Yesterday, New York Times columnist and blogger, Paul Krugman, played cheerleader for Benny the Wanker's corrupt actions in continuing to reduce interest rates (see post below.) Krugman's post was picked up by the Economics Blog at the Wall Street Journal where a commenter called Krugman's opinion a "typical jew response to monetary policy."
Krugman edited his post to include a link to the origin of this comment and opined , "Now you see why comments on this blog have to be moderated."
Umm... no, I don't, Paul. While the comment may be offensive to you and doesn't add rationally to the discussion, it does not justify censorship, which is what "moderation" means at the New York Times blogs. Censorship by a publisher implies that the publisher is not to be trusted to present the whole range of opinion and since Krugman supports that it is reasonable to be suspicious of his opinions.
Because Paul Krugman gets paid very well for allowing businesses to publish his opinions publicly, one would be justified in thinking that he would he would have a greater respect for free speech and the First Amendment and develop a reasonably thicker skin to boorish opinions opposed to his. I am rapidly losing respect for him, which is important because he is one of the few voices who usually argues effectively against elitist economics and its false propaganda.