Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Paul Krugman froths

Today's column from our favorite liberal economist http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29krugman.html (who must be hoping and praying for a collapse of the American economy so at least some of his assertions are proven correct) spews left-wing mucus on to those who have the nerve to believe in God. He starts off with a good point:

"...The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself."

OK, so lets talk about some of the dangers of multiculturalism and bowing and scraping to our Muslim masters, right? No, these threats are posed by Americans, of course, and most particular the religious right:

"One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose."

Climate of fear? I'll tell you about a climate of fear - anyime I try to express any support for President Bush or the Republican party in the world-wise, csomopolitan city of Manhattan, I get screeched down by folks screaming "Blood for Oil!" "Rumsfeld is a war criminal!" "They'll turn us all into Christians!" etc, etc...free speech for thee and not for me, right Pauli-boy?
Krugman finishes with this apocalyptic warning:

"America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here."

He may be right in an ass-backward kind of way; my fear is the left-wing extremist, with their absolute hatred of the President and Republican party (Howard Dean, quote "I hate the Republicans and what they stand for". Hate, Howard? Now who's extremist?) will be the one to pull the trigger, egged on by the Krugmans, Herberts, Richard Cohens, and Air-America losers.
Why do liberal hate us? Because we believe in God and life? Isn't their secular agenda as rightously dogmatic as anything the "far-right" can dig up? (a post for another day!)

And in the "having it both ways" department, Michelle Malkin http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001897.htm turns our attention to a bioethicist who says:

Wesley Smith: Bill, do you think Terri is a person?
Bill Allen [a bioethicist]: No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood. Even minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood, but I don't think complete absence of awareness does.

Hmm..Awareness? Where is the evolutionary trail of the soul? None, you say? So how can you say awareness is even a real property? Yet it is defined as "the criterion of personhood"?
I'm confused - maybe God and the human soul only come into existance at the beck and call of liberal thinkers, when convenient, of course, like putting Ms. Shiavo to death...

No comments: