An Open Letter to Paul Krugman

[Scylla]

@Miller

Sorry, what “psychoanalyzing” have I done? Where have I engaged in ad hominem? The closest I’ve come to that is saying that your ethical framework is questionable, and I did that after illustrating, using your own direct statements, a massive double standard in your behavior. I can appreciate that it’s not a nice thing to read about yourself, but it’s a far cry from (for example) saying people are “broken” if they disagree with you.

Not really. It’s not that what you’re saying is upsetting, it’s just tedious and pointless.
You’re making a meta analysis of my post.

You see we’re talking about me. You’re talking about me.

My op is that Krugman has done is wrong and contemptible and that people who don’t see that have gone off the deep end of partisan nuttery

Now, you can agree with that or disagree with that, and I’m interested in what you have to say (as long as you continue to say it intelligently.)

If you want to deconstruct my post, I don’t wanna play. My experience on this board says that that never ends up going anywhere worthwhile.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Scylla

My op is that Krugman has done is wrong and contemptible and that people who don’t see that have gone off the deep end of partisan nuttery

You still haven’t explained what made it “wrong and contemptible.”

[The_Tooth]

It was critical of Republicans.

[mhendo]

@Scylla

I was right the first time. Psychoanalyzing the op is old hat, and just another form of ad hominem, and not very interesting to me.

It was not psychoanalyzing; it was simply analyzing. You are apparently attaching (what you see as) epithets like “psychoanalyzing” and “deconstructing” to Miller’s argument in order to avoid actually engaging with it. That’s your right, of course, and you don’t have to engage any poster or any argument that you don’t want to, but don’t pretend that the argument itself is somehow irrelevant or invalid or a “form of ad hominem” (ferchissake) just because you don’t like what he’s saying.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Hey Scylla.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14252134&postcount=178

Care to address that post? You seem to have ignored it, despite (or perhaps because) of the fact that it completely refutes the ideas you seem to be representing.

Furthermore, if Krugman made a post lambasting the actions of Stalin, would it be seen as “bitterly partisan” because he doesn’t fairly address the achievements of the government or simply focuses on the negative aspects (like, say, the millions killed)?

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

Let’s not and say we did, okay? You and I have already had this particular debate about a dozen over 12 years, and life is to short to waste it on this, with you, again. Besides, it has nothing to do with the OP.

Dude, this board’s about fighting ignorance, not promoting it.

Just because a piece of junk is old, doesn’t mean you get a free pass when you decide to claim it’s roadworthy. Quite the opposite.

You can start a thread about why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq on your own.

Then maybe you should have stayed away from these subjects here. You’re the OP, you brought them up, it’s a little late for saying they’re off topic.

You make bold assertions, then run from defending them. Reminds me of the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

I don’t really see how you can compare the ire directed at bush to that directed at Obama with a straight face.

Shouldn’t there be a supporting argument or something following that assertion?

Or is it just obviously true?

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Scylla

But yes, I think if you look at Krugman’s op-ed, and you think it’s good and you agree with it, there’s something broken in you.

Why?

As already stated, the crux of the Krugman piece is that he feels the “memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned” by politicians attempts to “cash in on the horror”, in particular the use of it to " justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons."

All of this behaviour is a matter of public record, as I posted previously here.

So please explain to me why I am broken to believe that politicians did indeed cynically exploit the fear and grief of 9/11?

By all means accuse me of being bipartisan here, but considering I’m a rather militant right-winger and not in America, I’m not sure what agenda it is you can claim I’m pushing.

[elucidator]

Shit, this is nothing! Have you read Scylla’s article Hannibal Lecter: Doctor, Humanitarian, Gourmand,

[Miller]

@Scylla

Not really. It’s not that what you’re saying is upsetting, it’s just tedious and pointless.
You’re making a meta analysis of my post.

I’m honestly not sure what you mean by “meta analysis.” I’m directly addressing the content of your posts, and relating them to the issues you’ve raised in the OP.

You see we’re talking about me. You’re talking about me.

My op is that Krugman has done is wrong and contemptible and that people who don’t see that have gone off the deep end of partisan nuttery.

Yes, I am talking about you. And since I don’t see Krugman’s article as wrong or contemptible, you’re talking about me when you say people who disagree with you have “gone off the deep end of partisan nuttery.” If you get to talk about me, it seems only fair that I get to talk about you.

Now, you can agree with that or disagree with that, and I’m interested in what you have to say (as long as you continue to say it intelligently.)

If you want to deconstruct my post, I don’t wanna play. My experience on this board says that that never ends up going anywhere worthwhile.

Deconstruct? I’m dealing entirely with surface meaning when I respond to your posts. I’m not bringing in any kind of subtext at all. Everything I’ve addressed in your posts has been plain text.

[devilsknew]

I invoke the Gnadenhutten Massacre upon thee.

“The militia rounded up the Christian Lenape and accused them of taking part in raids into Pennsylvania. Although the Lenape denied the charges, the militia held a council and voted to kill them. Refusing to take part, some militiamen left the area. One of those who opposed the killing of the Moravians was Obadiah Holmes, Jr. Among his observations of the incident was that “one Nathan Rollins & brother had had a father & uncle killed took the lead in murdering the Indians, …& Nathan Rollins had tomahawked nineteen of the poor Moravians, & after it was over he sat down & cried, & said it was no satisfaction for the loss of his father & uncle after all”.[4] After the Lenape were told of the vote, they spent the night praying and singing hymns.”

Wiki Gnaddenghutten mascree.

[Scylla]

Gary:

The whole “poisoned the memory thing” is absolutely ridiculous. MRI man is basically suggesting that he is so stupid that he can’t separate events that are months or years apart.

Nothing that anybody did subsequently affected what happened on 9/11 unless you want to posit time travel.

As human beings and citizens we choose what we pay attention to, we choose what is important to us.

On 9/11 what was important to Krugman was the opportunity to vent spleen at Bush Giuliani and Neocons.

It makes him broken, just like if your kid is in bad shape in the hospital and what you are primarily interested in is what’s for dinner, you are broken.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Scylla

Gary:

The whole “poisoned the memory thing” is absolutely ridiculous. MRI man is basically suggesting that he is so stupid that he can’t separate events that are months or years apart.

Nothing that anybody did subsequently affected what happened on 9/11 unless you want to posit time travel.

Yes, but it changed the way we think about it. Just like when we first hear a story about how a wife comes home to find her husband dead, we feel sympathy for the wife; then later, when the murder weapon is found in the wife’s dresser and she’s in the Caribbean with the money from the life insurance policy she put on her husband shortly before he died, we might claim that the memory is “poisoned”. That’s what Krugman is claiming. Furthermore, maybe we can’t separate events on a time scale, but you apparently can’t link even the most clearly drawn lines together, even when your idols in the Bush administration draw the lines themselves.

On 9/11 what was important to Krugman was the opportunity to vent spleen at Bush Giuliani and Neocons.

First and foremost: he runs an opinion column in the New York Times. Maybe he wanted to take the anniversary and mention how badly we got fucked by our politicians after 9/11. I don’t see how this is a problem. Maybe he got sick of just being sad about it and decided to lash out at those who, for him and many others, made the memory of 9/11 less about the 3000 that died and more about how the people in power abused the memory of the 3000 that died to lead an immoral, illegal war and impose limitations on our first amendment rights?

It makes him broken, just like if your kid is in bad shape in the hospital and what you are primarily interested in is what’s for dinner, you are broken.

Speaking of time travel… Did this article come out in 2001 or 2011? Just wanna make sure I have those dates right.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@miss_elizabeth

Good lord you are dumb. Do you have problems in everyday life due to your inability to read and comprehend? Fuck.

Ok, more slowly for the stupid: When 9/11 happened, politicians turned it into a 3 ring circus and used it to do shitty things, like start a war. Ok? With me so far?

Now, Krugman thinks the 10th anniversary was subdued because people feel shame when remembering how that happened. Ok? Got it?

Also, Terri Schivo has nothing to do with 9/11. They were two separate events. There is no link. EXCEPT (here comes the hard part, focus!) they were both exploited by asshole right wing politicians for political gain. See, that was what we call an analogy. Ok? Sometimes analogies make it easier to understand complex ideas. Not for you, but then we can’t help our shortcomings, can we?

Now, go eat some paste.

Stay classy, miss elizabeth.

@miss_elizabeth

There’s no “Remember When The PATRIOT Act Was Passed” Day.

So make one and spew out your anger on that day. I don’t remember anyone during the 9/11 comemmoration saying, “thank goodness this tragedy at least led to the Patriot Act.” I thought of it as more of a, “let’s pay respect to those who died,” kind of thing. I simply thought Krugman’s piece was in poor taste for using the comemmoration as his bullhorn.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Scylla

Gary:

The whole “poisoned the memory thing” is absolutely ridiculous. MRI man is basically suggesting that he is so stupid that he can’t separate events that are months or years apart.

He doesn’t say you can’t separate the events. He’s saying that you shouldn’t. And that’s fair.

You’ve seen the quotes I posted above, and if you really want I’ll go and find a whole pile more. Various politicians used it as emotional capital to push through a whole range of bad schemes. The invasion of Iraq is one example, but lord knows there’s plenty of others - The Patriot Act, the whole doctrine of Preemptive-Preventive war, the depiction of Islam as little more than a pantomime villain, etc.

Being blunt, the behaviour of the US and to a pretty comparable extent the UK on the world stage since 9/11 has been deeply questionable, and a lot of that behaviour has been justified or excused as part of The War on Terror (© G Bush).

[xenophon41]

On February 15, 1898, after being dispatched to Cuba as part of a force assigned to protect US interests during the Cuban rebellion against Spain, the armored cruiser USS Maine exploded in Havana Bay and sunk. 261 sailors and marines lost their lives.

Although it was not clear that the explosion was caused by any outside hostile agency*, newspapers in the US, particularly William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World which were competing for subscribers, immediately blamed Spain and began printing false claims of Spanish atrocities and fabricated “facts” surrounding the sinking of the Maine and the fictionalized perfidies of the Spanish. This “yellow journalism” was denounced and eschewed by some at the time - including Victor Lawson, owner of the Chicago Reader - but had at least some impact on popular sentiment against Spain, and a more significant influence on opinion among government officials.

At the same time, US Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, who had long felt a good war against any foreign power would help heal the wounds of the US Civil War and strengthen both the US Navy and US foreign influence, leveraged the momentum provided by the eastern newspapers and agitated for a military response, undercutting President McKinley’s efforts to find a negotiated solution.

On April 20, 1898 McKinley signed a joint resolution from Congress demanding that Spain withdraw from Cuba and authorizing the unlimited use of US military forces to achieve Cuban independence. Spain broke off diplomatic relations with the US and on April 22 declared war, officially beginning the Spanish-American War.

Although the war lasted a scant four months, it effectively turned the United States into an international military power and substantially boosted Roosevelt’s political fortunes through sensational newspaper accounts of his exploits as commander of the Rough Riders. Roosevelt had also shown acute political acumen in predicting the consequences and effects of the war.

Ten years later, observing the anniversary of the sinking of the Maine, when it was still largely believed that Spain had actively sunk the vessel, would it have been out of place for a columnist to have noted and lamented the self serving propaganda of Hearst, Pulitzer and Roosevelt, and to feel that the combined 16,000 US, Spanish and Cuban deaths in the war somewhat overshadowed the losses suffered in Havana Bay on that day in February 1898?

*[sub]Subsequent investigations over the next 100 years have produced a consensus view that spontaneous combustion of coal stores adjacent to the ship’s forward munitions battery was the most probable cause of the explosion.[/sub]

[miss_elizabeth]

@xenophon41

On February 15, 1898, after being dispatched to Cuba as part of a force assigned to protect US interests during the Cuban rebellion against Spain, the armored cruiser USS Maine exploded in Havana Bay and sunk. 261 sailors and marines lost their lives.

Although it was not clear that the explosion was caused by any outside hostile agency*, newspapers in the US, particularly William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World which were competing for subscribers, immediately blamed Spain and began printing false claims of Spanish atrocities and fabricated “facts” surrounding the sinking of the Maine and the fictionalized perfidies of the Spanish. This “yellow journalism” was denounced and eschewed by some at the time - including Victor Lawson, owner of the Chicago Reader - but had at least some impact on popular sentiment against Spain, and a more significant influence on opinion among government officials.

At the same time, US Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, who had long felt a good war against any foreign power would help heal the wounds of the US Civil War and strengthen both the US Navy and US foreign influence, leveraged the momentum provided by the eastern newspapers and agitated for a military response, undercutting President McKinley’s efforts to find a negotiated solution.

On April 20, 1898 McKinley signed a joint resolution from Congress demanding that Spain withdraw from Cuba and authorizing the unlimited use of US military forces to achieve Cuban independence. Spain broke off diplomatic relations with the US and on April 22 declared war, officially beginning the Spanish-American War.

Although the war lasted a scant four months, it effectively turned the United States into an international military power and substantially boosted Roosevelt’s political fortunes through sensational newspaper accounts of his exploits as commander of the Rough Riders. Roosevelt had also shown acute political acumen in predicting the consequences and effects of the war.

Ten years later, observing the anniversary of the sinking of the Maine, when it was still largely believed that Spain had actively sunk the vessel, would it have been out of place for a columnist to have noted and lamented the self serving propaganda of Hearst, Pulitzer and Roosevelt, and to feel that the combined 16,000 US, Spanish and Cuban deaths in the war somewhat overshadowed the losses suffered in Havana Bay on that day in February 1898?

*[sub]Subsequent investigations over the next 100 years have produced a consensus view that spontaneous combustion of coal stores adjacent to the ship’s forward munitions battery was the most probable cause of the explosion.[/sub]

No, because McKinley was a Republican.

Haven’t you been paying attention?!

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@xenophon41

Ten years later, observing the anniversary of the sinking of the Maine, when it was still largely believed that Spain had actively sunk the vessel, would it have been out of place for a columnist to have noted and lamented the self serving propaganda of Hearst, Pulitzer and Roosevelt, and to feel that the combined 16,000 US, Spanish and Cuban deaths in the war somewhat overshadowed the losses suffered in Havana Bay on that day in February 1898?

Not if it was done tactfully.

[MOIDALIZE]

I think we can add “Americans turning into a bunch of pearl-clutching ninnies” as another negative result of 9/11.

[MysteryFellow63427]

I generally believe that Krugman is a vile, spiteful man who hates his country and takes glee in its misery. I wouldn’t shed a single tear if he was torn asunder by a pack of angry honey badgers.

But I’m not really offended by his 9/11 column.