So many crazies these days. Crazy blogs, crazy news, crazy Trump, crazy Qadaffi, Hitchens venting against HIS royals (however, the emphasis should have been the expense, the glamour, the offense of such waste, not the moral character of the Windsors), crazy S&P ratings, reversed by a crazy Dow surge, crazy WSJ promoting Hayek doctrine for Egypt as a means to introduce capitalist democracy (there is no longer communism in the world, at least practically), crazy evolutionary scientists arguing against….religionists, ….crazy..crazy..all around us. And in most cases these people hold high their sense of …..common sense. Everybody else is nuts except them. The “liberals” lack common sense often argue the non-liberals. and so on.
Archive for the ‘hitchens’ Category
I wasnt gonna mention Hitchens (sick of it, no pun intended)) (I refuse to call him Hitch since he stole shamelessly from the movie) again. The guy has “metastasized” stage IV esophageal cancer, for crissake (actually is metastatic) and he should be left alone. Maybe. But, semiotics aside he got a mostly rabbinishisk looking beard, hence there is hint of life inside the bottle of black label in his pancreas. Hitch is being called the Collins miracle. Hitch mentioned the word “miracle” in a recent CBS interview and Jewish network ‘debate”. I think Hitch is flaking. What an irony, being saved by a total christian scientist; as good as it gets. By the way Coyne, who is secretly in love with Hitch, adoringly claims the Jewish network “debate” (what a macrobore) was a smackdown for Hitch and Sam. Coyne lies. Watch the video. If it wasnt for Harris hallucinatory incursion in afterlife consciousness the “debate” would have been a total loss. Instead was a near total loss.
In any case I wanted to draw attention to Hitchs’ call for Libya’s invasion at Slate. Piggybacking in Alito’s use of “brutal’ in the minority ruling on the infamous church of crazy (8 to 1!!!), Hitch delivers a passionate call for arms and invasion of Libya. Is he for real? I wont elaborate; many readers at Slate have counterargued Hitch to the fine print. I am still puzzled by his churriguresque detour from Alitos’ dissent. Really.
By the way, Fish has a rather interesting review of this ruling at the NYT; Fish of all: “Alito knows the answer. He begins his dissent by declaring, “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for . . . vicious verbal assault” and he ends by insisting that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.”.Fish writes :” In short, you shouldn’t be able to produce speech with the intention of causing harm to a specific person and get it away with it because you slipped in a word or phrase that has or could have a more general application”. I kinda agree with him.
Not that I follow G. Will at the WP, but he asks cogent questions regarding consequences of “intervention” as he calls it. Intervention? Funny. Its sounds psychiatric.
Today at NYT, Roger Cohen, argues that the power of facebok and/or twitter is bringing revolution via young geeks to arab countries. Is more like texting or cell phones, which I have been informed-i am not that tepid- makes it all possible. Well to an extent. Nasser came to power without twitting. However today Sunday, there is a startling report of Morse code used for internet providers to propagate the word-and sword-of the people.
I have learned that Malcolm Gladwell, the reasonable intelligent New Yorker, argues that tweet and blog and facebooking may nothing to do with social upheaval, sillily named in the media (at New Yorker). Many have already concluded it is a fact. Among them, Blow at NYT, which quickly has become a dispenser or truth, from graphic design, mind you. On the other hand the creative and mindful Sherry Turkle argues that”social media” leaves us alone , together” . Powerful idea.
In rationally speaking blog (hosted by Dr MP)-it should be speaking, rationally,-Dr MP apologized to Dr J Coyne, the bombastic owner of why evolution is true blog. For alleged diatribes, insults and disqualifications-rather common elsewhere- and in the science blogosphere more abundant than not.
This is a strange affair, i.e.: the apologies, mutual. Both Coyne and Dr P think themselves as new truth prophets, unwilling to consider difference in unsettled questions. They go monkey when somebody dares contradicts their view- actually they do not publish au contraire comments. Coyne is so adamant that lectures specialists-some heavy hitters included-on other fields, dispenses advise in boots, spirits, movies, books, places to visit: insufferable, I wonder what his contribution to humankind been, other than pontificate in a number of subjects (maybe the analysis of released labeled drosophila in the Death valley experiment). It is peculiar, this protectors’ of the truth grail stance that evolution bloggers and philosophers pretending to educate the public-actually the public gets bored with it-that without showing any substantial contribution to the field itsef, evolution in this case, go on taking everybody else as anathema. Take Dr MP or Dennett, one of the self proclaimed horsemen of the apocalypse (sic) and his insistence in “empirical philosophy”, desperate to contribute something significant to evolution and in his case, consciousness or, take Dawkins for example, another self proclaimed horsemen, : two of his papers, one in pecking order and the other on how easily distracted bees are: arghhh, wtf? and the selfish gene and memes? Rather insoluble ideas that properly vulgarized got him a position as public science disseminator (Dawkins; he comes across as utterly soft, intellectually). In any case the mutual apologies are so the zeitgeist of these miserable times. Everyone goes in a rampage, apologizes and… finito. Not really. Look at Mel-iflous Gibson, innumerable tv hosts-and guests-that go in rampages of diatribes and apologies alternatively; scientists are not different. We are all the same but not equal: I predict there it will be a flood of these fake apologies.
Maybe a response to the rally for sanity? But it cant: the rally for sanity somehow was a bust. Completely. America is moronically lethargic
Strange title for this post: the argument of this post: striking arguments. First, Kristof at NYT: he argues we are (the US) a banana republic: the United Banana Sates.priceless, but Not so quickie Nickie boy; we have argued that for YEARS. Moreover we have begged for a discussion on the term banana republic itself,-as an end result of “markets expansion”- to put it mildly and not to say pillage of defenseless. The term “bp” used despectively by politicos-and rednecks- to highlight some nations, in a manner an end result of the policies politicos in US implement elsewhere and that now is knocking our doors. The Godfather shows a bit of the mentality in one movie of the series, What? you dont appreciate the parallel? The diference between the Mafia and some organized corporations that are icons of free enterprise is trivial: remember Enron? Wall street? BP?.
Disclaimer: I admire NK particular engagement advocating for womens “rights” and decry abuse of human female in every way throughout the landscape. . He is a decent guy, very decent. But uninformed of banana republic history. Good striking statement. Long overdue.
Hitchens writes in VF about the “discourse” between cancerees and the “public’-cancerers. Striking article: … boring. There is a decent compassionate way to treat each other or the other way I suggest reading The Wounded Healer. By the way in the Hitchens watch website there is a clip where Hitchens attacks Louis Farrakhan. It seems as if Hitchens fails to acknowledge the impact of black leaders-albeit religious- in their communities. He has done scathing comments on J. Wright and E Long, and also Dr King. I wonder how much of concealed racism (masked as anti-religious, atheist) Hitchens holds. It wouldnt suprise me he is a closeted british (brutish) imperialist (they still think the UK aristocracy owns the Universe. Granted Farrakhan is a striking character, but important 4 black communities. Maybe we wouldnt witness and “enjoy’ their antics now if slavery was not invented .
Granted Farrakhan was brutish himself, especially in his hideous remarks about jews in new york. I wonder why