The New York Times's Nobel laureate columnist, Paul Krugman, greeted the tenth anniversary of September 11 with a blog post contending, "The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it."
He concluded, "I'm not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."
It's probably not worth using up one of your 20 monthly free nytimes.com page views to go look at the actual post. To me, though, almost more amazing than Professor Krugman's shame is his position on allowing comments. If he believes that "in its heart, the nation knows" that it is ashamed, why not allow comments from all those readers who want to say, "you know what, Professor Krugman, you are right, I am ashamed to be an American on September 11, thank you for voicing what I knew in my heart"? Actually, his refusal to allow comments amounts to a confession that he's wrong.
Also worth remarking upon is the arrogance on display. "I'm not going to allow comments." As if the decision on whether to allow readers the chance to react to Professor Krugman's shame rests with Professor Krugman and Professor Krugman alone. Here I am commenting regardless of whether Professor Krugman "allows" me to or not. The only thing he can control is whether some of the commenting happens on the New York Times Web site or whether it all happens somewhere else.
