Absurd Explanations Indeed

By -
From MSNBC.com:

"On defense for much of the evening, Giuliani switched gears nearly an hour into the debate, challenging Rep. Ron Paul’s suggestion that the U.S. bombing of Iraq had contributed to the terrorist attacks of 2001.

"As mayor of New York at the time of the attacks, Giuliani said sternly, 'I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations.'”

Giuliani must not listen very well, because bin Laden himself has cited that as a major reason for his jihad against the US.

Comments

  1. John Goes2:57 AM

    Gene, your point only makes sense if you believe Guiliani is running for President of the United States. Actually, he's running for the president of 9-11: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah4:10 AM

    Yes, if Ron Paul had been quicker on his feet, he might have asked, "Why does having been mayor of the city that was attacked on 9/11 give you more insight into the causes of that attack than anyone else in the world?"

    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