The story goes something like this. In the remark shown on the screen, Paul Krugman cautioned that he is not calling someone a name (via a Monty Python reference lost on the speaker), but rather questioning the evidence for his view. The stunningly clueless commentator remarks that this is “classic Krugman” for “going after a person,” which is greeted with all sorts of agreement from the assembled panel brainless commentators. She then refers to Niall Ferguson, who in his turn says Paul Krugman uses ad hominem arguments because he must have been abused as a child. That, of course, is an actual ad hominem; Krugman’s is not. You just cannot be this dumb.
About this siteWhat happens when instructors of basic logic read the newspaper.