In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman takes time out from his calls for more government intervention in the economy to take a shot at hate-mongers. Krugman is not the only left-winger to blame the shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Museum on conservative talk-show hosts and Fox News. But when a fellow who has won a Nobel Prize for Economics (whether he deserved such an honor is another question entirely) uses his regular perch on the most prestigious op-ed page in the country to spout such nonsense, then we have to accept that the culture wars have escalated to a new level of viciousness.
It was one thing to try and pin the tragic and horrendous murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on the pro-life movement. Polls show that a majority of Americans were, at best, leery about the sort of late-term abortions that Tiller provided. But that does not mean that anyone who opposed Tiller’s work is responsible for the lunatic who killed him acting on his own. Yet, fair or not, it was to be expected that the Left would make a meal of Bill O’Reilly since the Fox personality had targeted Tiller in his coverage of the issue.
But for Krugman and others to seize on the case of neo-Nazi James W. Von Brunn as a rationale for ranting against Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and actor Jon Voight is the height of absurdity. Nothing they have said or done is even remotely connected to this murderous nut or anyone else who might share his anti-Semitic views. Indeed, Von Brunn probably considered that trio to be the enemy as much as Obama, since they are all stalwart supporters of Israel.
But the most egregious aspect of Krugman’s sham case for blaming the political Right for extremist violence is the fact that he and other liberals ignore the third case of political violence that recently occurred in this country: the shooting of two U.S. soldiers in Arkansas by Abdulhakim Muhahid Muhammad — a Muslim extremist who claimed to be taking “revenge” for America’s “crimes” against Muslims. That incident has received paltry coverage by the mainstream media in contrast to the all-out approach to both Tiller’s murder and to the Holocaust Museum shooting. Krugman and company prefer to ignore it because it doesn’t fit into their ideological box, in which everyone who loudly disagrees with Obama or the left can, in some way, be linked to extremist nut jobs.
To leftists like Krugman, the real story of Muslim-inspired terrorism in this country is one that needs to be played down since it reminds everyone about George Bush’s now abandoned “war on terror.” In fact, the Arkansas incident was hardly the only instance of Islamist terror in this country in the last year. Muhammad’s murderous attack fits into a pattern alongside the foiled plots against the soldiers of Fort Dix, New Jersey and synagogues in Riverdale, New York. Anyone who dares to point this out is falsely accused of fomenting hatred against Muslims when, in fact, the real problem is the flood of anti-Semitic and anti-Western propaganda emanating from Arab and Islamic sources.
Everyone who disagrees with Israel or opposed the war in Iraq ought not to be blamed for anti-American terror, even if they have sometimes spoken in a vulgar or extreme fashion. By the same token, the only rationale for trying to tie right-wing talkers to von Brunn is politics pure and simple. Far right extremism is dangerous but it has as much to do with Limbaugh and Beck as Al Qaeda does with Krugman. The attempt to politicize the Holocaust Museum shooting or even the Tiller murder is shameful. So is the refusal of the media to recognize the even more dangerous threat of Islamist terror.
“That is the risk you run when you go to the federal government, hat in hand.”
Or do the Government a favor by accepting TARP money to provide cover for weaker competitors.
No matter how you care to slice this pie, yes, the congress said yes to this bonus deal and the Fool on The Hill signed it pretending not to know the bonus item, yet it doesn’t change the fatuity of rewarding a company who has criminally contributed to the economic crisis we are in. Not only should every avenue to exhausted to stop those bonuses, but also those responsible both in government and in the company allowing this outrage should be shot in public.
“those responsible both in government and in the company allowing this outrage should be shot in public.”
Yes! and while we’re at it lets round up everyone who wears glasses and put them in re-education camps!
Government employees also take lots of taxpayer money in salaries and perks. They should be held to some valid standard of performance. By any rational performance standard, most in Congress are overpaid.
It is amazing to me that some people still cannot get it through their head that the bonuses are legal and are being paid to people who agreed to work to salvage AIG’s financial products. The reason Atlas Shrugged is selling such in large numbers is that it is coming true. The reaction to the crisis on the part of the government is, if possible, even more dangerous than the crisis itself.
Mike K -
I envy you. I am no longer amazed by stupidity.
Yehudit -
Too many people wear glasses for yuor plan to work. Let’s just round up people with names like Greenberg, Lehman, Goldman or Sachs and resettle them in the East. Indeed, while I am not amazed by the stupidity of the average voter, I am stupefied by the insensitivity of Jewish politicians (and blogggers).
this will teach them not to screw up so bad they need to be bailed out!!
‘Well, it looks like those companies who took federal bailout money are learning an old lesson: When you take the king’s gold, you play the king’s tune.”
‘Nuff said..
Yesterday was truly astounding on so many levels and if the House bill to tax bonuses of TARP recipients is not severely moderated in the Senate or fails completely, it seems highly probably that the TARP money will only be repaid through a liquidation of many of the recipients. The example that comes to mind is a trader or investment banker at Goldman or Morgan Stanley or whichever firm you chose, that brings in substantial revenue who will no longer be motivated to stay at a firm that is a TARP recipient where his or her pay is limited and the firm is worried about offending the powers that be in Washington. So this person will move on to another platform and the TARP recipient will only be financially weaker for the loss, and the Government’s and the taxpayers’ hopes for repayment will only be diminished.
Why would anyone in their right mind want the government to “help” them when the government was complicit in creating the environment that got you into trouble in the first place.
The one advantage of this is that hopefully the higher ups in the financial services industry are realizing that the protection pay racket (pay whoever is in power to protect your self – many firms are not Dem or GOP , they just pay the party in power, kind of like a mafia protection scheme) when the democrats are in power and are made to look the fool is dangerous. Maybe they will start to see that finding politiicans from both sides of the aisles who aren’t looking to line their own nest might be in their ultimate best interest.
I’d like to ask President Obama a simple question: “When you signed the stimulus bill into law, did you know the provision allowing the AIG bonuses to be paid was in it?”
I doubt he would ever answer this question “yes” or “no,” but there is certainly a straightforward yes or no answer.
Forgive me if I am displaying ignorance, but does not the Constitution prohibit the issuance of Bills of Attainder and the passing of Ex Post Facto laws? And by any reasonable definition, would not this proposal to tax retroactively the bonuses awarded to AIG personnel fall into both categories at once?
Those who are chortling over this–often the same people who worry abnormally that someone might be listening to their telephone conversations–ought to think about the implications of a government that can altar its tax code to punish a particular group or class of persons.
Your suggestion about “standing up and walking out” is right on the mark. If only someone would actually stand up and tell senators and reps. just what blovaiting retards they are and tell them to “stuff it” where the sun don’t shine, they would become instant heroes. Liddy had the perfect opportunity but was too gutless to do it.
Re Nancy Pelosi’s bill to impose confiscatory taxes on the bonuses of all those whose companies took TARP money: this is the equivalent of Tom DeLay’s bill re poor Terri Schiavo. Regardless of what your position was regarding Ms. Schiavo, everyone knew that when Uncle Congress got involved, a wrong “solution” was sure to follow.
Of course, Pelosi’s bill is much more dangerous, not only for its rule of law implications but for its mob mentality and for its predictable impact on those working in TARP-supported institutions. On the latter point, while it is true that some high producers/heavy hitters will leave, an equally harmful consequence will the the lutter ack of motivation for all the other employees to do anything productive (do you really think anyone at AIG will ever get a bonus of any amount in the future?). In other words, the message sent by Nancy’s ukase is clear: we want you to be like the useless — and bonus-free — federal bureaucrats.
Eventually, the only part of the market economy that will be Nancy-free will be the signing bonuses for book contracts awarded to deserving politicians. Ain’t it wonderful how things always work out well for The One?
Roy S. brings up a good point. There are no CEO’s or other corporate leaders willing to stand up to Congress publicly. The intimidation factor, and the damage Congres can do to private enterprise, is so overwhelming that the entire business community in general, and the financial world in particular are completely paralyzed by the half-wits we have running our legislative branch.
If and when (I’m not at all convinced that there will be a when) this mess blows over, I suggest that we amend our Constitution to expressly prohibit the government from owning any portion whatsoever of a private enterprise and from the use of any government funds for the benefit of a corporation.
That might have legs.
My other idea that liberalism be a capital offense might not – although it should.