The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Professor Krugman's Mind Adrift

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I talk about how deranged some people are about Mr Trump appearing to have won the election.

For John, BLUFBoy, the Democrats are poor losers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Fair Warning.  It is Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  He is off on a rant and taking up the old Communist meme about "useful idiots".

The lede:

On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a “useful idiot” serving Russian interests.  That may not be exactly right.  After all, useful idiots are supposed to be unaware of how they’re being used, but Mr. Trump probably knows very well how much he owes to Vladimir Putin.  Remember, he once openly appealed to the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.
So, Paul Krugman as much as says that Mr Trump is in the tank for Russian President Vladimir Putin.  That is to say, he believes, but is unwilling to come out and say so, Mr Trump is a traitor.

And, to the second point of Professor Krugman, about Mr Trump's comments about Mrs Clinton's EMails, I was able to take it the way it was intended—Mrs Clinton had left her server open to being hacked and maybe it had been and maybe the Russians had the EMails.  That the Russians would release any EMails they had, except if it was useful to them, is risible.  Mr Trump was commenting on the carelessness of Mrs Clinton and the possible consequences of that carelessness.  He was pointing out that Mrs Clinton's carelessness could have adverse consequences.  People who have handled and respected classified information tend to get that point.

Then Professor Krugman says:

Still, the general picture of a president-elect who owes his position in part to intervention by a foreign power, and shows every sign of being prepared to use U.S. policy to reward that power, is accurate.
No it isn't.  It isn't like Mr Trump has hired the 1930s editorial policy of The New York Times.  Mr Trump is looking across the globe and trying to judge what is good for America.  He has the example of President Obama, who, four years ago, ridiculed Governor Mitt Romney's idea that Russia was a threat to the US.  Four years and a couple of months ago.  What has changed?  Has President Putin changed?  I am doubtful.  Professor Krugman is just out there blowing in the breeze.

Professor Krugman also attacks, in the same column, FBI Director James Comey.  The Professor writes:

…the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.
There it is, the "alt-right".  Maybe worse than "fascists".

We are talking conspiracy theories here.

The real problem is that after making his case that Mr Trump is a traitor and Director Comey is a co-conspirator, Professor Krugman fails to offer up a remedy.  He fails to tell us what to do.  Well, not those of us, the "deplorables", who voted for Mr Trump, but those who didn't.  Should they just stay home and pet their kitten or puppy and eat ice cream or should they take to the streets?  Is Professor Krugman calling for a putsch, like that famous one in Munich, 8-9 November 1923?  I hope not.  But he is not clear.  Things are terrible, and there is treason out there amongst the Republicans and the "alt-right", but . . ..

So, Professor Krugman is convinced that Mrs Clinton would have won if not for the intervention of the Russians.  The idea that she alienated a large segment of voters seems to have never entered his mind.  The only answer to why Mrs Clinton lost the Electoral College vote is because evil forces conspired with traitorous politicians to deceive the voters.  There you have it.  "We were pure and they were bad."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  It isn't clear to me that Professor Krugman differentiates between computer hacking and the use of the term "hacking" to describe political warfare.

No comments: