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

The Guitar Has No Strings

When our eyes are no longer our most trusted instruments, when we rely upon others to tell us a truth contrary to that which we plainly see, we are a lost people. 

Sooner or later there must come a time when even the least educated amongst us must realize when we are being duped. It is certainly an admirable trait to defer to experts in particular fields, but such reliance cannot be accepted automatically simply because of ones credentials, and especially when they are clearly lying. 

Paul Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times, writing on political issues based heavily on the economic aspects thereof. He has been awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is also Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University as well as Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Very smart guy, that Krugman; some would say infallible. Some, but not all...

On October 10th, Krugman wrote a piece in the New York Times Opinion Pages titled Hey, Small Spender, in which he makes the incredible claim that the federal government has not expanded the size of the government under Barack Obama, nor has it increased spending. His opening two paragraphs (emphasis mine): 

Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs. 

Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.

Krugman goes on to complain that there hasn't been enough spending, blaming a campaign of disinformation for what he perceives as a fallacious claim that the country is spending too much. Fortunately, someone better equipped than I to counter Krugman's absurd claims has noticed and responded.

Charles Blahous wrote yesterday a blistering rebuttal to Krugman's piece, laying the culpability for disinformation squarely where it belongs; on the Left. Blahous was recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be one of two trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. In his article on Economics21, he provides some very interesting government charts which show that Krugman is using his expertise for nefarious intent. Below is one such chart:

The chart is from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Do you doubt that government spending has soared under Obama and the Democrats? Can Krugman be taken seriously based solely on his work to attain the status of uber-expert in economics? Sadly, too many urban elites - who live in ritzy areas of big cities and wave the Times like a badge - have an unassailable claim of intellectualism when debating in public. Think about it...who would you believe in an argument? The person quoting the New York Times, or the person quoting Sanity Sentinel? 

As a guitar player, I would assert on this page that a guitar has strings. I've felt them and heard them, every time I play, albeit poorly. But if Les Paul, a legend of guitar and a designer of the instrument suddenly declared that the strings are a figment of a musician's imagination, how would I, a layman, dare to contradict him? Of course I'd be right, but if no one believes me, I might as well be wrong. 

It is pretty much the same here. Krugman, a recognized economic genius, goes off the deep end and tells us we know nothing of what we see, and we're expected to accept that? Not me, and I suspect, not you either. 

*Special Hat Tip to Karl Rove for his earlier tweet. 

Sphere: Related Content