Thursday, June 1, 2017

Krugman and the Climate of Hate...Updated 6.1.17; 12:15

Update: 6.1.17; 12:15

Note:  A blast from the past.  Compare this with what happened with Kathy Griffin.  Can we just end this "Climate of Hate" stuff?

Of course, when the so-called right does anything, it is always different and far worse....

I might add that that Gabby Giffords was mentioned in the Krugman piece, but did Krugman call for gun control when the DNC staffer was murdered in the middle of the 2016 election?

Maybe the Russians snuffed the guy so he could not talk.  What does Krugman have to say?

The original post follows:

I was going to ignore Krugman on this Climate of Hate business, but I've changed my mind.  So, what did it exactly?  Believe it or not, I am going to at least try to understand where he is coming from when he writes the stuff he does.  I've written several posts about Krugman.  He strikes me as a super partisan guy on the left.  If you want to have an independent judgment, you take Krugman with a double dosed grain of salt.

First of all, I don't take his Climate of Hate stuff seriously.  It doesn't even matter to him on an intellectual basis anyway.  If it did, he wouldn't have anything to say.  There is no connection between the Arizona shootings and anything the Tea Party did or said.  If there was, he would be all over it.  No, this is an emotional reaction.  He really needs to make the connection on an emotional level, because no intellectual level exists.

I think the emotional reaction comes from this quote about Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly:

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Since I don't listen to either of these two, I am at somewhat of a loss to counter it with anything.  Yet, he mentions actual things said in terms of jokes about shooting government officials.  Can this be corraborated anywhere?  I spent some time looking this up and the jokes never rose to the level that Krugman is attempting to put it.  If anything thought the jokes were controversial, some mention of it would have been in the forefront, but it isn't.  If it isn't in the forefront, how could it contribute to a climate of hate?  Isn't he making a bigger deal of these jokes than they really are?

Krugman finishes up with this question:

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic?

If the only example he gives aren't examples at all, but are just jokes that never rise above the level of even being controversial, he doesn't have much of a case.  He can't make the case, he can only engage in hyperbole.

Is he really interested in making our discourse less toxic, or he is just trying to take advantage of a situation in order to get a political advantage?  If he wants less toxic discourse, he would stick to the facts of the situation.  The facts do not support his charges.  Dismiss the rest as political hyperbole.

Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 5:15pm cst

Well, the left just wants to insist on this, don't they?  I used to read the Mahablog, and sometimes I still do, but it is stuff like this that turns me off.  Evidently, she wants to hold somebody or anybody but the one responsible, responsible for the shooting in Arizona.

However, I doubt very much that the shootings will change anything. Those most at fault deny their responsibility.

This implies someone else was responsible for the shooting.  Like who, for instance?  If she really believes anyone else is responsible for this, let's see the evidence, shall we?  She and Krugman have yet to produce one shred of evidence that anyone except the accused had anything to do with this.

Update:  Mon. 1/10/11, approx 9pm, cst

If guilt is to be assigned to someone, then who is guilty?  This question could arise, if Loughman is insane, and one insists on assigning guilt.  If he is insane, he can't be responsible.  In such cases, who then shall be responsible?

What happens if you can't assign blame to any one person?  In such cases, it becomes an issue for society to consider.  Yet why would such consideration amount to much?  People die every day.  It may seem callous to say it, but a few deaths are not that big a deal in the larger scheme of things.  It isn't just my opinion.  Look around.  How much concern does anyone have for the loss of life that occurs every single day?  Nobody really cares that much.

Liberals pretend to care.  Do they really care about these people who died and Giffords who is fighting for her life as of this writing?  Or is this just political theatre?

No comments: