Media

The Agony of Paul Krugman

|

The agony…and the ecstasy.
New York Times

Yesterday afternoon, Paul Krugman shared some angst on his blog:

I hated, hated, hated writing tomorrow's column. Whatever people may imagine, I really dislike weighing in on purely political matters, and am far and away at my happiest translating economic analysis into hopefully understandable English. But nobody would read a piece about health-care accounting or eurozone adjustment problems if I put it out tomorrow, and there are some things I fear won't be said if I don't do it (just as there were during the runup to the Iraq War); so Arizona it is.

The column has now been published. Your assignment: See if you can find a single sentiment in the story that would not have been said if Krugman didn't do it. Hell, see if you can find anything in there that a prominent voice hadn't already said before Krugman put up his blog post. You can leave your findings in the comments.

NEXT: The Shootings in Arizona: A Reading List

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You can leave your findings in the comments.

    [Crickets chirping]

    1. [Wind blowing]

  2. Dear Krugabe-

    You’re pathetic.

  3. I took a shit on a Krugnuts column, once. I basically have the same “comment” for this column.

  4. In fact, Krugabe makes Gail Collins quoting the head of the Brady Campaign about Loughner’s “assault weapon” look like an intellectual giantess.

  5. In defense of mr. k, one can see how he might believe no one would post his observations if he did not do so himself. Considering he concocts most of what he prints from his imagination, it was a good bet.

    1. This is a very good point.

    2. No, you miss the point. People listen to him on areas in which he has some sort of expertise; therefore, for him not to comment on this would be to deprive the world of his thoughts. How could anyone expect him NOT to comment?
      It’s a public service, really.

    3. In defense of mr. k, one can see how he might believe no one would post his observations if he did not do so himself. Considering he concocts pulls most of what he prints from his imagination straight out of his ass, it was a good bet.

      FIFY.

    4. case in point:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..needs-sex/

      In the krugman textbook of biology, the bacteria do the nasty while you’re not looking.

  6. It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

    That reminds me of the infamous words of Criswell at the beginning of Plan 9 from Outer Space: “Can you prove that it didn’t happen?”

    1. The commies burned the Reichstag! No more guns, no more rights, no more elections.

    2. Krugman’s mentally unstable, too. Perhaps he speaks from deeper more intimate experience than we can understand.

      Of course, such comparisons end in implementation. Krugman’s metaphorical gun – like his economics – centers around shooting harmless paper all over the fucking place.

  7. I love how he jumps from Clinton straight to 2008. Because nobody was spouting any kind of political hatred or advocating any kind violence in the period in between.

    I wish I could take back the minute and a half I wasted reading that.

    1. I thought the OC bombing was in retaliation for Waco? What did talk radio have to do with that? In that case, somehow keeping crazy people from watching the news would have been the only way to prevent it.

    2. That’s exactly the comment I was going to leave. At the risk of betraying any sort of intelligence: Dude, serious? In a just world, that shit should get you laughed out of a dinner party.

      BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  8. “It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.”

    He’s right, you know.

  9. “Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent.”

    No word on threat rates against 9 year-old girls, Republican federal judges, and retirees — you know people who actually died.

    1. It would also be interesting to replace every reference to Arizona with Ft. Hood, then contrast with what Krugman actually wrote on the matter.

      1. The Fort Hood thing did seem to get less news coverage. I guess those soliders were probably Republicans so who cares if they die. A prominent Democrat gets shot in the head though and in less than 48 hours, congress is trying to repeal the first amendment.

        1. This. Hasan apparently didn’t murder anyone important enough or anyone politically useful enough for the left, so his act was swept under the rug about two weeks after it happened. Leftists are such sick, demented assholes.

          1. I feel bad for Giffords and her family, but my feeling-badness stems from the fact that she’s a human being, not the fact that she’s a Congresswoman. I suppose it all goes back to the illusion that politicians make sacrifices for the greater good.

        2. Cue Heath Ledger and the speech he gave in The Dark Knight:

          “If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan.” But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”

    2. The more important point is that he’s talking about the period of the health care debate, and we don’t have comparable data for the debates over other hotly contested legislation in recent history (e.g., the debate over NAFTA). So we don’t know if that was an unusually large spike in death threats or if it was typical of what happens when a large number of people is strongly opposed to a bill that is likely to pass.

      And when I say “we don’t know,” I mean “I called every agency I could think of that might have those numbers, and no one would release them.” The feds generally keep information about threats to public figures very close to the vest.

      1. “The feds generally keep information about threats to public figures very close to the vest.”

        Yet they released them this time?

          1. Wow. That couldn’t possibly be self-serving.

  10. Who’d have thought that PhD level economic analysis is actually easier than having a slightly informed view of current events?

    1. Chuckling quietly to myself….

  11. “As David Frum, the former Bush speechwritercolumnist so ignored by the Republican party he joined Crist and Bloomberg in the No Labels campaign, has put it, ‘Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.'”

  12. Loughner should have just used an abortion technique on those people. The Left would be applauding him.

    1. It was reported that he shouted something just before he started shooting. Anybody hear what that was?

      1. “FREEBIRD!”

        1. okay, not funny. well, I laughed, but I didn’t enjoy doing it. stop forcing your absurdist rhetoric on me!

          1. I enjoyed laughing, should I hate myself?

      2. Sic semper tyrannis?

  13. Man I’d like to take a baseball bat to that face. He’s sooooooo punchable.

    SORRY, SORRY. Don’t want to contribute to the already-coarse, troubling and provocative dialogue out there.

    Never mind…

    1. I have thought the same thing many times. He’s like a little furry elf, and he’s begging to be beat up. He’s also that kid in high school whose locker the jocks crapped in.

  14. Anybody catch Pulitzer Prize?-winning, gurgling, stuttering, MSNBC-contributing, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson’s early take on the event? His performance was Streep-like. He became the part. I almost forgot he was acting.

  15. ugggghg.

    Anyway, This American Life had a pretty good episode this week about the fictions underlying central banking and the audacity of the Fed’s actions since 2008.

    1. I was listening to that when I first heard about the shooting.

  16. Whatever people may imagine, I really dislike weighing in on purely political matters…

    I’m pretty sure no one prominent (or anywhere) has said this about him. Okay, okay, it’s from the blog and not from the article, but do I at least get honorable mention or something?

    1. What you’ve really found there is a bald-faced lie. He has both a blog and a NYT column that are both used for the express purpose of using warpped economic analysis to bolster “purely political matters.”

  17. Paul Krugman hates cashing in on his intellectual credentials by publishing standard liberal dreck so much that the New York Times literally has to pay him to do it.

      1. Upon further review, Draco’s call is confirmed. Brad P. is awarded the thread.

        1. I agree. Comments should be closed now; there can be no better comment. Any more would just be anti-climax.

  18. I once thought the competition for Worst Krugman Kolumn Ever was tough. No longer. Jesus.

    1. Wait a few weeks. He’ll probably top it.

  19. http://michellemalkin.com/2011…..2000-2010/

    Malkin has quite a collection. Not that it was hard to find. But wow.

    1. Yeah, I was going to post that but you beat me to it. One set of rules for themselves, and a different set for everyone else. I don’t remember the MSM or The Daily Show or our wonderful Pop Culture idols being all that worried about civil political discourse when Bush, Cheney, and Palin were the(ir) tragets.

      1. If The Daily Show had any comdeic, cultural, or satirical balls they’d do an episode tonight about all the hateful, angry speech leading to the murder of a little girl, a federal judge, and four other innocent people, and use nothing but the images and language from Democrats and the left.

      2. A liberal friend of mine explained to me, without irony, that the difference is that the Republicans deserved it.

    2. There was a thread on reddit where someone posted a similar list in response to someone asking for proof that hateful vitriol comes from the left as well.

      The response from leftists was all “but CONTEXT!” and “yeah but no one actually killed anybody from that rhetoric” etc.

  20. ok, I’m gonna play along with Krugman even though I think he’s wrong.

    Let’s say that the “vitriol” from the right prodded this unstable young man and pushed him into committing this horrible act.

    The question is: Well, what do we do about it?

    For me, that’s the scariest part. They seem to be hinting at speech control. Scary stuff…

    1. It is worse than that. It is not like they want to stop all violent speech. They just want to stop speech on the other side. The things on their side listed in the Malkin link will continue unabated.

    2. They seem to be hinting at speech control.

      They’re not “hinting” at anything. They’re putting together a bill right now.

      1. Let’s hope the sock they try to jam down into your mouth is comfortable! And friendly to the environment!

  21. Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! I couldn’t even read all of the comments on his blog. Every single one was willfully ignoring the fact that they spent 8 years calling Bush a Nazi.

    1. In the final analysis, that is what is so troubling – Can it be that Krugman is as divorced from reality as the shooter?
      Seriously, he appears to equate ANY opposition to healthcare as fascism, klanism, and a desire to seen orphan babies starve, while TRULY (that scary) believing that calling Bush (who, for the record, I think was a bad, bad president) a nazi is objective, and should be no more controversial than stating that this planet is a sphere.
      It is beyond irony that a man who uses invective so much can be so blind to his own hypocrisy – but I guess that is the definition of mental illness.

      1. I think this column is evidence that Krugman should be institutionalized before he can harm himself or others.

  22. Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! I couldn’t even read all of the comments on his blog. Every single one was willfully ignoring the fact that they spent 8 years calling Bush a Nazi.

    1. Stupid double-clicking submit.

    2. Dude who shoots Reagan to get Jodie Foster’s attention == crazy nutter

      Dude who shoots 12 people, killing 6 because he was slighted by his congressperson == regular conservative

    3. Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! I couldn’t even read all the comments on this blog. All the authors had submitted them twice, so there were simply too many of them.

      1. Hey at least I’m not an anon bot or COMMANDER.

        1. COMMANDER has not checked in for a while and I, for one, am disappointed.

  23. Whew, glad he wrote this article, so we no longer have any doubt that Paulie Krugnuts is a despicable human being.

    Shorter version: crazy murderers = conservatives

    Finally, bigger assignment: find a single original thought in any of PK’s idiotic ramblings over the last two decades.

  24. And thus, in reaction to a random shooting spree, Krugman is inspired to go on a random character assassination spree.

    1. Oooooh, an internet celebrity.

  25. Hah, ok Slugman, but when the president makes jokes about drone attacks — and EVERYONE laughs — aren’t we ignoring the actual “eliminationist” ACTIONS of the government to focus on mere rhetoric? Which will make a society more violent: American rough-and-ready DTOM gun culture? Or the actual mass murder perpetrated by the state? But Krugman shies away from criticizing the war by his Leader in case someone somewhere might have lower taxes, which is a worse crime than war for “progressives.”

    1. Nonono, those deaths are regretable, so it’s okay.

  26. If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

    1. And don’t you need to go “find someone’s ass to kick”, Mr. President?

  27. From the link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html

    It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

    Understand that, kiddies? Even if the killer is clearly mentally ill (meaning, not really responsible for his acts), you’re still responsible if you happen to keep the “national climate” hot… I magine, by NOT agreeing with Mr. Krug-nuts; what else?

    And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

    What do you mean “you will”? Is Krug-nuts making some prediction here, or is he trying to imply Beck or O’Reilly have called for gunning down politicians?

    The dishonesty is strong with this one…

    1. No kidding. I think Beck and O’Reilly are obnoxious as hell, but that is complete bullshit.

    2. I’m no fan of Glenn Beck, but the only time I’ve heard him talk about political violence was to condemn it, to say it would be counterproductive in the USA, or to implore his listeners to eschew it.

      I’ve seldom watched O’Reilly, but, WRT to Beck, Krugman is simply full of shit.

    3. Weird, I remember a story not too long ago where Dylan Ratigan was suggesting the time had come for violent revolution.

    4. I believe those dots can be connected. With a pen.

  28. Not that he was literally described as “quite liberal”, was a 9/11 truther and listed the communist manifesto as a favorite book. Explaining these things is above a Times columnist, that’s for the internets or something.

  29. Leave Paul alone! He’s a journalist! If it bleeds, it leads! End of story!

    1. STOP SPELLING MY NAME WRONG!!!

    2. Ow, my bleeding rectum.

    3. Please tell me there’s a video of you crying and screaming this at us…

      “Leave him alone!”

      lmao

  30. I’m having my first endoscopy tomorrow. You know, that procedure where they shove a camera-tube up your Krugman.

    1. That sounds like fun!

    2. That sounds like a great deal of fun!

    3. So that’s why it’s called an endoscopy.

      Do check your, uh, procticioner’s credenzas.

  31. What Krugman has done here is nothing but the liberal intelligentsia’s version of those ignorant, bigoted citizens (thankfully very few of them) going out and beating up on Sikhs and Hindus after the 9/11 bombings.

    Given that Krugman is supposed to be intelligent and educated, there’s actually less moral leeway to be extended to what he’s done here, in my view.

  32. They just can’t stand the fact that we can stand up and talk back now, after being cut out of the conversation for decades. A post at http://www.granitesentry.com. Any input?

  33. I took a shit in Krugman’s beard once.

  34. “Paul Krugman ” is actually a clever
    alias for Comrade Squealer from
    ANIMAL FARM.

    1. Actually his name is an anagram for PARK MAUL GUN.

      Which obviously means he has plans to shoot up a park. Oh teh children!

  35. What do you expect. This is from the same group of people that blame the “poltical climate of the right” for the JFK assassination, even though the guy that shot him was a Commie.

    Fox News, talk radio, etc. is just providing an outlet for the real frustration the majority of Americans are feeling right now. If they really got their wish and were successful in blocking Rush, Beck, Palin, etc. from their free speech rights, which is only a reflection of non-liberal America, it will only make that anger directed at them that much worse.

    Speaking of that JFK guy, didn’t he once say something about what happens when you make peaceful revolution impossible? Kind of ironic on a whole bunch of levels.

    1. Well said. Fox News and Palin and Limbaugh are an important and peaceful outlet for people’s frustraitions. It si the same with talk radio. It gives people a chance to blow off steam and feel like they are heard. If you take that away from people, they will look for other ways to be heard. And then we really will have political violence in this country.

      1. But that anger is mostly being supplied by the likes of Palin and Limbaugh.

        1. Bullshit Tony. And follow the link below. The left has said and done horrible things. And you don’t say a word.

          1. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And lefties in this country don’t tend to pick up guns and shoot people over political differences.

            1. Re: Tony,

              And lefties in this country don’t tend to pick up guns and shoot people over political differences.

              They seem to do so, Tony.

              http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC…../id/382376

              1. It’s so cute how you’re such an independent-minded nonpartisan anarchist who always links to the same right-wing Republican shill rags that John does.

                I don’t think this guy can be pigeonholed in the traditional right/left spectrum (same with Timothy McVeigh, e.g.) He obviously had a psychological disorder of some sort and for all I know never listened to Limbaugh or Olbermann.

                But none of that is an excuse to play dumb about what passes for MAINSTREAM rhetoric on the right these days. It’s rhetoric that should be considered radical and fringe, but has completely taken over a political party. Whether there’s any connection or not, it’s still dangerous, and there is no comparable, highly organized radical rhetoric on the other side.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  It’s so cute how you’re such an independent-minded nonpartisan anarchist who always links to the same right-wing Republican shill rags that John does.

                  “No True Scotsman” fallacy, Tony???

                  I don’t think this guy can be pigeonholed in the traditional right/left spectrum[…]

                  Especially not when he’s clearly so left wing, it’s embarrasing… right?

                  But none of that is an excuse to play dumb about what passes for MAINSTREAM rhetoric on the right these days.

                  “Ok, ok, so the dog was rabid, but that does not mean cats are not awful!”

                  And just as relevant!

                2. Yeah, both sides do it, but since the right does it more, they’re more evil on average.

            2. You’re right, Tony. They like bombs and manifestos.

            3. ” lefties in this country don’t tend to pick up guns”

              NONSENSE.

              Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat.

              Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau, a member of a polyamorous communist cult.

              McKi

              1. McKinley was assassinated by Leon Frank Czolgosz, a socialist inspired by Emma Goldman.

                JFK was assassinated by Oswald, a former resident of the USSR and a Communist.

                1. John Wilkes Booth? Seriously?

            4. Of course not! Lefties don’t OWN guns.

        2. No. Are you paying attention!? These people don’t just become insane and angry by listening to media. At absolute worst it gives form to it, but the crazy requires no supplier. Silencing the rhetoric sounds eerily like a safety clicking off.

        3. Go suck a dick.

        4. Re: Tony,

          But that anger is mostly being supplied by the likes of Palin and Limbaugh.

          Which is why people assembled and voted to kick out a few congresspeople – the same people certainly did not pick up their Kentucky rifles, knapped a few flints and casted some shot.

          You simply happen not to like Sarah’s or Rush’s rethoric, but you cannot say theirs is “violent” or incites to violence just because it’s directed against politicians you happen to agree with.

    2. Being a communist or socialist means never having to apologize for the ones your people murder, because most of them probably had it coming anyway.

    3. “Kind of ironic on a whole bunch of levels.”

      Speaking of irony, consider also that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords read the 1st Amendment in the House last Thursday.

      She gets shot, and the Krugmans of the world start calling for its repeal.

  36. Even if the killer was completely motivated by forces other than the 24/7 partisan antigovernment/xenophobic rhetoric from rightwing media, that doesn’t make what they’re doing OK or any less dangerous. It is not a coincidence, and certainly not something to be ignored, that rightwing terrorist activity heats up during Democratic administrations, and I challenge you to say with a straight face that the likes of Limbaugh have nothing to do with it.

    And OM Krugman is not calling for laws to silence certain types of speech. He’s calling for people to stop engaging in incitement rhetoric.

    1. http://michellemalkin.com/2011…..2000-2010/

      And this is what we had for 8 years under Bush and the last two years under Obama. You dont’ say a word about that. Nor will you ever. So just shut up Tony.

      1. The link to that psychotic bitch’s website doesn’t work.

        Bush failed to prevent the worst terrorist attack in US history, then used it as an excuse to invade a completely unrelated country, enacted a policy of torturing criminal suspects, and oversaw the near-destruction of the economy.

        Obama’s crimes, to his vocal opponents, are being a Democrat and having brown skin. And the worst thing lefties did during Bush, though they had far more cause to challenge the government for its abuses, was show up to free speech zones at the GOP convention and stand there. An arrestable offense under Bush, of course.

        1. I don’t care if the link is to Satan’s website. There is nothing there but the truth. STand up and renounce that shit and show where you did at the time or shut up. Also, I didn’t hear you say a word when gays attacked mormans over the gay marriage iniative in California.

          Your nothing but a two bit paper hanging fascist thug Tony. Everyone knows what you are. Shut up and go away.

          1. I said the link to Satan’s website doesn’t work.

            I’m sure lefties have said many awful things. I don’t care, because I don’t see a threat of actual violence coming from the left in this country, and I fail to see how making a false equivalence absolves the right of anything. This is not a playground.

            1. Go suck a dick, Tony.

            2. “I don’t see a threat of actual violence coming from the left in this country.”

              Nor do I see one from the Right, so go have a nice, big cup of shut-the-fuck-up.

              1. Excuse me if I don’t just assume that there are absolutely no trigger-happy psychopaths listening to the revolutionary rhetoric that has completely taken over rightwing politics since Obama got elected.

                1. “…the revolutionary rhetoric that has completely taken over rightwing politics since Obama got elected.”

                  “COMPLETELY taken over rightwing politics”? That’s among the most hyperbolic horseshit ever uttered on this site.

                  To the extent that ANY “revolutionary rhetoric” (examples of which you fail to provide) has been issued by the political Right (whoever that may be), it is certainly no worse than that which practically dominated the Left during the ’60s (Chicago riots, Weather Underground, SDS, Black Panthers, etc) and the “Bush = Hitler” years from 2000-2008 (and lingers to this day).

                  You can “just assume” whatever you fucking please, but failing to acknowledge the paradigm I just cited makes you an abject fool.

                2. Assumptions are bad; except when I make them.

            3. I’m sure lefties have said many awful things. I don’t care. It’s okay by me.

        2. Go suck a dick, Tony.

          1. Homophobic much, “Pip”?

            1. He’s not afraid, therefore not “phobic”.

              Why don’t YOU go suck a dick, too, Rachel?

        3. The very fact that libtards like you are blaming him for not preventing something that was barely on anyones radar screen 8 months into his job is more offensive than free speech zone protesting.

        4. “He’s calling for people to stop engaging in incitement rhetoric……….psychotic bitch’s”

          I think I found one, Paulie!

    2. Oh please. So even though this may have nothing to do with our bullshit politics, we still have to be afraid of those crazy Tea Partiers, eh? Can’t skip an opportunity to cash in on bloodshed, now can we?

      1. I wouldn’t say a word if the baggers weren’t bending over backward to proclaim their innocence in this matter. Maybe they should just STFU for once.

        When their rhetoric for two years has been all about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants (along with a drooling fascination on the part of the MSM), it’s precious that those people are playing dumb now. You don’t get to go around implicitly calling for armed revolution against the government and then cry foul when someone draws the connection after a Dem congresswoman is shot in the head. Maybe the connection is entirely unfair. That doesn’t make violent incitement rhetoric OK, and this is as good a time as any to say so.

        1. Don’t be his porn.

          If he wants to use those dead people to get his rocks off, he can go find them in the morgue and fuck the bullet wounds personally.

        2. Re: Tony,

          I wouldn’t say a word if the baggers weren’t bending over backward to proclaim their innocence in this matter.

          I have a feeling you would not entertain the possibility the so-called “baggers” WERE innocent and that their proclaim a sound one either way, Tony.

          You don’t get to go around implicitly calling for armed revolution against the government and then cry foul when someone draws the connection after a Dem congresswoman is shot in the head.

          You’re absolutely right – except that calls to violence have come from the left (especially from Socialists) and not conservatives or libertarians.

        3. Go suck a dick, Tony.

          1. Don’t be me.

    3. Re: Tony,

      It is not a coincidence, and certainly not something to be ignored, that rightwing terrorist activity heats up during Democratic administrations[…]

      For instance….?

      1. I’m pretty sure the Oklahoma bombers were teabaggers.

        Also, um, neo-Nazis and stuff. They hate health care.

        Does that answer your question?

        1. PS In case it’s not perfectly obvious, I’m kidding.

        2. Re: Trespassers W,

          Yeah, I know you’re kidding!

          1. You never know who’s left their sarcasm detectors turned all the way down.

            It is true, however, that the Unabomber was an outspoken advocate of school vouchers. His views on campaign finance reform were ambiguous, but also right-wing.

    4. Go suck a dick, Tony.

      1. We get it.

        1. But, you don’t get it. Until you get that you don’t get it, you wont get it.

  37. Anal Pug Murk

    1. an analgram of Kruggie

  38. It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

    Wait – so this is global warming’s fault?

    1. Or racism; sexism; homophobia; male, meat-eating mouth breathers…take your pick.

      1. I pick bacon, pussy and weed.

      2. I still don’t get what mouth breathers means.

        1. It’s an unfair stereotype!

  39. If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.

    Enjoy saying stuff like this while you still can (legally, I mean).

  40. i think its time Target department stores change their name. i fear the violent imagery of a “target” could confuse shoppers. They may believe they’re going to a shooting range, not to buy socks and an end table.

  41. Krugnuts delivers again.

  42. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 ? an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Bill Clinton-elected in 1992.

    Oklahoma City Bombing-1995.

    McVeigh was outraged over the Republican Revolution of 1994 and attacked.

    My narrative>Krugman’s narrative.

    Since we’re just randomly connecting events that have little to nothing to do with each other.

    And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.

    Really? I was thinking “violent rabble” when I saw the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally.

    It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

    Please, Dr. Krugman. Make the connection.

    And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

    So when Rachel Maddow (the most handsome man in punditry today) and Keith Olberweenie use “caustic” (syn. corrosive, destructive, burning, acidic) language, it’s okay, because they’re just being witty.

    But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

    I agree. We should shun all that hateful speech stuff. The next time Krugabe puts up a “class warfare”/eat the rich/”GOPers are of the Devil” piece, we can rightly shun and denounce him as a purveyor of hate.

    1. No, the only ones who should be toning it down is the right-wing. Everyone else should get a free-speech pass.

  43. Excuse me if I don’t just assume that there are absolutely no trigger-happy psychopaths listening to the revolutionary rhetoric that has completely taken over rightwing politics since Obama got elected.

    I’m impressed that Tony can gronk out all these comments while hiding under his bed.

  44. It is not a coincidence, and certainly not something to be ignored, that rightwing terrorist activity heats up during Democratic administrations

    You mean, like lobbing missiles into Third World villages? ‘Cause there’s plenty of that during Democratic administrations.

  45. Gosh, it sure would be terrible if some mentally unstable person were to read my comment and decide to KICK PAUL KRUGMAN IN THE NUTS REPEATEDLY.

  46. Jesus, lots of imbecilic dipshit comments over there. Where are you guys? Why don’t some of the smarter guys in here go tear them some new orifices. God, Krugman is truly awful.

  47. …ironic if one of Krugman’s columns inspired a Loughner copycat killing spree?

    1. …a hundred bucks for the pay-per-view.

    2. That’s impossible. Liberals NEVER commit violence in the name of political beliefs.

  48. I really dislike weighing in on purely political matters

    Let’s see… Can anyone think of any more blatant lie that this clown has ever written?

    -jcr

  49. You are such a sad commentary on your profession (by the way, what is it?) I’ve yet to meet a lower individual than you. Your expoitation of this tragedy where 6 people (that you are unworthy to even speak their names), lost their lives and you proceed to spout lies and distort the facts in such a way that brings further pain to their families. I know I waste my time in writing to you because you have no ability to examine yourself because what you would find is such a small person – not worthy of your time!

  50. If you’re not experiencing some angst over the events in AZ then you must be brain dead. And I say that as someone who is not particularly political but happened on this comment by accident. As far as I can see Krugman’s comments weren’t particularly unreasonable. And I just did a little surf of some of the comments on this thread and based on these Krugman’s contention that political rhetoric is overheated is hardly without foundation.

  51. And btw for those who keep shouting Krugman is stupid. There’s a fair bit of evidence that this in not the case. You may not like his politics but he isn’t by any stretch of the imagination stupid.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.