Paul Krugman is a fascinating example of a brilliant mind gone haywire, somewhat like Russell Crowe’s character in A Beautiful Mind.
To commemorate 9/11, the ever-brilliant Krugman published a short blog post titled “The Years of Shame.” In it, he calls Pres. Bush and Rudy Giuliani “fake heroes.” Here’s the meat of the post:
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 [sic] 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.
Actually, I take the “brilliant” comment back, although I’m pretty sure he hears voices in his head. Krugman never had a brilliant, or beautiful, mind. He’s been a morally bankrupt, intellectually elitist, dishonest smear merchant his entire life. No one becomes that disturbed based on life experiences. In fact, I have it on good authority that he attacked a fellow kindergartener for being a “fake hero” after a fire drill.
Yes, coming together as a nation against Islamic terrorism was shameful. It was shameful that President Bush and Rudy Guiliani showed leadership in a time of crisis. It was shameful that America took out one of the world’s most dangerous despots.
Look, you can have objections to the Iraq War, that’s fine. But what the hell does that have to do with the tenth anniversary of 9/11? Why couldn’t Mr. Krugman put politics aside for one day? This is a man who would have commemorated the Pearl Harbor attack by condemming Japanese internment camps. Sure, they were a black mark on the country, but what does that have to do with honoring and remembering the dead?
This is the same man who took to his blog to blame conservatives for the Tuscon shooting:
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before.
And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans
might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a
Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona,
precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her
father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.
Well, Mr. Krugman was wrong on that one. What’s facinating about that blog post is he also made a reference to 9/11:
I see that Sarah Palin has called the shooting “tragic”. OK, a bit of history: right-wingers went wild over anyone who called 9/11 a tragedy, insisting that it wasn’t a tragedy, it was an atrocity.
Well, Mr Krugman, you obviously enjoy playing politics with mass death. During WWII he would have found a way to attack Republicans for the Holocaust.
Issue after issue, time after time, Paul Krugman resorts to stupid and offensive arguments, implying that Republicans hate poor people, insisting that economic success in Texas is a myth, and suggesting that an alien invasion would cure the recession.
Judging by his recent comments about stimulating the economy, like through a fake alien invasion, you would expect Mr. Krugman to tout the upsides of terrorist attacks. Instead, he resorts to a line of reasoning just as toxic, just as hateful, and just as bitter.
UPDATE: Turns out the world’s greatest economist did tout the upside of 9/11:
It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday’s horror.
These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering.
And going into more detail:
So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects.
First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I’ve already indicated, the destruction isn’t big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.
Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use — and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons.
Offensive, inaccurate, and unnecessary.