What Our "Conservative" News Outlets Are "Thinking"

By -
In more from the NY Post, yesterday's op-ed page featured an editorial calling for all sorts of New York officials -- Mike Bloomberg, Eliot Spitzer, the City Council -- to "muscle" Cablevision "to get the Mets back on cable TV." (Cablevision wants Time Warner to pay more for the license to broadcast Mets games.) Now, this is the supposedly "right wing" paper in the Big Apple, and... well, what can one say about its proposal except that it's revolting to anyone who values economic freedom? And what in the world does the Post think is so important about watching the Mets, anyway? What if these people read a book or played with their kids in lieu of downing a six while watching Pedro Martinez? Oooh, what hardship! Better call in the State's "muscle"!

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