Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Modern liberalism with Paul from the Times

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Generally speaking, to me, Paul Krugman – the ever-embittered Princeton professor and New York Times columnist - is a largely irrelevant, morally-bereft wordsmith whose perpetual lack of depth is equaled only by his moral depravity.

His hatred of anything and everything on the right, without ever acknowledging that perhaps conservatives sometimes have genuinely noble motives, is so overt that he has become both the living embodiment and a parody of the twenty-first-century liberal. It is impossible to imagine a conservative satirist who could be any more outrageous than the embarrassingly “legitimate” Krugman. He is a genuine humiliation - a knee-jerk emoter of fast fodder and ideological graffiti ... and now, a bona fide coward to boot (which I will explain in a moment).

To be a conservative in Krugman's pitiful and morose universe means that one's motives are always sinister - inescapably driven by selfishness, greed and any number of phobias and "isms."

In a blog posted Sunday, the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Krugman wrote:

"What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The 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." 

While I consider myself a reasonably intelligent human being, capable of grasping even the most shallow concepts of today’s leftist, I have no idea what he is talking about in most of that paragraph, even after reading it several times.  I mean, literally, I haven't a clue what he is saying.

“Deeply shameful?”

What was deeply shameful? Who was deeply shameful?

What is it I'm supposed to know but won't admit?


My inability to comprehend him aside, I would like to help Mr. Krugman out on one point that I can speak to. For the sake of accuracy, I ask: Who really made 9/11 and its aftermath a "wedge" issue?

Let’s summarize with these two rhetorical questions: Wasn't it just about every Democrat who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? And wasn't it just about every Democrat who supported military action against Iraq until it occurred to them that George W. Bush was a member of the other party?

A rudimentary look at the record will show, unmistakably, that it was the left that made 9/11 and its aftermath political, not the right.

Next, what does he mean by the revolting phrase "fake heroes?"

Again, "What?"

What a disgusting, reprehensible term to use to describe honorable and noble public servants faced  with the monumental task of having to maintain order, protect citizenry and stand strong after the worst terrorist attack in this nation's history. It takes a special kind of piece of crap (pardon me) to call these men who put their country first as "fake heroes." It is absolutely disgraceful, by any reasonable measure.

Honestly, it's difficult to take anything seriously from a columnist who comes across more as a sulking, narcissistic adolescent than a thinker. Hell, Krugman himself couldn't even handle the "shameful" ceremonies and commemorations surrounding the ten year anniversary of 9/11, as evidenced by his pathetic blog, without sounding like he needed a lexapro milkshake; how do you think he would have handled the mayhem and carnage a decade ago? And what would he have done to make the ceremonies on Sunday more palatable to him?

Additionally, what would the criteria be for a real hero according to the Krugman Handbook of Life and Other Maladies?

Note Krugman never defines what he actually means by "fake heroes." 

Not that it matters.

The phrase is catchy enough to serve as intellectual ammunition for the bumper-sticker and college-debate-team set.

And what's this "raced to cash in on the horror" stuff?

Again I ask, "What??"

Krugman sounds like a hormonal teenage girl emoting into the pages of her diary.

How exactly did Kerik, Giuliani and Bush "cash in" on the deaths of nearly 3000 innocents? And what does Krugman mean that they raced to do so?  

Is Krugman suggesting that all three were too quick to respond to the horrors of that day? That they (and presumably others) were fueled by selfish and sinister motives in putting themselves out in front of the cameras and microphones as much as possible during an ongoing state of national emergency? That they were in it for personal gain while attempting to lead in a time of crisis?

What a sack of excrement Paul Krugman makes himself out to be.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but isn’t one of the liberal anti-Bush talking points the fact that the president actually  took too long to react to 9/11? Wasn't that the complaint? That he spent too much time reading to the children before doing anything?

Krugman continues:

"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?"

This passage might as well be comprised of random consonants and hodgepodge vowels strung together in some sort of semi-coherent cadence, because, once again, I truly don't know what the hell he is saying.

Who behaved badly? In what way? In what context?

And what was "happening," according the Krugman? What was it the pundits should have understood?


What in the world is this man talking about? I'm not kidding. A raccoon with a brick tied around its tongue, submerged in a vat of canola oil would be more coherent. 

Mr. Krugman calls this particular blog entry "Years Of Shame."

Again, what "shame," Mr. Krugman?

Being the leftist he is, he undoubtedly meant to say that any shame surrounding the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath should rest with us, the United States of America (or at the very least, conservative Americans). 

But if there is some sort of shame to be had, shouldn’t it sit with the Islamic world? After all, is it unreasonable to think that good Muslims would be ashamed of what evil Muslims did in the name of their religion?

And that’s the key: “Committing evil in the name of Islam.”

You'll never hear anything like that from the left, however. 

It was the Germans who bombed London in 1940.

It was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941.

It was the British who attacked colonial positions at Breed's and Bunker Hills in 1775 .

But it was generic "terrorists" who hijacked four airplanes and used them as missiles against targets in the United States in 2001.

Krugman goes on to say that the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned, but never explains how. He says the nation, in its heart, knows it.

We do?

What do we know?

What a miserable, angry man Paul Krugman is. 

Unfortunately, his "everyone-on-the-right-is-bad" routine is not an isolated way of thinking on the modern left.  How many major liberals (from politicians to pundits) actually believe conservatives want to do what's best for the country but are simply going about it wrong? 

Go ahead and make the list. I'll wait.

It's always personal with Krugman and his smear merchants. It's always about greed. It's always about people like me hating some group. It's never just a plain old disagreement in policy.

By contrast, I (and every other conservative I know) do not think everyone on the left is sinister simply because they lean that way.  We do think, however, they are damn wrong ... and we have history on our side to prove it. (Remember, many on my side were opposed to both stimulus packages: Obama's and Bush's. Liberalism is wrong, even when implemented by Republicans).

I will give credit where credit is due: Both former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden gave moving and perfectly appropriate speeches on Sunday.

Good for them. Well done.

By the way, is it any surprise that Krugman did not allow anyone to comment to his "fake heroes" blog? He said he did it that way for "obvious reasons."

A moral moron and a coward.



  1. Well said, Andrew.

    "isn’t one of the liberal anti-Bush talking points the fact that the president actually took too long to react to 9/11?... That he spent too much time reading to the children before doing anything?"

    Cognitive dissonance is the hallmark of the modern Leftist.

  2. Easily to explain why you don't understand his article - he hasn't been taking his medications.