do.
August 7th, 2004 at 12:06 pmBonnie…how about your grandkids? Are they in Iraq? If not, do you feel ashamed, because they are not following your hawkish ideology? I think you should feel lucky when your ancestors faught wars and were still able to bread descendants. Many of our young soldiers didn’t have such luck. They died for this unnecessary war without having a chance to bread descendants. It is the ideology championed by people like you that has deprived so many of our brightest young men and women of their god-given opportunity to live their full life.
August 7th, 2004 at 12:40 pmDear, dear Bonnie. Let’s try this one last time. Bombing civilian populations is a war crime. It’s a terrorist activity. And it doesn’t matter why it happens, when it happens it’s a crime against humanity.
August 7th, 2004 at 12:48 pmAnd as far as your war record is concerned, such blather is simply despicable.
Krugman’s articles have often been a wave of freshly brave air in this extreme environment. Where most others have shunned their journalistic responsibilities, he has come forth and stood out as a target. Three months.
August 7th, 2004 at 6:07 pmDear Bonnie-
Republicans are satan. You are the antichrist. Honestly, you know that your opinion was fostered by one news source, fox news, right? Do you actually read anything else? The answer, I am sure is no.
August 7th, 2004 at 9:34 pmdata entry, I’ve heard the same thing said about Democrats, Some have been called the anti-christ…I always say “to each his own”
August 7th, 2004 at 10:26 pmcc, then you finally admit that Hussein and Osama are the terrorists..You will have to admit that it was my ideaology that gave you the freedom that you have today. One would think that if you don’t have the gumption to protect America, you would at least say “Thank you” to those who do. I’m still waiting to hear your suggestions as to how to bring down Hussein…Do you think we should have waited until he came here and killed our innocent civilians..I’m sure you are aware that there is definite proof now that is exactly what he planned to do…Man, bring on the solution, not criticism of those who are doing the best they can to protect America
Bonnie, I am not sure if your ancestors would be proud of you when you were comparing this Iraq war with WWI and WWII. You are one of the few people who still believe that this Iraq war was about imminent threat from Hussein. Interesting, even George W. Bush recognized that the claim was false. There is absolutely no evidence that Hussein planned to attack the U.S. or any other western nations. Yes, he did have plans to build WMD, but so did many other nations. I noticed that you deliberately ignored my comments about sending your grandchildren to Iraq. It is a difficult issue, isn’t it? It makes you hesitate, desn’t it? Well, perhaps you are a little wiser now. I believe your family bread terrific children and grandchildren who are willing to fight for our country’s freedom. Perhaps, it is even more important to educate yourself to recognize the difference between a war of aggression (to impose your ideology on other people) and a defensive war (to protect our freedom). Growing up in a family of war veteran, you should be more sensitive about human atrocity of war. In wars of aggression, Vietnam and Iraq, we killed tens of thousands of innocent people who were deprived of their god-given rights to live their full life. Recognizing the atrocity of war, our govenment is not allowing human rights group to account the civilian casualties in Iraq. They know if the truth is revealed, the american people and the world would be outraged. Back to the issue of sending your grandchildren to war. I hope you recognize that you don’t send your kids to war for someone else’s ideology. Hussein would never have had the capability to invade the US!!!! Killing an ant while claiming you were battling a tiger doesn’t mean you killed a tiger!
August 8th, 2004 at 11:29 amcc. I know exactly what you mean It isn’t fun to watch your child march off to war and those telegrams that the families received during WW2 was not an easy thing to deal with..Very heartbreaking for me to know those that I went to High school with and many of my neighbors that, while we were yet childern gathered in my front yard to play marbles and the neighborhood kids who gathered in vacant fields to play against each other in baseball now killed in action. All because Prime Minister of England and his party did not do their duty in taking down Hitler earlier Hussein was small and could have done minimal damage at this point. He could have killed only 3000 innocent Americans as Osama. Why not stop terrorists before they become so strong that they cannot be stopped. Sometimes this means getting them one by one..Clinton never did his duty as President..He let Osama keep planning and building and could have stopped him but due to politicaly correct ideaologhy, did not. Hitler started out small and was not stopped as Winston Churchill kept warning his country to do.They let him build continuously until he became stronger and stronger..He almost conquered Europe…Can you imagine how appalled the people of England were when former Prime Minister Baldwin as he was trying to explain why he did not stop Hitler in the beginning of his weapons build-up, inadvertantly spoke these words: “If we had gone to war, (with Hitler) we would surely have lost the election”
August 8th, 2004 at 2:38 pmBonnie…. perhaps here is something you should think about…. we must select someone with demonstrated exceptional intelligence to be our president. George W. Bush is not an intelligent man. I am sure you recognize this deficiency in his speeches and news interviews. Whenever he runs out of scripted speech, his sentences became incoherent. His exceptionally low pilot testing score was another example. Do a research on his records, you won’t find anyting of exceptional quality. I doubt if you can find anything about his achievement that you can educate your grandchildren as model example. All of our recent presidents, Carter, Regan, Senior Bush, Clinton, were all self-made men. They battled through the difficulties of life just as ordinary people do. With exceptional intelligence, they suceeded and became leaders. Everything George W. Bush did however was always with many helping hands. Whenever he is alone on the podium, he stumbles. Without God-given exceptional wisdom, he can not be our leader. I urge you to think carefully before voting.
August 8th, 2004 at 11:09 pmCC, President Bush is much better than when he started speaking..he has never had the speaking experience that those in the Senate have had, however,it is much better to select someone who means what he says and does exactly what he says he will do, regardless of how says it. I know many who are very wise and intelligent that are not good speakers and I know some very unwise and dishonest people who can speak like a used car salesman…Edwards for example..one of the most corrupt politicians that has ever run for office…Kerry for another..I’ve researched both voting records and what they say they stand for and what they have voted for in the past is very different, that is when they voted. I was a Dem. and split because of the dishonesty, manipulations, and the obsessive lust for power..They will do and say anything to win an election. I do occasionally vote Dem. when one comes along who is honest and not so desperate to win that he becomes insane. CC, speaking of intelligence or the lack of, maybe you would like to see Jimmy Carter run again.
August 9th, 2004 at 6:24 amPS.. CC, Most of our presidents, including Bush Jr have surrounded themselves with intelligent people…They would not have shown much intelligence if they had not done so.
August 9th, 2004 at 6:30 amBonnie, I see you deliberately avoiding evaluating Bush’s intelligence with records. What does it mean “electing someone does exactly what he says he will do”? Sounds like electing a “macho-man”. It’s a bit juvenile, don’t you think?
August 10th, 2004 at 1:16 amCC, It means honesty and integrity. It also means no empty promises to win an election…sorry I didn’t explain. .I just thought everyone already knew that. I don’t understand what you mean by your statement questioning the President’s intelligence…I take it you are one of those Democrats who are now grasping at straws to re-gain control….Let me explain some things about George Bush that you may not know…He graduated from Andover with average grades…He graduated from Yale with average grades. While at Yale he became fraternity president….He was noted for his ability to remember the names of everyone he met. After graduating from Yale, he went on to Harvard and completed his course there. I would say that accomplishment takes some intelligence. He later made a very wise business decision that would net him quite a sum of money and he did it honestly; I would say that took intelligence. He did all this while drinking. He realized drinking was interfering with his life and he quit, cold turkey. That takes wisdom and strength. Unlike Kerry, the President did not have the charm and looks to marry 2 wealthy women (the first one became ill and he divorced her and married one wealthier). The President did it with intelligence and hard work, with some help from his family to get him started. Although he isn’t nearly as wealthy as Kerry, he never had to sign a pre-nuptial agreement…He has the intelligence to support his wife; she doesn’t support him.
If you are questioning his intelligence because of virtue and belief in God, then there are many of us whose intelligence is questionable. Although he doesn’t laud his Christianity as Kerry does, he is a man of faith.
I consider that an excellent quality.
Did you see Krugman get creamed by O’reilly last night? Bonnie Wheeler, former Dem.
August 10th, 2004 at 11:32 amBonnie, I see you are quite excited about attacking people (consistent with your hawkish attitude towards going to war). You think people like o’reilly winning a discusion just because he was yelling at top of his lung? Krugman is a Princeton prfessor. Do you know what it takes to be a Princeton professor? If you have highly educated relatives or friends, you should ask them about it. Intelligent people use reason to persuade. I can image how Krugman could be overwhelmed by o’reilly, because o’reilly is not a civilized man. He shouts, threatens, and often cuts people off in a conversation. O’reilly show (many other shows) lacks civility. He is rude! I certainly hope you are not encouraging your grandchildren to watch him. Let’s go back to your assessment of Bush. Of all the examples you listed about Bush, which one would you point to your grandchildren and say “this is what you need to accomplish in order to be successful in life”. Keep in mind, your grandchildren won’t have the connections that Bush had. By the way, your statement about Bush’s business accomplishment was a little vague. Perhaps, you should be more clear about that.
August 10th, 2004 at 5:13 pmIt’s difficult to image that you were once a Dem, because your political views are quite extreme.
So if Bush wants to take care about america with attack he should fight against the country of Bin Laden, Saudi Ariabia.
August 10th, 2004 at 7:27 pmBut he won’t because lots of them are doing busisness with lots of friends of him.
I haven’t watched him that much butI have never seen him scream or act rude and he certainly did not last night with Baldwin and Krugman..He was very polite..more polite than I could have been with the misconceptions and fabrications that those two have been handing out…I have an intense aversion to deception and manipulations. O’reily definitely does not threaten and I’ve never been excited about him; He’s a Democrat, but one who tries to get at the truth. My political views were shared by FDR(my idol), Ronald Regan, Harry Truman, George Washington, The founding fathers etc. You can’t be in better company than that. If my views are extreme then so are theirs. CC
Romain, which friends…Bush has been out of the oil business for years now. Bush nor I or anyone else would go that far out on a limb for friends. Don’t give statements without proof. People will spot it immediately as being politically motivated; Americans are much wiser now than they have been in the past.
August 10th, 2004 at 9:42 pmBonnie, pity, you can’t find anything in Bush I would recommend your grandchildren to emulate. Based on your characterization, Bush was a typical party-goer struggling student in college. How did he get into Harvard Business school was a mystery. Perhaps your children would tell you that only students with top academic records could get into that school. I would urge you NOT TO PUT YOURSELF ON THE SAME LEVEL AS GEORGE BUSH. It is impossible for you or any oridinary people to imagine or comprehend the kind of privilege he enjoys. George Bush don’t look for friend. People try hard to be his friend because of his family background.
August 10th, 2004 at 10:12 pmWow! I applaud our e-debaters for respectfully (for the most part) debating some important issues.
Still I see a tendency to indulge in hyperbole, and polarize debate into black-and-white notions of honest and dishonest politicians, just and unjust wars, etc.
My challenge to all of us (including myself):
Question authority — *all* authority! Resist hyperbole and polarization, even when you disagree with “the other side” so intensely you feel at the other end of the political spectrum.
Even if you feel aligned with a political party or a politician, contemplate the truism “governments lie”.
I would like to commend Bonnie in particular for her courage in expressing what she believes. You have chosen to explain through personal and political why you think the way you do, and I respect that. I sense a lot of passion behind your words, and that also moves me.
However I would caution you Bonnie against continually referencing the righteousness and (in hindsight) “simple” truths of WWI and WWII. The U.S. has involved itself in many conflicts, overtly and covertly, and whether you justify (or condemn) these interventions and alliances, they are manifold and arguably deserve careful thought on their own basis.
We can of course form our own ‘grand theories’ to impute overarching logic or motive to U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy over the decades, respectively granting systematic malice/greed or benevolence — but with regard to terrorism and in general, world opinion of the U.S: we need to ground ourselves in the reality of other’s perceptions.
You might see the invasion of Iraq as “protecting America.” How do Iraqis see it? How do Africans, Europeans, Asians, Latinos, people of this huge planet see it? Is it irrelevant unless they are either a ‘terrorist threat’, or alternatively, a threat to American economic hegemony?
Honestly, I love debates like this but we’d need to look way, way outside of our cloistered, simplistic political fishbowl…
As for O’Reilly, please Bonnie, you’re way too decent-sounding a person to line up behind that kind of arrogance. For fun, have a look at O’Reilly’s recent so-called debate with Krugman, spiced nicely with several lies and distortions. While you’re there on Media Matters’ site (yes they are lefties!), you might also want to note O’Reilly’s charming way of lumping ‘Muslim’ in the same category as “Communist, a fascist, … or a mud-wrestling woman.” If this is the kind of display you view as intellectual prowess, I guess it is no surpise you line up behind Bush.
August 11th, 2004 at 12:17 amOne more thing– it makes me sad to read you describe the atom bombing of Hiroshima *and Nagasaki* as “necessary.” Consider how even hardened Madeline Albright regrets having said that the deaths of a half million Iraqi childrens’ from U.S.-imposed economic sanctions was “worth it.”
Sure, tell me that Saddam was also to blame for their deaths. I agree with you. Does this erase what our government has done? No.
Do any justifications for the only use to date of nuclear weapons lessen the horror of it? If we are truly value human life, if we truly oppose such barbarism, we must also be critical of ourselves. And you think the media is “liberal”?! How many minutes of airtime or inches of print have spent debating our immense holding of WMDs, our role as a premier arms dealer, our consistent undermining of treaties aimed at non-proliferation?
Perhaps we should stop debating for a moment and just read this.
“No life is worth more than any other.”
August 11th, 2004 at 1:16 am–Michael Franti (”Crazy, Crazy, Crazy”)
Michael, life is not simple..it isn’t black and white…Yes, sad that it is necessary to bomb at times. I believe that a person should kill only in self-defense…Hiroshima was self-defense. If an evil person were to come into my home and try to murder my family, I would try to kill them first and if I were alerted that they were on the way, I would meet them before they got there…Same thing with my nation. Yes the life of my family to me is more important than another; Saving American lives is more important to me than saving Iraq, Japan or any other nation…As for O’reilly, He tries to be fair and unbiased, however he doesn’t always..like this swiftboat exposure or non-exposure of Kerry. I believe both sides should be heard and let the people decide. He doesn’t. I think the President has done wrong in distancing himself from this group and he has no right to ask them to stop the ad.I, along with many others have written him about this. They have stated that they will not stop, even if he asks them to because this isn’t about the Presidency..this is about veterans who think they got a raw deal from Kerry. I think the people should listen to both sides and decide whose telling the truth here. Never before in history has a person received that many medals in 4 months.Many are interested in how he did this.Either side could be politically motivated, however I have noticed that the most adamant one in this group is Democrat and one that Kerry called and asked to help form a group of Nam vets to promote him. He, thinking it was Bob Kerry who was calling was willing, until he found out that it was John on the phone; he, then,refused Mike,…Your political view is your business. If you like Kerry, it’s your right to vote for him..That’s exactly who Osama and Hussein would vote for if given a chance to vote here. I prefer someone who will defend America.
Mike, one more question…was Madelyn Albright speaking of those children that were killed in this war or those who were tortured and murdered by Hussein? Even Howard Dean in a letter to Clinton July 19, 1995 was suggesting Clinton go to war to stop those tortures by Hussein.
CC,..is there anything in Kerry or Clinton that I would want my grandchildren to emulate? Not one thing. There are some things about Bush some that I would ..His honesty, Love of nation, his faith, his commitment to wife and family, his decisiveness and his views on defense. His action during teen-age years was not one I would like them to emulate, however most teen agers do the same thing. O by the way..which of my political views do you find extreme, my belief that politicians should be honest. Or the fact that I believe that it’s ok for a leader to have a faith in God, or is it my views that America should be militarily strong and prepared to defend at any time.Those are the views of all the founders and the views that our nation was established on. CC, I would urge you not to put yourself on the same level as Clinton, Kerry and Edwards(who made 27 million off the backs of small businesses in 4 years)
August 11th, 2004 at 9:53 amTrue America is not Hollywood: Its’ real down to earth people. Perhaps when the election is over, Hollywood and Kerry can stop politicing and get back to doing what they do best; pretending to be someone they are not.
Another topic take over by the hate mongers.
Remember, it’s not just governments who lie.
August 11th, 2004 at 10:20 amFolks:
I love interactivity as much as the next guy, but my feeling is that perhaps Bonnie and CC have both made their points and we can move on? Unless of course anyone wants to spend more time on Bill O’Reilly…in which case I’m all ears.
For my part, having attended high school with the prevaricating pundit, having worked with him at the ABC affiliate in Boston, and having once been invited on his show — but then disinvited when I wouldn’t parrot his program narrative that the BBC was really “the Baghdad Broadcasting Service” — I can affirm that the man is a liar, a bully and a fraud — just for starters. Moreover, he is decidedly NOT a Democrat, as Bonnie wrote above.
August 11th, 2004 at 10:34 amgalld, are you calling all of us hate mongers? I thought it was just a discussion with cc,mike, and myself.
August 11th, 2004 at 9:20 pmRory, all I know about O’reily is what I heard him say once; that he is a Democrat..he doesn’t act like a Dem. or Republican..More like an Independent. I agree..time to get off the subject..we’re getting nowhere.
PS.