« Medical Marijuana & the Enemies of Democracy | Main | Herseth-Sandlin v. Nelson Virtual Tie »

Monday, March 29, 2010



Comments seem to be back on line!


It's quite a feat of rhetorical contortion to decry the us of ad hominem in the same paragraph as you refer to a Nobel Prize winner as an idiot. But more to the point, what proof have you that he is.

In an earlier post--the first asserting his idiocy--you mentioned his disputing Senator Kyl's assertion that unemployment benefits are a disincentive to work. You claimed Krugman contradicted himself in one of his own books by citing concerns that generous European unemployment benefits might be a disincentive. That is quite different from saying less generous U.S. benefits are a disincentive and thus there is no contradiction or proof of mental deficiency.

You also claimed a contradiction of sorts because he, in one of his columns, told certain readers to go ahead and hang Senator Lieberman in effigy after decrying inappropriate language emanating from Republican "members of congress" and "senior party officials". As you said yourself, this was hardly a call to real violence and even if is was, Krugman is neither a member of congress or a senior party official. Again, no contradiction and no idiocy.

Now you claim more proof of his less-than-adequate mental capacity is proven by Obama's gun/knife reference while saying--rightly so--that the age-old metaphor is hardly an incitement to violence. Quite honestly, the only contradictions I see are yours. That hardly makes you an "idiot", but I think it means the accusations against Krugman are far from "case closed".


AI, if you need some "target" ads from the Democrats, then here they are. Debunking Paul Krugman has become somewhat of a pastime for some folks - lol.

"Paul Krugman used the megaphone of the NY Times to state that Palin’s Facebook map went “far beyond politics as usual.” He further claimed, “you will search in vain for anything comparably menacing…from members of Congress.” Notice he didn’t say it was hard to find or rare. He said, in effect, that it didn’t exist." Oops, don't these ads from the DLC & DCCC count?

Response to Krugman’s Claim About Violent Rhetoric (Updated)

AND, of course the left NEVER goes too far... "LEFTIST political violence is the real issue in this country and has been for years."

"At least 250 people were arrested outside the Republican Convention last night as police used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse rioters attacking property and blocking roads in protest at the war in Iraq."... "once the main antiwar march had finished, splinter groups embarked on a violent rampage, smashing windows, slashing car tyres, throwing bottles and even attacking Republican delegates attending the nearby Xcel Centre."

The Left only sees their own reflection when they attack their opponents as "racist", "violent", "astroturf", etc. The party I identify with race obsession, violence and phony "astroturf" grassroots organizations is, and has been, the Left and the Democratic Party it's taken control of for the last 43 years.

Describing Paul Krugman as an "idiot" is NOT an ad hominem attack, as the facts seem to bear out the accusation. Case Closed.


A.I.: It's great to have you back!

Reply to paragraph 1: No it's not. That Krugman is an idiot is a conclusion I demonstrate, not a premise I rely on. Therefore I commit no ad hominem. Being a Nobel prize winner is impressive; it provides not immunity to criticism.

2. To say that Republican Jon Kyl misapplied a general principle of economics in this specific case would have been questionable but hardly unreasonable. To say that Republicans live in a different "intellectual and moral universe" from Democrats, and to use as evidence of that Kyl's application of a principle that Krugman himself affirms in print, that is idiotic.

3. Yes, when Krugman blessed hanging Joe Lieberman in effigy, that did not really hint at violence. To say otherwise, in my view, would be idiotic. Krugman suggests that Republicans are hinting at violence by speaking of Armageddon, or by running an ad urging that Nancy Pelosi be fired, or Sarah Palin targeting Democrats in districts selected because they might be vulnerable in the next election. That is just as idiotic.

It is idiotic for a second, more practical reason, as I pointed out. Krugman says: "you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials." Of course Obama's "gun/knife" comment was, as you put it, "an age-old metaphor." But so was the phrase "firing line" that Krugman finds menacing when Sarah Palin uses it. For Heaven's sake, it was the name of Bill Buckley's old debate show, one of the most civilized political shows ever on TV!

You can't have it both ways, my friend. If it would be idiotic to suggest that Krugman's hanging in effigy or the President's gun/knife metaphor hint at real violence, and it would be, then it is equally idiotic to suggest the same about the examples that Krugman produces.

I don't think that Krugman is stupid. He is making transparently stupid arguments and I suppose that means that he can't recognize what he himself is saying. That's what idiocy is.


Either Krugman has lost his memory and his hard drive or he is a liar.

The comments to this entry are closed.