Category Archives: Media Criticism

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Things The Chattering Class…

3 Comments

…got wrong:

You would think the liberal intelligentsia would, with a record of so many misses on so many consequential matters, become chastened. But no. They are filled with certainty: Obama is back, the recovery is around the corner, Russian “reset” is a success, ObamaCare can’t be repealed, there are no electable Republican 2012 contenders, and more, they tell us. We’ll see if the left’s crystal ball is any more accurate in 2011.

I know how I’d bet. They can’t help themselves.

[Update a while later]

Something else the chattering class is getting wrong — Barack Obama isn’t the “Comeback Kid.”

Education, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Islam On Campus

8 Comments

The numbers from the UK are pretty scary:

The statistic that stood out the most was that 32% of Muslim college students believe it is OK to kill someone in the name of religion. Most who held that belief said that killing is perfectly fine if you are defending your religion. So it shouldn’t be surprising that another CSC study (done in July 2010) revealed that 1/3 of terrorist attacks done by British Muslims the last ten years was done by people who had attended universities.

Other parts of the CSC research found that 40% of Muslims want Sharia law in the UK for Muslims. 1/3 of those want a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia. There are already over 85 Sharia law schools in the British Isles, so their wish is becoming true. Moreover, 54% of those survey wanted a Muslim Party to be represented in Parliament.

I too would like to see a similar poll done on American campuses.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

On Sharia Apologists

6 Comments

Robert Conquest, call your office:

Responses to Gingrich’s speech, when not ignoring the factual content of his presentation, or engaging in ridiculous casuistry (pretentiously, if clumsily put forth as [semi-]educated “nuance”), offered mendacious, bowdlerized portrayals of living Islamic doctrine and its historical consequences, past as prologue to the present. But a collective wealth of unambiguous evidence — readily available — reveals the breathtaking shallowness and intellectual dishonesty of these self-righteous attacks on Gingrich, and U.S. state anti-Sharia initiatives, including: objective, erudite analyses of the Sharia by leading Western scholars of Islam; the acknowledgment of Sharia’s global “resurgence,” even by post-modern, “anti-colonial” (i.e., against Western colonialism, not Islamic jihad colonialism!) academic apologists for Islam, combined with an abundance of recent polling data from Muslim nations, and Muslim immigrant communities in the West confirming the ongoing, widespread adherence to the Sharia’s tenets; the plaintive warnings and admonitions of contemporary Muslim intellectuals — freethinkers and believers, alike — about the incompatibility of Sharia with modern, Western-derived conceptions of universal human rights; and the overt promulgation of traditional, Sharia-based Muslim legal systems as an integrated whole (i.e., extending well beyond mere “family law aspects” of the Sharia), by authoritative, mainstream international and North American Islamic religio-political organizations.

Speaking of ad hominem attacks…

I wonder how long it will be until the time is ripe for a book from Gingrich titled, “I Told You So, You F***ing Fools“? I hope that future generations will view Sharia apologists as they currently view Nazi apologists. In fact, it would be nice if they’d view communist apologists that way, even today.

Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary

Jeffrey Sachs

39 Comments

…versus Victor Davis Hanson. It’s no contest. In theory, they invented the mercy rule for things like this, but Sachs is undeserving. As a commenter notes, it’s rare to see such a pure, nasty, unadulterated version of ad hominem, but when you do it generally comes from a clueless leftist.

Which brings up a general gripe, sustained for years both at blogs and, before them, Usenet, on the general lack of understanding of what an ad hominem argument is. Here’s what it is not. It is not a mere gratuitous insult tossed into the middle of an otherwise strong argument, whether accurate or not (I’ve often been accused of ad hominem for this — it might well be rude, but it’s not ad hominem). It is not saying “so and so is on the take by the Evil Corporation X, so we should take with a grain of salt things that so and so says in defense of Evil Corporation X,” at least when one has made a strong case against ECX and the defender has made a weak one, or lied about it, and this is pointed out. An ad hominem argument would be to say simply that you should not believe what he says for no other reason than this (and even then it’s not true ad hominem, because the information is relevant to the topic at hand), but stated properly, it is rather an explanation for why such a poor/mendacious argument is being made. For an example of this non-example of ad hominem, see my post yesterday about Loren Thompson. Note that I eviscerated his foolishness — the fact that he’s on the payroll of major aerospace corporations who favor the status quo was simply lagniappe for the benefit of readers who might wonder why he was making such absurd, unfactual and illogical arguments.

But as I said, what Sachs did to Hanson was a pure, logic-free, irrelevant and false attack on his character as an excuse to avoid having to deal with the substance of his comments, and I point it out as an example of the real deal.