Stephen Roney's Blog, page 263
January 9, 2020
Al Jazeera on the Ukrainian Passenger Jetliner Downing
Like Russian TV, Al Jazeera shows itself more reliable and balanced on Iran than the CBC.'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
Being American as the Root of All Evil
It has apparently been confirmed by American satellite images that the Iranian air defense mistakenly shot down the Ukrainian airliner.
Responding to what was then only a theory, one leftist friend posted on Facebook, “If this happened as a result of that ignorant sleazebag in the White House, I hope the next missile lands squarely on him.”
Another leftist suggested that it was probably an American drone that shot down the plane, not an Iranian missile.
Another comments “Trump should have been assassinated.”
Another: “Was watching Amanpour & Co. on PBS last night. The interviews and talks were on the Iran situation. At least one of the Americans, can't remember who, presented a bizarre concept: acceptable levels of retaliation. He said the actions taken by Iran to retaliate against the killing of that general were within acceptable levels, and that Iran was careful not to poke the bear. So exactly who establishes these levels? Is taking down a passenger plane OK?”
Another writes “Iranian missiles? Yeah sure, America, I believe you.”
Surely this rises to the level of delusion. No matter what happens, the Americans must be responsible, and the Iranians can bear no responsibility.
It is similar when it comes to dealing with women: no matter what they do, blame must be placed on the nearest available male.
In the end, this is profoundly demeaning to both women and Iranians. In denying them free will, it denies them moral worth. It denies them a soul.
Not, of course, that it is good for Americans. They are made out to be the source of all evil. It’s the same logic behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the International Jewish Conspiracy. 'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
CBC Drops Its Own Bomb on the US
The CBC coverage of the Iranian missile attacks on two bases in Iraq amounted to misinformation—“fake news.” The host referred to it as an “escalation,” indeed a “dangerous escalation.” She marveled at how accurate the strikes were and that they had gotten through American anti-missile protections. “What,” she asked her expert commentator, “gave the Iranians the confidence to do this?”
This amounts to an example of the principle that, when someone has committed themselves to lying, they tend to say the opposite of the truth. The Iranian response was more like the minimum needed to save face. There were no casualties; not a sign of accuracy. And that is all they had to go on at that point. As to getting through American defenses, these bases were hastily equipped to fight guerillas with IEDs. It seems improbable that there would have been some “iron dome” set up to shoot down incoming missiles.
And it is hard to see how the attack showed any growth in Iranian confidence. Everyone could see they were obliged to do something, or lose face.
Then I switched to RT—the Russian government propaganda channel. Just for comparison. Russia is supposedly an erstwhile ally of Iran; they have recently been conducting joint military exercises. And they have no free press.
Yet Russian Television told it straight.
That’s a pretty damning indictment of our mainstream media, and our taxpayer-funded network.
What can explain this?
There is an inevitable temptation in news to sensationalize. That could account for the talk of World War Three being imminent. But RT would have the same temptation. And that cannot explain the bit about the missiles being so accurate and getting through the US defenses.
It has to be anti-Americanism of an extreme, even unprincipled, sort.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
January 8, 2020
The Cure - Part 1
The podcast episode...
The Cure - Part 1'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
The Cure
More to follow...'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
Word War Three Update Update
I see reports that Iran actually warned the US in advance of their missile strikes yesterday, so that the Americans could get all their personnel out of harm’s way. After the strike, they announced that they had finished their “retaliation,” and would not do anything more so long as the Americans didn’t respond.
In other words, purely symbolic, to save face.
In the meantime, it looks as though the Iranians were so panicky about a new American attack that they mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian commercial airliner in Tehran, no doubt imagining it was an incoming bomber.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
A Postmodern Sampler
Courtesy of OwlcationA choice bit of postmodern prose recently came my way. The overall heft of the essay seemed to be to discredit Descartes’ thesis, based on a set of prior logical arguments, not here addressed, that clarity and distinctness of perception was a measure of truth.
Here’s the thesis statement for the essay.
“While truth as overall result or effect is readily understood by everybody, it is a far cry from the accuracy and plausibility sought by scientists. The ability to accomplish and get things done, however tenuous and ill-defined, is a very old notion even if it does not lend itself to statement or claim. As instinctive wisdom would have it, there is a truth to everything, the truth of a place ( its overall effect), the truth of a job, the truth of a relationship, the truth of a sculpture, the truth of a material. It is recognized ( often belatedly) by its closeness to, or fidelity with, experience. Nitty-gritty to the core, it is often talked about mythically as if belonging to a different order. This is but a backhand way of saying we are in the presence of a field phenomenon defined only by interaction, at once environmental and many-sided. In what follows we propose to explore what it is that instant replay brings to the table no matter the circumstances.”
It is tiresome to try to extract the meaning from such prose.
The obvious task this paragraph is here to perform is to define the meaning of the word “Truth.” There is an obvious and simple way to do this: quote a standard dictionary. Instead, the author goes on for a paragraph saying vague, disconnected things.
Is truth at least in some sense readily understood by everybody? Sounds like a dubious assertion. If so, why are we prompted to discuss it here, and so often throughout the history of philosophy?
Is truth an “overall result or effect”? What can that mean? Are causes as opposed to results untrue? Eh? If causes are not real, how can they produce effects?
He suggests that scientists measure “truth” by “plausibility.” But to be true, a thing has to be more than merely plausible. To be true means it is certain. He might be using the wrong word here, or he may just be spinning words—to sound “plausible.” One simple way to sound plausible is to use the word “plausible” a lot.
“The ability to accomplish and get things done, however tenuous and ill-defined, is a very old notion.” It is unclear why this sentence is here—presumably the author means that “the ability to accomplish and get things done” has something to do with truth. But an ability is not a notion; an act is not an idea. What does he mean here, then? What does it mean to call an action “ill-defined”? In what sense is an action “defined”? Unless it is something like a dance step, it just is.And is he asserting that “truth” is the same as “getting things done”? Who says that? So if I swat a fly, I have discovered some truth? Or have I created a truth? Does the fly not exist, since nobody has “gotten it done”?
“Instinctive wisdom” seems to be a contradiction in terms. Wisdom is “the quality of having experience and knowledge.” Making decisions based on experience and knowledge is the opposite of making decisions based on instinct. One might use such a paradox to draw attention to a point, but there is no point. It is not explained.
And again, is it instinct to suppose “there is a truth to everything”? That means there is a truth to a lie, a truth to a hallucination, a truth to an error, and so forth. Really?
“The truth of a place” is described as “its overall effect.” But does that mean that no place exists except as experienced? If nobody visits Australia, it is not there? Its effect on whom? Me, you, the average person, the most recent person to experience it, only those currently experiencing it, or God? If true, why are places specified? Why would this not be equally true of other things experienced?
And so on and on. It is a word salad. Without the vinegar.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
World War III Update
There is no question in my mind that Trump made a mistake in suggesting the US might, if provoked, bomb Iranian cultural sites. I assume he was bluffing, but even so, it sends the message that his fight is with Iran and Iranian culture, rather than with the present government. This is not true; the average Iranian, by all reports I have heard from those who have visited Iran, is likely to be on Trump’s side at this point. But threatening to destroy elements of their culture threatens that, and strengthens the current regime.
And it would be militarily and strategically senseless to bomb cultural sites. All loss, no gain. If Iran wants to provoke the US further, there are truly valuable targets easily available. This is why I expect the Iranian response to be muted. They have to do something, or lose face. But they dare not escalate.
They have fired a few mortar rounds and a few missiles. But it actually looks as though they were fired to just miss their targets. No casualties. And the Iranian cyber squad has apparently hacked into—the US federal library system. That's got to hurt. There's a comedy skit in that.
Its mountainous terrain makes Iran hard to invade on the ground. But its geography also makes vulnerable. It has little access to the sea, to export the oil on which its economy depends. Trump could level the few exposed port facilities easily. No need even to thread through layers of air defense. He could also easily blockade at the Strait of Hormuz.
And he could exploit any provocation to try to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities. This, after all, was plan A before Obama sought conciliation: either the US or Israel was going to try to bomb them.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
The London View on Harry, Meghan, and Canada
Hat tip to Small Dead Animals for this.
The short version is that the Sussexes have been excluded from the ranks of senior royals in the UK, and Meghan does not like the life. So they are thinking of moving their base of operations to Canada.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.
