David Harsanyi:
The day after Islamic terrorists struck England for the second time in a month, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman offered the prevailing liberal talking point of the day: Stop panicking. “I’m going to London later this week,” he mocked on Twitter. “OMG! I might be stabbed! Or I might get hit by a drunk driver tonight, or run over by a cab tomorrow.”
He might. And if any of those things were to happen, although tragic and sad, it would have little effect on the population of England — for good reason. We are resigned to a certain level of random criminality and misfortune in Western society. In free societies, we do our best to mitigate the damage without trampling on civil rights, but it’s part of modern life.
Certainly, for the victims of violence — and their friends and family – there’s little difference. The consequences for the rest of society, though, can vastly differ. If an unarmed man were shot down by a police officer, would Krugman tell his 3 million followers, “Relax, you have a better chance of being run over by a taxi”? Of course not. Terrorism is about more than just risk assessment. There are broader societal implications to take into account.
Those who kill in the name of Islam are part of a unique worldwide political movement that includes, to various degrees, radicalized men and women from both great factions of the faith. They are on every continent, and they give no quarter. There is no dialoguing. There is no realistic political solution that might appease them. There is no legislative fix. Terrorism — as well as the recruitment and propaganda tools by which terrorists survive — is funded by Islamic regimes and the radicals in them, and applauded by adherents around the world. Every attack is about all of this.
Remember, as well, that the magnitude of the violence is alleviated only by the vigilance of the people fighting it. Comprehending the depravity of the jihadi makes people nervous in the way random criminal violence should not. Those who peddle Krugmanesque risk assessments also fail to take into consideration the number of terror plots that have been thwarted. The West spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year trying to avert another 9/11, although we obviously struggle to stop these low-tech attacks. The London metropolitan police reported that “there are 500 current terrorism investigations, involving 3,000 current subjects of interest.” One of the London Bridge terrorists appeared in a documentary called “The Jihadis Next Door.” This seems alarming.
Krugman went on to tweet: “I mean, seriously. Terrorism = bad. But panicking about this stuff — or worse, inciting panic — is unforgivable. Especially for POTUS.” Wait. Terrorism is merely bad, but panicking is unforgivable? (Juxtapose this comment with the hysterical reaction to the United States’ exit from the toothless Paris climate agreement.)
Krugman is a dismal scientist, an economist.
As such he is likely to look at the likelihood of happenings and their costs.
Obama did the same thing.
It is actuarial tables instead of the reality.
In reality I can avoid being hit by a bus or taxi.
But it is harder to look at every likely terror attack.
They vary so much.
Bombs, car bombs, suicide belts, food poisons, dirty hands at hospitals, elder care killers, pressure-cooker bombs, aerosol poisons, guns, knives, axes, machetes, cars, trucks, planes, etc.
Being concealed carry only helps in some of these.
Being situationally aware also only helps sometimes.
The West gave up on walls/secure borders, vetted visitors and now is forced to build walls and secure entry to smaller things/places all over each country.
That’s stupid.
We fritter our wealth away on phantom threats then terrorists do it differently.
And we’re not ready.
Krugman is for swallowing the camel while making fun of those who fear choking.
The country cannot sustain the preventatives to open borders and charismatic imams who incite from afar.
Contrast the lefty “get used to it, it’s the new normal” response to terrorism with their approach to gun confiscation…”If it saves even one life, it’s worth it…”
…and compare these to their fervent espousal of the Liberal Sacrament of Abortion while opposing capital punishment in all times and places…
Logic much? Consistency much? Common sense much?
And by the way, if Krugman were to fall victim to being stabbed by a taxi or runover by a Moslem on a motor scooter, the net average IQ of the gnu zork Slimes newsroom would go up by seven points.
Paul Krugman’s a miserble little weasel and backstabber just like with most all liberals columists and politicians are Obama was the worst backstabber as he totaly cow towed to our enemies sold america out to the Useless Nations and the New World Order released crinimals and wanted americans disarmed
@Kalashnikat:
Of course, that action to save a life, in liberal-think, is the reduction of YOUR freedom. Beyond that, the left is not willing to lift a finger to protect society because they have so many varied political uses for the tragedies.
But, terrorists using trucks or knives has no political use to liberals since restricting citizens’ access to knives or vehicles does not support a political agenda. So, ha, ha, silly scaredy cat, fearing random terror attacks… why don’t you go get yourself an armed security detail and a walled compound, like smart people do?
Allyson Christy offered the following: ” The Left has cleverly managed to champion selected and relevant pawns, encompassing core and poignant connections relative to stirring misgivings, expanded politicking, and a continued influx of adherents by fanning conflagrations of emotionalism and partisan frictions.”