Now Sudan is getting into the act.
This is starting to look more and more like World War III started on September 11. Except this time, Europe will sit on the sidelines. And there’s a tremendous technological and industrial asymmetry between the good guys and the bad.
Now he’s setting up a moral equivalence between the Holocaust, and the fact that the Palestinians were urged to leave by their Arab “allies” in 1948 (so they could come back and retake Palestine after the renewed war that would drive the hated Jews into the sea).
Of course, it’s much easier to do so when you leave out the actual history as I just described it, and instead falsely claim that the Jews forced them out, in an ethnic cleansing operation. Does he really believe this stuff? Is he really that ignorant of history? Or is he just another leftist who thinks that the truth doesn’t matter, as long as the lies are in the service of “progress”?
It’s starting to look to me as if the reference to “Christians” in Prince Bandar’s mendacious opinion piece wasn’t just happenstance. It seems to be a general new ploy on the part of the Islamofascists, who are trying to posture as allies of Christians against the hated Jews to elicit sympathy from America.
Now they’re claiming that the Israelis (whose forefathers, they helpfully inform us, nailed Jesus to the cross) were deliberately targeting a statue of the Virgin Mary. They’re also continuing to promulgate the discredited lies about Ben Franklin being anti-semitic.
I’m hoping that this is a sign of desperation.
Fox News is starting to pick up on the story that the rest of the media have been studiously ignoring–the Saudis are rewarding Palestinian terrorists just as Saddam is. David Asman called it “the elephant in the living room,” and asked how much longer the Administration is going to be able to ignore it, and apply a double standard.
I’m wondering if (and hoping that) the President’s speech a couple of days ago was a hint to the House of Saud that they’d better clean up their act, and that they don’t have much longer.
If the sky’s clear in your area, go check out the comet tonight after sunset. Thanks to Jay Manifold for the link.
Some peace “activists” (gotta love that word–just like the “activists” who disassemble themselves and their immediate neighbors at weddings), were “abused” on their way home from Israel.
You know, I read the entire article, and I couldn’t figure out what the “abuse” was. All that was reported was some loud criticism. Why am I surprised that idiot British peaceniks have such thin epidermi?
Well, you know, one man’s abuse is another man’s righteous indignation.
Some peace “activists” (gotta love that word–just like the “activists” who disassemble themselves and their immediate neighbors at weddings), were “abused” on their way home from Israel.
You know, I read the entire article, and I couldn’t figure out what the “abuse” was. All that was reported was some loud criticism. Why am I surprised that idiot British peaceniks have such thin epidermi?
Well, you know, one man’s abuse is another man’s righteous indignation.
Some peace “activists” (gotta love that word–just like the “activists” who disassemble themselves and their immediate neighbors at weddings), were “abused” on their way home from Israel.
You know, I read the entire article, and I couldn’t figure out what the “abuse” was. All that was reported was some loud criticism. Why am I surprised that idiot British peaceniks have such thin epidermi?
Well, you know, one man’s abuse is another man’s righteous indignation.
In a post about the recent finding that first-cousin marriage carries a lower risk of genetic defect than previously thought, Charles Murtaugh says:
…although we consider it tragic that a Huntington’s patient might have affected children, we aren’t repulsed at the very idea of allowing him or her to reproduce. This suggests that our repugnance at brother-sister incest (which carries a much lower than 50% risk of Huntington’s-level disease) has little if anything to do with genetics. Score one for Leon Kass’s “wisdom of repugnance” thesis.
I don’t think so. An evolutionary-psychology explanation for such repugnance (and in fact, all repugnance–after all, repugnance is an emotion, and emotions are just our genes’ way of getting us to do what they want) is that it evolved precisely as a result of the evolutionary benefit of not getting it on with your siblings.
But not all evolutionary adaptations are advantageous in the modern world. What repulsed us on the savanna is not necessarily something to be feared, or disgusted by, in the twenty-first century. Repugnance is like any other feeling–consider it a suggestion, rather than a mandate. Repugnance, by itself, cannot provide an infallible basis for laws, particularly when it’s not universal.
I share most people’s repugnance about incest–I feel none about cloning, regardless of what Professor Kass thinks (or, to be more accurate, feels). Unlike him, I can distinguish between blind evolutionary urges, and true wisdom, which is a much more recent human development.
In a post about the recent finding that first-cousin marriage carries a lower risk of genetic defect than previously thought, Charles Murtaugh says:
…although we consider it tragic that a Huntington’s patient might have affected children, we aren’t repulsed at the very idea of allowing him or her to reproduce. This suggests that our repugnance at brother-sister incest (which carries a much lower than 50% risk of Huntington’s-level disease) has little if anything to do with genetics. Score one for Leon Kass’s “wisdom of repugnance” thesis.
I don’t think so. An evolutionary-psychology explanation for such repugnance (and in fact, all repugnance–after all, repugnance is an emotion, and emotions are just our genes’ way of getting us to do what they want) is that it evolved precisely as a result of the evolutionary benefit of not getting it on with your siblings.
But not all evolutionary adaptations are advantageous in the modern world. What repulsed us on the savanna is not necessarily something to be feared, or disgusted by, in the twenty-first century. Repugnance is like any other feeling–consider it a suggestion, rather than a mandate. Repugnance, by itself, cannot provide an infallible basis for laws, particularly when it’s not universal.
I share most people’s repugnance about incest–I feel none about cloning, regardless of what Professor Kass thinks (or, to be more accurate, feels). Unlike him, I can distinguish between blind evolutionary urges, and true wisdom, which is a much more recent human development.