Seeing a threat from a radical movement has been discounted as conspiracy

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

I was rereading the Introduction to "The Great Unraveling: Losing our Way in the New Century" by Paul Krugman yesterday. In it Krugman, Princeton University Econ Prof & NY Times OpEd contributor, explains what we're up against in a way that clarifies and validates what a lot of us think we already know, and he adds some extra insight.

He validates their unashamed lying, ignoring of rules, traditions, and laws and why. And he also speaks in the intro how the media has reacted or not to all this "revolutionary" or radical behavior.

I highly recommend reading or rereading it and having everyone we know read it.

I found from BuzzFlash an interview with Krugman last year (04), in which they are discussing that part of the book. It gives an idea of what the Intro says, but doesn't present all of it.

"BuzzFlash: In the preface to the hardcover edition of The Great Unraveling: Losing our Way in the New Century, you make ironic use of Henry Kissinger’s Ph.D. thesis at Harvard as a way to understand the radicalism of the Bush Administration. Could you explain that a bit more?

Paul Krugman: Well, it’s really good for explaining how reasonable people can’t bring themselves to see that they’re actually facing a threat from a radical movement. Kissinger talked about the time of the French Revolution, and pretty obviously he also was thinking about the 1930s. He argued that, when you have a revolutionary power, somebody who really wants to tear apart the system -- doesn’t believe in any of the rules -- reasonable people who’ve been accustomed to stability just say, "Oh, you know, they may say that, but they don’t really mean it." And, "This is just tactical, and let’s not get too excited." Anyone who claims that these guys really are as radical as their own statements suggest is, you know, "shrill." Kissinger suggests they'd be considered alarmists. And those who say, “Don’t worry. It’s not a big deal,”are considered sane and reasonable.

Well, that’s exactly what’s been happening. For four years now, some of us have been saying, whether or not you think they’re bad guys, they’re certainly radical. They don’t play by the rules. You can’t take anything that you’ve regarded as normal from previous U.S. political experience as applying to Bush and the people around him. They will say things and do things that would not previously have made any sense -- you know, would have been previously considered out of bounds. And for all of that period, the critics have been told: "Oh, you know, you’re overreacting, and there’s something wrong with you."

We just saw it with the increased level of terror alerts. Among those of us who had made a judgment about what kind of people we’re dealing with, the reaction was, this timing was awfully convenient. After all, they’ve done this sort of thing before. Of course, this was criticized as completely unreasonable to say -- after all, this time we’ve got "specifics." But here we are with this morning’s headlines: Oh, it’s all three-year-old information. ..."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/08/int04041.html

[bananas]

1. thanks nt

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

2. You are welcome. Thank goodness for the few like Krugman! n/t