Sandy Hook School Shooting

Krugman, Sandy Hook School Shooting, and the Conscience of a Liberal

|

That's Paul Krugman, commenting on Friday's school shooting in Connecticut. Yes, life must go on, professor, but one wonders why you felt a need to reference the "horror in Connecticut" at all if it doesn't add itself to your or your readers' utility function.

Anyway, hope the rest of your weekend went swell.

Click through image for original post.

Hat tip: Philippe Lacoude.

NEXT: If Government Aid Programs Were Charities, Would Anybody Recommend Giving Money to Them?

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. I’ll give him this: at least the stupid bastard didn’t use the incident as a bloody platform for whatever social issue he wants to push.

    1. His latest column is even more loaded up with stupid.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12…..llion.html

      In sum, a trillion dollar deficit is no big deal.

    2. Plus, he went for the Lumineers instead of, say, Foster the People.

  2. “I have nothing useful to say.”

    My god. Krugabe is developing self-awareness.

    1. That’s more scary than SkyNet becoming self-aware.

    2. The Mayans were right; the end is nigh.

    3. Or his editor replaced a thousand word exposition on the stimulus benefits of Sandy Hook with that sentence.

  3. what exactly is the complaint here? not all krugman bashing is necessary or honorable

    1. not all krugman bashing is necessary or honorable

      Does not compute.

    2. libertard| 12.17.12 @ 10:58AM |#
      …”not all krugman bashing is necessary or honorable”…

      Yes. Yes it is. The man is to be pilloried from the time he awakens in the morning until his last breath before falling asleep. And visited with nightmares in between.

      1. Keynsianism makes me uncomfortable!!

        1. ^HAHAHAHAHA! Jesus. Click on this guy’s name. His first tweet is to Steven Crowder, the guy who got punched by a union thug. He talks about how glad he is that Crowder got punched and tells him to ‘suck Koch.’

          The_Choctaw is everything I expect out of a terrible, idiotic, violent leftist.

        2. Show me on the doll where Keynesianism touched you.

          1. Dolls have wallets?

    3. With as much stupid as Krugabe has perpetuated, your statement is incorrect.

    4. not all krugman bashing is necessary or honorable

      ….

      please to provide an example of anything ‘non-idiotic’ the man has written since 2008

      Failing that… the bashing will continue

  4. I have nothing useful to say.

    Period.

    The end.

  5. not all krugman bashing is necessary or honorable

    Are you at Bob Evans now?

  6. “Anyway, hope the rest of your weekend went swell.”

    I don’t. I hope his hemorrhoids gave him hell all weekend.

  7. Yeah, why is Reason even commenting on this? He was perfectly respectful, didn’t use the moment as a soapbox and posted something meant to cheer people up in the wake of a tragedy.

    He’s just about the only person in media we shouldn’t be making fun of right now.

    1. Hit&Run; is a catch-all for all the happenings in the web. Nick was just pointing out the irony in saying “we should move on” from the “horrors in Connecticut” while also saying “I have nothing useful to say.”

      I don’t think there’s any bashing.

      1. Why no Huckabee bashing here? He said the absolute craziest things on the shootings.

        1. Ask and ye shall receive.

          1. Not only did they mock Huckabee, they mocked Geraldo for saying he wanted an armed cop in every school. Half the people on the list are Republicans, but Shrike doesn’t think we bash Republicans.

          2. Thanks.

            I stand corrected.

            The Huckster is vastly entertaining and would have added greatly to the GOP Clown Car of 2012.

        2. Why no Huckabee bashing here?
          Everyone knows Huckabee’s a moron. Liberals think Krugnuts is smart.

        3. There’s been plenty of Huckabee bashing around here in the past. Pointless comment.

          Huckabee is a big government statist. He’s not exactly a popular guy around here. But that’s even more true of Bush and you can’t STFU about him for a minute.

    2. While I agree they should be heaping disdain upon many other targets, there is ALWAYS room to show what a vapid scumbag Kruggernuts is.

    3. Well, Kruggles could say it, but if Reason had posted that exact post as its response to the shooting, media outlets would be pillorying Hit&Run; as the height of oblivious, monocled sociopathy.

      1. Wait, you think that if Hit and Run had posted the Krugman post major media outlets would be pillorying Reason? I hardly ever hear a major media outlet mention Reason, except for Stossel on Fox. There’s no way they’d give a shit if Reason posted something like that.

        The Connecticut shooting is making everyone paranoid, including in this comment section.

    4. Yeah, why is Reason even commenting on this? He was perfectly respectful, didn’t use the moment as a soapbox and posted something meant to cheer people up in the wake of a tragedy.

      Then don’t say anything!

      I think the worst thing is the world is that no one will just STFU about this.

      1. Couldn’t you say the same thing about Reason posting about Paul Krugman? If Krugman shouldn’t be saying anything, then why should Reason?

        1. I don’t want to speak for Randian, but I’m guessing that’s his point.

  8. At least he amitted to having nothing useful to say for once. Now if only he would extend that to, well, every other subject he feels compelled to bloviate about.

    1. Which means pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth.

  9. Am I the only one that sees these school shootings as a part of everyday life?

    Seriously, people die every day over one cause or another. More security or less guns isn’t going to change this basic fact of life.

    The only thing that could’ve saved those children would’ve been an armed teacher/teachers.

    1. I’m with you.

    2. You can’t help but have an emotional reaction to stuff like this, but yeah, there’s 100 million children in the US and every year 1500 of them get murdered.

      1. You aren’t counting the ones that were unlucky enough to have not passed through the birth canal yet.

        But not a single tear shed by a progressive over one of them.

        Why don’t we just call all children fetuses until they are 26, then killing them won’t cause any undue sadness.

        1. You aren’t counting the ones that were unlucky enough to have not passed through the birth canal yet.

          And you may be mistakenly counting them.

    3. Absolutely.

      But the ultimate goal of the leftists is the complete feminization and subservience to government for the entire country.

      This is why they cannot win, in the end. If they would succeed in their goals, we will be overran and ruled by someone else. Most likely, Muslims who are not feminized and not afraid to fight.

      I have had leftists tell me straight up that if we were invaded, they will not fight, that the would prefer to live under whatever rule comes, than to fight.

      1. I have had leftists tell me straight up that if we were invaded, they will not fight, that the would prefer to live under whatever rule comes, than to fight.

        I propose an invasion of America.

      2. I have had leftists tell me straight up that if we were invaded, they will not fight, that the would prefer to live under whatever rule comes, than to fight

        I’m sure it went a little like this:

        Fight, are you joking? Why Dahling, that’s what we pay poor Southerners and inner-city ghetto kids for!

  10. God, even Krugman’s musical tastes suck.

  11. I’m surprised he didn’t tout the stimulus effect of mass shootings.

    1. He (or his editor) has just even tact not to. But you damn well know he thought about it.

  12. Uh oh, another uncle Tom on the loose. When are the democrats going to pass a law to keep these guys on the plantation, before their number one tool, the race card, is diminished?

    I don’t think this guy is a good replacement for DeMint, but it will still be fun to watch the Dems stupid reaction.

    Another one of them Uncle Toms

    And, WTF? The only Black in the Democrat controlled Senate? How can that be? Are you telling me that the Dems are a bunch of old white guys!!???

    1. Not just any old white guys, but the most clueless bunch of honkies ever to deem a black man to be ‘clean and articulate.’

      1. Oh, and the party of Robert KKK Byrd.

      1. Carol Mosley Braun?

        Barack Obama?

        1. Obama’s only half black.

        2. Sorry, I meant to write, “the last Black American in the Senate to sleep with Barbara Walters was also a Republican.”

      2. That wasn’t a real black!

      3. Burris(D) would be the last black American in the Senate.

        1. Yeah, we know, and the fact that there hasn’t been another until now is the fault of Boooshhh!! Right?

    2. Apparently Nikki Haley like her Senators like she likes her coffee.

      1. Once you go black, you never go back.

      2. Bald?

        1. Ok, folks, shows over – HM won. Go home – see y’all tomorrow.

  13. This is one of the least objectionable things Krugman ever put into print. He doesn’t want to wallow in the horror, who can really blame him?

    1. He doesn’t really need to, the mini-tyrant wannbe, Bloomturd, is doing everyone elses share of the wallowing for them.

      1. Saddest thing is none of these fucktards sees this situation as anything more than a tool to advance their agenda.

    2. Don’t fall for NYT’s good cop/bad cop routine.

  14. Apparently, the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to picket Sandy Hook elementary with its standard signage.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po…..st-church/

    Should really give the MSM a great opportunity to conflate gun rights people with backwoods Christian extremists–and why would the MSM miss a chance like that?

    1. This just goes to show what horrible people Christians are.

      1. Re: Sparky,

        Those dudes ain’t Christian.

          1. They’re hardly representative of Christianity generally.

            And isn’t it that kind of thinking that makes people want to associate them with gun rights people?

            1. They’re hardly representative of Christianity generally.

              That’s not my problem. Generalizations are the order of the day around here.

            2. Yeah, but most Christians according to the good book will fall for false creeds, and wont get that pie in the sky as a result. If Christianity were viewed as a distillation process, they are like Bacardi 151 to your Miller Lite.

              1. If Christianity were viewed as a distillation process, they are like Bacardi 151 to your Miller Lite.

                Nice! I like that analogy.

          2. Re: Sparky,

            As best as I can tell, they seem to think they’re the only true Christians.

            That would mean that they’re either self-delusional or deranged. Or both.

            Just because they fancy themselves Christian does not mean that everybody else have to participate in their delusion.

            1. That would mean that they’re either self-delusional or deranged. Or both.

              I would say the same thing about any people who fancied themselves as Christians.

              1. Re: Sparky,

                I would say the same thing about any people who fancied themselves as Christians.

                As far as belief in the supernatural goes, I would agree with you. But looking strictly at doctrine and being intellectually honest and objective about it, it is clear the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church is not acting Christian-like.

                It is one thing that Christians believe in supernatural beings and miracles; quite another when a few who do not follow Christian doctrine call themselves “Christian” as a kind of shield against scrutiny and judgment.

                1. quite another when a few who do not follow Christian doctrine call themselves “Christian” as a kind of shield against scrutiny and judgment.

                  From what I understand of these wackos, it is fully their belief that they are the only ones following the true Christian doctrine. If you say that only the largest group gets to decide what the true doctrine is then you run into other problems.

                  1. “From what I understand of these wackos, it is fully their belief that they are the only ones following the true Christian doctrine.”

                    Most protestant denominations believe that. …except for maybe the Unitarians.

                    Come to think of it, the Catholics believe that, too.

              2. I’ll keep your withering scorn in mind, and somehow try to carry on with my deluded and dangerous life.

                1. I’ll keep your withering scorn in mind

                  Who me? I don’t have anything like withering scorn for people who don’t believe what I believe as long as they return the favor.

      2. This just goes to show what horrible people Christians are.

        You think a group of people who spew a message of hate and vengeance best embody the teachings of Jesus Christ, a man sent from Heaven with a message of love and forgiveness for all humanity?

        You have a real distorted view of things. And that is the most I will engage someone who is obviously trolling.

        1. I think he was being sarcastic.

          In which case he was making fun of people who say that this shows what horrible people Christians are.

          It’s hard to get sarcasm in text. I miss it completely all the time.

          Yeah, there are people out there, who say that the WBC is emblematic of Christians generally, but that’s what makes the sarcasm funny.

        2. Every time some Christian equates the Freedom from Religion Foundation with all atheists then I get to equate the Westboro Baptist Church with all Christians.

    2. O.k. will someone who knows more about evangelical thought explain to me the doctrine of God removing his hand of protection.

      1. If we become an insufficiently Christian country, America will no longer receive God’s blessing and support. The idea is that God prevents bad things from happening to his believers and that if angered, He will stop intervening on our collective behalf.

        1. Now I’m curious as to where the idea came from. Scriptural backing (Job maybe), history etc. Google show it’s an idea that seems to come out of evangelical Christianity alone but I can’t figure out who first proposed/popularized it.

          1. I imagine it goes back to The Covenant. In exchange for obedience to His laws, the Jews would be supported and protected from harm by Jehovah. This was extended to the ancient nation of Israel, by God helping them defeat enemy nations.

            The destruction of Israel and the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar could be seen as a a sign of God’s displeasure and removal of His blessing from the land and people (removing God’s hand of protection.)

            Most Christian consider themselves to be in a New Covenant.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

      2. Sorry, can’t help there. I was taught we are judged on how we behave – end, stop. Anything in between may be trial and tribulation, or good and great. How you react is the test.

        Not – “I got 100 million here, Lord – what do you say – force field? Hurricanes shunted aside?”

  15. He doesn’t want to wallow in the horror, who can really blame him?

    I’m inclined to think he just couldn’t devise a satisfactory way to weave this into his stock narrative. He certainly cannot tout the stimulative effect of thousands and thousands of gun and ammo purchases.

    1. Well, those children were a future labor supply, and the teacher had a job, so really it helped unemployment in about 20 years and created a job opening right now.

      Plus, someone’s gotta clean all that blood up and investigate the crime, etc.

      STUMULUS!

      /krugnuts

      1. Not to mention the killer either kicked in or shot out some glass in order to gain access to the school, so….BROKEN WINDOWZ!

  16. Leftists are slobbering all over themselves about this. I’m not saying that at least some of them are not saddened by the losses, but nearly everyone of them are jumping for joy that this happened. There are posts all over the web saying things like ‘It’s about time, now we will get our way!’. Sickening.

    1. And yet somehow libertarians are sociopaths. Go figure.

      1. As has been said so many times before, they are all about ‘feeling good’, logic is thrown out the window.

        Saying that they are going to ‘do something’ to fix this, even though they have no idea what it is, makes them feel good. That’s it.

        The entire idea of collectivism makes them feel good. We are all like one, all friends, all working together, that just makes them feel good.

        But they are simply wrong because any collective will be quickly subdued and oppressed by a small group of sociopaths. It always happens and lots of people get dead, and the dead ones might be the lucky ones, not having to further endure the soul killing oppression.

        1. But they are simply wrong because any collective will be quickly subdued and oppressed by a small group of sociopaths. It always happens and lots of people get dead, and the dead ones might be the lucky ones, not having to further endure the soul killing oppression.

          Accurate description of my life.

    2. They brought the exploitation in full force this time with all the subtlety of a Nazis on Kristallnacht. BTW, Fuck Godwin. He’s not the boss of me.

      1. Don’t forget to remove the singular denotative preposition when switching to plural, chil’ens!

      2. Maybe not, but every leftist alive today believe that they are indeed the boss of you and all the rest of us too.

  17. CT Sen. Lieberman: Video Games, Movies ‘Cause Vulnerable Young Men To Be More Violent’

    I’m curious about what turned Lieberman into a huge gaping pussy. THAT is what I don’t want my kid to be exposed to.

    1. Lack of video games and movies, I would assume.

    2. I’ve heard the same stupid argument ever since Atari came up with Space Invaders, and I am NOT exaggerating.

      The SAME thing was argued when ID Software came up with the Doom games and other first-person shooters. Imbecilic politicians always propose facile explanations as to why evil people act like evil people. Nobody talks about making people accountable for their actions, because if they DID, then there would not be any justification for politicians to exist.

      1. There is not a congressman, even the ‘good ones’, who are fit to polish Carmack’s glasses.

      2. We can’t have individuals treated as such, OM! Everyone must be lumped into a convenient group to explain away their evils and idiosyncrasies. Then, we can DO SOMETHING?, FOR TEH CHILDRUNZ?!

  18. I’ve heard the same discussion on guns, violence and even videogames since the early 1990’s. There’s always the need to blame a thing instead of a person, at least among leftists and materialists.

    Some of the arguments against guns range from the well thought-out (but wrong) to the truly absurd:


    I’m Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time

    The “Second Amendment” was written 220 years ago when 3.9 million people lived in America and the most powerful guns available were single-shot flint-lock muskets.

    The “First Amendment Was Written When People Wrote With Quills” argument.

    It’s true that guns don’t usually kill people unless they are aimed and fired by people, but guns make it much, much easier for people to kill people.

    The “Only Strong Men Or Black Belts Should Be Allowed To Kill Others” argument

    Anyone who thinks a few assault weapons will allow citizens to resist tyranny and overthrow our government hasn’t seen the weaponry our military has developed in the past 200 years. Your little “militia” is going to hold off the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Keep dreaming.

    The “I Never Heard Of The Mujahideen Ever In My Life” argument.

    1. Yeah three really dumb arguments. I especially love the third one, because I once had a wide ranging argument with a leftist. I was still a Republican then, so we argued Iraq and then gun control. He was able to simultaneously assert that:

      a: The Iraqi insurgents would continue to grow stronger and stronger, that there was no way to subdue them and so we should get out of Iraq ASAP.

      b: any kind of American insurgency would be quickly and easily subdued by the US military so the 2nd Amendment was useless.

      Honestly, to me that’s always been the amazing thing about the left. They can simultaneously hold two positions that are direct contradictions, and it doesn’t bother them a bit.

    2. I’m Just Not Ready To Accept That We Have To Have Gun Massacres All The Time

      I have an idea! Just deputize all law abiding citizens. I’m pretty sure the author completely tunes out any gun massacres committed under the color of law (since he has no plan to rein them in).

  19. Who’s cooler, Nick Gillespie or Paul Krugman? Nick has the jacket, Paul has the beard. I guess it’s a draw.

  20. Funny, the lack of self awareness.

    The refrain in the song was “I ain’t nobody’s problem but my own”, a more libertarian than progressive sentiment. When the song started that way, I expected a spoof of libertarianism, you know, the character in the dialogue would be some obnoxious schmuck abusing others and making himself a burden on them, and it would “take a village” to “heal the damage” he caused himself and others.

    But no, Krugman just likes a song, and decides that mentioning a massacre made for a nice warm up band.

  21. Why does anyone even read or listen to Krugman any more? Or the crappy newspaper that publishes him? Or even the Nobel Prize committee? All three have been discredited for years. Let’s move on already.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.