Paul Krugman, writing in his New York Times column, “Betraying the Planet“:

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.

So that’s how Mr. Krugman hopes to win a public policy debate — comparing his opponents to Holocaust “deniers” and accusing them of treason. And you know what we do with traitors…

We make them lie on the beach, reading the 1,428-page bill until the rising oceans pull them to their briny deaths.

Noted below is the somewhat odd fact that the Employee Free Choice Act hasn’t even been introduced in the 111th Congress yet. You would think that union supporters would have had enough clout to make it a Day 1 hoopla-and-huzzah piece of legislation, but the strategy is obviously otherwise. Perhaps a May 1 introduction date instead?

In preparation for its introduction, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, has sent around a Dear Colleague letter asking for original cosponsors. Here’s the text of the letter/e-mail. (We’ve cut out the identifying phone and e-mail.)

Be An Original Cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act

From: The Committee on Education and Labor
Sent By: XXXX
Date: 1/22/2009

Be an Original Cosponsor of

The Employee Free Choice Act

January 22, 2009

Dear Colleague:

In the 110^th Congress, we made historic strides in the fight for workers’ rights and economic fairness.  The Employee Free Choice Act, which would restore workers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain, garnered 234 House cosponsors, from both sides of the aisle.  It passed the House with 241 bipartisan votes. 

Unfortunately, opponents refused to allow a vote in the Senate on this critical bill for working families, and the Bush White House promised a veto.

As we begin this new Congress, with stronger pro-middle-class majorities in both Houses and a President who supports the bill, I am writing to urge you to join me as an original cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. 

This bill is more important than ever.

As the current economic crisis shows us, we cannot maintain or grow a middle class on credit.  During the last recovery, real income stagnated or declined for most Americans, even as productivity increased.  Americans relied on increased consumer debt and decreased savings rates to maintain middle class lifestyles.  This proved unsustainable.  To ensure that the next economic recovery is fair and sustainable, we must re-link rising productivity with rising wages.  Workers need to be able to exercise their rights to join together and push for a seat at the table and a better deal.  The Employee Free Choice Act is critical for an economy that rewards work and works for everyone.  As Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman recently explained:  “[The Employee Free Choice Act] will enable America to take a hu! ge step toward recapturing the middle-class society we’ve lost.”

• The current system for forming unions and bargaining is badly broken.  Workers are frequently (continue reading…)

We pay little attention to the New York Times’ opinion columnists because they’re so repetitively tedious and tediously repetitive, tendentiously so…and so and so, too. We do know that Paul Krugman is reviled throughout the conservative commentariat because his biases overwhelm his analysis. He used to be a serious economist, yadda, yadda, yadda…

Or should we write jåddä, jåddä, jåddä?

Anyway, we take note of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarding Krugman the Nobel Prize in order to comment on two things:

The funny results of the following Google search: Krugman and “a serious economist.”

And, when Der Spiegel wanted a serious analysis of the current financial crisis and its impact on the American economy, it turned to Noam Chomsky:

SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?

Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

 Give that man a Nobel Prize!