The Rationale of a Self-Loathing Liberal

Are You Ashamed? 

Paul Krugman is fast becoming perhaps the most valuable accelerant for my creative juices. Gracing the safe haven that is the New York Times -- yet again -- with the radiance of his razor sharp intellect, Krugman manages to insult virtually every one of his fellow countrymen on a day when we are nearly unanimous in our thoughts. While offending us, he is also brazen in his contempt for the people who so valiantly guided us through the awful events of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath.

Early on Sunday morning, five minutes before the first plane struck the first tower ten years earlier, Krugman filed an OpEd piece in the New York Times that would be better described as an exercise in projection rather than an actual article. Better yet, it more closely resembles a brief vomiting of built up loathing for his own people or perhaps his own guilt. The big question is whether the timing was accidental or deliberate.

Titled The Years of Shame, this vile diatribe actually refers to police chief Bernard Kerik, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and President Bush as "fake heroes", then baldly hides behind his closing declaration that, "I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Perhaps that's because many, like myself, would like to ask for an example of how any of these "fake heroes" cashed in on the horror of those attacks, or who the "lot of other people" who "behaved badly" are, and what they did to earn Krugman's condemnation.

Come on, Paulie, open it up for discussion. No? Well, that's to be expected from a coward.

Paul Krugman

My biggest problem is not the attacks on the three aforementioned public figures, however. They expect this level of vitriol. They knew going into public life that they would be subjected to it, and they are tougher as a result. When I think of some kid -- maybe the one who today read a note to the father he never met --reading Krugman's hatred, though, I am both saddened and angered.

The biggest brain-rattler in Krugman's lament comes when he declares that, "the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned." One must wonder if he believes that this "article" of his is supposed to be some form of antidote.  I'd ask him, but he has decided that he would not field questions. Darn.

Finally, just to be additionally annoying I suppose, Krugman insists twice that we know he is right even if we won't admit it. Finishing -- just before he slams the door to challenge, that is -- with this bit of wisdom:

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

Krugman makes a leaping assumption that has no basis in reality, but only serves to infuriate an already tender populace as we commemorate this occasion.  Then he retreats into seclusion.

Good job, Paul, and I mean that most insincerely.

Sphere: Related Content