No. Seriously.
I really am thankful that the First Amendment protects the vile nonsense that he spews. Not because I enjoy him proving with each column the utter meaninglessness of being a Nobel Prize Winner, but because it makes him feel secure in revealing who he is, namely a slimy little toad who thinks nothing of disparaging men whose boots he isn’t fit to lick, let alone fill.
Krugman eagerly attacks men who stepped up to lead when it was required of them. Bush never complained about the “inheriting” Bin Laden from his predecessor. Giuliani never whined about the “bad luck” that befell his city on that sunny autumn morning. Instead, Giuliani went to help coordinate the response to the attack, and he himself was temporarily trapped at the command center. Bush went to Ground Zero for those of us who couldn’t go ourselves, and personally carried the thanks of a grateful nation to those whose profound sadness and mourning we all carried on that day. And then he put the resolve of a wounded nation into words, and directed it in a fashion that took the fight to those who thought they humbled us on that day.
Paul Krugman doesn’t live in the same world as the rest of America. Every word he types, every “nuance” that he utters in the service of a worldview that misplaces its hope and drips contempt for anyone who believes not in the justice of redistribution and Keynesian economics, but in the power of the individual, and the government that would respect it, rather than restrain it, and every fantasy to empower the government he would worship tells us all that we need to know about him. And that’s a good thing.
In a world where such a small person can lash out at people who can’t help but to be better than him, we can all count ourselves lucky that he and others like him not only reveal their true character, but their tragic lack of understanding. It is good that such would-be tyrants, and others like him can show themselves without any modicum of self-reflection or shame, because then we are all put on notice of exactly who they are, and that all of us can fulfill one of the many duties we each have as citizens, and keep such people from gaining any more power than they already have by challenging all of the false assumptions and conclusions foisted upon us by people who let their jealousies blind them to the nature of evil, and the ability to discern what it is. I thank God for the wisdom he gave to the Framers who made such that we had such freedoms, knowing full well the capacity for their abuse, and I thank the generations of men and women who made sacrifices to defend the flag that waves over all our heads today, and the guarantees we enjoy because of it. And I thank God for those who looked upon the dust and rubble that settled over lower Manhattan on that day and put their lives on the line to make sure that Krugman, Bloomberg, and others could continue to show their contempt for the things that continue to make this country great.
As much as I despise that snivelling, cowardly pussytard, I have to admit, without the likes of him, we wouldn’t be a great country.
Once upon a time the bard Dennis Miller said this:
Also, once upon a time I actually read Krugman and he made some sense on matters economic. Not so much anymore as he clings like an aborigine to the sacred totems that have been clearly discredited by events.
He howls so loud, because like all of his ilk, his ego does not ever consider that his most closely held beliefs are devastatingly wrong.
They more resemble the religious zealots they claim us to be than the members of the reality based community they risibly claim for themselves.
Well, a couple of things.
First, this is one of your best written pieces. I don’t know whether you labored for hours or just spewed it out but either way it’s cohesive and eloquent and my hat’s truly off to you for it.
Second, Krugman doesn’t move me one way or the other. To use his phrase, I find him an “odd” man. Furthermore the article that so incensed you didn’t make a lot of sense. It was almost as though Krugman was talking in code. He doesn’t spell out his gripes at all. Perhaps his intended audience gets it. I’m a liberal and I for one didn’t get it. I don’t believe we got it completely right post-9/11 but I’d hardly call it an era of shame, or whatever Krugman said.
Finally, your main point is the very one I employ on my blog, in reverse. I consider some of the stuff my conservative buddies say utterly preposterous and the best way to disinfect the foolishness is to let it see the light of day. People live or die on the strength of their arguments, Give them enough rope and they do indeed hang themselves,
The First Amendment is a good thing!
The First Amendment IS a good thing.
It also has absolutely zilch to do with what is said on your blog, a place where many preposterous things are often stated by the author.
It does, however, affect a journo…I mean, someone who scribbles for what once might have been a NEWSpaper who wants to publish disparagements about government and former government figures.
Rutherford spouts some gibberish:
“your main point is the very one I employ on my blog, in reverse.”
So what was the main point? I think it was that the First Amendment was a good thing because it gives people a chance to prove how stupid they are by giving them the freedom to speak. So what is the reverse of that? Proving people are smart by forcing them to shut up? Is that what you do on your blog? Who knew?
I think you proved BisW point.
As usual Dog, you’re being an ass. By reverse, I meant a liberal allowing conservatives to show the foolishness of their position by not censoring them as opposed to BiW’s point about liberals being given enough bandwidth to hang themselves.
I think you already knew that but like the Pavlov dog you are, you just can’t resist the instinct to try to bite me.
Oh yeah while I’m thinking of it ….
Bite me.
So you chose your own definition of “reverse”, rather than the correct one. Typical liberal – disingenuous use of language to try and support a weak position.
You either missed the main point of the post, or intentionally misconstrued it, and then tried to claim some inflated self-importance (“Me too! Me too!”). I called you on it, and you get testy. What an ass…
I have been away from cyberspace for a short time, while I fought my private battles in meat space. You may now assume that I am back, and as far as you are concerned, maybe even a little rabid….
Read this, this morning. Thought it a pretty good summary of Paul Krugman:
As Sa’adi noted, that collective sadness, this ability to feel the sadness of others, and to give expression to our sympathy, our empathy, and our grief makes us humans. And Paul Krugman’s inability to perceive it, his willingness–either due to moral myopia, or to an eager desire to give himself to the cause of repulsive propagandizing–to characterize our “subdued” state to the supposed “shame” that the country allegedly feels for not thinking exactly as Paul Krugman has thought for the past ten years makes him the archetypal brute. Allegedly, “in its heart, the nation knows” that Paul Krugman is super-correct about everything, and for the sin of not having listened, the nation is ashamed. And if you don’t believe in that theory, just ask Paul Krugman; he’ll be the first to tell you that you should buy into it with all of the dark thoughts you can muster. ~ Pejman Yousefzadeh
As to Rutherford’s “preposterous utterances” and disinfectant of his blog, at worst we are only following the lead of the blog owner, who once accused Sarah Palin at the height of his PDS, of naming her youngest child after the child’s genetic abnormality.
Rutherford’s disinfectant can is often pointed the wrong way….
One thing about the Left. You can always count on them to spew forth deranged bile at the most inappropriate of times. Paul Krugman didn’t disappoint.
Krugman gets mixed reviews about Sunday’s piece and then doubles down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/paul-krugman-911-blog-pos_n_958137.html
Its easy to do when you won’t engage critics and instead insulate yourself from them.
It’s more than insulate, and Krugman is more cowardly than simply turning off comments. Krugman actively seeks out his PuffHO lowlifes and losers to carry his water, because believes he’s sheltered by his cult of following. Krugman is not much different than the despots that impoverish the serfs of radical Islam by telling continually the most insidious of lies.
Krugman is vile and repulsive, but knows exactly what he is doing. His party is tired of covering for the failure named Obama. This is an attempt to gin up enthusiasm, because it is the only way Obama wins again. Got to rile up the animals, the parasites, the conspirators, the black racists, the radical Muslims, the useful idiots of academia, and the treasonous and get them radicalized again.
Obama approves.
Paul Krugman: Stuck on stupid. That would be funny if so many didn’t look to him as some sort of wise Mage…
Krugman is such an asshole. That’s about all the attention he deserves. Call him a name and move on.
Krugman? What the hell is a Krugman? Seriously, if everyone would stop hanging on his every word, maybe he would slink back to his cave.
I appreciate a man capable of introspection. Bravo!
Rutherford,
you suck. Eat a bag of shit.
OK Dad, come on, fess up …. you’re really Dick the Homicidal Clown.
BiW, you can give me the real skinny. Come on!
Then again … Dick had more class.
Excellent post BiW. I am one of many who hopes some day Kruggie will just fade away.