The News Is Disturbing

By -
I was listening to CBS News Radio in the car today, and the announcer said, "Coming up: Some very disturbing news about Iran's Nuclear plans." (I quote from memory.)

When the story arrived, it turned out that the "very disturbing news" was that the UN had confirmed George Bush's contention that Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment program. What disturbed me is that:
1) Per IAEA rules, Iran is allowed to have a uranium enrichment program; and
2) Iran publicly has stated that it would not stop its uranium enrichment program.

So why does CBS deem it "very disturbing" that Iran is going ahead, as it said it would, with a program permitted by the international treaties it has signed? Is it because it is in the interest of the current administration to portray it as disturbing?

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:58 AM

    when you haveeve isk,you can get more
    eve online isk,it is decide to
    buy isk,you can brush
    cheap eve isk,you can
    buy eve online iskfor others.

    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