Now What's a Wingnut To Do?

By -
Michelle Malkin is upset about the Afghani government planning to execute a man for converting to Christianity, but understandably she is somewhat at a loss as to what to do about it. Usually she is eager to bomb anyone who looks at American interests cross-eyed, but in this case about the sternest response she can come up with is to "offer [the convert] asylum"! Well, I feel for her plight: She'd like to call for the US to invade Afghanistan, overthrow its government, and install one of American choosing, but of course America already has invaded Afghanistan, already has overthrown its government, and the offending ruling body is the very one that the US installed. Michelle must have spent hours at home wondering if it were nevertheless possible for America to invade again, what the status of the American troops propping up the current government would be vis-a-vis the ones trying to overthrow it, and other conundrums that finally left her looking like this:

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy3:57 PM

    Good post, Gene. I think even Malkin's suggestion about asylum wouldn't work, though. Wouldn't that make the current US gov't be interfering with Afghanistani democracy, the way we warned Iran that they'd better not interfere with Iraq? Maybe Israeli tanks would storm the US to bring that convert back into custody.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:54 AM

    Asylum could only be legally enforced if the guy was let out of Afghanistan by the Afghani government and made to American soil (which includes the US embassy in Kabul). Seeing as how it could therefore only happen with the cooperation of the Afghani government, I don't see how it would be interferring.

    But then, I'm not an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous2:32 AM

    Aren't even idiots typically sure they're not idiots?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Libertarian Jason9:45 AM

    HA! What a BEAUTIFUL picture....

    Excellent point, Gene. I wonder how the War Party will be able to explain away this....

    I am going to repost your comments on my blog, if you don't object...(with proper credit, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah3:41 PM

    Re-post away!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob Murphy4:45 PM

    Well unfortunately, I think they'll just say, "See what happens when we try to cater to the whiny liberals and allow diversity and the 'local culture' decide things? Despite all the gnashing of teeth, if we'd been like the British in India, this wouldn't have happened."

    I.e. the hardliners can always say that it was moderation that caused the problem. E.g. take Fallujah. Antiwar activists pointed to that as an obvious example of the invasion's failure, whereas I read war hawks pointing to it as an obvious example of what happens when you don't show the Ay-rabs we mean business.

    ReplyDelete

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