Sometimes I just have to shake my head after reading Paul Krugman columns. You've got to wonder exaclty what goes through this man's head.

Our leaders and much of the media tell us that we're a nation at war. But that was a bad metaphor from the start, and looks worse as time goes by.

In both human and economic terms the effects of Sept. 11 itself resembled those not of a military attack but of a natural disaster.

As OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto pointed out under the subhead "Stupidity Watch:"

Just inches away, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman makes the identical point: "Our leaders and much of the media tell us that we're a nation at war. But that was a bad metaphor from the start, and looks worse as time goes by. In both human and economic terms the effects of Sept. 11 itself resembled those not of a military attack but of a natural disaster."

This is unbelievably silly. "Wars" on cancer and drugs are metaphors because they aren't really wars. While one might reasonably complain that the formulation of a war "on terrorism" ill defines the enemy (though of course events have defined at last three distinct enemies--al Qaeda, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq), there's no question it is an armed conflict--a literal war. Krugman is an economist, so language isn't his specialty, although likening a terrorist attack to a "natural disaster" is a bit much even then. But (Susan) Sontag is reputed to be a writer of some sort. You'd think she'd know what a metaphor is.

Taranto's right, a lot of liberal "thought" is actually stupidity concealed in big words and lofty rhetoric.

Let's do a little flashback to Dec. 6, 1942, the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Can anyone imagine the New York Times op-ed page running a piece where the writer compared the sneak attack to a typhoon? Like a typhoon, ships were sunk and some people died -- don't worry, be happy.