Category: Uncategorized

MM poses an understandable question:

So why has this annoying twat not been banned yet?

Are you kidding? Cosmos is a more effective argument against atheism and its claims to rational and intellectual superiority than anything I can possibly construct on my own. That’s why there’s more than a few people – some of them atheists – who believe he’s a strawman I’ve concocted. Now, if I could only find equally reliable and enthusiastic feminists, socialists and Three Monkey Republicans, I’d be delighted.

That being said, I find it tremendously amusing when people claim that I’m cherry-picking the lame arguments, then when offered the opportunity to provide better ones, end up repeating the very arguments that they previously described as lame. If Dr. PZ Myers or Brent Rasmussen or Jim Downey or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, or Christopher Hitchens or Michael Onfray or any other atheist wishes to engage in a public debate with me, I’m always happy to engage in a forthright, civilized manner, with or without a moderator. I have no doubt that some of these individuals are capable of doing significantly better than Cosmos, but the basic form of their arguments will, in most cases, be essentially the same.

Speaking of which, I think I may owe Daniel Dennett an apology. After finishing two more of his books, I suspect I have unfairly caricatured him on the basis of his public interviews. I have to think more on the matter, but if I deem it necessary, I shall do so without hiding it in the small print.

Ah well. One can’t make a habit out of soaring on the heights of rhetoric without the occasional bumpy landing.

National Review watches last night’s debate:

Giuliani [Jonah Goldberg]
Is the smoothest at answering the question he wanted to be asked rather than the one he was asked.
10:04 PM

Giuliani had an “I’m paying for this microphone” moment: By responding with fury to Ron Paul’s basically blame-America explanation for 9/11, he seized the moment. What he said wasn’t especially insightful or original, but the emotional content was pitch perfect. [Mona Charon]

Rudy Giuliani was most in tune with the audience’s desire. He criticized Democrats in general and Hillary in particular. His quick, indignant response to Ron Paul on 9/11 was the night’s soundbite that made him America’s Mayor again. [Kate O’Beirne]

Giuliani played daddy tonight and spanked Ron Paul for blaming the U.S. for 9/11. Big points for calling on Paul to withdraw his absurd statement. Message: Don’t mess with Rudy. [Kathleen Parker]

Good For Wendell Goler. And good for Rudy. Sticking it to Ron Paul on his blame America First Isolationism. [Jonah Goldberg]

Can We Vote Ron Paul Off the Island? Rudy Giuliani got mad and effectively. [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

The Paul-Rudy Exchange. Probably means Rudy won this debate. [Rich Lowry]

Feelings… nothing more than feelings. It is, of course, totally absurd for Rudy Giuliani to claim that he has “never heard” of any connection between America’s ongoing interference in the Middle East and the 9/11 attacks. It is even more absurd to pretend that America’s invasions of Lebanon and Iraq and our supplying Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt with weaponry has not rendered us a legitimate target; when is the last time Arabs attacked Estonia or Chile? It’s obviously unwise to attack the world’s greatest military power, but it’s perfectly legitimate by any of the historical standards of war.

A nation cannot occupy dozens of other nations without creating a great deal of justifiable hostility. Consider that the US government is now claiming that Iran has been committing acts of war against us by providing armaments to the Shiite and Sunni guerillas attacking our soldiers in Iraq, how then is it possible that our similar provision of armaments to various belligerents were not acts of war that justify a response from the other party involved?

It’s absolutely disgusting that the Republican media – I will no longer say conservative – should cheer the blatant lying of this dishonest man because he tells them what they want to hear. It used to be that the sole virtue of Republicans was that they wanted to drive more slowly towards the cliff, now they are stepping on the gas harder than any Democrat. War-making is not conservative, those left-wingers in the Soviet Union weren’t exactly shy about invading countries and sending their “military advisers” everywhere from Angola to Vietnam.

Empires and great nations don’t fall from without, they rot from within. Al-Qaeda can never destroy America, in fact, losing Washington, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco to terrorism would make the nation stronger, not weaker. But men like Bill Clinton, George Bush and Rudy Giuliani can destroy America and they will if the American people continue to be more preoccupied with their fears of the terrorist-bogeyman than with the fate of the nation.

I note that Giuliani didn’t stop the first 9/11. So I suggest that his opinion is the very last one that deserves to be consulted regarding how to stop the next one.

I don’t believe it matters who wins the Republican nomination, since Hillary will walk all over any of them thanks to Republican nation-building and unlimited migration. But if Americans are content to choose between two left-wing New Yorkers for the leader of their government, they will get exactly the America they deserve.

Things are flying along, which means I’ve been barely able to pull myself away to get to the gym, let alone read the papers or blog. My editor went over the first five chapters and it might amuse some of you to note that he described his impression of the book so far “as being more akin to a machine gun than a sniper rifle”.

I just finished “Breaking the Spell” last night and I thought it was quite good. It’s probably just as well, as even the most entertaining beat-down starts to become a bit sickening after a while if there’s no break in the brutality. I’d actually quite like to interview Daniel Dennett, he may not want to talk to me, but it’s worth a shot.

Anyhow, Les was wondering what to do when people find your opinionated tendencies to be tiresome:

I like this site because I like the banter and the discussion of ideas. I’m no genius but I put in my two cents now and then. I read books and try to keep abreast of current events. Those are my hobbies. I’m not an imposing figure or an over-bearing personality. However, I tend to alienate friends and coworkers. My sons say I am too opinionated for most folks even when I can back up my opinions. Anyone else share my experience?

It may surprise some of you, but I’m fairly easy to get along with in person. Most of my acquaintances are shocked when they find out that I have a blog, let alone an opinion column, and more than a few of them still don’t know that I’m a writer of any kind. We’re increasingly living in a post-literate world, so the subject doesn’t come up all that often. I can’t recall the last time I talked about books with anyone other than Spacebunny or Big Chilly, to be honest.

I try to avoid bringing up political subjects very often – I’ve learned that most people aren’t capable of a friendly discussion on such matters, let alone an interesting one – and I usually try to offer the person an easy way out after making it clear that I disagree with them if they happen to bring one up.

What Les is missing, I think, is the fact that it is the mere fact of his disagreement with people that is intolerable to them. They don’t care that you can back up your opinion, they only care that you’re not backing up theirs! Most people really aren’t interested in anything that requires abstract thought, they have no idea why they think what they think and they’re merely looking for something to provide post-facto rationalization for their emotionally derived positions.

So leave them alone. You’re not the truth police and unless you’re being directly questioned, there’s no onus on you to straighten out their quirks. I basically look at it like a language issue, I speak Normal Retard when I’m with normal people in the same way I speak Italian with an Italian-speaker. And I’m perfectly content to do it, I had an interesting conversation with a weightlifter about the pros and cons of hammer curls with and without a twist halfway through just yesterday.

Everybody is an expert on something that interests them, if you want to get along with people, the trick is to let them pick the subject and just roll with it. You can learn something from everyone; stop trying to argue with the idiots, start learning whatever there is to be gleaned from them instead and you’ll find that they like you a lot better.

And why are you trying to convince them of anything anyhow? It’s pointless! They’re morons! (Relatively, not literally.) Do you ever worry about what your dog believes? Then don’t worry about people either.

John Scalzi fails to win the SFWA presidency and it wasn’t my fault. I voted for him.

People are already discussing the SFWA election results elsewhere online, which suggests the SFWA business meeting at the Nebula Awards Weekend is done, or at least far enough in process that the results are out there for people to know about. For those of you who are not currently at the Nebula Awards Weekend, however, here’s the scoop on the election results:

I didn’t win….

I’m sure people will want to know if I plan to run for SFWA president next year. Well, remember that in my candidacy and platform statement this year, I was pretty explicit that I didn’t really want the gig this time around, but felt obliged to run for various reasons. What I’m hoping is that next year (preferably in time to be on the ballot) more than one person runs for each office, and that they have enough differences in their platforms and experience that SFWA members have some real choices. And of course I hope at least one of those people has ideas somewhat like mine. I’ve noted before that my platform is “open source”: I encourage anything thinking of running next year to willfully scoop up the parts that make sense to them and run with them. Please, be my guest.

I’ve already got my platform written and my creatine loaded so I’m pumped, stoked and ready to rumble…. I’m actually very pleased that John lost, which will spare me the need to have him blinded along with all the other ex-rulers. I didn’t relish the prospect of that, but he who intends to rule with an iron fist cannot show signs of weakness or tolerate potential opposition.

He really should be writing all the headline news for Katie Couric:

O.J. Simpson will not take legal action against a Louisville restaurateur who booted him from a steakhouse on the eve of the Kentucky Derby, apparently asking Simpson to leave because “he continues to torment the family whose lives he’s already ruined 15 years ago.” Instead of legal action O.J. plans to secretly kill him one night.

There are few things more pointless, but amusing than the Australian contempt for the English.

Charles Stross talks about a likely future application:

Add optical character recognition on the fly for any text you look at, speech-to-text for anything you say, and it’s all indexed and searchable. “What was the title of the book I looked at and wanted to remember last Thursday at 3pm?”

Think of it as google for real life.

Of course, technology is creating creates appallingly fascistic possibilities as well, which is unfortunate. But hey, who cares if they lock you up for ThoughtCrime as long as you’ve got access to Borges’ Library? Throw in a weight set and some video games and this is different from my life how?

(He said as he reluctantly left the dark comfort of his office to go to the gym.)

He’s not just a whiner, he’s shamelessly dishonest too:

I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.

Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.

I submit that Richard Dawkins is the very last person qualified to objectively judge the language of the book written by Richard Dawkins. I don’t know about you, but I often read restaurant reviews which equate taking the kiddies to a certain restaurant with child abuse, don’t you? (Actually, I’d probably read more restaurant reviews if they were written like that.) Anyhow, there’s not very many literary reviews which describe the book being reviewed as “nasty” and “sado-masochistic” unless the author is the Marquis de Sade or Brett Easton Ellis.

Dawkins has gone too far beyond his range of expertise, he has made far too many factual and logical errors that are too easily demonstrated and this hostile defensiveness is a sign that he is aware that the backlash which will likely destroy his reputation as a credible intellectual is only beginning. Given his prickly personality, I fully expect him to behave in an increasingly more deranged manner as this process unfolds.

I thought Tevez was the standout player in the last World Cup, so it’s not terribly surprising that he’s having success in the Premiership. It’s nice to see him playing for a team like West Ham, too, although I cannot understand why none of the big clubs went after him. Unlike Sheva, who has been a big disappointment after moving from Milan to Chelsea, Tevez is tough enough to thrive in the more physical English league.

And speaking of Milan, this time they will put Liverpool away as they should have done last year.

Cosmos doesn’t like a definition of religious war because it blows apart his nonsensical anti-religious argument:

Do you have a calculation on that “3%”? If a war or attack on a people is justified by religion do you count that? I think we should.

I’m capable of doing the basic division required, there’s no need to check it. As for how the wars are classified, I truly don’t care what your opinion happens to be. It is obvious that the contributors to the Encyclopedia, 9 PhD historians from the University of Cambridge, Cornell University, the University of California, Ohio State University and the University of London, all disagree.

And the amazing thing is that this still won’t shut Cosmos up, he’ll just keep yapping and making the same old discredited assertions no matter what evidence is presented. The amusing thing is that he actually believes he is dedicated to science and reason… but not even the most incompetent scientist could ignore the vast quantities of empirical evidence that Cosmos makes a regular habit of avoiding.

And here I thought the whole basis of atheism was the insistence on evidence in the place of unsupported faith. Apparently that only applies to the existence of God, not to any other belief.