Paul Krugman ingnited a minor firestorm yesterday when he told the truth about what also happened on 9/11: the shameless and opportunistic symbolic hijacking of the event for political power.
With his New York Times op-ed piece “The Years of Shame,” Paul Krugman said what many on the Left consciously acknowledge and those on the Right know deep in their hearts: 9/11 was a symbolic hijacking not just by 19 terrorists but men such as George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Dick Cheney and Bernie Kerik.
Granted, they all most likely cared about the pain and horror of that day (it’s not likely they are total political automatons), but they also knew at some point—probably immediately after—that it was a political variant of a public relations goldmine.
Nothing about Krugman’s sentiment and expression, of course, is actually news—at least not to those who’ve thought critically in the last 10 years. Many commentators, both in the press and at the arm chair, observed a political hijacking occuring once the hysteria had waned—only Republicans could defend the realm. Krugman merely attracted attention because he was keen enough to vocalize it on a date that is hallowed ground for many Americans.
Someone needs to speak the truth even if none are willing to hear it—those unwilling to listen let emotions subvert their logic.
“But on 9/11,” you might say? Yes, indeed. And why not? Are we to suffer the tyranny of when people believe it is right and wrong to express opinion? Opinion isn’t always convenient—and in a democracy and (ostensibly) a free society, doubly so. Emotions create the hallowed ground, not the event.
I don’t always find myself in total agreement with Krugman on matters economic—that a man of his intellectual caliber (economically-speaking) doesn’t tell the truth about the fact that American (and all nations) can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over time.
I wish he could speak truth regarding this future reality; alas, he refuses (so far).
As regards the symbolic hijacking of 9/11, however, Krugman is right on.
September 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm, JRomulus said:
Yes, from the same lunatic fringe that also believe 9/11 was an inside job, and the US never really did land on the moon, etc.
Really, kooks on the left are as bad as kooks on the right. Fortunately, the vast majority of American citizens will steer the country in the correct direction.
September 12, 2011 at 9:09 pm, Tommy Giannosa said:
what does landing on the moon have to do with having objections to what our media propaganda machine tells us about 9/11? I for one believe 9/11 was an inside job, i also believe we did land on the moon!
September 12, 2011 at 9:09 pm, Tommy Giannosa said:
what does landing on the moon have to do with having objections to what our media propaganda machine tells us about 9/11? I for one believe 9/11 was an inside job, i also believe we did land on the moon!
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, pnevans52 said:
Anybody who believes 9/11 was an inside job has the critical thinking skills of a pigeon. You’re pathetic.
September 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm, Possibilianp said:
That’s an ad-hominem attack and is one of the main points any book on rational thinking will point out as an example of irrational thinking.
September 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm, Possibilianp said:
That’s an ad-hominem attack and is one of the main points any book on rational thinking will point out as an example of irrational thinking.
September 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm, Possibilianp said:
That’s an ad-hominem attack and is one of the main points any book on rational thinking will point out as an example of irrational thinking.
September 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm, Barrett Anderson said:
Possibilanp: That is not an ad-hominem attack. Ad-hominem is attacking the character of the individual *outside* of the topic. This would be like saying “Tommy is an idiot. Why would anyone believe him about 9/11 being an inside job?” That isn’t what pnevans52 did. He drew a conclusion based on what the conspiracy theorist believes.
September 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm, Barrett Anderson said:
Possibilanp: That is not an ad-hominem attack. Ad-hominem is attacking the character of the individual *outside* of the topic. This would be like saying “Tommy is an idiot. Why would anyone believe him about 9/11 being an inside job?” That isn’t what pnevans52 did. He drew a conclusion based on what the conspiracy theorist believes.
September 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm, Kenny Horton said:
Tell us why you believe it was not an inside job?
September 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm, Blindly Follow said:
Have you invested the time and effort and really researched the situation objectively?
Specifically:Read the 911 Commission Report?Understand how the Commission was selected, who was selected, and how the information was presented?Compared the Commission Report with other publicly available government documents and independent scientific reviews?Watched and reviewed all the available testimonyTalked directly with folks on the ground that day?Talked directly with the first responders?Talked directly with government officials involved in the investigation?Talked directly with any independent media affiliates?Discussed and received opinions from independent licensed structural engineers? Read the subsequent acts and eo’s specific to 911 and the impact to our civil liberties?
Recent developments in the media concerning the situation
If you have done your homework and still believe it all happened exactly as they say, then I respect your opinion. That’s what America is all about. We can agree to disagree.
If no. I suggest you check the definition of “pathetic” and “critical thinking”, reflect upon your response to Tommy and realize you only insulted yourself.
Wake up America! Quit saying “it couldn’t be” and find the truth you choose to defend.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, pnevans52 said:
Anybody who believes 9/11 was an inside job has the critical thinking skills of a pigeon. You’re pathetic.
September 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm, Econnelly1 said:
Tommy: YOU ARE ONE BIG IDIOT. If you believe it was an inside job, then you are going to purgatory.
September 12, 2011 at 9:09 pm, Tommy Giannosa said:
what does landing on the moon have to do with having objections to what our media propaganda machine tells us about 9/11? I for one believe 9/11 was an inside job, i also believe we did land on the moon!
September 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm, Anonymous said:
I would dearly love to agree with you, but I don’t think the VMAC is doing much “steering” at all. More like hanging on for the ride. For example – the majority elected Mr. Obama – a clear steer to the left one might suggest. Whoops, maybe not, must have misinterpreted… and two years later we get a “throw the bums out movement” now regarded as anything between carte blanche to dismantle the government and a slap in the face. The problem with the VMAC concept (AKA, silent majority and likely a few others) is that is persistently unclear and absolutely open to interpretation. And – it is the interpreters who have dumped us in this crap and virtually all of them appear to be kooks – or at least guilty of playing fast and loose with any set of observable facts. For the definitive word on this, I suggest Lewis Carrol:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ” “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.” Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
September 12, 2011 at 9:37 pm, Robert DeGraw said:
My recollection is that “the majority” was a bit north of 50% out of a total voting population of about 60% of eligible voters … giving BHO a bit north of 30% … and hardly a mandate for anything. (Just a point I like to bring up when I hear about the permission any of these guys to steer one course or another … yes, over 30% do seem to be just hanging on for the ride.
September 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm, Anonymous said:
Mr. Krugman is correct, as far as he goes. 9/11 WAS shamelessly hijacked by some people on the Right for incorrect political purposes. Just as the Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona was shamelessly hijacked by some people on the Left for incorrect political purposes. I don’t remember hearing Mr. Krugman condemn that. I could be wrong, and if someone could provide a link to that citation, I’d appreciate it.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Anonymous said:
No it was hijacked by the left to BLAME BUSH, claim it was an “inside job” for Cheney and Haliburton and a whole host of SHAMELESS, TREASONOUS LIES.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Anonymous said:
No it was hijacked by the left to BLAME BUSH, claim it was an “inside job” for Cheney and Haliburton and a whole host of SHAMELESS, TREASONOUS LIES.
September 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm, non partisan said:
it must piss people like you off to no end that a black man is president
September 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm, Philipjfry said:
I have no problem with a black man as president, what I have a problem with is the black community using his race as an excuse to call anyone who disagrees with him a racist.
Obama is a poor leader and a poor exucse for a president and I am convinced that history will show him as such.
September 12, 2011 at 9:37 pm, Econnelly1 said:
Not at all, but I would have preferred a different Black man. A man such as Alan West. Obama is a fake and a failure.
September 12, 2011 at 9:37 pm, Econnelly1 said:
Not at all, but I would have preferred a different Black man. A man such as Alan West. Obama is a fake and a failure.
September 12, 2011 at 9:38 pm, Obaminator said:
it must piss you off that the first black man to be president is an economic moron who will go down in history as the worst president ever. of course most of those who voted for him did so only because of the color of his skin and because he reads a teleprompter well, not because he was competent. i doubt mr pseudo non partisan will be voting for herman cain, who at least as significant business experience and worked in the federal reserve, anytime soon. nope, he prefers far left law prof who never published anything and never ran any businesses so our formerly great country can go into bankruptcy.
September 12, 2011 at 9:57 pm, ksodhi said:
Our country was far in debt when Bush left, due to his lovely “wars on terror” or crusade as he called it.By the way Bush already took the cake for worst president ever.
September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm, Seafun said:
I don’t mind a black president… I would love to see Herman Cain there instead. It is the Socialist redistribution policies of Obama that many of us despise!
September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm, Seafun said:
I don’t mind a black president… I would love to see Herman Cain there instead. It is the Socialist redistribution policies of Obama that many of us despise!
September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm, Seafun said:
I don’t mind a black president… I would love to see Herman Cain there instead. It is the Socialist redistribution policies of Obama that many of us despise!
September 14, 2011 at 9:50 pm, ncolarossi said:
It always amazes me that when a black person does not do well or is criticized for doing a horrible job, race is always the scapegoat. It is troubling to me that the black community would even stand for such a thing. Can we say the same about other races, I think not, because the other races have little to do with skin color. I live in an area that is in transition, it was once a nice area (I’m sure this description is common in many areas) but when the black community took up residence and the whole area went to hell in a handbasket; it was blamed on the whites? I just don ‘t understand such a large group of people that are ok with that? Where is the accountability, where is the personal responsibility? It seems that the ones that are always bringing up race on every level are the ones that are fueling the racism fires.
Obama may have inherited some bad situations as president, but he knew that going in. He preached on “Hope and Change” and we will get this country back, remember, I do. He has not followed through on anything, nor could he. He was simply not qualified for the job, little or no leadership experience, no private sector leadership roles. Would you hire such a person to run your trillion dollar company? Has very little in my mind that he happens to be black.
September 12, 2011 at 9:35 pm, Anonymous said:
Make sure all of you Regressives watch the part of Fahrenheit 9/11 where Bush is reading “My Pet Goat” to the class of school children. Four or Five PAINFUL minutes or so of lip biting and squirming…. so much so that even that the devil in a MSU baseball hat cut the time of the footage in half.
You want to see Republican leadership at its best?
Watch it.
Krugman is right on the money.
A noun, a verb and 9/11 on the Conservative watch.
September 12, 2011 at 9:35 pm, Anonymous said:
Make sure all of you Regressives watch the part of Fahrenheit 9/11 where Bush is reading “My Pet Goat” to the class of school children. Four or Five PAINFUL minutes or so of lip biting and squirming…. so much so that even that the devil in a MSU baseball hat cut the time of the footage in half.
You want to see Republican leadership at its best?
Watch it.
Krugman is right on the money.
A noun, a verb and 9/11 on the Conservative watch.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Anonymous said:
No it was hijacked by the left to BLAME BUSH, claim it was an “inside job” for Cheney and Haliburton and a whole host of SHAMELESS, TREASONOUS LIES.
September 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm, Gilby2927 said:
I’m not at all surprised that Mr. Rumsfeld canceled his subscription to the Times. As a matter of fact I was surprised that he subscribed to it at all! His performance has always been so brutal and primary that reasonable discussion would not be part of his environment. He will be more comfortable with Tea Party publications.
September 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm, Terryd1023 said:
What a fool. Those who go along with this birdbrain are also gullible fools.
September 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm, Anonymous said:
I disagree with your assessment. Rahm Emanual was the one that said ‘we can’t let this crisis go to waste’. He was referring to the financial situation that 50 years of overspending on things that had no ROI, of course. The shoe still fits. The Democrat Party is who Rham is associated with, in case you are wondering.
September 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm, Shawn Rutledge said:
Of course, it’s a typical pattern, emergencies are exploited by those who seek power. I knew right away that was going to happen, I just was really shocked by the amount of overreaction that our gov’t got away with this time. I’m glad somebody else had the guts to say it on that day when people are paying attention.
Now how are we going to get back to the way things were? Today’s kids don’t know any different, after 10 years of this crap which they have been growing up with. Besides, they go to schools that look more like prisons than like the schools of 20 years ago. They have been implicitly taught that nobody is to be trusted, especially not themselves. Hopefully they will realize early the hypocrisy behind what is said about the great American freedom, and how America actually is; then hopefully the majority of them will be feeling rebellious enough at some point in their lives to want to take it back. But I’m not really very optimistic that will happen; usually the majority are sheep, after all.
September 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm, Shawn Rutledge said:
Of course, it’s a typical pattern, emergencies are exploited by those who seek power. I knew right away that was going to happen, I just was really shocked by the amount of overreaction that our gov’t got away with this time. I’m glad somebody else had the guts to say it on that day when people are paying attention.
Now how are we going to get back to the way things were? Today’s kids don’t know any different, after 10 years of this crap which they have been growing up with. Besides, they go to schools that look more like prisons than like the schools of 20 years ago. They have been implicitly taught that nobody is to be trusted, especially not themselves. Hopefully they will realize early the hypocrisy behind what is said about the great American freedom, and how America actually is; then hopefully the majority of them will be feeling rebellious enough at some point in their lives to want to take it back. But I’m not really very optimistic that will happen; usually the majority are sheep, after all.
September 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm, Shawn Rutledge said:
Of course, it’s a typical pattern, emergencies are exploited by those who seek power. I knew right away that was going to happen, I just was really shocked by the amount of overreaction that our gov’t got away with this time. I’m glad somebody else had the guts to say it on that day when people are paying attention.
Now how are we going to get back to the way things were? Today’s kids don’t know any different, after 10 years of this crap which they have been growing up with. Besides, they go to schools that look more like prisons than like the schools of 20 years ago. They have been implicitly taught that nobody is to be trusted, especially not themselves. Hopefully they will realize early the hypocrisy behind what is said about the great American freedom, and how America actually is; then hopefully the majority of them will be feeling rebellious enough at some point in their lives to want to take it back. But I’m not really very optimistic that will happen; usually the majority are sheep, after all.
September 12, 2011 at 9:13 pm, Anonymous said:
Krugman and the author of this article are lying buffoons. After all, it was Obama’s guy who revealed where the mentality of “not letting a crisis go to waste” can be found–on the LEFT, the most blatant political opportunists the world has ever seen, no matter how much it hurts our image or puts us in danger, the left will use any crisis as an opportunity to put forward their COMMUNIST agenda. Krugman is a pathetic little liar, like all leftists are. They don’t belong in this country, they belong with their ideological comrades in China and Venezuela. Shut your face you sick little traitors.
September 12, 2011 at 9:49 pm, Anonymous said:
what a sad and deluded person you must be. do you honestly have so small a grasp on reality? do you even understan what communism is? can you point to one thing that’s gone into law over the past three years that’s even socialist?
calling out Rahm for one statement doesn’t absolve the lies and propaganda from the Right over the past decade that have contributed mightly to the economic woes in this country (wars paid for outside the normal budgetary process, tax cuts that didn’t create jobs or investment in our infrastructure), fewer rights and freedoms for our citizens (wire-tapping of phones), but greater freedoms for our corporations (reduced regulations that could lead to more pollution and dangerous food and drugs).
go ahead and disagree with the policies of Democrats, that’s your right, but at least try to do it on factually grounded opinions rather than rage over trumped up allegations of Communism. you’re just proving Krugman’s entire point.
September 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm, Anonymous said:
Obama’s guy? NO! Not Obama’s guy! Obama’s guy is everywhere! What was he doing in the Bush administration? Traitor! After all the liberals leave, you can just change the name to Republicana, or the USR. If you are a successful political opportunist, you end up rich. If you are not an opportunist at all, or a bad one, you end up poor. I get so confused! Tell me again, which party is it that is rich?
So, basically your argument is “All leftists are liars.” Okay. So what are those other nonsensical black marks all over your post?
September 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm, Mark said:
Smack, I was born here and spent 15 years in the Navy and served in Desert storm and shield. I’ve paid a lot of taxes in 35 years. I most certainly belong here. The constitution protects your right to hate people who don’t agree with you but I suspect your a lot less vicious in person or you would probably have had your ass kicked several times over by now. Have you? Why do you so belligerently oppose people with ideas unlike your owe? Do really believe that you know what happened on 9/11? Why would you dismiss everyone that questions blatantly obvious errors in what is now commonly believed about what happened that day as a theorists? Once facts have emerged they stand on their own merit, that’s not a theory. You obviously care about the future of your country. Please check the facts about the pentagon crash site as well as live pictures from the pentagon security cam released in 2006 that captured the explosion and the live TV video before the roof collapsed. If you can honestly say you believe that is the crash site of a 757 I would interested in understanding how. Maybe its a matter of what we accept as facts. I think a lot of us tend to believe views that agree with our own, which is a piss pore substitution for knowing the truth about a matter. When It comes to more pressing matters like jobs a debt reduction I don’t know what to think. It seems both Rs and Ds suck at effective governance. I tend to think we don’t stand much of a chance with the current congress and lobbyists at the helm.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Anonymous said:
9/11/2001 was appalling and very sad. I will admt for a short time I was drawn into to the Fear as a way of life syndrome. it shortly became very obvious that the Republicans were jumping on a hysteria control factor and their twist any cause for a profit thinking and were taking advantage of the masses. I refuse to live in fear,there have always been bad people out there and there will be more but we can’t live waiting for the next bad thing. We are still a strong wealthy country and quite frankly our intelligence operations along with our world partners will preempt most of what could happen. “Security” has become a huge industry using fear as a sales tool. We need to regain our common sense and start living normally.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Anonymous said:
9/11/2001 was appalling and very sad. I will admt for a short time I was drawn into to the Fear as a way of life syndrome. it shortly became very obvious that the Republicans were jumping on a hysteria control factor and their twist any cause for a profit thinking and were taking advantage of the masses. I refuse to live in fear,there have always been bad people out there and there will be more but we can’t live waiting for the next bad thing. We are still a strong wealthy country and quite frankly our intelligence operations along with our world partners will preempt most of what could happen. “Security” has become a huge industry using fear as a sales tool. We need to regain our common sense and start living normally.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Leo Ingle said:
wow, how do these out of touch with reality lunatics survive in society. i just dont get it.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Leo Ingle said:
wow, how do these out of touch with reality lunatics survive in society. i just dont get it.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Leo Ingle said:
wow, how do these out of touch with reality lunatics survive in society. i just dont get it.
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Wing Flanagan said:
Wow. You mean politicians actually take advantage of tragedies to advance political agendas? They USE public sentiment in the wake of important events to advance policies that solidify their power?! OH MY GOD!
And in other news – the Pope is CATHOLIC, and BEARS CRAP IN THE WOODS!
Thank you, Captain Obvious! And, in case no one else pointed it out with sufficient alacrity, the political party to whom a politician belongs is entirely beside the point (i.e. Liberal Democrats are AT LEAST as guilty of it).
September 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm, Gjfanatique said:
Rummy and Krugman both have it wrong. It’s not known for a fact that W *knew* there were no WMD in Iraq. You or I could have decided to invade. The inexcusable part is that W and his cronies didn’t think they needed to do any homework and know anything about where they were sending our troops. W didn’t know what a Sunni and a Shiite are. We and the Iraqis lost so many souls because of the sloppy and thoughtless lack of planning for the aftermath of the invasion. That buck stops at W. He screwed it up big time.
September 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm, Walter Wrye said:
Huh? Actually it was crystal clear 1. there were no wmd producing capabilities 2. Iraq was largely unrelated to events of 9/11 and completely on the wrong track with respect to “war on terror”
September 12, 2011 at 9:16 pm, Bama said:
idiots
September 12, 2011 at 10:02 pm, Anonymous said:
Was this the first name calling?? Or did I miss one when people got annoyed by the same old talking points at some earlier point.
September 12, 2011 at 9:16 pm, Anonymous said:
Really? And who pulled off this inside job?
September 12, 2011 at 9:16 pm, Anonymous said:
Krugman is an asshat that is doing the exact same thing he accuses other of doing. He is using an solemn tragedy to propel himself into the limelight. He is a sorry excuse for a human being and should stop wasting oxygen.
September 12, 2011 at 10:18 pm, Anonymous said:
I never knew Krugman was even running! Did he tell you secretly? I’ll vote for him!
September 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm, Leo Ingle said:
it has absolutely nothing to do with it except that it discredits anything he says. if YOU know we did and he doesnt, then why should anybody believe him about anything else. And thanks for telling us what you believe and dont. now we know youre only half the nutcase he is.
September 12, 2011 at 10:17 pm, Anonymous said:
Brilliant! You found “it”. I’ve been looking for “it”. ”it” is the magic stuff! Don’t keep “it” all to yourself!
Oh, and who are you talking to?
September 12, 2011 at 9:20 pm, Anonymous said:
Rumsfeld is a war criminal so what I want to read about is him being arrested and charged. Cancelling his subscription, wow, I never knew he was so sensitive–A bully, yes; a coward, yes,but sensitive? Call me Shirley! The paper was hi-jacked by the Far Right some time ago and isn’t worth a read unless you are so brainwashed by war drums, profiteering and MSM BS you are having another boring day. Mr. Krugman was absolutely right, and has been on many occasions not only about the war. He is one of the very few brave enough to speak the truth and who has not been silenced.
September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm, Anonymous said:
“The paper was hi-jacked by the Far Right some time ago..” You really are a crazy person, for sure!
September 12, 2011 at 9:23 pm, Sonoran said:
This article isn’t saying that 9/11 was an “inside job”. It’s saying that once it had happened politicians immediately realized how it could be used as leverage to eliminate civil liberties in a way that we otherwise would never have tolerated.
Their purpose probably really was to enhance security, after all another such attack would have been deemed their fault, however it belies the lack of faith they have in democratic principles. The rush to “gain control” coming from a position of fear, is a common way for societies to move toward authoritarianism. People want to hand over their freedoms to some authority that will keep them safe, because they’re scared
September 12, 2011 at 9:23 pm, Sonoran said:
This article isn’t saying that 9/11 was an “inside job”. It’s saying that once it had happened politicians immediately realized how it could be used as leverage to eliminate civil liberties in a way that we otherwise would never have tolerated.
Their purpose probably really was to enhance security, after all another such attack would have been deemed their fault, however it belies the lack of faith they have in democratic principles. The rush to “gain control” coming from a position of fear, is a common way for societies to move toward authoritarianism. People want to hand over their freedoms to some authority that will keep them safe, because they’re scared
September 12, 2011 at 9:23 pm, Sonoran said:
This article isn’t saying that 9/11 was an “inside job”. It’s saying that once it had happened politicians immediately realized how it could be used as leverage to eliminate civil liberties in a way that we otherwise would never have tolerated.
Their purpose probably really was to enhance security, after all another such attack would have been deemed their fault, however it belies the lack of faith they have in democratic principles. The rush to “gain control” coming from a position of fear, is a common way for societies to move toward authoritarianism. People want to hand over their freedoms to some authority that will keep them safe, because they’re scared
September 12, 2011 at 9:53 pm, Anonymous said:
A concise summary if I ever saw one. I wish more writers were like you: just give me the facts without the bathery nonsense and personal attacks, thank you.
September 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm, Qwe1322 said:
now this is a rational explanation
September 12, 2011 at 9:23 pm, Sonoran said:
This article isn’t saying that 9/11 was an “inside job”. It’s saying that once it had happened politicians immediately realized how it could be used as leverage to eliminate civil liberties in a way that we otherwise would never have tolerated.
Their purpose probably really was to enhance security, after all another such attack would have been deemed their fault, however it belies the lack of faith they have in democratic principles. The rush to “gain control” coming from a position of fear, is a common way for societies to move toward authoritarianism. People want to hand over their freedoms to some authority that will keep them safe, because they’re scared
September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm, Anonymous said:
“I don’t always find myself in total agreement with Krugman on matters
economic—that a man of his intellectual caliber (economically-speaking)
doesn’t tell the truth about the fact that American (and all nations)
can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of
living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of
thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat
death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over
time.”
This is just not true. There is no flaunting of thermodynamics here; this is just another myth that too many believe without thinking about it. First off, the Earth is NOT an isolated system. There’s this thing called the Sun, and every day the sun continuously sends energy in the form of photos to our planet. It is will this massive source of energy that we are able to continue to grow and prosper. Because of the constant influx of energy, our entropy does NOT have to increase. In fact, humans have, for the longest time, been DECREASING the entropy of the planet, aided by the energy of the Sun.
Furthermore, our most precious resource requires very few natural resources. Yes, I’m talking about intellect. Even if we were able to have instant access to all natural resources on the planet–like I could snap my fingers and a pile of coal would appear at my feet–those resources would do little to help us succeed. Unless we can intelligently (using our intellect) organize those resources into something useful (gasp, decrease entropy!), we would have never reached the society we currently have. Computers, nuclear power plants, combustion engines: all of these things use natural resources in an intelligent way to maximize their value and utility.
In other words, this is basically the mythical “wealth is a zero-sum game” argument all over again. As long as we can decrease entropy, we can increase wealth, plain and simple. Given that we have billions of years of free energy from the sun to do this with, it should be absolutely no problem to continue sustaining GDP growth and high employment. And once we run out of the Sun’s energy, God forbid, we can just fly to another star and use that. Or we could begin mining the asteroids and other planets.
In effect, the entire universe is the only isolated system, and it is the NET entropy of the universe that must increase. However, that also doesn’t mean that entropy cannot decrease in one location while it increases in another. As long as there is some ordered body in the universe, we could “move” that lack of entropy to us. And please, if we are in that situation, then we have much, much bigger problems.
September 12, 2011 at 9:56 pm, Anonymous said:
Wow. That was a really confusing and suspect reading of what entropy is. The argument seemed to be that we are moving “lack of entropy” from the universe to the Earth. That would require Entropy to be leaving the Earth. – I suppose the global energy budget could be changing — more energy released into the atmosphere and oceans meaning they are more energetic, thus more energy is being radiated from higher energy density (earth) to lower energy density (the surrounding space). I guess Nick2253 is in his own funny way arguing that humans are responsible for global warming (although I leave the root causes of Global Climate Change to the experts, which I am not). Oh yeah, increased cloud cover might be reflecting more solar energy…. Too complicated to go into here. I think there is some confusion though about the difference between organization and entropy.
September 12, 2011 at 10:15 pm, Anonymous said:
I’m not sure how much of what I wrote you actually read, since you don’t seem to understand what’s going on at all.
In layman’s terms, entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. An organized system has less entropy than a disorganized one. The laws of thermodynamics state that an isolated system, over time, will experience an increase in entropy (an increase in disorder). In more scientific terms, entropy is a measure of the non-convertible energy in a system. In other words, a measure of how much energy is unavailable for useful work.
Basically, in your terms, we ARE moving “lack of entropy” from the universe to the Earth. In a more scientific thinking, as I outlined above, we are using the energy from the sun to decrease the entropy of Earth. In order to “move” a lack of entropy, you must convert that order into usable energy (i.e. fusion, like the sun, whereby you transform one form of available energy into another), transport that energy to a different system, and then use that energy to establish order. The net effect is “moving a lack of entropy (disorder)”. I’m sorry I didn’t break it down to such basic building blocks for you.
Furthermore, I’m not sure how you factored global warming into this whole business, or why that even matters. But since you brought it up: the warming of the earth is an increase in the entropy of the planet. As temperature increases, so does entropy. This is why we call the end of the universe when everything is disordered “heat death”. Heat is the ultimate form of non-convertible energy. However, that does not mean that man, or anyone else is responsible. The attribution of blame has absolutely nothing to do with increasing or decreasing entropy. Furthermore, this does not mean that the net entropy of the planet is increasing.
September 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm, Brian Hollander said:
Or to summarize, Krugman is full of #$it!
September 12, 2011 at 10:21 pm, Anonymous said:
Actually, the opposite. It is Pangburn that believes this “obey the laws of thermodynamics” BS, and is calling out Krugman for not saying anything about it.
September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm, Anonymous said:
“I don’t always find myself in total agreement with Krugman on matters
economic—that a man of his intellectual caliber (economically-speaking)
doesn’t tell the truth about the fact that American (and all nations)
can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of
living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of
thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat
death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over
time.”
This is just not true. There is no flaunting of thermodynamics here; this is just another myth that too many believe without thinking about it. First off, the Earth is NOT an isolated system. There’s this thing called the Sun, and every day the sun continuously sends energy in the form of photos to our planet. It is will this massive source of energy that we are able to continue to grow and prosper. Because of the constant influx of energy, our entropy does NOT have to increase. In fact, humans have, for the longest time, been DECREASING the entropy of the planet, aided by the energy of the Sun.
Furthermore, our most precious resource requires very few natural resources. Yes, I’m talking about intellect. Even if we were able to have instant access to all natural resources on the planet–like I could snap my fingers and a pile of coal would appear at my feet–those resources would do little to help us succeed. Unless we can intelligently (using our intellect) organize those resources into something useful (gasp, decrease entropy!), we would have never reached the society we currently have. Computers, nuclear power plants, combustion engines: all of these things use natural resources in an intelligent way to maximize their value and utility.
In other words, this is basically the mythical “wealth is a zero-sum game” argument all over again. As long as we can decrease entropy, we can increase wealth, plain and simple. Given that we have billions of years of free energy from the sun to do this with, it should be absolutely no problem to continue sustaining GDP growth and high employment. And once we run out of the Sun’s energy, God forbid, we can just fly to another star and use that. Or we could begin mining the asteroids and other planets.
In effect, the entire universe is the only isolated system, and it is the NET entropy of the universe that must increase. However, that also doesn’t mean that entropy cannot decrease in one location while it increases in another. As long as there is some ordered body in the universe, we could “move” that lack of entropy to us. And please, if we are in that situation, then we have much, much bigger problems.
September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm, Anonymous said:
“I don’t always find myself in total agreement with Krugman on matters
economic—that a man of his intellectual caliber (economically-speaking)
doesn’t tell the truth about the fact that American (and all nations)
can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of
living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of
thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat
death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over
time.”
This is just not true. There is no flaunting of thermodynamics here; this is just another myth that too many believe without thinking about it. First off, the Earth is NOT an isolated system. There’s this thing called the Sun, and every day the sun continuously sends energy in the form of photos to our planet. It is will this massive source of energy that we are able to continue to grow and prosper. Because of the constant influx of energy, our entropy does NOT have to increase. In fact, humans have, for the longest time, been DECREASING the entropy of the planet, aided by the energy of the Sun.
Furthermore, our most precious resource requires very few natural resources. Yes, I’m talking about intellect. Even if we were able to have instant access to all natural resources on the planet–like I could snap my fingers and a pile of coal would appear at my feet–those resources would do little to help us succeed. Unless we can intelligently (using our intellect) organize those resources into something useful (gasp, decrease entropy!), we would have never reached the society we currently have. Computers, nuclear power plants, combustion engines: all of these things use natural resources in an intelligent way to maximize their value and utility.
In other words, this is basically the mythical “wealth is a zero-sum game” argument all over again. As long as we can decrease entropy, we can increase wealth, plain and simple. Given that we have billions of years of free energy from the sun to do this with, it should be absolutely no problem to continue sustaining GDP growth and high employment. And once we run out of the Sun’s energy, God forbid, we can just fly to another star and use that. Or we could begin mining the asteroids and other planets.
In effect, the entire universe is the only isolated system, and it is the NET entropy of the universe that must increase. However, that also doesn’t mean that entropy cannot decrease in one location while it increases in another. As long as there is some ordered body in the universe, we could “move” that lack of entropy to us. And please, if we are in that situation, then we have much, much bigger problems.
September 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm, Lesismore21 said:
Perhaps Paul Krugman is OK in economics but unfortunately he is mentally challenged on other subject matter. His latest bit is best categorized as fiction based upon drug induced thinking. He needs something to ground his thinking in reality.
September 12, 2011 at 10:13 pm, Anonymous said:
Can you send him this magic “something”? Can you send me some too?
September 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm, Lesismore21 said:
Perhaps Paul Krugman is OK in economics but unfortunately he is mentally challenged on other subject matter. His latest bit is best categorized as fiction based upon drug induced thinking. He needs something to ground his thinking in reality.
September 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm, Lesismore21 said:
Perhaps Paul Krugman is OK in economics but unfortunately he is mentally challenged on other subject matter. His latest bit is best categorized as fiction based upon drug induced thinking. He needs something to ground his thinking in reality.
September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm, Coachpiz said:
This man is an opportunistic liberal looking to bash anyone of the conservative ilk.
September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm, Coachpiz said:
This man is an opportunistic liberal looking to bash anyone of the conservative ilk.
September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm, Dave said:
You state this as fact and as if this is widely believed. You sir are somewhat of a goon sending riding on the coat tails of some guy that spends to much time contemplating his own self importance. What you are saying is not fact, how can you state what you think is anothers intent as fact. Stating he is brave enough to state the truth seems most times to be a preamble to someone about to do anything but.
September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm, Dave said:
You state this as fact and as if this is widely believed. You sir are somewhat of a goon sending riding on the coat tails of some guy that spends to much time contemplating his own self importance. What you are saying is not fact, how can you state what you think is anothers intent as fact. Stating he is brave enough to state the truth seems most times to be a preamble to someone about to do anything but.
September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm, Dave said:
You state this as fact and as if this is widely believed. You sir are somewhat of a goon sending riding on the coat tails of some guy that spends to much time contemplating his own self importance. What you are saying is not fact, how can you state what you think is anothers intent as fact. Stating he is brave enough to state the truth seems most times to be a preamble to someone about to do anything but.
September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm, Anonymous said:
Krugman was also right that America knows it. All of the anger and outrage over Krugman’s article is because deep down the people who are complaining the loudest know that he was right and they just can’t face up to it. Americans are like a family with a favorite uncle accused of child abuse, it’s too painful to admit so they take the easy route and get angry at the accuser. It is heartening to see that more and more people are speaking out about the litany of shameful crimes that took place under George W. Bush, and with time even those in denial will be forced to accept what they already know to be true.
September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm, Anonymous said:
Krugman was also right that America knows it. All of the anger and outrage over Krugman’s article is because deep down the people who are complaining the loudest know that he was right and they just can’t face up to it. Americans are like a family with a favorite uncle accused of child abuse, it’s too painful to admit so they take the easy route and get angry at the accuser. It is heartening to see that more and more people are speaking out about the litany of shameful crimes that took place under George W. Bush, and with time even those in denial will be forced to accept what they already know to be true.
September 12, 2011 at 9:37 pm, Anonymous said:
A substantial load of garbage – and you know it!
September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Anonymous said:
I was cheering for you until the last sentence. You basically undid yourself with your reference to Bush. I am sick and tired of all of this Bush-bashing. It needs to stop. Instead of blaming the accuser, blaming Bush is like blaming your neighborhood police officer. Yes, the police officer should have been there to stop the rape. But he wasn’t, OK? Get over it.
Until we stop blaming Bush for everything, nothing is going to get done!! What bothers me is that, instead of looking at the system that created the problem in the first place, we are conveniently blaming the person who happened to be acting at that moment. Does anyone actually believe that, if we had a different president during that time, that things would have happened significantly differently? Obama has shown that he is not that different from Bush as he would have liked us to believe? Is this because he was a secret Bush lover who conspired against the American people to get into the White House? Hell no! He is as much a victim and abuser of the system as Bush was.
Under Obama, we started a military campaign in Libya, we continue to expand our military overseas in the wars we are currently fighting, and we are held hostage by the speeches and promises from the President on the economy and unemployment. After a massive economic collapse, both Bush and Obama used the fear and panic of the nation to pass huge trillion-dollar bailouts and stimuli that got us nowhere. Under Obama, we have a “universal” health care program that half the country hates.
Bickering about who is acting doesn’t change the fact that the play sucks. Bush was a horrible president. But Obama isn’t much better. Clinton, by using a government shutdown as fodder to rouse the people to support his programs, is just as bad. It’s the system that’s broken people, not the players.
September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Anonymous said:
I was cheering for you until the last sentence. You basically undid yourself with your reference to Bush. I am sick and tired of all of this Bush-bashing. It needs to stop. Instead of blaming the accuser, blaming Bush is like blaming your neighborhood police officer. Yes, the police officer should have been there to stop the rape. But he wasn’t, OK? Get over it.
Until we stop blaming Bush for everything, nothing is going to get done!! What bothers me is that, instead of looking at the system that created the problem in the first place, we are conveniently blaming the person who happened to be acting at that moment. Does anyone actually believe that, if we had a different president during that time, that things would have happened significantly differently? Obama has shown that he is not that different from Bush as he would have liked us to believe? Is this because he was a secret Bush lover who conspired against the American people to get into the White House? Hell no! He is as much a victim and abuser of the system as Bush was.
Under Obama, we started a military campaign in Libya, we continue to expand our military overseas in the wars we are currently fighting, and we are held hostage by the speeches and promises from the President on the economy and unemployment. After a massive economic collapse, both Bush and Obama used the fear and panic of the nation to pass huge trillion-dollar bailouts and stimuli that got us nowhere. Under Obama, we have a “universal” health care program that half the country hates.
Bickering about who is acting doesn’t change the fact that the play sucks. Bush was a horrible president. But Obama isn’t much better. Clinton, by using a government shutdown as fodder to rouse the people to support his programs, is just as bad. It’s the system that’s broken people, not the players.
September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Econnelly1 said:
John oh John your ignorance astounds me.
September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm, Anonymous said:
“the fact that American (and all nations) can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over time.”
So, to pharaphrase your argument here – capitalism doesn’t work because the sun is going to burn out someday.
I’m all for planning ahead, but let’s not get the cart too far ahead of the horse.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any alternative proposed economic or political strategies to address the eventual end of the universe?
September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Econnelly1 said:
You are relying on Krugman to give you a cogent answer. When the sun don’t shine and flowers grow in your keister. Krugman is a jackwagon and he has not a brain in his head. Maybe he’s thinking like Anthony Weiner (with his weiner).
September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm, Anonymous said:
“the fact that American (and all nations) can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over time.”
So, to pharaphrase your argument here – capitalism doesn’t work because the sun is going to burn out someday.
I’m all for planning ahead, but let’s not get the cart too far ahead of the horse.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any alternative proposed economic or political strategies to address the eventual end of the universe?
September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm, Anonymous said:
“the fact that American (and all nations) can’t sustain GDP growth, high employment and our current standard of living on a planet with finite resources. We can’t flaunt the laws of thermodynamics; specifically, a little thing called entropy, or heat death, which states that an isolated system tends toward disorder over time.”
So, to pharaphrase your argument here – capitalism doesn’t work because the sun is going to burn out someday.
I’m all for planning ahead, but let’s not get the cart too far ahead of the horse.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any alternative proposed economic or political strategies to address the eventual end of the universe?
September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm, Bob Williams said:
When the left hijacks an event or tragedy for political gain it must be okay then?
Krugman is the one who should be ashamed.
September 12, 2011 at 9:31 pm, Anonymous said:
I have to say that Krugman really got this one wrong. He seems to have forgotten just how fraught that day was and the days that followed, and to attribute cunning to Guiliani, Rumsfeld, Dubya and others which cunning I never detected in anything else they did. Whether the wars that followed, the killing of Bin Laden, etc. were necessary to stopping terrorism (as Krauthammer and others argue) or unnecessary or counterproductive remains to be seen. Fact is, though, we have not yet been hit again. I am sure the reason is NOT that the terrorists feel they have adequately made their point.
September 12, 2011 at 9:31 pm, Anonymous said:
I have to say that Krugman really got this one wrong. He seems to have forgotten just how fraught that day was and the days that followed, and to attribute cunning to Guiliani, Rumsfeld, Dubya and others which cunning I never detected in anything else they did. Whether the wars that followed, the killing of Bin Laden, etc. were necessary to stopping terrorism (as Krauthammer and others argue) or unnecessary or counterproductive remains to be seen. Fact is, though, we have not yet been hit again. I am sure the reason is NOT that the terrorists feel they have adequately made their point.
September 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm, Anonymous said:
Please, is this not ALSO partisan political posturing? Has Krugman EVER been anything but a Democratic operative? S T F U, -please!
September 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm, Robert DeGraw said:
It would be a bit more balanced of you to point out that the hijacking went on by the Left, as well, using it as an example (one line of thinking seems to go) of why we need to be less aggressive and bullying in the world. Better that we talk with people to see how reasonable we are and then they won’t hate us. And so on
… there isn’t any stone that politicians won’t turnover in casting the argument in their favor … and what a surprise … so many lawyers in the political parties and in D.C. And lawyers are trained to argue a position (why bother with whether or not there’s any “truth” in their position … so long as they can successfully press their point).
Watching only a couple of the ceremonies (and the weekly build up) … another hijacking of a more commercial variety also occurred. What a surprise.
September 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm, Robert DeGraw said:
It would be a bit more balanced of you to point out that the hijacking went on by the Left, as well, using it as an example (one line of thinking seems to go) of why we need to be less aggressive and bullying in the world. Better that we talk with people to see how reasonable we are and then they won’t hate us. And so on
… there isn’t any stone that politicians won’t turnover in casting the argument in their favor … and what a surprise … so many lawyers in the political parties and in D.C. And lawyers are trained to argue a position (why bother with whether or not there’s any “truth” in their position … so long as they can successfully press their point).
Watching only a couple of the ceremonies (and the weekly build up) … another hijacking of a more commercial variety also occurred. What a surprise.
September 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm, Guest said:
Wondering if those who agree with Krugman, noticed that he did the exact thing which he is criticizing within that column? Or if they noticed how he (and many others including a notable elected official who was running for election at the time) did the exact same thing in 2008 when the market crumbled? Funny thing about contradictions, is that they are easily spotted when they are looked for.
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Anonymous said:
Exactly.
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Anonymous said:
Exactly.
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Anonymous said:
Exactly.
September 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm, Guest said:
Wondering if those who agree with Krugman, noticed that he did the exact thing which he is criticizing within that column? Or if they noticed how he (and many others including a notable elected official who was running for election at the time) did the exact same thing in 2008 when the market crumbled? Funny thing about contradictions, is that they are easily spotted when they are looked for.
September 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm, Anonymous said:
Mr. Krugman is talented — but a coward. He leaves it to blogs like this to field the comments about his article that were not allowed “for obvious reasons”.
Yeah, I want to “get over” the first attack on our mainland in 200 years that killed more people than Americans who died on D-Day. Let’s concentrate on what Republican elected official got publicity out of the massive murder and whether that was deserved. Yes, that’s what is more important here.
I know Dr. Krugman is smarter than that, we don’t hand technical Nobels to dunces. But man, does he have to get out of the uber-liberal cocoon that lets him think throwing partisan bricks while kids are crying and reading their father’s names in what used to be the shadow of the World Trade Center is acceptable.
And yes, grow a pair — your own blog ought to be catching this heat.
September 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm, Bert Williams said:
Remember who took credit for the death of Bin Laden: a democrat. Bothered much? Probably not. This story is less about a political hijacking and more about the left’s ideological disdain for anything conservative. It would be interesting to see what the response to 9/11 would have been like if Krugman, et al, could have orchestrated every move of the people who were in office that day trying to do their jobs in light of a horrific national tragedy.
Then again, maybe the only political hijacking that is truly taking place is the one hidden in this “story”.
September 12, 2011 at 9:35 pm, old nassau'67 said:
Nothing like retroactive morality: combining the perfection of 20-20
hindsight with the morality, usually outraged, of the present judging
the past. Sure, in retrospect, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and “the
neocons”, we can see now, erroneously linked Hussein and the Taliban to
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But the “unrelated war”
needed the votes of 297 Representatives (133 opposed) and 77 (23
opposed) Senators. In February of 2001, a Gallup Poll showed 52% for
invasion, 42% opposed. In October, 2002, Colson, Bright, (James)
Kennedy, and Herbster, all chiefs of four conservative Christian
coalitions, sent the Land Letter to President Bush, invoking eight
criteria to legitimize the Iraq War as a “Just War”. The
sideline snipers, aka columnists, have always fired from far away, in
both pressure and time.
September 12, 2011 at 9:47 pm, Anonymous said:
Funny how a few Anthrax letters in the mail can keep the opposition quiet.
September 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm, Anonymous said:
Thank you. I love how we all retroactively denounce Bush and his administration for the war as if it were a unilateral decision. However, over half of the American people were on the side of war, and over two thirds of Congress. We cannot morally condemn Bush and Bush alone for these wars when this was far from his decision alone.
Furthermore, has anyone of you actually watched Collin Powell’s briefings to the U.N. about Iraq? I did, and those briefings made me support this countries decision to go to war. We had information (which we know now to be false), and it was on that basis, not some pro-war fervor, that we invaded Iraq. Revise all you want to, but the facts of the time were that facts of the time, and they pointed towards an Iraq with WMDs aimed square at us.
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Mtarasewicz said:
You are a moron.
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Mtarasewicz said:
You are a moron.
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Tigerman said:
I think Krugman & Pangburn are from another planet. Get Real!!!
September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm, Tigerman said:
I think Krugman & Pangburn are from another planet. Get Real!!!
September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm, Brian Hollander said:
What really scares me is that many of you left wing sheep really believe that nonsense. It doesn’t surprise me though, as you project your own shortcomings unto everyone else. You see in others what you see in yourselves.. If everyone you have known lacks any kind of moral or ethical character, then you believe that all people are that way. The more honorable a person acts the more you fear them. Sad
September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm, Walter Wrye said:
Ellerby: Cui Bono, who benefits?
Colin Sullivan: Cui gives a sh*t. It’s got a freakin’ bow on it. Ellerby: I think you are a cop my son…
September 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Anonymous said:
No, not quite. You and Krugman are despicable little turds that will lie and distort the truth for YOUR personal gain. Now GET LOST!
And incidentally, if Holier than Thou Krugman was secure in his bile, why did he shut off comments? He is a fascist pig, as is most of the NY Slimes writers who do not allow comments on the crap they spew.
September 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Socialist lover said:
I for one am willing to fight to protect this (Krugman) traitor’s free speach. Let him use the death of so many innocents for political leverage. WTF is wrong with socialists?
September 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Socialist lover said:
I for one am willing to fight to protect this (Krugman) traitor’s free speach. Let him use the death of so many innocents for political leverage. WTF is wrong with socialists?
September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Peter Talbot said:
Krugman makes a non-point as an opportunist. Obama hasn’t cancelled the Patriot Act, which is the real villainy that we inherited from the hysteria we all shared after 9/11. One blogger rightly says we are all sheep. We are killer sheep that screamed with tears in their eyes for years for vengeance and some of us are only now feeling “sheepish” after Bin Laden got whacked. The same killer sheep will vote for the next war to protect America from whatever threat of the day is on the town crier’s bulletin. And those who object will be stoned. And those who lead them will be championed on the day of terror and pilloried when everyone is comfy. Sheep kill more people than wolves do in this way, but they are really dirty herd animals loved only by shepherds (like the Good one) that should know better. I especially like the fact that we still feel we need the Patriot Act and the effective permanent suspension of habeas corpus to deal with the new and nameless terrors of Islam(?) We are hell bent (literally) to make every mistake Israel makes in defense of its right to build ugly fortresses on the Jordan. Soon we will need preemptive predator strikes on random Canadian Queensway donut shops to prevent adulteration of our beer supply by Molson.
In this age of universal xenophobia and willfully ignorant brewhaha I am glad to see that we are one great patriotic American family in spirit, so long as we don’t allow an audible prayer near the hallowed ground at ground zero. Krugman didn’t get the politician’s memo for the day: today Biden lauded Rumsfeld. Lambs lay down with lions, y’know?
September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Rpdelaug said:
That’s your opinion – and it means nothing to me – Truth is not subjective – Truth is Truth and from what you say I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about.
You are right about one thing – Someone needs to speak the truth even if none are willing to hear it—those unwilling to listen let emotions subvert their logic.
Physician heal thyself!
September 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm, Anonymous said:
Unfortunately, truth is very subjective. In order to observe something, it must be observed. Eventually, that observation is done by a human being who, try as he might, cannot be perfectly objective. Furthermore, there is no way to know, FOR A FACT, everything about the universe. We must therefore make assumption about the world we live in so that the data that is collected may be pieced together in a reasonable way. Unfortunately, again, this is all done by humans, and it is therefore impossible to separate absolute truth from the subjective nature of the human “discoverers”.
September 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm, john said:
America is known for country of abundance. In other words, the people here can produce things in excess. If once twin tower is gone, American should have made at least 10 such twin towers to show their ability. We should have produced 10 times the people died to show our strength. We should have shown to the world that our nation is a “able” nation and it doesn’t even care about these small loses. But we just made our self a cage and showed the entire world how much we scared. We even started scaring of the person sitting next to us. We all behaving like bunch of jokers for the past 10 years. The entire world should be laughing at us now. It is the time to say to the world that we really don’t bother about the incident and no force in the world could make us scared. Let us go past 10 years and start living the old happy life. Lesson learned. No more wars. We will produce 10 times of whichever being destroyed. Our freedom (from fear) is much more than America it’s self.
September 12, 2011 at 10:04 pm, Anonymous said:
Well in real terms, we produce far less physically on a per capita basis than we used to (mostly stuff is outsourced). We might actually be more productive in other ways, but I have my doubts.
September 12, 2011 at 9:51 pm, Anonymous said:
There exists something called decency, respect and honor.
All the points that Krugman felt needed to be made, could have waited to a more “appropriate” time.
Krugman has “politicized” the politicizing by scheduling when he “shared” his perspectives with the world.
Analogous to someone attending a funeral for someone, standing up and yelling during the funeral “that SOB owed me money and never paid me”. Then proclaiming “well, it’s the TRUTH!”…and it might very well be true.
That is what Krugman has done…..and it won’t be forgiven either.
All of our parents taught us growing up…..concerning decency, respect, honor… that “there’s a time and place for everything..BUT…”
This was a major “But” violation of unforgivable magnitude.
Maybe, the worst aspect of callousness about Krugman’s “need to express himself” is the not-understanding of what the term decency means.
9-11 was a memorial service to honor the dead…the innocent dead in the towers, and the highest sacrifice paid by 1st responders.
It was a MEMORIAL service….not a National Discussion Forum to opine about the “political intentions” of the major players.
I hope that when his life ends, there will be a matching minute of pain for every minute of pain he unnecessarily caused so very many people.
Like all acts that fall into the “senseless” category:
“Why Paul? Why then? What exactly couldn’t have waited a month or even a week or two?
Al Quida made a “Statement” when they attacked the American targets.
Paul Krugman has made a “Statement” also.
Both felt it was “deserved”.
I see no difference.
September 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm, Anonymous said:
Ask Colin Powell how he feels about that U.N. briefing today? He’ll probably tell you it was the most shameful day of his life
September 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm, Anonymous said:
While I don’t believe the “inside job” bit, I can buy into the whole “hijack the hijacking” thing to reap political benefits as well as financial benefits. We witnessed just that. The party in power at the time (and it wouldn’t really matter which one) would reap the benefit of a nearly guaranteed re-election to a second term by making all the right noises about retribution and punishment and revenge. And this was only into year 2 of Bush’s presidency. Pandering to typical knee-jerk responses by a fear-inflamed populace who get most of their news from one corrupted source. While those who possessed a clear head and a non-fear based response moved right in and reaped those “benefits”. Whether those “benefits” were realized in political or financial terms is irrelevant.
September 12, 2011 at 10:11 pm, Anonymous said:
You are So Right about the shameless political highjacking of 9/11.
But about your observation that Krugman is so wrong about the economy (notwithstanding that he has a Nobel Prize in Economics):
But you are Dead–well, at least moribundly–Wrong that the world’s economy can’t grow forever (or very close to forever). Anyone who took Econ 1001 learned this.
You see, the economy is NOT a zero sum game. The world economy can keep growing with everyone benefitting. The world’s economy today is 200X improved over what it was 200 years ago. Not just in total but per capita as well!
Technology is the key.
Just 70 years, there were no antibiotics and medicine was still mostly Mumbo Jumbo. The life expectancy today is double that 200 years ago. Medical Science is now on the cusp of a major quantum jump in so many areas of life saving and improvement. Technology has brought about huge quantum leaps in food production and development of previously unimaginable modern scientific instruments (small example: 40 years ago, when I went to college, there were no calculators and we used slide rules; today, everyone can have a very powerful computer in his pocket. And people all over the world now can talk with anyone else on the globe with a commonly available hand device).
Maybe, someday, we will run out of living space if population keeps on growing unchecked, in accordance with those religious fundamentalists who know (because they talk to God): no abortion, no family planning, no contraception, no right to die if one chooses to do so of his free will, etc.
But Technology may solve that problem also… who knows, maybe we’ll be able to move to one of the 13 dimensions now predicted by String Theory, where everything will be in miniature.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with decaying systems, not the expanding human spirit and boundless intellect. The reason why we can’t get our act together to get out of this recession is that people who know (e.g. respected Nobel Prize economists like Krugman) aren’t allowed to take the lead in making economic decisions. Our democratic system allows everyone–including the ignorant and not so bright–to eqaully participate and kibutz. It’s like allowing everyone to participate in the design of rocket ships.
If we don’t allow Rocket Scientists to take the lead in designing rocketships, then we’ll get lots of crashes. The world economy is undergoing a big crash right now.
September 12, 2011 at 10:11 pm, Anonymous said:
I’ll offer one data point in support of Prof. Krugman. It took a decade to hunt and kill bin Laden. Using Israeli tactics of small, swift and secret, it should have taken no more than a week. A decade is not success, it is an abysmal failure. The reason is simple. The Republicans went on a rampage domestically and abroad. They were willing to pay any price – even the price of failure – so long as they could corrupt, spy, torture, imprison, kill, maim, bomb, shoot, destroy and annihilate, and be seen doing it, and get rich doing it. Their rampage was not simply self-serving, illegal and unConstitutional, it was expensive, unnecessary, stupid, wasteful and destructive.
I now live in a US where the Constitution has been shredded, the law of the land is in tatters, our Supreme Court is insane, the economy is stagnant, our reputation is befouled, liberty is crushed, both wars are lost, our Congress is a venomous snakepit, our education system is corrupted, and our retirees and our youth have no future. NO FUTURE. We killed our own future. For what?
September 12, 2011 at 11:02 pm, Anonymous said:
How do you know we weren’t employing Israeli tactics of small, swift, and secret takedowns? Did it ever occur to you that we had absolutely no idea where Osama was until we finally killed him.
Actually, if memory serves, the way we did kill Osama was a small, swift, and secret takedown. Now, if it was really all the Republicans’ fault, why didn’t we get Osama on day 1 of Obama’s administration? Ohh, yeah, that’s right. Osama was probably the single most powerful non-governmental leader in history. He had thousands of terrorists at his beck and call. For God sakes, he organized one of the worst mass murders in history. Is he going to wait around for us to kill him? Hell no! It’s lucky we found him at all!!
September 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm, Kenny Horton said:
Just stop all the nonsense about conspiracy nuts. These people who are saying it was an inside job are only asking for another independent investigation. What is wrong with that? Are there factors that are unclear? Yes! What is wrong with having another independent investigation? Why are you attacking people who don’t accept the story as it has been told. There is nothing wrong with the people asking how a three buildings can fall into their own footprint on the same day. What are the odds for this? I am one of these people that know physics and physics does not lie. It is as you are saying physics does lie when you attack these people. You only make yourself look stupid. I would respectfully request anyone that is making a post that the conspiracy nuts are wrong; engage someone that has done some independent investigating. You will find yourself unable to answer a lot of questions.
September 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm, Anonymous said:
Three points:
1. Once you give in to one independent investigation, where does it stop? Politics, almost by definition, cannot please everyone. It’s like the book, If you Give a Mouse a Cookie.
2. Buildings are designed to fall into their own footprint. It’s part of architecture 101: when you build a giant sky scraper, you don’t want it falling over. These giant buildings all include complicated dampening mechanisms in their core that limits their sway during winds, which has the additional benefit of keeping the buildings upright when they fall over. You’d have to damage the buildings pretty severely, and pretty asymmetrically at their base to case them to fall like a tree. Furthermore, when an object falls down, all the force that it generates is in a vertical direction. There was no lateral loading on the WTC when the towers collapses, so it makes sense that the buildings would fall straight down. The actual physics shows us that the WTC should fall straight down; it’s the nay-sayers who are using faulty physics.
3. I’m one of those people who has done a lot of independent investigation, and I have been able to answer all of my own questions. Give me one question you can’t find an answer to, and let me answer it for you.
September 12, 2011 at 10:41 pm, Anonymous said:
He spoke the truth but most of you CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Pity that you all know it too.
September 12, 2011 at 10:41 pm, Dennis Conforto said:
Paul Krugman is a left wing ideologue who is not interested in honest and truthful dialogue about 9/11. He is only interested in his manufactured idea’s of what the truth might be to fit his very limited views of the world. Because of this extreme bias his views are corrupt to the core. His character assassination of those who have a wider set of views of the world than his own limited view is neither fair nor morally responsible. He delights throwing a verbal hand grenade into the room of his victims to hear his own name invoked as a person who is enlighten by opening up a debate that only serves to polarize everyone. A debate founded in half truths and defended by those who live in a world of half truths. It is not journalism nor is it leadership or intellect. While its very American to express your point of view it is un-American when you express them with half truths and then profit from them like Paul has done. We see people like Paul all the time at sporting events they are the ones that sit in the cheap seats and throw out verbal insults at every play and player then they look to see if their friend’s right around them laugh at the insults. If they get any slight approval of this bad behavior they sling even more cheap shots at an ever increasing rate all to the delight of the very few who over time get bored it all. Paul’s next objective articles will be on how George W. Bush was responsible for Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, followed by another article how George was responsible for the JFK assassination. The only truthful article Paul can write at this point is how my half truths about George Bush made me semi famous and semi rich. That then could be followed up by a book on How Half Truths made me Half Rich. If successful he can then write the follow on book on How Out and Out Lying made me Filthy Rich. Welcome to the world of Paul Krugman!
September 12, 2011 at 11:27 pm, Dotsondonald 1 said:
Actually we landed on the moon we just wernt the first russian and our government found something and there was a race to get to it..
September 13, 2011 at 4:12 am, spam y said:
I believe the country was incredibly stupid and short sighted not to see where in all would lead it.
September 13, 2011 at 5:13 am, Anonymous said:
If he could just tell the whole truth we would live in a free nation.
September 13, 2011 at 5:57 am, Anonymous said:
Remember who took credit for the death of Bin Laden: a democrat. Bothered much? Probably not. This story is less about a political hijacking and more about the left’s ideological disdain for anything conservative. It would be interesting to see what the response to 9/11 would have been like if Krugman, et al, could have orchestrated every move of the people who were in office that day trying to do their jobs in light of a horrific national tragedy.
Then again, maybe the only political hijacking that is truly taking place is the one hidden in this “story”.
September 13, 2011 at 11:28 pm, Tristan Pinnock said:
9/11 hasn’t been hijacked by the Right. 9/11 is the Right’s meat and potatoes. ”Bad guys from somewhere strange came here and killed 3000 people and we’re going to kill them all!!!” is going to resonate far more than “Well, I think we should talk about Muslim grievances about the United States…”
9/11 is becoming a pretty good litmus test for how someone feels about America. Why do you think it was a tragedy?
A)3000 innocent people died at the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists
or
B)The actions that we, as a nation, have taken since.
September 17, 2011 at 6:45 pm, Anonymous said:
A and B
January 07, 2013 at 9:30 am, Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary? | Death and Taxes said:
[...] Glover—for President Obama to name New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman as Treasury Secretary when Tim Geithner steps down at the end of [...]