[beckett]

I just read a review of Murray's book yesterday which said that something around half of it was devoted to quantitative analysis. Judging by this review, however, one would think the whole volume is nothing but number crunching.

The NYT can always find a way to distort the work of authors it dislikes.

[OESY]

More than his calculations of Western accomplishment, it is his view of contemporary cultural deficits that marks Mr. Murray's book as a conservative one.

I was struck by this comment: a not so subtle attempt at denigration.

Politics aside, however, the scholarly objection to the book may come down to the notion that quantifying human achievement, whether feasible or not, is in the end an exercise of dubious intellectual value.

Astoundingly, the essayist, having introduced "politics" into the discussion, now finds it more convenient to brush aside her remark and condemn the work as "of dubious intellectual value" as if liberals would never attempt quantification of human achievement. Don't the editors ask whether such a penultimate paragraph meets the laugh test, or don't they care?

This is so reminiscent of Lily Tomlin's old "Ernestine" line from Saturday Night Live (from New York):
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the New York Times."