Rachel Maddow Admits...

By -
that Obama is willing to kick the Democrat base in its teeth.

This admission is a big step forward in our politics. What we need is realism, not dreamy-eyed idealism. Given where we are, let's focus on what might we hope to realistically achieve, rather than what we might dream of. Focusing on one's own fantasies, rather than reality, is not being pure, it is being immoral, as prudence, aka attending to reality, is a moral virtue, and imprudence is a vice.

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:28 AM

    Perhaps you may have heard Friedman's saying, "No! You don't have to vote in the right people. EXCUSE ME. No, you just make the wrong people do the right thing. You must make it politically unprofitable for them to do anything else."

    However, the matter of Guantanamo, to which the article refers, is not a matter of realism. Guantanamo itself is pure ideology - that terrorism can somehow be solved with enough force and a military prison with military tribunals. It ignores pragmatism that its approach towards making people guilty until proven innocent is itself going to create more enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah10:41 AM

    "However, the matter of Guantanamo, to which the article refers, is not a matter of realism."

    Well, isn't dealing with it a matter of realism?

    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