http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/
It’s kind of hard to find the words on this one. This one just hurts me. It hurts me in ways that I didn’t think some asshole pundit was capable of hurting me. I think things were “subdued” yesterday because that is the appropriate way to commemorate a horrible tragedy. I think things were subdued because most people realized that it was not a moment for partisan politics.
Your article is pari-passu with the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church who like to come out to the funerals of slain servicemen and protest that God hates fags and such. Rhetorically, it is difficult to get lower than such actions.
When you shit on a funeral you harm the people who are there to heal.
I don’t know of anybody else who feels the shame you seem to feel and articulate. I do know that for somebody who has won the nobel prize you certainly seem to have a simplistic view of things.
I don’t think your nobel prize or your fame has anything to do with any particular skill or expertise in your field, but rather with your consistent willingness to sell your credentials in service of your politics.
I think you are a disgusting human being who has just left the reservation in terms of what it means to be a participant in society. You are a cynical little hack.
To me, the worst thing about this is that if you wish to say something like you just said, you should take ownership of it. Writing something like what you wrote and then locking the comments “for obvious reasons” is about as mature as lighting a turd on fire, ringing somebody’s doorbell and running away.
I’m not seeing the reason for outrage. What part of “hi-jacking 9/11 for their own purposes” seems incorrect to you? Giuliani, for instance, is still cashing in on it. Bush used it as a springboard to start an unnecessary war and people are still dying because of it. Krugman’s Nobel is for economics. This commentary is opinion, and is on the mark, as far as I’m concerned. Ordinary Americans saw their mutual grief hi-jacked by a bunch of self-serving politicians who used it to stoke hatred and bitterness.
I agree with him, except for the “subdued” part. First off, subdued is good…that’s the way these things should be. And secondly, they haven’t been subdued. They have been quite up all in your face. Still can’t tune into a channel and not hear about 9/11.
I haven’t see any collective embarrassment, even though I agree that shame taints the whole thing.
The things conservatives get worked up about…I’ll never understand.
For anyone who hasn’t bothered clicking on the link, the Krugman column is very short and titled, The Years of Shame.
He wonders if the commemorations seem strangely subdued to anyone other than him. He says that 9/11 should have unified America, but that instead politicians turned it into a “wedge issue” and used it to launch self-serving wars and political campaigns.He names Bush, Giuliani, and Bernie Kerik. He condemns the media pundits for their complicity
His summation is: The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
I think it’s a valid viewpoint. Comparing it to the funeral picketing of the Westboro Baptist Church is off the mark. It isn’t irrational blathering, it’s germane to the occasion. If Krugman had virulently condemned the irredeemable evil of the Amerikan Empire, the OP might have a worthy point. He doesn’t have a worthy point.
Are you claiming, Scylla, that 9/11 wasn’t turned into a wedge issue?
That some people didn’t regularly bring up 9/11 for cynical self-aggrandizement or self-promotion, or co-opt 9/11 imagery for political ads and campaigns?
I agree with Krugman on this one, and disagree with Scylla. No real surprise there.
I don’t really see it that way, and I tend to think that people that do are displaying a marker for rabid partisanship and simplistic worldviews.
Nevertheless, you’ve completely bypassed my point.
You are making the same argument that a Westboro Baptist would no doubt make to defend his actions. That is, they would likely say that “God does hate fags, and God is punishing America for being permissive to homosexuality, and therefore what we are doing is justified, even necessary.”
Of course, the funny thing is that pretty much everybody thinks they are right, and that being right justifies all kinds of atrocious behavior.
It doesn’t. Life is more complex than Krugman suggests.
If you thought somebody was an alcoholic, that’s no excuse to stand up at his funeral and shout about what a rotten sonovabitch the alky was.
The 10 year anniversary of 9/11 is not really an appropriate occasion to loudly remind everybody what a bunch of assholes you think Bush, Giuliani, Neocons an Republicans are.
It’s a little bigger than that.
If you don’t get that than I think you belong right there, next to Fred Phelps, holding up hate signs at funerals.
You still haven’t come to grips with how totally suckered you were with your buying into the story about how we had to invade Iraq, have you? Or how eager you were to get so many other people killed while you were too damn much of a pussy to go yourself? “The Big Dog Theory”, I believe you called it. But the rest of us knew then and knew now. The people you hate are both smarter and more principled than yourself. Deal with it.
Too damn bad. You were and are that big an fool and a coward. It isn’t anybody else’s fault but your own that you bought into it. Not Krugman’s, yours. Now grow the fuck up a little. It’s about time.
Being critical of people for using 9/11 as a wedge issue is one thing. Doing the exact thing is another. Krugman isn’t speaking for himself in the article. He’s speaking for “the nation,” and that’s the exact same thing the people he is shaming have attempted to do.
It’s certainly not as bad as Westboro batshit, but to me it’s just as bad as everything Giuliani has done with it.
Over-react much? I’ll admit that his timing may be a bit off, but the remarks remain on point. And for the record, I think Phelps is a dick, but it would appear that you would deny him his right to free speech, which makes you a bigger dick by far.
I can understand why someone would be upset at Krugman’s remarks - 9/11 is still a raw point for many (including me).
However, like Krugman, I’ve also found it deeply disgraceful that such a tragedy could have been so cynically co-opted to further certain agendas. And also that we, the American people, so willingly gave up certain hard-fought freedoms and fundamental rights - like due process, and protection against unlawful search and siezure - in exchange for a false sense of security.
The vital difference is that Krugman is not talking about the victims of September 11th. This is more like going to the funeral of an alcoholic and criticizing the guy who set up a cash bar.
It’s just Krugman being Krugman, akin to pitting a duck for quacking. He’s merely lamenting the fact the American public didn’t take his advice, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and unify around his call 10 years earlier to adopt “a Keynesian response to economic slowdown and refuse to accept another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts”. Or maybe he’s still pissed we haven’t nationalized critical industries and joined the EU.
Unless there at some truthers we’re supposed to take seriously, the American columnist I assumed would’ve been most likely to catch a pitting was Tom Engelhardt.
That’s it? That’s denying free speech? It’s certainly a gutless move on his part, but as I can still send an email to the editor detailing what a twit Krugman is I’m going to say my free speech is still pretty much unharmed.