What the Heck is Wrong With You People?

Yes, you. You know who you are.

You’re liberal; an academic, perhaps, or a writer/journalist/opinion-shaper of some sort. You spout the liberal line (I’m not really sure whether you really believe it, or just realize that it’s a good gig that pays well) to your adoring audience, who gobble it up and regurgitate it to others ad nauseum.

This I can deal with.

What I cannot deal with, what I cannot comprehend, is the dangerous mentality that sometimes accompanies basic liberal elite thinking. The mentality that actively wishes harm on our country and its citizens–all in the name of progress, of course.

First and foremost among those execrable examples of human waste is the extremely unamiable James Wolcott, who not only roots for hurricanes to strike, but also bemoaned the fact specifically that Hurricane Katrina didn’t actually kill enough people:

“Casualty figures are often high-ranged at the outset, dropping as the smoke and water clears. But any number substantially higher than 3,000 dead presents a political and symbolic dilemma for the most avid advocates of the War on Terror…”

3,000 dead seems to be the cut-off point between simple politics and deep symbolism for Wolcott.

In line right behind Wolcott is Joel Stein, who famoulsy wrote in the LA Times that he doesn’t support the troops:

I don’t support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car…

“…[W]hen you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse.

Our latest entrant into this cadre of evil-wishing liberals is the despicable Paul Krugman, whose Tweet yesterday wishing that the East Coast earthquake had been far worse, was apparently a hoax…

…but who said pretty much the same thing about Japan’s earthquake back in March:

And yes, this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole.

Krugman also recently called for a fake “space aliens” scare to stimulate the economy:

…[T]here was a “Twilight Zone” episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don’t need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.

Really, what in the heck is the matter with you people? If government would get out of the way, there are plenty of folks who are just itching to expand, hire, start new businesses, and do all the things that are really necessary to get our economy back on its feet.

People who wish for disasters and actively scorn those stalwarts who keep this nation safe are the dregs of the dregs, and why they have such public platforms to spout their opinions, I really couldn’t say.

But am I out of line by gently hoping that their chosen disaster comes and gets them personally?

Stoutcat

About these ads

8 Responses to What the Heck is Wrong With You People?

  1. Russell says:

    What’s wrong with us is that we believe in honest discussion. Let’s add a couple of sentences to your Krugman quote:

    “And yes, this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole. If this sounds crazy, well, liquidity-trap economics is like that — remember, World War II ended the Great Depression. So, back to Japan: I’m terrified about the possible loss of life; nervous about the disruption of world production; not worried at all about the impact of Japanese borrowing on world bond markets.”

    So, no, Krugman definitely did NOT say he wished the quake had been worse. He was bemoaning the current liquidity trap and looking at the consequences of the quake in that light. Your implication that he wishes ill on people is simply false.

    • Stoutcat says:

      I never said he wished ill on people in general–just the country as a whole. Espeically when you take a statement like the one you quoted:

      “…this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole…”

      I can only take that as Krugman saying, “Screw Japan, it’s good for the world economy, so whatevs.” Everything else seems to me to be just posturing.
      Also, he did say something very similar in the days after 9/11. You may choose to look at this attitude as a “glass half full” outlook. I personally believe it represents something far darker.

  2. Russell says:

    Krugman makes very clear that that is not his attitude. You’re able to imply otherwise only by omitting — and now, by purposely ignoring — the sentences that immediately follow.

    Again, what’s wrong with us is that we believe in honest discussion.

    Do you?

    • Stoutcat says:

      Well, I actually thought that’s what we were doing right here. Perhaps your definition of honest discussion is somewhat different from mine.

      And as I said, it seems to me that the rest of his statement is just posturing. Your mileage may vary.

      • Russell says:

        So, if an economist thinks that the world economy is in such an extreme state that it might be stimulated by the spending from a major disaster, how do you suggest he phrase that, so that you wouldn’t accuse of him of wishing the disaster? Do you believe that everyone who says that WW II helped the world out of the Great Depression therefore wishes that the world had to fight WW II? Or do you grant the possibility that some are merely pointing out what they think the economic consequence of that was? And if so, why do you dismiss that possibility for Krugman? On what basis do you say that when Krugman decries the disaster and its human cost, that he is posturing, rather than expressing his honest view?

      • Stoutcat says:

        Do you believe that everyone who says that WW II helped the world out of the Great Depression therefore wishes that the world had to fight WW II? Or do you grant the possibility that some are merely pointing out what they think the economic consequence of that was?

        Of course I grant that possibility, and in fact, accord it a real probability regarding WWII. The problem with folks like Krugman is that they have a record of saying things that, even if you are a glass-half-full kind of person, are extremely tone-deaf at best, and creepily ghoulish at worst. I’ve cited several examples in my article. As I said before, my take is he’s posturing. Yours is apparently that he is sincere.

        We disagree, but each made our points. Good honest discussion.

  3. Russell says:

    The problem with folks like Krugman is that they have a record of saying things that, even if you are a glass-half-full kind of person, are extremely tone-deaf at best, and creepily ghoulish at worst.

    No. You gave one quote from Krugman, which would have seemed neither creepy nor ghoulish, except that you purposely framed it that way, a) by excising what he wrote immediately after, which explicitly denied what you tried to impute to him, and b) by posing it with your other examples, not from Krugman. Far from pointing to a “record” of such from Krugman, you haven’t provided even a single example.

    I’m not seeing honest discussion from you. I’m seeing a refusal to face the fact that what Krugman wrote was not what you posed it to be.

    • Stoutcat says:

      Actually, I quoted two such instances in my original post, and referenced a third here in the comments.

      And again, the bottom line is how you view his sincerity in his writings. Given the reputation of the NYT in general, and Krugman in particular, I take a fairly dim view of his sincerity. As I said before, your mileage may vary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers