Paul Krugman reveals his ignorance (again)

Yes, I know the NYT columinist is a Nobel-prize winner. So who am I to argue with him? The problem is, his prize was in economics, which stands to reason, because he is an economist.

But now he feels as if he is an expert in everything else: Politics, War, The Middle East, and even morality. You name it, and Krugman has an opinion on it. An opinion which is unlikely to ever change. Especially when the name "Bush" is involved.

In his recent blog entry Krugman states:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Hmmm... forget that it was normally Krugman and his ilk who usually ridiculed Bush for his (as they saw it) simplistic use of the word "evil". And let's forget for one moment that the "torture" he's talking about was simply waterboarding. Heck, we'll even forget that Bush never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the first place. And let's even forget that if Bush was really torturing for that one purpose, he could have easily found someone who would have confessed to it. But he did not, and there was no such person.

Here's the other problem with such hyperbole: "Evil" is the blatant disregard for life and liberty. Period.

People who torture for fun are evil. People who torture for money are evil. People who torture in order to save innocent lives may be misguided, insensitive, or flat-out wrong, but they are not evil. The comic-book character "The Punisher" did this all the time, and he was considered a hero. A flawed hero, but a definitely a hero nonetheless.

I don't support the waterboarding technique. But neither am I going to smear those who used it against the most ruthless organization in the world.

Bonus: David Nieporant predicted the Krugman column 7 years ago!

Click here to continue reading...

College students shut down speech - again

There has been an awful lot going on this week, from Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, to the "Tea Party" protests in the US, to the violent protests in Thailand. But, for now, I'm focusing on issues that the media is ignoring. Like this one.

Former US Congressman from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, has consistently been a lone voice in government speaking out against illegal immigration. The irony is, he is often tarred as the "radical right" for simply condemning activity which is currently illegal under the law.

But we should learn to be more tolerant of others, right? Well, his opponents don't seem to think so. His speech at the University North Carolina - Chapel Hill had to be cancelled after protesters turned violent.

One of the protesters held a sign that read: "Hate speech is not free speech". That sums up the problem right there. When a mob gets to decide what is and what is not "hate speech", then free speech goes out the window. Illegal immigration opponents, and right-wing folks in general, are often accused of being closed-minded and bigoted, sometimes justly. But this a perfect example of how leftists often don't practice the same tolerance and acceptance that they preach so fiercely.

Don't they still teach Voltaire any more?

"Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dîtes mais je me battrai jusqu'au bout pour que vous puissiez le dire"

In other words: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the end for your right to say it."

Click here to continue reading...