Paul Krugman thinks opposition to the President's silly cap and trade bill is "treason." Matthew Iglesias looks at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and sees Sarah Palin. Pro-life and opposition to same sex marriage. Stoning women for adultery and executing gays and lesbians. Whatever. At least Ahmadinejad is an economic progressive.
Along the same lines, Mark Steyn points out that the UK's neo-fascists are all about the workers as well. It turns out that Britain's racist National Party supports economic protectionism, transfer of ownership of private firm to workers, and state ownership of key industries. Steyn writes:
If you think the British elections are beginning to sound like the
dinner-theater production of Jonah Goldberg's book, you're right - if by dinner
you had in mind tripe, pork scratchings, and mushy peas washed down with 14
pints of brown ale and a knife fight. Economically, the BNP is the Labour Party
before the Blairite metrosexual makeover ....
8 comments:
We know you love the guy, but surely we can't be expected to actually pay money for the opinions of Mark Steyn.
Mark Steyn is the funniest guest host on Rush - and not because he bashes liberal policies. I laugh when I see Leslie Nielson's face (saw him in an airport once) and laugh when I hear Mark Steyn's voice. It doesn't matter what he is saying. Just a funny man. Or maybe it's just me.
Paul Krugman thinks opposition to the President's silly cap and trade bill is "treason."
Wow, treason? Does he really think that? Hmm...
"...as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet."
Yeah, nothing metaphorical about that. But do toss up another post complaining about dishonest quote-mining.
Sheesh. I'm sure you can do better than this. What's next, approvingly quoting Mark Steyn?
Here is what Krugman wrote:
"Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable."
Gee, I guess I was really, really unfair to him.
He went on to call opposition to this bill a form of "betrayal." We don't simply disagree, we are complicit in the planet's doom (for, in Krugman's view, it faces an "existential threat") for political gain. Thus his use of the term "treason.' Apart from the fact that he is just wrong, this is fevered hyperbole on a par with anything we hear on Fox that is supposed to have provoked nuts to commit acts of violence.
Of course, Mark Steyn couldn't possibly be right about the BNP. Except that he is.
Here is what Krugman wrote:
"Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable."
Gee, I guess I was really, really unfair to him.
Indeed.
That he means it's "politics as usual" puts rather a different spin on the metaphor of "treason".
Clearly he thinks it's a horrible wrong, a profound moral failing and a betrayal of public responsibilities, to be recycling pseudo-scientific industry bullshit roughly on a par with creationism when the future of the planet is at stake. You may disagree, of course, but misrepresenting him as saying something different, as you obviously did, is not an ethically or intellectually defensible way of showing your disagreement.
Notice that it's obvious why treason is a metaphor for Krugman: namely, because he is clearly reserving his opprobrium for global warming denialism, not for what you claimed ("opposition to the President's... cap and trade bill") per se. Non-denialists who voted No were excepted from the criticism.
But, gosh, when we pay attention to the actual words, we lose the satisfying spin-point Krugman says it's treason not to support Obama!, huh?
Yet again, the actual content of what Krugman actually says takes a back seat to the imperative to defuse the "Hate Right" charge by mounting a counter-attack, however daft or confabulated.
Gosh, you must be dizzy.
Let's see it again in slow motion:
"Paul Krugman thinks opposition to the President's silly cap and trade bill is "treason.""
My claims: Krugman is going after denialists, not voters against Obama's bill; and he is using a special sense of "treason".
The reality of Krugman's words:
"212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet."
Your reply to these observations: "U r dizzy!"
lol
But please, do go on about how sad it is that political discourse is full of partisan spin rather than serious analysis.
No, it's that you're spinning. Krugman thinks that differing with his view of global warming is a form of treason against the planet. Obviously, it's metaphorical since there is no legal warrant for such a charge and I never said otherwise. But coming from someone who just a few weeks ago was pitching a fit about extreme rhetoric from the right, it sounds a bit odd.
Now you want to say, well maybe he didn't think that about everyone who voted against the bill because he spoke in terms of "deniers." That's hardly supported by his column - he wants to excuse only those who thought the bill was too weak.
But let's assume that's so. It doesn't matter much because he thinks that most voted no because they are "deniers" who want to subject the planet to an existential threat tantatmount to treason. I point out that out and you somehow think that not only is it unfair to stick Krugman with the word he used but that its so unfair that you feel compelled to assume high dudgeon.
That's not serious. It's sniping for the sake of sniping and not even coherent sniping at that.
Post a Comment