The Myth of Tiananmen Square?!

By -
Jude Wanniski was totally on the ball on the WMD issue. Even before the US invaded, Wanniski was confidently saying no WMD would turn up, and he point-by-point refuted the bogus intelligence reports to the contrary.

Now Wanniski says that the Tiananmen Square "massacre" never happened. I still had lingering doubts after his article, but then when I read this one (that he linked to) I was convinced.

Now if journalists can learn this stuff and publicize it, surely the whizzes at the CIA know about it too. Sorta makes you wonder...If you had to pick the most bellicose nation in today's world, the one nation most likely to start unnecessary wars, I'm not so sure it would be those evil Chi-Coms or dogmatic Ay-rabs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more