While I expected to disagree with him, I was surprised when the link led to an actual molehill, with Scylla on all fours looking flushed and confused, dressed in full mountaineer garb.
Irrefutable evidence that waterboarding should be left to professionals.
I won’t waste any time on the OP, which is stupid and has had more than adequate rebuttal in the thread. And I don’t see any further need to bother with Scylla at this point in my commenting life, either. But I’ll take a stab at defending Harborwolf’s reasoning, because, though I disagree with the conclusion, I think the point is being misrepresented.
Here’s the money quote (emphasis added):
This is not a “liberal hypocrites fail to tolerate intolerance” type of tu quoque. Harborwolf isn’t attacking Krugman’s complaint about the self serving appropriation of 9/11 by others; (s)he’s accusing Krugman of appropriating the country’s specific post-9/11 sensibilities and portraying them in a certain way (‘shamed’, ‘sedate’) to serve his own political pov.
While IMO Harborwolf is off base, the accusation against Krugman isn’t facile or juvenile. The comparison of Krugman to the targets of his column, and the failure to distinguish the real differences are kind of dumb, though…
Krugman’s interpretation may be idiosyncratic and even self serving, but it is not cynically exploitative of tragedy, as were Bush, Giuliani and Kerik.
No, I said no such thing. The original point is much more subtle, and therefore apparently out of your grasp. The Bush administration used the memory of 9/11 to sell its invasion of Iraq, connecting it explicitly with the “War on Terror”. But you keep on flailing for a rhetorical point. You might get one accidentally.
I would respond to this, but I am far too busy with important things to bother with it, and it is much simpler just to place you on ignore.
Yeah! That’ll learn him!
That “argument” always reminds me of this exchange:
[QUOTE=L. Sprague deCamp, “Lest Darkness Fall”]
“You don’t like the Goths?”
“No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
“Persecution?” Padway raised his eyebrows.
“Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
“But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
“That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”
[/QUOTE]
A worthwhile distinction (although I’m unfamiliar with Kerik).
Another point to ponder: Do countries generally like to dwell on tragedies? It’s lot more fun to mark D-Day, or VJ-Day, or the anniversary of Midway than to ponder Pearl Harbor.
I think that the movie version of Flight 93 got excellent reviews but didn’t make a lot of money.
Despite that hedge, I feel better commemorating Pearl Harbor than remembering 9-11 because of the war of aggression that the US launched in the aftermath of 9-11.
I think this line of argument hinges critically on how Krugman would benefit from the use of 9/11. He appears to be using it to serve his role as a commentator. If this is advancing a political point of view, it’s very hard for me to see when making commentary could not be so described. Only the fully impartial are allowed to observe that 9/11 imagery was used as a wedge? Perhaps allowances for those putatively speaking against self-interest?
I appreciate your explication, but I still think we are looking at a decidedly non-hunting dog.
A closer description would be “depraved indifference” – not deliberately trying to kill anybody, but behaving recklessly in a manner that any sensible person would predict was likely to kill somebody.
Sue, but there is no chance of dragging the dogs away from their vomit, again.
If it entertains you to try, knock yourself out. Certainly there are times when watching the Usual Suspects hate-fapping in public is entertaining, and I have amused myself in the past going to Bedlam and laughing at the inmates. But it doesn’t change any minds - they’re not capable of it.
Regards,
Shodan
Change my mind. What did Krugman say that was wrong, and how did Scylla set him right? Be brutally specific.
Unless, of course, you’re just here to offer a scattershot threadfart at the Usual Suspects and a quick drive-by reacharound for your colleague.
I have a brand new Radio Shack Irony-o-meter, can read levels of irony down to .01 millihicks. There is no detectable irony in that statement.
Couldn’t agree more. My only point was that at least Harborwolf isn’t trying to hunt with a weasel.*
*ETA: I mean, other than sorta running in the same general direction of the K-Thug issue as the OP…
That’s not possible. I already said that.
Regards,
Shodan
So you’re just taking your ball and going home then. Got it.
You expect more than a one-link turd dropping from Shobot? He’s an even Beyer illustration of the axiom that douchebag’s gotta douche. Squeeze him any way you like; you’ll never get anything different out of him.
You can change my mind! I’m totally not even really invested in this topic so far. Krugman’s article seems legit to me but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
(Am I a Usual Suspect? Do I get a badge or something? Or maybe a shirt?)
Except without the ‘going home’ part. Because he can’t be tedious at us if he leaves.
You only get the shirt if you tell me who Keyser Soze is, MsWhatsit. Or should I call you…Keyser Soze?
I feel better about commemorating Pearl Harbor because we actually attacked the assholes who did it rather than waste time whimpering and bitching and going after someone else entirely. And even then some of the stuff we did in the aftermath was pretty shameful, like the internment camps.
There’s too much skepticism in the air! My psychic powers will not work unless everyone in the room believes they will!