Those Newsletters

By -
I am still digesting all of this stuff; I may or may not comment on it later. In the meantime, though, I do want to bring up something that doesn't make sense. Presumably the timing of the TNR piece was no coincidence. And yet, if the goal were to handicap Paul in the NH primary, wouldn't it make sense to run the article on Monday the 7th, rather than Tuesday the 8th? If I were trying to sway voters, I would've built in a day for the URL to be emailed around, the media to pick up on it, etc.

Any thoughts?

Comments

  1. Anonymous2:22 AM

    I can't imagine why TNR would be particularly interested in depressing Paul's vote in NH. If this were a republican rag I'd assume that they were angling to help a candidate they favored, but why should TNR care? Paul's no threat to anything they care about.

    I assume they thought it was a story with some heat, and it was a good day to put out such a story.

    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