Krugman: Opponents of climate change bill are traitors to planet earth

Rick Moran
Paul Krugman may have won a nobel prize for economics but when it comes to politics, his writings aren't even worthy of a booby prize.

Yesterday, The New York Times columnist had this to say about opponents of the climate change bill:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason - treason against the planet.

Krugman never once considers the idea that many of us who oppose cap and trade are actually from another planet and could care less about the $1800 average increase in energy costs to American families.

It is not treason against earth if my loyalty is to the planet Riasa. My reasons for opposing cap and trade is that it is going to spur migration out of the United States and who knows where those people may end up? We Riasans are worried that cap and trade will mean increased illegal immigration to our beautiful planet.

So I wish Paul Krugman would be more careful in throwing around the word "treason." On Riasa, those who falsely accuse their political opponents are punished by being forced to Narfle the Garthok. Such a challenge is great sport and has the added benefit of giving the Garthoks something to do besides eating us Riasans.

For you earthlings, Tom Maguire supplies the necessary verbal spanking to Krugman:

Paul Krugman celebrates his Nobel Prize in Polemics by declaring that all those who disagree with him on global warming are traitors to the planet.  No, I am not sure what that means either, but it certainly sets a high rhetorical bar - presumably those who disagree with him on health care reform are traitors to humanity, but what about those who disagree with him on the wisdom of nationalizing Citicorp?  Are we merely traitors to our debit cards, or does Krugman contemplate a more dramatic charge?

It says something about the Nobel committee that they would take anything this man writes seriously.




Paul Krugman may have won a nobel prize for economics but when it comes to politics, his writings aren't even worthy of a booby prize.

Yesterday, The New York Times columnist had this to say about opponents of the climate change bill:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason - treason against the planet.

Krugman never once considers the idea that many of us who oppose cap and trade are actually from another planet and could care less about the $1800 average increase in energy costs to American families.

It is not treason against earth if my loyalty is to the planet Riasa. My reasons for opposing cap and trade is that it is going to spur migration out of the United States and who knows where those people may end up? We Riasans are worried that cap and trade will mean increased illegal immigration to our beautiful planet.

So I wish Paul Krugman would be more careful in throwing around the word "treason." On Riasa, those who falsely accuse their political opponents are punished by being forced to Narfle the Garthok. Such a challenge is great sport and has the added benefit of giving the Garthoks something to do besides eating us Riasans.

For you earthlings, Tom Maguire supplies the necessary verbal spanking to Krugman:

Paul Krugman celebrates his Nobel Prize in Polemics by declaring that all those who disagree with him on global warming are traitors to the planet.  No, I am not sure what that means either, but it certainly sets a high rhetorical bar - presumably those who disagree with him on health care reform are traitors to humanity, but what about those who disagree with him on the wisdom of nationalizing Citicorp?  Are we merely traitors to our debit cards, or does Krugman contemplate a more dramatic charge?

It says something about the Nobel committee that they would take anything this man writes seriously.