A DACA Popeye For NYT Pundit Paul Krugman

“That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands no more!”

—Popeye, before downing a can of spinach and beating the crap out of someone who richly deserves it.

Readers often accuse me of being angry. I’m almost never angry about the stories I write; I just write that way. In this case, however, I am angry.

Paul Krugman, a nasty, smug, narrow-minded New York Times pundit who epitomizes the infuriatingly common progressive mindset of condescending to anyone who disagrees with his various, so often biased and ignorant positions on a plethora of issues he knows little about and understands less, used today’s op-ed column to call me a racist. Not just me, of course: all the various constitutional scholars and lawyers, elected officials—and Hillary Clinton, once upon a time—who don’t believe that the United States should be obligated to allow illegal aliens to stay in the United States however they got here, or who don’t believe Presidents should use edicts instead of the legal process described by the Constitution to pass laws, or who don’t believe it is responsible or sensible to create incentives for individuals to break our laws so their children will benefit. For they are all racists according to Krugman. And of course,the President is a racist. Krugman writes,

To yank the rug out from under the Dreamers … is a cruel betrayal. And it’s self-evidently driven by racial hostility. Does anyone believe this would be happening if the typical Dreamer had been born in, say, Norway rather than Mexico?

“Rug”: what rug? There was never a rug, just an incompetent  President who wrongly sent the false message that the United States wouldn’t enforce its sovereignty. What the “dreamers” had was a contrived loophole, and loopholes have a way of closing.

“Cruel” : enforcing a law isn’t cruel unless the law itself is cruel. A nation cannot permit illegal immigration, nor can it tolerate illegal border-crossers inflicting sentiment-inducing problems for the nation in which they have no justification for invading. Thus the law isn’t cruel.

“Betrayal” implies that someone has breached a duty on which another had a reason to rely. The United States has a duty to its citizens to enforce its laws. It owes no duty to law breakers, in this case  illegal immigrants whatsoever. If they relied on misrepresentations by cynical and self-serving politicians and activists, it is their own responsibility.

“Self-evidently driven by racial hostility.” When the progressive collective—you know, like Star Trek’s Borg—have no fair, substantive arguments left, crying racism (sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia…) is so routinely the default tactic that I’m amazed they can keep doing it without covering all their mirrors with towels. This is how low they have sunk: “If you don’t see it our way, you are an evil bigot.” That’s it. That’s all they have, when they run out of rhetorical bullets.

If Norwegians were sneaking into the country, using our resources,  hanging around in parking lots waiting to be hired to clean attics, mow lawns and pick fruit, while ducking law enforcement, voting illegally, forging documents, and some of them now and then raping and killing Americans after being depoter multiple times, yes, Paul, you race-baiting demagogue, this would still be happening.

Krugman’s fallback argument is that the “dreamers” are good for the economy. At least he’s somewhere near his area of expertise here, after all, he did get a Nobel Prize in Economics. This is still, even if you accept it, an “the ends justify the means” argument, and it’s not nearly good enough. Yes, I know the growing ethic on the Left is that trashing the Constitution is just fine if it serves The Greater Good, hence we should muzzle articulate critics of the Nanny State and Mega-government, imprison those who doubt Al Gore’s climate change jeremiads, and impeach President Trump because he dared to win and is a pig, kind of like Bill Clinton but not nearly so charming and puckish about it, and, of course, not a Democrat.  If illegal alien children are so wonderful for us all, then let’s give bonuses to their illegal parents who smuggle them in. Let’s pass laws that encourage even more “dreamers.”

See, Paul, if a current law doesn’t work, you change the law, like with a bill that passed both Houses and that a President signs. That’s what you do if these ex-kids are such a boon. I know you didn’t get a Nobel in law or the Constitution, so it’s understandable that you’re confused (though not understandable why a major newspaper allows you to write such lazy, insulting, ignorant columns.)  If you can’t get enough votes to pass your new law, well, until you get the benign dictator you progressives crave, or start winning elections, you just have to accept the way democracy works.

I know: saying this makes me a racist, because that’s about the only rebuttal you have lately

By the way, the tactic of calling anyone who doesn’t bow down to The World According To Krugman, Blow, Colbert, Warren, Schumer, Pelosi and Perez a racist (sexist, xeno..well, you know them by heart) is one of the reasons you have Trump as President. If you don’t learn to stop demonizing those who disagree with you and make persuasive policy arguments based on facts, law, logic and ethics rather than emotional blackmail and empty knee-jerk cant, you’ll get him again in four years.

I’ll be tempted to vote for him next time just to keep people like you as far from a position of influence as possible.

44 thoughts on “A DACA Popeye For NYT Pundit Paul Krugman

  1. Once again, I am asking you to take me off your email subscription list. I do not want to receive Ethics Alarms emails or notifications. For whatever reason, I am unable to open your emails and unable to ‘unsubscribe’. I don’t believe it to be ethical that you will not comply with my requests for you to do this..

    • As mentioned before, subscriptions are done automagically by the server systems, not any human, If you are having trouble opening email, you should consult with a friend or professional who knows more about replacing or updating your email program. These notices here are fairly small and well behaved. Posting in a reader comment area rarely gets a webmaster’s attention, they have too much to do. Unsubscribing is done by the person affected, just as subscribing is, No one wants some random hacker to unsubscribe everyone off their slow cooker recipe list. (weakness of mine)

    • Della,
      Add ethicsalarms.com to your spam filter you idiot.

      Personally I don’t think you want to be removed at all, I think you’re a troll and this is your mantra, it’s how you deflect.

      Go away, just go away.

    • It’s a little convoluted, as I don’t know how to link you to the subscription page directly (I don’t have a Word Press account, so I just always follow the generated link) but comment again somewhere, click ‘Notify me of new comments via email’. You”ll get a notice that you have subscribed, and will be asked to verify the that you asked for notifications, like you did when you originally asked for notifications (‘Confirm follow’). There will be a list of topics you subscribed to. Select ‘ Unsubscribe’ from ‘Apply bulk actions’ menu and then ‘Apply’ and all will be cancelled.

      If you can’t open the ‘confirm follow’ email, you have some kind of problem, it’s not the emails.

  2. Perhaps Krugman should get out of his cozy little NYT office and join Antifa if he has the balls to do it. Unfortunely, he might run into a Popeye type while he is protesting racism, white privilege, ad naseaum. The result wouldn’t be pretty.

    • ”Perhaps Krugman should get out of his cozy little NYT office and join Antifa”

      Now THERE’S some forward-kinda-thinking, unfortunately it makes too much sense. Ivory Tower denizens like Krugman prefer the great Lefty unwashed to heed their manifest bullshit do their dirty work for them.

      ”if he has the balls to do it.”

      Think Krugman would allow his plums in the cross hairs?

      Not exactly.

      He’s more of a champagne kinda guy…

  3. “Self-evidently driven by racial hostility.” When the progressive collective—you know, like Star Trek’s Borg—have no fair, substantive arguments left, crying racism (sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia…) is so routinely the default tactic that I’m amazed they can keep doing it without covering all their mirrors with towels. This is how low they have sunk: “If you don’t see it our way, you are an evil bigot.” That’s it. That’s all they have, when they run out of rhetorical bullets.

    I do wonder.

    Have you ever heard of the trope ThenLetMeBeEvil?

    I wonder if the trope ThenLetMeBeRacist will apply. How many people, after being repeatedly accused of being racist, will decide to embrace racism?

    • Perhaps not embrace racism but become more willing to take off the shackles of white guilt that they donned back in the 60’s to show a willingness to live and work in an integrated environment. They will/are becoming less willing to accept being constantly cast (as an entire race) as victimizers.

    • I always thought this was the end goal of Black Lives Matter. There isn’t enough genuine racism in the country to fight against, so they have to generate it.

    • I’ve long thought that the left creates their own Frankenstein monsters with their frantic and irrational actions and accusations. For some time now, Nazis, KKK, Supremacists, et al. have been largely ignored and marginalized (except, perhaps by those, like the SPLC, who profit from trotting them out as bogeymen).

      Now that they have been pushed to prominence, they will gain adherents. It could be that few of these will actually harbor the full mindset of those groups’ previous members, but there may be more who had some slight leanings in that direction, but couldn’t be bothered with making a connection. Now they have an impetus. There may be even more who now start to rationalize some of these fringe groups just because they oppose their violent left opponents…”The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    • I’ve heard the trope, and, although Jack MIGHT say it comes dangerously close to the rationalization “haters gonna hate,” I think it is distinguishable. There is a clear difference between someone who brushes off legitimate criticism or, indeed, all criticism, a la a Michael Moore, who once stated that anyone who criticized his films was just jealous and angry they weren’t living in his ultra-luxury apartment in NY, and someone who has heard the critics out, analyzed what they have had to say, maybe even responded, but not embraced the critics’ position, like one of the Senators from Connecticut, I think it may have been Senator Weicker, who was harassed day after day by anti-New London/Groton protestors outside his office, who finally met with them, heard them out, explained his position, and thought that was the end of it, only to have them return the very next day, saying they’d be there until he changed his position and got on the right side of their issue. Finally he just shrugged and said if they still thought he was wrong there was nothing he could do about that, and it was obvious they weren’t there for a productive discussion, they were there to pester him into agreeing with them.

      The fact is that some people, I can think of a few here, aren’t interested in a productive or enlightening discussion, they are just interested in either forcing, pestering, or harassing others to come around to their way of thinking, or attacking them if they won’t. There comes a point where a discussion has covered everything it is going to cover, everyone has said his piece, and any change is either going to happen or not. The wise then disengage. The wiser perhaps know which discussions are not going to change anything or are just going to generate a lot of heat and very little light, and refuse to engage in them and waste time and energy. The less wise are the ones who keep on throwing mud at the wall after it’s clear none is going to stick, either because they are too invested in the fight or always have to have the last word. The wise can say “then let me be [whatever]” when they really mean “I really don’t think we’ll get anywhere by pursuing this conversation further, have a nice day.”

  4. How many people, after being repeatedly accused of being racist, will decide to embrace racism?

    Lots. Those who were genuinely racist in the first place, just not admitting it to themselves. No one who wasn’t significantly racist beforehand would take such a dog in the manger attitude.

    Note that racism comes in degrees, from homeopathic to rabid, and many (myself included) suffer from it, just not to any dangerous degree – I hope. Xenophobia and xenophobia are both part of the human condition.

    I better explain. Prejudices are necessary shortcuts in cognition. Things are too complex to operate without them. The important thing to realise is that they’re untrustworthy, and be prepared to backtrack in the face of contradictory evidence.

    Example – an innocuous one to illustrate. The word “automobile”. I think that conjures up an image of something with 4 road wheels. Yet some automobiles have only three, and a very few have six. But we assume 4 unless otherwise stated. We pre-judge the number. pre ivdice to say it in Latin.

    Problems only arise from our prejudice when we rely on it as reliable truth, saying a Robin Reliant 3-wheeler is not a “real” automobile, nor is a 6 wheel Mercedes G4 Staff Car.

    • Racism is a modern term and is 100% underhanded and rhetorically-laden. It is a devious rhetorical term and should have no part in sound, fair and rational discourse. It came alive in the Postwar and, as such, can be understood as being tied to contaminated and contaminating discourses nearly every one of them having a relationship to Marxist praxis and ideology. The word is totally and irretrievably contaminated and the only ones who use the word are those who are rhetorically married to it as cuss word (to which there is no possible response). It is used exclusively by one side, or one pole, to attack their chosen and favorite enemy. It is not a fair term of discourse because, obviously, it is not used by ‘both sides’.

      Any conversation that touches on ‘race’ and ‘culture’ within a coercive, controlled and patrolled environment is simply not allowed. You are not allowed to speak rationally and fairly about the differences between people and between cultures. Just noting this, as I have just done, should be all that is required to understand how the use of certain terms is directly tied to overt and also subtle forms of thought-control. The greatest accomplishment of the term ‘racist’ is — as in your case! — that you use it uncritically. But it has a more devious function. It is tied to a social shaming endeavor which causes a given thought to be crushed before it rises in the mind. What stands behind the word and its use? The infliction of shame. Because the term is used uncritically, and has become acceptable in discourse, it is understood as a real definition. And if it is accepted as a real definition in responsible discourse, people relate to it as if it holds truth. They take it seriously therefor.

      Therefor if someone has some idea about ‘race’ and about ‘culture’ that arises in their minds — any thought and idea at all in fact! — which is not allowed in the reigning politically correct regime, they have no choice but to see themselves as ‘racist’ and therefor — it ultimately comes down to this — as ‘evil’.

      The issue here is to understand why this term came to be; how and why it came to be used; and what real function it has. Its purpose — or I should say its main purpose — is to prohibit rational thought within a specific category. That category, obviously, is a contested and a difficult one, this must be admitted.

        • That is a very interesting article on Pratt. There is a similar problem and issue in Peru and in other Central and South American countries with large Native populations. Mario Vargas Llosa has written on the theme. The basic argument is that these people, these groups and tribes, must be incorporated into the Nation. Vargas Llosa has said that he sees it as inevitable that cultural assimilation go forward. If ever you are interested in the ultimate act of cultural take-over see William Prescott’s ‘History of the Conquest of Peru’ and Pizarro’s audacious capture of Atahuallpa.

          The *meaning* of the problem of Pratt is, of course, obvious. It means essentially that white culture demanded that other cultures (Black, Indian et cetera) conform to the ‘identity’ established by the cultural hegemony.

          Who now has the *right* to tell any other person that they must surrender to someone else’s ‘identity’?

        • Excellent article!

          ” ‘The reservations were becoming very, very sad places to be,’ she said. ‘These were places of daunting poverty. People were starving.’ ”

          That was over 130 years ago. Take a look at Native Americans’ rates of suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual/physical abuse, life expectancy, educational levels, etc. has it gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse?

          “Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” (possibly by) Henry Ford.

      • If I understand correctly, I think that you’re right: racism is a form of bigotry, but because of America’s experience with slavery, the word “racism” is brandished as if that form of bigotry is of a higher order and only applies to one group. It’s necessary to move upstream to discuss bigotry in general, including the age-old contempt of the upper classes for their inferiors.

        • I would say that the terms ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ are too contaminated to have useful meaning. I think that if one has ideas about race and culture and if one says ‘Race is real, race matters’ on has to back up that assertion with sound argument, if one can.

          But to attempt to defeat the one who says ‘Race is real, race matters’ by asserting that they are ‘racists’ should not and must not be considered an argument at all.

          If I discern correctly what you are saying — the ideas that stand behind it — I would have to say you are a committed egalitarian? The motive behind egalitarianism can be critiqued rationally. I would define anti-egalitarianism as the sounder position, philosophically.

          The point of all this is, of course, that all things must be carefully thought through and that the temptation to resort to rhetorical argument be avoided.

    • It is becoming apparent to me that many of those who write opinion in the NYTs, and across the nation of course, mistake hot rhetoric for sound argumentation. Now why is this? The answer to that question is that their positions cannot be argued rationally and reasonably. And when they are asked to do so, and when they lose the argument or do not achieve the ascendency they presume, they have only one avenue open: the dive into underhanded rhetoric. Therefor they resort to ‘hot rhetoric’ and vilification.

      It seems obvious — more obvious as time goes by — that ‘these people’ represent a real danger to society, to the exchange of ideas, to ‘conversation’, but also obvious that they do not have the tool that would allow themselves to see themselves. I think that this is what distorting and distorting rhetoric will tend to do! Because it itself is an intellectual distortion, a form of lying in fact, it confounds the one who gets swpt up in it and then, demogically, those who hear it and ‘resonate’ with its message.

      My side of the political pole is, of course, the Ultra Right. The absolute Right. The Right of sheer idea. I would even call it a Platonic Right insofar as all the points I would argue can be — and must be! — argued clearly, rationally and logically. Richard Weaver, a great rhetor, pointed out that rhetoric is embellishment to sound argument. But you have to have a sound intellectual position as an a priori. The Right of which I am a part is gaining ground because it has established itself on clear and rational principle. It is feared and hated because it challenges those who feel they have the superior moral position. I use the term ‘moral’ in the sense it is used here: derived from authority. The positions of the Right that I am interested in must be ‘ethically’ defined and not ‘morally’ assumed. If they cannot be defended ethically, they must be modified or abandoned.

      • The Right of which I am a part is gaining ground because it has established itself on clear and rational principle. It is feared and hated because it challenges those who feel they have the superior moral position. I use the term ‘moral’ in the sense it is used here: derived from authority. The positions of the Right that I am interested in must be ‘ethically’ defined and not ‘morally’ assumed. If they cannot be defended ethically, they must be modified or abandoned.

        Thank you, Alizia, for clearly stating the true conservative position and the reason we have been vilified by the left.

        On step to compliment your comment: ethical treatment of others mandates that help is granted to those in need. A safety net is ethical, and used to be provided without government coercion.

        It is also ethical to not allow the needy to relax in the hammock of welfare, however, as this as bad for the recipient as for the donor. Human nature demands self esteem, and one’s self esteem is damaged by not feeling one earned a boon. This lack of self esteem devolves into an entitlement mentality which corrupts all parties, eventually.

  5. I’m not sure I’d agree that their positions are seen by themselves as ‘moral’. I do believe that they are certain that they have a monopoly on compassion, and that they, alone, have the ‘compassionate knowledge’ to treat all people without bigotry. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably untrue.

  6. Paul Krugman, and others like him, know that the kind of lying bull shit they’re spreading is their only way of gaining political power, they can no longer use facts, logical reasoning, critical thinking, or intelligence because those are now in direct opposition to their ideological goals, which are of course to shift the United States to a faux utopia where the government is in control of everything and the only way to accomplish that is to make everyone idiots.

    I’d like to know who the immoral psychologists are that are pulling the strategy strings in the DNC to dumb down the populace to make them compliant sheep.

  7. This is my third time for this, and it applies to the plethora media pundits who so many take oh so seriously, and half the people on Facebook these days. Teddy Roosevelt at the Sorbonne (ca. 1913):

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    I think I’ll make a poster of this for my front yard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.