Our Anti-Marxist scold has insisted that we take a look at The Climate of Krugman, an article by John Hayward on Human Events in answer to a recent column. The first sentence told me that this was a raving moron. And if raving morons are your cup of tea, you will not be disappointed.
The first thing that one learns is that John Hayward suffers from Demolisher’s favorite accusation: poor reading comprehension. Here’s his opening sentence with the insanity edited out
Within hours of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, … Paul Krugman raced to put up a blog post blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the attack.
Mr Hayward didn’t link, terrified of giving Mr. Krugman more traffic, but you can find the post here. It begins
A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in the head; another dozen were also shot.
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.
Mr Hayward’s response to these lines:
Somehow the New York Times left Krugman on the payroll after this disgusting example of mindless idiocy.
Okay, maybe he’s only able to prove his point with strong adjectives. Facts less so.
Worse, Mr. Hayward engages in a dishonest tactic I’ve seen a number of conservatives use: He skips all the substantiation that Krugman supplies — and Krugman supplies a lot of links. (They’re omitted from the first blockquote.) Instead, Hayward quotes the conclusions drawn from the factual material. He then acts as if Krugman had made those assertions without substantiation, that Krugman was making blind statements of opinion. In other words, by guiding the scissors to clip out all the facts, one can pretend that the column is just opinion pulled out of thin air.
So having finished Demolisher’s reading assignment, what have I learned?
- Mr. Hayward, aka Dr. Zero has an irrational hatred of Mr. Krugman. I didn’t need to know this, but I do now. Thank you, Demolisher.
- Demolisher should offer to help Mr. Hayward with his reading comprehension difficulties.
- Argument by adjective is not convincing.