1
   

George Galloway blasts the Senate

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 04:50 am
I will overlook Steve's rather uncharacteristic, but very offensive remark above.

Blatham'

Perhaps we are just talking past each other with respect to the different meanings we evidently attach to the components of the phrase "moral authority".

In my lexicon, I would indeed credit Osama bin Laden with exercising a degree of moral authority over his followers. This, despite the fact that I don't find his concepts of morality to either make sense or be an acceptable basis for any worthwhile cause. I consider the phase as referring to the type of authority which he undeniably does exert over his followers. Moreover it does indeed involve an element of acceptance and consent on the part of those over whom he exercises that authority.

In this sense 'moral authority' could well spring from a code of values that you and I would quickly reject. I suspect we would argue endlessly over just what might constitute "right morality" or a right basis for the form of moral authority we, as individuals, might accept. That's OK. Even though I might find some of your beliefs and values incorrect, or based on a flawed principle, - and you mine - we would still credit each other as being motivated by our own concepts of right purpose and behavior, and, as well, note that they have a good deal more in common than either has with Islamist intolerance and fanaticism, or Hell's Angels thuggery.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 05:24 am
Steve - considering that Professor Dawkins is a militant atheist he contradicts his own theories by designating anything as an "act of God".

Anyway most people here - Republicans and Democrats alike - figured the good professor had gone off the deep end when he published an open letter to Ohio voters urging them to vote for Kerry. Here's the text of his hysterical epistle as published in The Guardian newspaper:

__________________________________________

"Dear Americans,

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush's America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush's Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the "enemy" who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how "well" things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn't you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

As the bumper stickers put it, "Re-defeat Bush". But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother's friends in Florida nor his father's friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don't let us down."
__________________________________________
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:05 am
It wasnt my remark George it was Dawkins. And I thought you might appreciate the logic of it (seriously)

I have my own ideas about the Divine which I keep to myself (but you might notice I spelled God with a capital G)

After the tsunami militant islamists were telling the devastated populations that the catastrophe was the will of Allah. Dawkins points out it was plate techtonics. He went on to point out that it was religious zeal which motivated the 911 attacks. So we have a neat symmetry of an apparant act of God for which there is no evidence of God's involvement, and a man made terrorist act justified (by them) as doing God's will.

I'm surprised I have to spell this out.

Helen, Dawkin's and the Guardian's attempt to influence the US election surely backfired. I blame him for Bush's election Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:18 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
...Dawkin's and the Guardian's attempt to influence the US election surely backfired. I blame him for Bush's election Smile


By Dawkins' logic, 'twas surely an act of God. Smile
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:18 am
Dawkin's remarks, quoted above were but a vitriolic polemic, not worthy of consideration by serious, thinking people. Apart from casting doubt on the wisdom or insight of one who would cite it as an authority, there was nothing whatever in it that was beyond the need for explanation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:29 am
George

I was talking specifically about Dawkins one liner re God/Tsunami/911

not the polemic Helen posted.

the fact that you found it "very offensive" led me to think you could not possibly have understood it.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:46 am
Quote:
Here's the text of his hysterical epistle as published in The Guardian newspaper:


Seems perfectly fine and reasonable to me; balanced, thoughtful, humorous in part, unexceptionable.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:54 am
Not wishing to hijack the thread subject, but to just tie up a loose end or two...

Theodicies are arguments which address a dilemma for western theists - if god is posited as all-knowing, all benevolent, and omnipotent, how can it be justified that he causes/allows innocents (eg a baby who has had no chance to sin) to be crushed by a falling wall or to suffer other such horrifying natural tragedies? They are paradigm examples of the outer regions of loonyhood one can attain when key propositions held absolutely cannot be allowed (psychologically or philosphically or doctrinally) to be admitted or conceived as mistaken. Thus, just as some Genesis literalists end up concluding that god put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith, or as a Shroud of Turin believer hearing that the carbon-dating of a hunk-o-shroud puts it contemorary to the crusades (imagine sun-baked, handpainted roadside signs..."Peeces of the Real Cross...only eight schekels! Bewair of swine-pig immotaters! Today only, half price for blond peeple!! Prayse to allah.") responds to this news with "Well, we don't know what sort of energies are released in an Ascention and, clearly, these could skew the carbon-dating findings."

All of that just so we are clear on who else accompanies our WSJ historian out there in deep leftfield.

But what truly pisses me off about this fellow's WSJ op ed isn't his version of christian dogma and its intellectual and moral consequences, it is his mouth-frothy political bias. Darwinian Central Committee being the sort of phrase which historians worthy of esteem for carefullness and objectivity use throughout their works.

Quote:
"L'Europe de Dante, de Goethe et de Chateaubriand." I interrupted: "Et de Shakespeare, mon General?" He agreed: "Oui! Shakespeare aussi!" ...No leading member of the EU elite would use such language today. The EU has no intellectual content. Great writers have no role to play in it, even indirectly, nor have great thinkers or scientists. It is not the Europe of Aquinas, Luther or Calvin--or the Europe of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Half a century ago, Robert Schumann, first of the founding fathers, often referred in his speeches to Kant and St. Thomas More, Dante and the poet Paul Valery. To him--he said explicitly--building Europe was a "great moral issue." He spoke of "the Soul of Europe." Such thoughts and expressions strike no chord in Brussels today."


Compare this complaint with the reality of who runs the administration which this 'historian' reveres. Consider the following announcement from Scott McClellan, which I'm expecting any day now...
Quote:
"President Bush will be speaking Friday on how King Lear and Othello have, along with several favorite sonnets, influenced his understanding of the human condition. Immediately following, Vice President Cheney will join the discussion (via satellite link from a bunker somewhere in Monaco) to read from the letters of Albert Einstein pertaining to the inhumanity of nuclear weapons arsenals and from those bibilical passages which remind us how the wealthy have as much chance of getting into heaven as Joe Camel has of squeezing through a needle-eye. Third up, Donald Rumsfeld will address the works of Tolstoy as they relate to honesty and to empathy, but I think we can also expect a passionate defence (from the Minister of Defence after all) on his personal intellectual love and area of interest - of the need to protect important achaeological sites and early civilization antiquities. Lastly, I'm really excited to tell you that Karl Rove will tie up the evening with a one-man play (written by himself) wherein he will act as attorney arguing in defence of Galileo - and of all free inquiry - before the Inquisition officials. "
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 07:09 am
nice one blatham
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:53 am
parados wrote:
At least Galloway won't be performing for "invite only" audiences unlike some politicians who shall remain nameless (but AirForce1 made my trip back from LA 1-1/2 hours late.)


If the delay involved LAX and Air Force 1, maybe the president was just getting a haircut ... been there.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 11:25 am
HofT wrote:
Steve - considering that Professor Dawkins is a militant atheist he contradicts his own theories by designating anything as an "act of God".

Anyway most people here - Republicans and Democrats alike - figured the good professor had gone off the deep end when he published an open letter to Ohio voters urging them to vote for Kerry. Here's the text of his hysterical epistle as published in The Guardian newspaper ...


Dawkins's background probably never mattered to the good people of Ohio. By the time that hit, they had become pretty astute about sizing up those who talked-down to the them such as the stream of Hollywood celebrities who were constantly breezing into the state with Kerry. The fact that this guy was stupid enough to pen such a condescending letter and think it might ever benefit Kerry is a prime example of what's wrong the Democratic party and fanatical liberals elsewhere. They've highjacked the party and will keep it out of power for years to come.

A sidebar here, the Ohio Amish, who traditionally do not vote but choose to pray for all candidates, were actively seeking out the local GOP to help them vote in the last election ... Bush won Holmes County with 76% of the vote.

Dawkins and his ilk were fools then, and apparently continue to be.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 03:26 pm
scan through this Whooda then tell me Dawkins is a fool

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 03:37 pm
Quote:
University of Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins made a career out of trying to present science in terms that could be understood by the general public. Through television appearances, opinion articles in newspapers, five books, and a CD-ROM, Dawkins had taken up the job of breaking down the barriers between the scientific community and the rest of the world. This led to his being named in 1995 the first Charles Simonyi professor of public understanding of science at Oxford. At the same time, however, he remained controversial, not just because of his views on evolution but also because he had become one of the country's best-known atheists.
Dawkins was born March 26, 1941, in Nairobi, Kenya, where his father was stationed during World War II. The family moved back to England in 1949, and in 1959 Dawkins entered Oxford, where he studied zoology. After receiving his doctorate, he became (1967) an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, and then returned to Oxford to teach two years later. In 1976 he published his first book, The Selfish Gene, in which he tried to set straight what he thought was a widespread misunderstanding of Darwinism. Dawkins argued that natural selection did not take place on the level of the species or the individual but rather among genes. Genes, he maintained, used the bodies of living things to further their own survival. He also introduced the concept of "memes," the cultural equivalent of genes; ideas--such as fashion, religion, or other cultural phenomena--took on a life of their own within society and, along with genes, affected the progress of human evolution. The book was notable not just because of what it espoused but also because of the way it was written--it appealed to both the general reader and the scientist. More books followed, including The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), River Out of Eden (1995), and Climbing Mount Improbable (1996). He also released an interactive CD-ROM in 1996, The Evolution of Life, in which users could create "biomorphs," computer-simulated examples of evolution first introduced in The Blind Watchmaker. In fact, it was Dawkins's fascination with computers that contributed to much of the controversy surrounding his ideas. He felt that evolution boiled down to a sort of binary information transfer between genes that could best be expressed through computer simulation.

Dawkins often appeared on talk shows and debates, defending not only his theories but also his atheism. He likened religious faith to the childish habit of needing someone to blame for anything otherwise inexplicable. He was the winner of a number of awards, both literary and scientific, including the Royal Society of Literature Award. His notoriety only increased with his marriage to Lalla Ward, an actress who had played an assistant to the fictitious television scientist Dr. Who. (ANTHONY G. CRAINE)


"Dawkins, Richard." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service
20 June 2005 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9112956>.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 08:01 pm
WhoodaThunk wrote:
HofT wrote:
Steve - considering that Professor Dawkins is a militant atheist he contradicts his own theories by designating anything as an "act of God".

Anyway most people here - Republicans and Democrats alike - figured the good professor had gone off the deep end when he published an open letter to Ohio voters urging them to vote for Kerry. Here's the text of his hysterical epistle as published in The Guardian newspaper ...


Dawkins's background probably never mattered to the good people of Ohio. By the time that hit, they had become pretty astute about sizing up those who talked-down to the them such as the stream of Hollywood celebrities who were constantly breezing into the state with Kerry. The fact that this guy was stupid enough to pen such a condescending letter and think it might ever benefit Kerry is a prime example of what's wrong the Democratic party and fanatical liberals elsewhere. They've highjacked the party and will keep it out of power for years to come.

A sidebar here, the Ohio Amish, who traditionally do not vote but choose to pray for all candidates, were actively seeking out the local GOP to help them vote in the last election ... Bush won Holmes County with 76% of the vote.

Dawkins and his ilk were fools then, and apparently continue to be.


Militancy in defence of liberty is no vice. Dawkins' piece, quoted by Helen, doesn't match any dictionary definition of 'hysterical' though her use does match an earlier American instance where Benjamin Rush described women who supported the redcoat swine in the pre-independence period as suffering from 'hysteria' (see Thomas Szasz in The Manufacture of Madness).

A recent poll in Canada (headlined in the Vancouver Sun) noted that Canadians now consider George Bush and Osama as equally dangerous to world peace. I think what bothers me most about that is my suspicion both men would likely respond to this polling result with a sense of pride and accomplishment.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 08:32 pm
A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

Smile
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 09:22 pm
blatham wrote:


A recent poll in Canada (headlined in the Vancouver Sun) noted that Canadians now consider George Bush and Osama as equally dangerous to world peace. I think what bothers me most about that is my suspicion both men would likely respond to this polling result with a sense of pride and accomplishment.


As difficult as it is to restrain myself in response to this, I shall attempt to do so.

What is there to learn of Canadians from this poll?

1) They have a sophisticated understanding of global politics and recognize that the President of the US has a greater influence on world peace than just about everyone else in the world by virtue of the extreme power of America

2) They are (at least as represented by the majority of those polled by the Sun) absolute idiots

I'm afraid I have to vote for #2

If the poll suggested that Canadians believe that Bush is far more the determinator of world peace than Bin Laden, I would have voted for #1. Instead, they believe that Bush is more dangerous to world peace, and therefore I am, unfortunately, forced to go with #2.

Let's try and examine this rationally.

If Osama Bin Laden surfaces again, it will likely be in connection with an attack on some nation or another (and most likely the US). Will such an attack damage World Peace? This is uncertain. One might argue, however, that without 9/11 there would probably not have been military intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq and so it is quite possible that another Bid Laden moment might precipitate additional military operations, and that to the extent that regional military operations damage World Peace, Bin Laden will be responsible.

On the other hand, President Bush surfaces each and every day (and putting aside Iraq to which I will return) there is simply no reason to believe that he has any policies, notions, wishes or desires to disturb World Peace.

There are several hot spots in the world:

North Korea
The Taiwan Straits
Iran
Palestine

If Canadians, or others, can illustrate to me how the Bush Administration is fanning the flames in these regions, and pushing the situations towards military conflict rather than diplomatic stalemate, if not resolution, I will be more than happy to stand corrected.

If I have missed a hot spot where there is evidence that the Administration is threatening to unleash the Dogs of War, please educate me and I will stand corrected.

The notion that Bush and his minions are war-mongers is unsustainable.

Since Bush has taken office there have been two military operations: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most of the world (including Canada - I think) have no problem with our military action against Afghanistan given 9/11.

Iraq is, of course, a different story, but despite the dire (and frankly hysterical) predictions of members of The Left, invading Iraq did not result in World War III. There is, in fact, far less than a state of peace in Iraq, but who believes that World Peace hinges on the goings on in Mosul?

As far as this little bon mot:

"I think what bothers me most about that is my suspicion both men would likely respond to this polling result with a sense of pride and accomplishment."

Anyone who truly believes this is the ass of a horse...or moose, as the case may be.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 11:19 pm
JustWonders wrote:
A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

Smile


Sadly, insularity, xenophobia, arrogance and ignorance are at the heart of this problem, as is often so ably demonstrated here.

On another point above, maybe HofT meant "hysterical" to mean "funny" when she was describing Prof Dawkin's letter.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 03:12 am
blatham wrote:
Militancy in defence of liberty is no vice. Dawkins' piece, quoted by Helen, doesn't match any dictionary definition of 'hysterical' though her use does match an earlier American instance where Benjamin Rush described women who supported the redcoat swine in the pre-independence period as suffering from 'hysteria' (see Thomas Szasz in The Manufacture of Madness).

While I happen to agree with everything Dawkins said in that piece, his language was totally out of line for its stated purpose of swinging some votes in Ohio. Also, the Guardian was the wrong publication for addressing an American audience. In combination, I'd say those two lapses do qualify as hysterical.

On a different note, it is truly heartwarming to see you quote Barry Goldwater. It's a promising start. In your heart, you know he's right.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 05:02 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:


I read it Steve, and I also read his attempt to influence American voters. I concluded that he is a fool.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 05:26 am
Steve: I, too, have scanned and will raise the ante to damned fool.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 12:23:42