Reporting in from TV Land

By -
On NCIS Los Angeles a character from Homeland Security just described an Iranian terrorist group with 100,000 members!

No actual Islamic terrorist group has more than a few thousand.

No wonder Americans are easily frightened, when the actual threats are blown so out of proportion.

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:27 PM

    In fact, most terrorist groups only have a little few, and their numbers decline quite dramatically as they engage in acts of terror. They're not a popular bunch, but they play so on TV.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniel McCarthy11:24 PM

    During the height of the war on terror, you'd seen ignoramuses saying things like "if even 1 percent of them want to kill us..." One percent of one and a half billion Muslims would be fifteen million extremists, or about six times the size of the largest army on the planet. It's an obscenely stupid number, but the people who'd invoke the percentage thought they were being extremely generous in saying "only" one percent. It's absolutely bat-guano bonkers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bobybuilder12:09 AM

    There are at least that many dastardly statists involved in trying to secretly hunt down and kill heroic Cliven Bundy. Or so I read.

    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