I read Paul Krugman’s column once in awhile, and I always come away feeling abused. Yesterday when I read his column, my first thought was that “if I had a subscription, I’d cancel it”. Apparently I wasn’t the only one.
This could be the start of something big:
Click image for the story
I see this as a candidate for going viral on FB and Twitter.
Here’s the Krugman article: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/
That article by Krugman is horrid. I can’t imagine Judgement Day going well for him. He’s not even trying.
I appreciate your feeling of abuse. The guy writes like a he’s taking an emotional dump all over the page. However, he is not saying that 9/11 was shameful for America. He seems to be saying that the political response to the atrocity was shameful. Big difference. Whether one agrees or not, one should allow him to have his point of view.
REPLY: “Whether one agrees or not, one should allow him to have his point of view.” No argument there, free speech is the cornerstone of our republic. By the same token, so is our ability to choose whom we want to read or listen to. Choosing to subscribe (or not) is a personal choice. – Anthony
Krugman is a professional troll. Looks like he got Rumsfeld.
Why should anyone care???? It’s Krugman! He may have been a brilliant economist once, but his relevance died years ago when he became nothing but a glorified political hack.
BTW, I would like to say that from my New Zealand home I have been closely following the preparations of Ground Zero for the 10th anniversary and have been deeply moved by the commemorative ceremonies. The Ground Zero memorial waterfalls with the victims’ names cut in bronze is a truly inspiring poetic tribute.
Mike Jowsey says:
September 12, 2011 at 10:44 am
“Whether one agrees or not, one should allow him to have his point of view.”
Cancelling a subscription is not censorship. Krugman can have his view, but I nor anyone else is required to listen to or read it.
The freedom of speech means even some idiots and Mr. Paul Krugman can speak their mind.
Freedom of action means we can respond to a good idea when we see one. Like the idea to cancel subscriptions to media that publish/employ idiots and Mr. Paul Krugman. Like canceling a subscription to the NYT while letting the world know we canceled and why we did.
Ahhh . . . . the smell of freedom in the afternoon.
Personal Note: I haven’t bought a NYT for +25 yrs or supported the NYT online. You can get better news coverage from multiple other sources.
John
There is no Nobel prize for economics. The prize is administered by the Nobel foundation but was established by the central bank of Sweden. It is known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel. It really pisses me off when people insist on calling this moron a Nobel prize winner.
I just finished Conscience of a Liberal. It isn’t a “pure” piece like Friedman’s Free to Choose. He uses the book to slime the Republicans. Friedman extolled individual freedom and capitalism, but I don’t recall him trying to figure out why people vote for Democrats like Krugman did for Republicans. I agree with the poster above, Krugman is a political hack.
@ur momisugly mkelly and Anthony:
Thanks for focusing on the freedom of speech versus cancellation of subscription thing. It highlighted to me that I fogged the point I wanted to make by saying too much. My point was that Krugman was not saying “Shame on America for 9/11”, but “Shame on American politicians for their response to 9/11”.
Sadly here in Blighty we have the BBC, for which we have no choice. Therefore we get to hear this kind of thing all the time. Its the broadcasting organ of the 500k circulation Guardian/Independant mindset that is forced into 25million homes with no balance at all.
And hence the Guardian/BBC axis to make the NOTW hacking scandal the biggest crime of the century….nice result in canning NI’s intended ‘Fox News UK’……….heaven forbid the British public could chose between left/right PR and make thier own minds up.
God I hate the BBC….
Think yourself lucky over there in the US, at least you have a choice of broadcastor as well as paper, our failing poor circulation papers have a megaphone into all our homes (except mine…I refuse to listen to BBC news anymore, hurrah!)
mkelly says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:01 am
“Cancelling a subscription is not censorship. Krugman can have his view, but I nor anyone else is required to listen to or read it.”
You are so right. I get so tired of people screaming “censorship” in cases like this. Censorship can only be done by the government. If a private entity bans certain speech (or writing) on its private site or property, it ain’t censorship – it’s ownership.
Krugman has a right to his opinions. He doesn’t have a right to have a newspaper column any more than I can be forced to subscribe to any rag that prints it.
One of the advantages in having free speech is that it allows Paul Krugman and Al Gore to demonstrate their stupidity for all to see and judge for themselves. Long live free speech, just don’t demand that I be charged for hearing speech from which I disagree.
Michael J Alexander says:
September 12, 2011 at 10:49 am
“…nothing but a glorified political hack.”
Not so glorified.
I frequent RealClearPolitics (www.realclearpolitics.com), where each day there’s a fresh list of political articles and blogs that cover the left, the center and the right. Krugman is a frequent contributor, but for the past year, the titles to his articles have become increasingly harsh. It’s as if he’s losing his sense of perspective as the US economy drags along with no recovery; as Obama makes one silly gaff after another, and as Keynsian Economics is shown to remain on the trash heap of discredited ideas.
And because Krugman thinks he’s so right, being shown in practice that he’s so wrong just has to hurt an otherwise stupendous ego. Yesterday’s rant was pretty much the manifestation of an ego in meltdown.
I didnt mind the article. Everybody in this country is entitled to their own opinions. But the fact he disabled comments to his little rant is just completely childish, shallow and cowardly.
Krugman lays claim to being an “intellectual”. Yet, in his articles, I only see intellect being used to rationalize preconceived notions — rather than sound logical arguments that could sway an open mind. I suppose being an ideologue “pays the bills”.
I usually avoid his articles — reading them only occasionally to better understand the thinking of those having the ideological viewpoint he represents.
Krugman: “The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”
It is Krugman himself who does the poisoning. The shame is all his.
So a lunatic doesn’t want to support to a lunatic? I think they’ve got more important news on TMZ.
Given the state of things at the NYT , they probably consider Rumsfeld’s cancellation an honor .
Yet another illustration of the political lefts vicious vilification of anyone they don’t agree with, whether it be Republicans, Conservatives, The Tea Party grassroots groups, Right To Work groups, Constitutionalists, religious groups, supporters of conventionally available inexpensive power, Deniers of Man Made Global Warming, etc. etc. etc.
I can’t imagine why anyone still has a subscription to the the NY Times. It’s been a pretty poor news outlet for many years now. Krugman’s article is not all that much worse than much of the rest of its content.
The NYT’s circulation is dropping. Probably, in part, due to the likes of Krugman.
However, the world would be a sadder place with out the Friday, Saturday and Sunday NYT Crossword puzzles.
speaking of Al Gore, he’s apparently having a day long Telethon today to shriek about how EVIILLL! the Climate Skeptics are. I wonder how fare he will get before he starts slurring his words badly and weeping while holding onto a globe.