|
|
|
June 22, 2006
Brokeback molehill from Krugman's mountain
The stuff I read. Sheesh! I don't know where to begin with this gem from Paul Krugman: . . .in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America's defender against gay married terrorists.(Via Mickey Kaus.) I've been around for awhile, I spent decades in Berkeley and San Francisco, and in all my years, I have never known a single gay married terrorist. And now I'm told that Bush "basically" ran against them? Where is Krugman getting such specialized knowledge? I thought he was an economist. Anyway, as Krugman provides no definition, I had to look elsewhere. As to who they are, and what they want, a comment left at the Agitator provides a clue: Everybody watch out for the gay terrorists! The gay married terrorists, who won't come into the country to blow things up unless their spouse gets a green card, too!No wonder I haven't seen any of these people. Bush has kept them out by means of a clever bureaucratic subterfuge. A Crooked Timber comment refers to the agenda of these sneaks in the context of the family of an unborn embryonic soldier recently killed in Iraq whose stem cells were kidnapped by gay married terrorists to be used in the creation of an animal-human hybrid. In March, 2005, a scary headlined proclaimed "Gay married terrorists will eat your baby" but the piece is scant on details of sodomitic cannibalism. Nearly a year ago, Daily Kos commenter made the same point as Krugman, but without a definition: . . . gay married terrorists weren't running for President in 2004--but that didn't stop Bush from running against them.Did he really? Well, why weren't gay married terrorists listed in CNN's famous voter exit poll? Might it be that two separate issues -- terrorism and gay marriage -- were rhetorically ("basically") conflated by Krugman and company? What about Kerry's statement that he and Bush had "the same position, fundamentally" on gay marriage? Unless Krugman is seriously suggesting that Kerry was for gay married terrorists, I think his phraseology represents a mountain of B.S. So why does Krugman conclude by advising his "fellow pundits" to "face reality"? Must we? posted by Eric on 06.22.06 at 03:45 PM
Comments
Krugman is a feminine hygiene product. As an economist, I'm blown away by his ignorance, stupidity, and just plain insanity. Jon Thompson · June 22, 2006 08:33 PM Jon, I'll leave it to you to criticize his economic theories, and I'm glad I didn't, as I'd have been out of my league! Eric Scheie · June 22, 2006 09:52 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Krugman forgot to mention that the gay married terrorists are also Muslim. After all, the GWOT is really a war on Islam, according to him/them.
So: Bush is defending us from "Muslim gay married terrorists".