Tim Russert Shows He's a Dolt

By -
By using two of the worst weasel terms in our political vocabulary: "Islamic fascists" and "moral equivalency."

Folks, there's no such thing as "Islamo-fascism," and "moral equivalency" is used to smear anyone who criticizes anything America does, by saying any criticism at all is the same as saying "America is just as bad as X," where X can be "the USSR," "the VietCong," "Castro," or "al Qaeda,"

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:14 AM

    I don't like the term "Islamo-fascism" because it suggests that anyone opposing President Bush's foreign policy is a Hitler appeaser. But why are you claiming that it is a nonsense term? Don't certain Muslims think the Koran should dictate business practices etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:06 AM

    "Don't certain Muslims think the Koran should dictate business practices etc.?"

    Sure. But that's not fascism! Not unless the Middle ages were a time of "Christo-fascism." The word for that type of government is "theocracy," not fascism.

    Fascism means a certain, specific type of policy platform, not any politics the speaker doesn't like.

    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