Smithers had thwarted my earlier attempt to take candy from a baby, but with him out of the picture, I was free to wallow in my own crapulence.

It almost seems cruel to continue to mock Krugman. He has lost so much credibility already that it's not entirely clear that there remains any point to pointing out his inconsistency it's like taking candy from a baby. On the other hand although i did quite a bit of mocking of him earlier, it's been several months plus he was a nobel prize winning economists, and still pretends that he's a serious person. I don't know, maybe in his own mind he still is a serious person. I don't see that anybody else could read what he writes and take it seriously, but the New York times continues to print it, so he (and by extensions them for continuing to employ him) must be mocked every once in a while as a reminder. What's particularly perplexing is that his columns are not just inconsistent or poorly thought out when writing about some sort of moral or philosophical problem, but when attacking specific economic issues like this. It makes you wonder how he could win a nobel prize for economics when he can't even keep his own thoughts consistent on the economic issues. Maybe he won one for work they thought he would do in the future, just like obama won one because everyone figured he would end US wars. But then instead Obama increased US wars (Libya, Somalia, etc.) claimed that they didn't even count as wars, and as such he could make the decisions entirely unilaterally and decide on his own recognizance to send drones off to bomb people. Maybe it turns out krugman is as bad an economist as Obama is a peacemaker only as it turns out the Nobel prize picking committee is even worse at picking nobel prize winners than obama is at fostering peace, or krugman is at economics.