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...
You just don't get it, Gene! Israel is forced to allow Hezbollah to retain rockets because of moral equivalency nutjobs like you. You have to admit, if most people thought like JIMB, then israel wouldn't behave in this fashion.
ReplyDeleteGene - Do you just fall for this stuff or what?
ReplyDeletehttp://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2006/08/thomas-ricks-emily-litella-moment.html
HH: Great to have you here. I want to spend the vast bulk of our time on Fiasco and Iraq, but first, yesterday, you were on with Howard Kurtz' Reliable Sources, CNN, and in response to a question, you said that some military analyst had told you that Israel had, "purposefully left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon." That was reported on Powerline, Rush Limbaugh read it on the air today, quite a controversy. Anything to add to it, Thomas Ricks?
TR- Yeah, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut. What I said was accurate, that in an off-the-record conversation with some military analysts, a couple had said to me that they thought it was a smart strategy to leave some rocket pockets in place to help the Israelis shape public perceptions, and give their forces more freedom of maneuver in Lebanon. They weren't saying it was a bad strategy. They thought it was pretty intelligent, if it were the case. But I've since heard today from some very smart, well-informed people, that while such a strategy might be logical, and even morally defensible, that they thought the Israeli public just wouldn't stand for it, and they also expressed personal dismay to me that I had passed on the thought, which they thought was irresponsible. (emphasis added)
HH: Do you want to name any of the analysts?
TR: No, it was an off-the-record conversation, and I want to honor that confidence.
HH: Okay, last question. Do you think they were leading you on at that point, or just telling you what they honestly meant?
TR: No, I think...I know from the context of the conversation, it was about many different things. That came up as a part of the conversation. These are very good, smart, retired U.S. military officers.
If it were the case... So the source was speculation by retired U.S. military officers .. if even that is to be believed ... frankly this kind of stuff is reprehensible.
I hope Israel never stoops down to
the level of the Jihadists.
JIMB, do you just fall for this kind of pressure to take back a true statement, or what?
ReplyDelete