Paul Krugman is a jackass (1 Viewer)

[dickey moe]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.

I'd argue that the Giffords thing was even worse, but that's probably splitting hairs. And to be fair, we're talking about blog posts, not NYT opinion columns. I don't think the NYT oversees what Krugman posts on his blog.

Shouldn't they though? It has their name emblazoned all over it.Edit: "The New York Times Opinion Pages" appears at the very top of the webpage.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.

I'd argue that the Giffords thing was even worse, but that's probably splitting hairs. And to be fair, we're talking about blog posts, not NYT opinion columns. I don't think the NYT oversees what Krugman posts on his blog.

Probably why he published it on his blog. Doesn't mean NYT and other newspapers might hear from readers about publishing Krugmans's op ed's in the future.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Krugman doubles down on his hard 12:

It looks as if I should say a bit more about yesterday’s anniversary. So:The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq. It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.It was a time when tough talk was confused with real heroism, when people who made speeches, then feathered their own political or financial nests, were exalted along with – and sometimes above – those who put their lives on the line, both on the evil day and after.So it was a shameful episode in our nation’s history – and it’s one that I can’t help thinking about whenever we talk about 9/11 itself.Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

 

[dickey moe]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If he were a literary character, he'd have to be Grima Wormtongue:

Gríma, son of Gálmód, was at first a faithful servant, but he eventually fell in league with Saruman, and from then on worked to weaken Théoden and his kingdom through lies and persuasion.Tolkien describes him as "a wizened figure of a man, with a pale wise face, and heavy lidded eyes", with a "long pale tongue".He was widely disliked in Edoras; everyone except Théoden called him "Wormtongue", for his malicious words were like that of a serpent. Gandalf repeatedly compares him to a snake:The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.See, Théoden, here is a snake! To slay it would be just. But it was not always as it now is. Once it was a man, and it did you service in its fashion.

He's a caricature.

 

[dickey moe]

If he were a literary character, he'd have to be Grima Wormtongue:

Gríma, son of Gálmód, was at first a faithful servant, but he eventually fell in league with Saruman, and from then on worked to weaken Théoden and his kingdom through lies and persuasion.Tolkien describes him as "a wizened figure of a man, with a pale wise face, and heavy lidded eyes", with a "long pale tongue".He was widely disliked in Edoras; everyone except Théoden called him "Wormtongue", for his malicious words were like that of a serpent. Gandalf repeatedly compares him to a snake:The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.See, Théoden, here is a snake! To slay it would be just. But it was not always as it now is. Once it was a man, and it did you service in its fashion.

He's a caricature.

And loved by many.

 

[dickey moe]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

Tell us what it might be.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

Oh THIS ought to be good.

 

[adonis]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.

I'd argue that the Giffords thing was even worse, but that's probably splitting hairs.

I thought his comments there were in pretty poor taste.

 

[scoobygang]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

Tell us what it might be.

It seems to me that there's a difference between disabling comments on a blog (which happens on many blogs, including the generally conservative Volokh Conspiracy) and labelling dissent unpatriotic or traitorious. It certainly seems different to me. I was told by people on FBG's that I was unAmerican (or that I should have been tortured by Uday and Qusay Hussein) when I opposed the Iraq war. And yes, I was accused of not appreciating 9/11 back then. That seemed different, to me, to not being able to comment on Chuck Klosterman's latest bit of stupidity on Grantland.

 

[adonis]

Krugman doubles down on his hard 12:

It looks as if I should say a bit more about yesterday’s anniversary. So:The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq. It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.It was a time when tough talk was confused with real heroism, when people who made speeches, then feathered their own political or financial nests, were exalted along with – and sometimes above – those who put their lives on the line, both on the evil day and after.So it was a shameful episode in our nation’s history – and it’s one that I can’t help thinking about whenever we talk about 9/11 itself.Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

Seems like a more measured comment than the earlier one.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The thing I don't get, even if you think Iraq was a national disgrace and is directly attributable to 9/11, it's hardly the only thing that defines our national response to the day.

There's been some bad, and I think Iraq qualifies though more of a costly mistake than a disgrace. There's also been plenty of good. We basically took apart al Queda's economic and communications infrastructure, it took a while but we got OBL and nearly all of AQ's leadership. Things are hardly good for the U.S. in the Middle East, but the extreme Islamist movement has been significantly weakened in stature.

I'm not sure how much else could have been asked for. We're sharply divided, but not nearly as much on foreign policy as domestic policy.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

Tell us what it might be.

Krugman's blog appears on the New York Times website. So every comment gets moderated by an editor before it shows up, to keep profane or offensive or incoherent posts from view. Krugman has had serious problems in the past with folks trolling the comments section of his blog. He knew that this post would be likely to generate a flood of trolling comments.Now, maybe there's a better way to handle it. I guess the Times could just hire a bunch of interns to sift through all the offensive gibberish to pick out the comments of publishable quality. But I just don't buy that his motivation was to stifle dissent. Plenty of other places on the internet for people to voice their displeasure. The Times doesn't need to provide a space for people to crap all over them.

 

[adonis]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.No shame.

Vile? Really?

 

[dickey moe]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

Tell us what it might be.

It seems to me that there's a difference between disabling comments on a blog (which happens on many blogs, including the generally conservative Volokh Conspiracy) and labelling dissent unpatriotic or traitorious. It certainly seems different to me. I was told by people on FBG's that I was unAmerican (or that I should have been tortured by Uday and Qusay Hussein) when I opposed the Iraq war. And yes, I was accused of not appreciating 9/11 back then. That seemed different, to me, to not being able to comment on Chuck Klosterman's latest bit of stupidity on Grantland.

You don't see any real difference between Klosterman's routine commentary on Grantland and Krugman's specific commentary on 9/11 where he states "Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror?"

 

[dickey moe]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.No shame.

Vile? Really?

Extremely so.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Nice to see that Krugman took the courageous route of disallowing comments.

"Remember those horrible days when dissenters were denounced as traitors? That was terrible, wasn't it? Oh and by the way, if you want to comment on this post, go suck an egg."

Really? You think that's what's going on here?

I think an intelligent, thoughful person might have the self-awareness to realize that (1) blasting others for squelching dissent while (2) disabling comments from people who might disagree with you sends sort of a mixed message. I don't think Krugman did that deliberately. On the contrary, the fact that he's too thoughtless to even see the issue is why he's a tool.

 

[adonis]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.No shame.

Vile? Really?

Extremely so.

Why?

 

[scoobygang]

You don't see any real difference between Klosterman's routine commentary on Grantland and Krugman's specific commentary on 9/11 where he states "Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror?"

Whether I agree or disagree with that statement (and I definitely think all three of those politicians used 9/11 somewhat cynically, but I can't say that a Democratic administration would have done differently), the specific challenge was to Ivan comparing the act of disabling comments on a blog to that of calling anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic. I think that's a lousy comparison.

 

[dickey moe]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.No shame.

Vile? Really?

Extremely so.

Why?

See numerous previous posts.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Whether I agree or disagree with that statement (and I definitely think all three of those politicians used 9/11 somewhat cynically, but I can't say that a Democratic administration would have done differently), the specific challenge was to Ivan comparing the act of disabling comments on a blog to that of calling anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic. I think that's a lousy comparison.

Probably true since to determine whether or not something is unpatriotic would dictate that you listened in the first place.

 

[dickey moe]

You don't see any real difference between Klosterman's routine commentary on Grantland and Krugman's specific commentary on 9/11 where he states "Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror?"

Whether I agree or disagree with that statement (and I definitely think all three of those politicians used 9/11 somewhat cynically, but I can't say that a Democratic administration would have done differently), the specific challenge was to Ivan comparing the act of disabling comments on a blog to that of calling anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic. I think that's a lousy comparison.

Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Why do you think Krugman refused to accept comments on his blog?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You don't see any real difference between Klosterman's routine commentary on Grantland and Krugman's specific commentary on 9/11 where he states "Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror?"

Whether I agree or disagree with that statement (and I definitely think all three of those politicians used 9/11 somewhat cynically, but I can't say that a Democratic administration would have done differently), the specific challenge was to Ivan comparing the act of disabling comments on a blog to that of calling anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic. I think that's a lousy comparison.

I don't think they're exactly identical. Agreed on that part. I know you're a bright guy. When you're typing up a post in a thread like this, you're already thinking about how people are going to respond, and you're conciously looking for any possible holes or loose ends in your post so you can deal with them yourself before someone points them out to you, right? Would you write up a post praising the importance of dissent and criticizing censorship, and then turn around in the next paragraph and tell people that you're not going to listen to responses? I think you and fatguy would both instantly see a potential "issue" there before you hit the reply button.

 

[adonis]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.No shame.

Vile? Really?

Extremely so.

Why?

See numerous previous posts.

Didn't see anything that explained such a reaction. Hard for me to get that level of indignation from his comments, even though I disagree with him.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.No shame.

Vile? Really?

Extremely so.

Why?

Conservatives hate to be reminded of their failings, so to do so violates the new political correctness. It was okay while the buildings were still on fire to blame Clinton's policies for the attacks, but 10 years later it remains verboten to even mention that within hours the Bush administration was going to use it an opportunity to do things it couldn't do before. What was it Rumsfield said tie up all things related and unrelated?

 

[scoobygang]

Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Why do you think Krugman refused to accept comments on his blog?

For the same reason that Rush Limbaugh isn't really interested in serious conversation with liberals on his radio show. Or Bill O'Reilly cuts people's mics. He's not interested in having the conversation in his forum. This is not surprising. It's not as if **** Cheney lets me come on after all his media appearances and give my perspective. Krugman obviously knew he was writing something controversial. And in fact, I don't particularly agree with his first column. I'd have simply said that I felt our reaction to 9/11 was one of the many tragedies of 9/11 and left it at that. But we both know that even if that were all he had said, he'd have gotten much the same reaction. Because any ambivalence at all about the event is considered offensive to the victims to some people. It's "politicizing the anniversary." Which is true, but which seems to me to at least no worse than those who politicized the event in the first place.I'm not really here to defend Paul Krugman. I think he's a smart economist and a shrill, strident political pundit. I don't particularly like that from my side, which is why I don't listen to MSNBC or go to the Democratic Underground. But the fact of the matter is that this stuff offends conservatives who have no problem with their own shrill mouthpieces.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm not really here to defend Paul Krugman. I think he's a smart economist and a shrill, strident political pundit. I don't particularly like that from my side, which is why I don't listen to MSNBC or go to the Democratic Underground. But the fact of the matter is that this stuff offends conservatives who have no problem with their own shrill mouthpieces.

Casting a pretty wide net there.

 

[dickey moe]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.

I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.

No shame.

Vile? Really?

Extremely so.

Why?

Conservatives hate to be reminded of their failings, -- most everyone hates this

so to do so violates the new political correctness -- not sure what this is

It was okay while the buildings were still on fire to blame Clinton's policies for the attacks -- yeah, plenty of conservative commentary tried to pin this on Clinton. He definitely could have pursued a tougher anti-terrorism policy, however.

but 10 years later it remains verboten to even mention that within hours the Bush administration was going to use it an opportunity to do things it couldn't do before. -- plenty of commentators have freely criticized Bush for using 9/11 as an impetus for the war against Iraq; 9/11 was used as an opportunity by our government to do plenty of things it couldn't do before.

What was it Rumsfield said tie up all things related and unrelated? -- need to see more here

 

[dickey moe]

Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Why do you think Krugman refused to accept comments on his blog?

For the same reason that Rush Limbaugh isn't really interested in serious conversation with liberals on his radio show. Or Bill O'Reilly cuts people's mics. He's not interested in having the conversation in his forum. This is not surprising. It's not as if **** Cheney lets me come on after all his media appearances and give my perspective. Krugman obviously knew he was writing something controversial. And in fact, I don't particularly agree with his first column. I'd have simply said that I felt our reaction to 9/11 was one of the many tragedies of 9/11 and left it at that. But we both know that even if that were all he had said, he'd have gotten much the same reaction. Because any ambivalence at all about the event is considered offensive to the victims to some people. It's "politicizing the anniversary." Which is true, but which seems to me to at least no worse than those who politicized the event in the first place.

I'm not really here to defend Paul Krugman. I think he's a smart economist and a shrill, strident political pundit. I don't particularly like that from my side, which is why I don't listen to MSNBC or go to the Democratic Underground. But the fact of the matter is that this stuff offends conservatives who have no problem with their own shrill mouthpieces.

Sure, but it's a two-way street. Another fact of the matter is that this stuff doesn't offend liberals who have lots of problems with opposing shrill mouthpieces. And that's what I would expect from both sides with particularly strong points of view.

 

[scoobygang]

Casting a pretty wide net there.

I've been around here a lot. If Dickie Moe wants to show me all the threads where he's been outraged by something Limbaugh or O'Reilly said, he can be my guest, and I'll admit my error if my perception is wrong. Hey, I even tried to start a thread where people were supposed to call out their own. It wasn't very popular.I do give Ivan credit for calling out the Republicans in the debt ceiling debacle.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Krugman doubles down on his hard 12:

It looks as if I should say a bit more about yesterday's anniversary. So:

The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq. It's probably worth pointing out that I'm not saying anything now that I wasn't saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there's nothing I've done in my life of which I'm more proud.

It was a time when tough talk was confused with real heroism, when people who made speeches, then feathered their own political or financial nests, were exalted along with – and sometimes above – those who put their lives on the line, both on the evil day and after.

So it was a shameful episode in our nation's history – and it's one that I can't help thinking about whenever we talk about 9/11 itself.

Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren't lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.

But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it's a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

Interesting choice of words. This could be said about the current administration.

 

[RCon]

Casting a pretty wide net there.

I've been around here a lot. If Dickie Moe wants to show me all the threads where he's been outraged by something Limbaugh or O'Reilly said, he can be my guest, and I'll admit my error if my perception is wrong. Hey, I even tried to start a thread where people were supposed to call out their own. It wasn't very popular.I do give Ivan credit for calling out the Republicans in the debt ceiling debacle.

I'd guess the reason that particular thread wasn't very popular is because you'll find that most of the reasonable people on each side (e.g. IvanK on the conservative/libertarian "side" and you or bigbottom on the liberal "side") don't particularly enjoy folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, etc., so don't watch or listen to them regularly. I'm pretty conservative/libertarian, but I'd have a hard time calling out Limbaugh because I don't like him and don't watch him, and therefore have no idea what his latest rant is about.

 

[Slapdash]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

The Years of ShameIs it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

Perhaps yesterday wasn't the day to have the discussion, but it's certainly a discussion worth having. Calling him a slimeball and suggesting all of his work is tainted because you believe yesterday wasn't the right day to have a much needed, adult conversation about how the nation's emotions were manipulated and used to justify what turned out to be a foreign policy and fiscal train wreck is ridiculous.

Just for the record, I'm the one who called him a slimeball, and I stand by that. This is the guy who didn't even wait for the blood to dry in the Giffords shooting before he was out there blaming it all on on Republicans, with never even a hint of a retraction or apology. And then there's yesterday's blog post in which he politicizes the 9/11 anniversary while blasting others for (allegedly) doing the same. And the general pattern of day-to-day hate that he serves up for his readers. Unlike most people in this thread, I'm pretty well-positioned to have a take on Krugman's economic views, and I generally agree with him when it comes to his overall philosophy of how the macroeconomy works and how to build and interpret economic models. (I'm a microeconomist, not an macroeconomist, but it's not like I haven't had some training in that part of the field). But that doesn't change the fact that he really is a loathesome person.

His blog postings have become pretty awful in recent months on this front. In the past it seemed he kept his vile more in the columns and his blog was more analysis and discussion based. It is sad to watch, but I find I read him much more rarely because of it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Casting a pretty wide net there.

I've been around here a lot. If Dickie Moe wants to show me all the threads where he's been outraged by something Limbaugh or O'Reilly said, he can be my guest, and I'll admit my error if my perception is wrong. Hey, I even tried to start a thread where people were supposed to call out their own. It wasn't very popular.I do give Ivan credit for calling out the Republicans in the debt ceiling debacle.

I'd guess the reason that particular thread wasn't very popular is because you'll find that most of the reasonable people on each side (e.g. IvanK on the conservative/libertarian "side" and you or bigbottom on the liberal "side") don't particularly enjoy folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, etc., so don't watch or listen to them regularly. I'm pretty conservative/libertarian, but I'd have a hard time calling out Limbaugh because I don't like him and don't watch him, and therefore have no idea what his latest rant is about.

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

That actually gives me some solace.Thanks for sharing.

 

[Chadstroma]

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

Yea, they just put Rachel Maddow as their avatar.

 

[Slapdash]

Casting a pretty wide net there.

I've been around here a lot. If Dickie Moe wants to show me all the threads where he's been outraged by something Limbaugh or O'Reilly said, he can be my guest, and I'll admit my error if my perception is wrong. Hey, I even tried to start a thread where people were supposed to call out their own. It wasn't very popular.I do give Ivan credit for calling out the Republicans in the debt ceiling debacle.

I'd guess the reason that particular thread wasn't very popular is because you'll find that most of the reasonable people on each side (e.g. IvanK on the conservative/libertarian "side" and you or bigbottom on the liberal "side") don't particularly enjoy folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, etc., so don't watch or listen to them regularly. I'm pretty conservative/libertarian, but I'd have a hard time calling out Limbaugh because I don't like him and don't watch him, and therefore have no idea what his latest rant is about.

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

I caught some Shultz the other night for the first time. I don't know why anyone would watch that crap, even if they were liberal.

 

[pantagrapher]

Casting a pretty wide net there.

I've been around here a lot. If Dickie Moe wants to show me all the threads where he's been outraged by something Limbaugh or O'Reilly said, he can be my guest, and I'll admit my error if my perception is wrong. Hey, I even tried to start a thread where people were supposed to call out their own. It wasn't very popular.I do give Ivan credit for calling out the Republicans in the debt ceiling debacle.

I'd guess the reason that particular thread wasn't very popular is because you'll find that most of the reasonable people on each side (e.g. IvanK on the conservative/libertarian "side" and you or bigbottom on the liberal "side") don't particularly enjoy folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, etc., so don't watch or listen to them regularly. I'm pretty conservative/libertarian, but I'd have a hard time calling out Limbaugh because I don't like him and don't watch him, and therefore have no idea what his latest rant is about.

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

Hell, I don't even watch Maddow. Or (gasp) John Stewart and Steven Colbert (although I occasionally watch select segments online). I tend to dislike TV politics in general. I prefer reading stuff. The only reason some of Krugman's political blog posts rankle me is because I know some people will use it as an excuse to dismiss him in general. But I understand why he does it. He believes these are important issues, that they shape the political realities that make the economic policies he advocates impossible to implement. And so he feels he can't simply ignore them. So despite how I might feel about it at times, I can't really say I wish he would stop.

 

[Chadstroma]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

The Years of ShameIs it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

It's sad that many on the right cannot read the excellent economic analysis from Krugman because they disagree with his political views.

While I appreciate your pity, you can rest assured that I have nothing but respect for Krugman as an economist, and I find his economic columns consistently engaging. Thanks for looking out for my well-being though.

Wasn't really thinking of you when I typed that. You're one of the more level-headed people that I regularly disagree with.

Obviously do not understand what 'discount' means as much as you seem to missed that I have read one of his books. But continue with your enlightened pity party.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

Yea, they just put Rachel Maddow as their avatar.

If you can't see the difference between Maddow and the other clowns being named, you're beyond help.

 

[Chadstroma]

Perhaps yesterday wasn't the day to have the discussion, but it's certainly a discussion worth having. Calling him a slimeball and suggesting all of his work is tainted because you believe yesterday wasn't the right day to have a much needed, adult conversation about how the nation's emotions were manipulated and used to justify what turned out to be a foreign policy and fiscal train wreck is ridiculous.

All of his work is tainted and not because of his timing in talking but rather his unrestrained political partisanship and bias. Just as much as you would discount any work from a prolific conservative in a field that they have expertise in. If someone unveils their political slant in many ways there is no reason to expect or believe that they do not carry that same political slant into a field where they have expertise.

 

[Slapdash]

Casting a pretty wide net there.

I've been around here a lot. If Dickie Moe wants to show me all the threads where he's been outraged by something Limbaugh or O'Reilly said, he can be my guest, and I'll admit my error if my perception is wrong. Hey, I even tried to start a thread where people were supposed to call out their own. It wasn't very popular.I do give Ivan credit for calling out the Republicans in the debt ceiling debacle.

I'd guess the reason that particular thread wasn't very popular is because you'll find that most of the reasonable people on each side (e.g. IvanK on the conservative/libertarian "side" and you or bigbottom on the liberal "side") don't particularly enjoy folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, etc., so don't watch or listen to them regularly. I'm pretty conservative/libertarian, but I'd have a hard time calling out Limbaugh because I don't like him and don't watch him, and therefore have no idea what his latest rant is about.

Not even the "unreasonable liberals" like myself watch Olbermann or Shultz.

Hell, I don't even watch Maddow. Or (gasp) John Stewart and Steven Colbert (although I occasionally watch select segments online). I tend to dislike TV politics in general. I prefer reading stuff. The only reason some of Krugman's political blog posts rankle me is because I know some people will use it as an excuse to dismiss him in general. But I understand why he does it. He believes these are important issues, that they shape the political realities that make the economic policies he advocates impossible to implement. And so he feels he can't simply ignore them. So despite how I might feel about it at times, I can't really say I wish he would stop.

The Daily Show is the only program I make sure to watch every day. Great stuff.

The rest of the TV news media I have no interest in. I mostly just read a wide range of economist's blogs for my news on this type of stuff. If I want the partisan mudslinging, I'll just visit the FFA.

 

[adonis]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

The Years of ShameIs it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

It's sad that many on the right cannot read the excellent economic analysis from Krugman because they disagree with his political views.

While I appreciate your pity, you can rest assured that I have nothing but respect for Krugman as an economist, and I find his economic columns consistently engaging. Thanks for looking out for my well-being though.

Wasn't really thinking of you when I typed that. You're one of the more level-headed people that I regularly disagree with.

Obviously do not understand what 'discount' means as much as you seem to missed that I have read one of his books. But continue with your enlightened pity party.

Excellent.Ok, I've got:1) Sad Party hats2) Depressing Kazoos3) Greyscale ConfettiPity party back on!

 

[Chadstroma]

Why does that bother you guys so much?

Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

It is a great example of what you just said. This guy shows an incapability of being anything but partisan with a strong liberal bias so when it comes to a subject where he is a noted expert in, I can not take what he says without a truckload of salt. I do not care if all liberals think this, it is just a red flag that screams that this persons worldview is skewered.

Perhaps his world view is informed by his view of economics? Perhaps what he sees in the underlying economy, vs what people in one party or another are saying, makes him a bit biased against that party?Regardless, dude is an elite economist, and he has some pretty entertaining opinions that spawn discussion. If you simply stuck with the conservative "economists" with their conservative ideologies, you'd have believed we'd be experiencing high inflation right now, along with other issues they got wrong, while Krugman and his liberal leanings, correctly predicted.

Actually... inflation is outstripping growth. The major reason why inflation is not a huge problem is because growth is so anemic. When we are on a 3%+ clip of inflation yet only managing 1% growth- that is nothing to get excited about. What has happened is that the current governments policies have failed so miserably that inflation has not become a major problem. However, it is still a specter over the future economy when the economy finally does actually get healthy again.

 

[Slapdash]

What is Olberman up to nowadays?

 

[Chadstroma]

Why does that bother you guys so much?

Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

It is a great example of what you just said. This guy shows an incapability of being anything but partisan with a strong liberal bias so when it comes to a subject where he is a noted expert in, I can not take what he says without a truckload of salt. I do not care if all liberals think this, it is just a red flag that screams that this persons worldview is skewered.

Additionally, you say he's incapable of being anything but partisan, yet he's been blasting the Obama administration on economic decisions for months and years now. From before the stimulus was passed, he was criticizing it. Sure, the criticism is coming from the "left" but still, he's got his values and he doesn't simply tow a party line.

So, your defense of him is that he is not biased because he is willing to attack those within his own favorite party when they are not as far left as he would like? Ok, well, since you put it that way- I think that I will from now on accept everything he says with the purity of unbiased thought.

 

[adonis]

Why does that bother you guys so much?

Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

It is a great example of what you just said. This guy shows an incapability of being anything but partisan with a strong liberal bias so when it comes to a subject where he is a noted expert in, I can not take what he says without a truckload of salt. I do not care if all liberals think this, it is just a red flag that screams that this persons worldview is skewered.

Additionally, you say he's incapable of being anything but partisan, yet he's been blasting the Obama administration on economic decisions for months and years now. From before the stimulus was passed, he was criticizing it. Sure, the criticism is coming from the "left" but still, he's got his values and he doesn't simply tow a party line.

So, your defense of him is that he is not biased because he is willing to attack those within his own favorite party when they are not as far left as he would like? Ok, well, since you put it that way- I think that I will from now on accept everything he says with the purity of unbiased thought.

:sigh::hands Chad a mournful kazoo:

Knock yourself out kid.

 

[Chadstroma]

Krugman doubles down on his hard 12:

It looks as if I should say a bit more about yesterday’s anniversary. So:The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq. It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.It was a time when tough talk was confused with real heroism, when people who made speeches, then feathered their own political or financial nests, were exalted along with – and sometimes above – those who put their lives on the line, both on the evil day and after.So it was a shameful episode in our nation’s history – and it’s one that I can’t help thinking about whenever we talk about 9/11 itself.Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud.But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

Seems like a more measured comment than the earlier one.

When a number of rational people smack you over the head because of your moronic comments, you tend to either try to bend them back in line or apologize. He obviously is trying to do some bending.