Comments by keith

301. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89244 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 5:15 am

Bertybob,

You may be right about the police being in a no-win situation but I suspect that they thought that ingratiating themselves with the local Muslim community would make policing easier. I would imagine they get an awful lot of complaints and have to pick and choose the ones they take up. However, after deciding to take up this particular complaint and after it was rejected by the courts, why did they insist on taking things further?

I really think that the decision to do so was motivated by precisely the same cowardice that tempted some British and American politicians to condemn the Danish cartoons rather than the Islamists that caused all the mischief thereafter. These politicians and police calculated that if they appeared to be on the side of the radical Muslims, (who of course are much scarier than either Danish cartoonists or Channel 4 executives), these same Muslims might leave them in peace.

I actually find what the police were attempting here more abhorent than the actual Muslims in the program. The latter at least have the excuse of having been brought up in an enviroment of racism, sexism and generally stupid views. In a way they can't help their own ignorance. However, the cynicism and opportunism that was displayed by the police in this case, if this was indeed what motivated their complaint to ofcom, is a genuine disgrace.

I really wish there were some way for Channel 4 to sue the police for defamation of character or something similar. However, since the British tax payer ultimately ends up footing the bill, what does the old bill care?

302. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89240 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 4:47 am

NJS,

Anyone else find West Midlands police talking about misrepresentation of evidence and racism to be hugely ironic? (Puzzled look up the Birmingham six)

You're surely not suggesting that the Irish are a different 'race' to the British? A different nationality, yes, but race?

303. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #89213 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 3:00 am

Goldy,

I think we'll have to leave it at that because although I feel I understand you, I'm not sure that you have understood me. The fact that I will almost certainly die from either old age, cancer, a heart attack or one of a hundred other fatal diseases, illnesses or accidents rather than in a terrorist attack is something I'm very aware of though you seem determined to believe otherwise.

No matter, I enjoyed it anyway. Good luck with your hernia operation next week. My old man has had two (or maybe three?) so far so if it's hereditary I might be due for my first before too long.

Cheers,

Keith

304. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #89151 by keith on November 19, 2007 at 9:19 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen,

As regards, not worrying about public transport. There I'd have to agree too!!! How likely is it that you'll be the one that "gets it"? Vanishingly small. By obsessing about it, you produce the exact kind of reaction these dolts are hoping for. I say leave it to the security services and give it as much thought as you would being struck by a meteor.

I completely agree. However, the argument was not so much about how much we should or shouldn't worry about being blown up by a terrorist bomb, though Goldy would like to paint it that way. It was really about whether a threat exists at all and hence whether the security services should actually do anything about it.

Goldy sees the threat as one which in reality doesn't exist. After all, he travelled on a bus once and he wasn't blown up. He feels the threat has been manufactured by the British government for the sole purpose of introducing their evil scheme of ID cards.

They did it thus. After the fall of Communism the UK government needed an evil enemy to keep its own gullible population in its thrall so it invented a threat from...now, where shall we choose...Islam! Goldy feels that instead of spending money on preventing imaginary terrorists from attacking us, we should put every last penny into the National Health Service, since more people die of practically any disease and illness you care to name than from a terrorist attack, a contention that I completely agree with (i.e. the numbers, not the money).

I have tried to put it to him that 50 dead from a terrorist attack and 50 dead from pneumonia aren't precisely equivalent, except in terms of numbers, for various reasons yet he insists on countering with the same argument that just boils everything down to numbers of casualties. This, was the point of discussion.

So when you said, "leave it to the security services" I would agree. My argument was simply that the security services should do something rather than nothing.

305. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #89147 by keith on November 19, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Goldy,

I understood your argument already: that sheer numbers of fatalities should dictate the amount of time, energy and money alloted to a problem. This is the same argument that says we shouldn't bother combatting dog fighting since it only accounts for a very small percentage of canine deaths compared to dogs killed on British roads. I think dog fighting should be stopped, whether the numbers of deaths are small or not. If the analogy is unfair, please point out how.

By the way, you seem to be convinced that I am arguing out of personal fear of terrorist bombs. I don't actually live in the UK (I live in Japan) so this is not an issue of me worrying about being blown up by a bomb or even of wanting to avoid "trees (falling branches), crossing roads, having a beer, city centres on a Friday/Saturday night". I don't worry about these things. Ask any Brit or Yank that knows me:-)

306. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88903 by keith on November 19, 2007 at 6:40 am

I've just had a great idea. Couldn't Ayaan shack up with Salman? They could both live in some cabin in Nova Scotia or the Yukon together. They wouldn't need any protection up there. They could catch fish in the morning, write articles and books in the afternoon and discuss atheism in the evening in front of the fire. Ayaan would sing some traditional Somalian folk song while she roasted a beer or a reindeer and Salman would whittle away at an old piece of wood, smiling to himself as he listened to her gently singing.

If they ever heard a noise outside the cabin during those long, quiet winter evenings, Salman could take down his shotgun from the wall and step out into the snow to find...a friendly, injured wolf that they would take inside and which Ayaan would nurse back to health.

Rich, Chris, Sam and Dan could all come to visit, but rarely PZ 'cause he would only start arguments with Sam and they would start brawling on the cabin floor and Ayaan would put her hands to her cheeks and shout, "Stop it now, the both of you! You're no better than them barbaric Christians!"). Rich and Dan would gruffly pull them apart by the scruffs of their necks, while Chris looks on, amused, from his armchair near the fire.

PZ picks up his hat, angrily dusts it down, storms outside and gets on his horse and rides away. The others (apart from Chris who has gone back to reading George Herbert) have followed him outside and watch as PZ disappears into the distance. They then look meaningfully at each other before returning to the warmth of the cabin and their interrupted game of Scrabble.

When the time comes for the visitors to leave (because of book signings, lectures and surgery on some neuroscience patient), there is a secret trap door in the cabin floor that leads down to a tunnel that in turn takes the atheists back to civilisation: the four men return together along the same tunnel until Chris and Richard turn left and take the tunnel that goes first to New York, where Chris waves goodbye, climbs a ladder and pushes up a manhole cover in a moonlit sidestreet somewhere in the Bronx. He turns up the collar of his raincoat against the cold and starts to walk home, stopping at a bar or two on the way. He, of course, doesn't make it home until the early hours of the morning.

Rich continues under the Atlantic for another few days until he surfaces through the floor of Kings College Chapel. He steps outside, breathes the familiar Oxford air, listens for a moment to a bird singing which he identifies (correctly) as a lesser-spotted Hebridean sandpiper. He wonders a moment what the bird is doing so far south this time of year, then shrugs his shoulders, puts on his bicycle clips and cycles home where he arrives back home just in time for tea and buns.

Meanwhile, Dan and Sam continue along their tunnel, which heads south. After walking together for a few hours and chatting about cranes and buddhism and Occams razor, the tunnel divides once again; this is where Dan and Sam say goodbye. One way leads to Boston while the other leads to...I'm afraid that if I tell you that I'll have to kill you, so I won't.

Back in the real world, who pays for Salman's security? Or because he looks like my mad uncle Reg, does he have to look after himself?

By the way, I am trying to donate right now (though the server isn't letting me at this moment which is why I'm killing time). I kind of feel like AHA is fighting our battles for us and in the same way that I happily give to Greenpeace but don't personally want to scale industrial towers or get sea-sick chasing after some aircraft carrier in an inflatable dinghy, I want to oppose Islamists while being safe in my armchair and not on their hitlist. So, donating something really isn't much of a sacrifice.

307. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88862 by keith on November 19, 2007 at 4:54 am

Goldy,

You're post resembled a carpet bombing exercise. I think you must have included every gripe you have against the UK in there, relevant or not.

You know the feeling you get when your mum places a meal in front of you that could feed four rugby players and you're really not that hungry and you don't know where or how to start? That's how I felt on reading your post. There are so many things that I disagree with but are only loosely related to the topic of ID cards that I'll just have to pass up the chance to reply. I have time but not that much time. Sorry to bow out.

However, I will just deal with the second paragraph which is to the point.

You'd vote in ID cards? Hmmm - worked well in Spain, eh? Given the homegrown nature of British Muslims, they'll be a real turn off to terrorism. Hell, I can see crime fugures falling now! This is in the country that has illegal immigrants working in the security services in airports, innit?

First, yes, I've worked in Spain and I had an identity card and if I needed to prove my identity I showed it. I can't see what the fuss is.
Secondly, I would introduce it whether it helped against terrorism or not. It's just useful for the police, the fraud squad etc. to know who is who and where they live.
Thirdly, I don't know if you noticed but you were actually arguing my point. You listed some failures on the part of the British authorities and I completely agree with you. That's precisely why I want the cards, so that illegal immigrants can't work in airport security. I'm still mystified as to what point you were trying to make?

If you hadn't claimed that you weren't really serious I might have made more of an effort this time but I can't see much point in discussing something that I'm serious about with someone who isn't. However, I'm sure that other people must appreciate the fact that you put them at their ease like that. Heaven forbid that someone should actually mean what they say.

Incidentally, I read the article in the Telegraph and agreed with pretty much all of it, except, perhaps, for the one line about ID cards. I think that intelligence gathering must be the key and that the long waits at airports are due as much to inefficiency as to stepped-up security.

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick about your views because I also can't see any way to protect buses and trains etc. And of course, once you've secured them then you have to secure shopping centres and a thousand other places. I simply found it daft that you claimed that because you had never been blown up on a London bus, there was really no need to worry. I think there is. In fact 7/7 proved it so.

308. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88841 by keith on November 19, 2007 at 4:02 am

You'd vote in ID cards? Hmmm - worked well in Spain, eh? Given the homegrown nature of British Muslims, they'll be a real turn off to terrorism. Hell, I can see crime fugures falling now! This is in the country that has illegal immigrants working in the security services in airports, innit?

309. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88749 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Goldy,

George Orwell referred to this governmental tactic of making seemingly always having a bogeyman in order to make populations more compliant. !984 was written in 1948, so it's hardly a new thing, is it?

No, it isn't. In fact, Bismark used it a long time before Orwell wrote about this phenomenon. Every time there was internal unrest in Germany he would manufacture an imaginary threat from France so as to better control his people. I was not suggesting that governments don't do this. I was instead suggesting that the rise of Fundamental Islam was not a ploy by a British government so as to introduce identity cards in the UK. This would be like saying that it was the Beverly Sister's publicity agent who started WWII as a way of promoting their careers. A real case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Actually, in my case all the British government would have to do is ask for a vote and I would vote for ID cards. No need to resort to the creation of Fundamental Islam (or to the imaginary threat from Fundamental Islam, as you would have it).

We are always trying to find a balance between creating a repressive police state on the one hand and making the police as ineffectual as possible so that everything they do is a bit half-arsed on the other. Your view is that we should tie one of the police's hands behind its back in case it actually starts doing its job properly. To my mind, at this time the danger of creating a police state is less than us having an ineffectual police force.

Only now, becasue of this "War on Terror" do Britons suddenly need them [ID Cards]. Does that make sense to you?

As I said, I would introduce them whether the terrorist threat is real or just imagined, manufactured or exaggerated. I've lived in quite a few countries and in all of them it was obligatory to carry ID. I didn't feel at all limited or spied upon. I felt quite safe in all these countries, usually more so than in the UK. However, had I been engaged in some criminal activity, I might well have felt less so.

Which happens more - terrorism of something as simple as a plain train derailment of collision (like Hatfield)? Which seems to be having more money spent on it - improving the rail network to stop these accidents or security measures against terrorism?

The rail network in England is privatised. It would be silly for the government to pick up bills that the private sector should be dealing with. Apart from this, since when has the fact that traffic accidents occur been reason enough not to take precautions in other spheres?

Come to think of it, which kills more - multiple sclerosis or terrorism? I wonder which gets more funding... Which is the main threat in the US - Islamic terrorism or state funded creationism? Understand now?

Yes, I think so. You are saying that because more people die of multiple sclerosis that terrorism is a lower priority, right? We could talk about the reduction in the quality of life of people walking around and wondering where the next attack may come from and we could talk about the fact that the next terrorist attack could cause much more damage than the previous ones. We could talk about people losing all faith in the police to such an extent that we get vigilante groups going after random Muslims in the street. There are other reasons why sheer numbers of victims is not the only way to balance these two evils.

And why would I want to escape if I am jumped on - I'm a big boy - I can give as well as I get. Ask any Kiwi or Australian that knows me :-)

Yes, I'm sure you can give as good as you get and I'm sure your Anzac friends could and would vouch for you. So, in that case, why the smiley face? If you just add it to all your posts, doesn't it lose its effect? What happens when you want to show that you're really joking? How are we supposed to tell when you're using it to really say something and when it is just your habit to do so, like a nervous tic?

In case you STILL don't understand, this sums up my views quite well...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/18/do1804.xml

I promise to read it and tell you what I think.

310. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88638 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 6:26 am

JFHalsey,

I don't understand how that works. Can a species not just lose a chromosome? Or might our common ancestor not have only had 23, and only the other three primates developed the 24th one? I don't know enough about chromosomes to understand the issue. Can someone help me out?

I'm as clueless as you when it comes to how we lost a chromosome. However, this must have been the case since the alternative would mean that the other three apes: the urangutan, the gorilla and the chimp would have had to gain a chromsome, all independently of each other, which would be too remarkable a coincidence. Remember the order in which each species split: first urangutans (leaving the creature that would later become gorillas, humans and chimps), then gorillas split (leaving the creature that would become chimps and us), then the chimps and us parted company. (Chimps and bonobos parted company later still). If you assume that all of these apes had only 23 chromosomes when they branched, then you need a complicated reason to explain why all three later added an extra chromosome independently.

Sorry if that was a bit long-winded.

311. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88633 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 5:22 am

I liked this article and for 'militant atheist' I read 'strongly convinced atheist'. We are perhaps right to be aware of the power of language, especially when it is used against us by the faithful. However, not everyone is as sensitive to these nuances as we are. After all, we spend half our lives dissecting these things. I know the writer is a journalist and he should know better, but I suspect this was just a bit of lazy word use and I can't help thinking that we could cut a little slack, at least to people who appear to be on our side.

Also, the part in the last couple of lines about wanting to believe in something bigger was clearly a joke. Apart from this, all the writer was really doing was reporting what he had been told by one of the students. We're not going to become as literal-minded as the PC fools of this world - are we?

Don't underestimate those pro-Darwin bumper stickers! Next time they might have a pro-Newton or pro-Einstein sticker, then what are you going to do?

JFHalsey,

I didn't really understand this comment. What does it mean? Who is 'you'? Is there an answer to your question?

312. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88615 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 3:47 am

OhioAtheist,

This is the first piece of real first-rate argument I've seen from the RRS. And I mean that not as a disparagement of the squad's prior activities, but as praise for this article.

It's both. There's no way you can call something not-first-rate and for it not to sound disparaging. Unless, of course, the RSS have been aiming until now to be second-rate, in which case they'll be quite pleased.

313. For the glory of God

Comment #88607 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 3:09 am

Troodon says that Quebec is the least religious province in Canada whereas OneNationUnderThor puts the 'No religion' number for Quebec at 5%. Which is right?

The whole debate is starting to sound a little like Kazakhstan versus Uzbekhistan.

314. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88604 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 2:56 am

Goldy,

I think the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is because the USSR collapsed and China has yet to take it's place. A useful stop-gap to keep the population on its toes and to bring about nice restrictive laws to control the people :-)

So, let me get this straight. When the USSR collapsed Islamic Fundamentalism filled the gap so that western governments could bring in restrictive laws? Is that it? Or was this just a felicitous outcome for the authorities?
I realise there is a smiley face there and I'm not sure if this is to show that you are joking, in which case I don't really understand why you wrote it, or that you're testing the waters and want an escape route if you're jumped on. Which is it?

315. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88601 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 2:37 am

Goldy,

I've joined this discussion late and haven't read all the previous posts so forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

I have taken trains, buses, planes, taxis, etc with nothing happening.

You're surely not, in all seriousness, putting forward the fact that you haven't been blown up on London transport (yet) as evidence that there is no danger on our transport system? The fact that the terror attacks have been so few and far between might be evidence that the measures taken are working rather than evidence that there is no significant threat.

Just as not all Iraqis are terrorists, not all terrorists are Iraqis

No, not all terrorists are Iraqis, but all terrorists are Muslims, at least in Britain at this time.

I remember Irish friends of mine at Leicester Uni being annoyed when the police stopped them because of their accents.

Why were they annoyed? I would have thought it was quite normal had I been Irish (Actually, I'm Irish enough to probably be able to play football for Ireland - if I could play football). Muriel Gray wrote a good article about an Irish colleague of hers who was always getting stopped by the police during the IRA bombing campaign. Whereas his British friends got very irate on his behalf, he always stayed calm and blamed the IRA rather than the police. Sensible bloke. He understood that such measures, if they work at all, were also keeping him safe. I've never understood why this would seem like discrimination to some people. Now if the Scottish SNP had been bombing London and the police were only stopping Irish people, this would have been discrimination and your friends would have had good reason to be annoyed.

316. Holy communion

Comment #88329 by keith on November 16, 2007 at 2:52 am

No need. It was a bit of a daft post. Actually, I'm amazed that you even decyphered it. After posting it it occurred to me that it made sense in my own head but that anyone else would understand it seemed unlikely. I'm just pleased that you were on the same wavelength as me.

317. Holy communion

Comment #88299 by keith on November 15, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Cartomancer,

Wow, I have to say that that was a great reply and much more comprehensive than my one line deserved.

You have half convinced me that what I said was a bit daft, though maybe not for precisely the reasons you intended. Yes, we do all bring things to a text and interpret things in our own quirky light and there is perhaps no definitive interpretation unless we consult the artist. Even then, some people claim that this isn't really proof since the artist himself can be unaware of what he was trying to convey, he could be completely mad, or he might simply lie to us.

There are of course limits to how much subjectivity we can impose on a text/cartoon etc., as you pointed out on our general concensus that the two figures in the cartoon are Dawkins and Hitchens and not, in fact, Torvil and Dean. Truth be told, at first I didn't recognise Hitchens at all and assumed it must be PZ Myers, if only because of the beard. This really was a case of either the cartoonist failing badly or of me being not great at picking up certain cues. On hearing my confusion, some people might have said, "Ah, yes, you could be right, it might be PZ Myers but..." or they might have said, "Jesus Christ, just look at the picture, think of the context, who is the article about? Keith, get a grip". I actually have no problem with this kind of response and find it funnier and somehow less patronizing than the former, kinder and more sophisticated way. (Please don't read this as being any kind of accusation of you being patronising. It's not).

Anyway, I mostly agree with you. I just wanted to balance out the abundance of broad-minded 'any-interpretation-is-valid' posts with a belligerent and narrow-minded 'I'm-right-and-can't-you-see-it-you-fools?' attitude. It's not that I'm unaware of the problems with such an attitude. I just sometimes think that it's quite funny to read a post that doesn't include 'It seems to me to be the case that...but I could be wrong' or 'From my perspective...although I realise that my view is compromised by...'. In a way, all of us should already be aware of this problem of coming to every topic loaded with prejudices and it should be superfluous to have to state it each time. It really makes me chuckle when someone is so uncomplicated that they don't feel the necessity to go through the tortuous process of analysing and filtering their thoughts several times before daring to give utterance to them, though I don't want my philosophers to be like this; just my friends and posters on websites.

Anyway, in this case, I was that uncomplicated person. Sorry if the bluntness bordered on boorishness.

318. Holy communion

Comment #88283 by keith on November 15, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Cartomancer,

Whatever the case may be it seems that Mr. Rowson has failed spectacularly to get an unequivocal message across.

I think Rowson's message is equivocal only in the sense that Galileo's statement that the Earth goes round the sun is equivocal.

319. Holy communion

Comment #88117 by keith on November 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Klaatu barada nikto,

No, I wear my baseball caps double-reversed

Funny! You're so uber-fashionable that you've become unfashionable again! Is there some way of distinguishing your cap-wearing style from that of the old men in Fort Lauderdale or do you just swagger like a brachiating primate stranded on land while walking?

p.s. Interesting name/handle. What does it mean?

320. Holy communion

Comment #88037 by keith on November 14, 2007 at 8:03 am

Steve,

After thinking about it again, I think it's more basic still (i.e. why gays are depicted as effeminate). For the same reason that when a cartoonist wants to depict a Jew he has to draw a long nose, all cartoonists would have to draw an effeminate gay. Otherwise, how would the audience know it was supposed to be a Gay/Jew?

Perhaps our minds work in the same way as a cartoon. When I picture Americans I imagine big fat people wearing reversed baseball caps, brightly-coloured clothes and sandals with socks, though I'm sure they're not all like this - are they?. An image in the mind has to grab onto some defining feature which is perhaps why we like to stereotype things. Don't know.

321. Holy communion

Comment #88029 by keith on November 14, 2007 at 7:33 am

But since he isn't anti-gay, why should he mind being depicted as one?

I am sure he would not. But that isn't the point. I think it is offensive when stereotypes are used in this way.

Sorry Steve,

I wasn't trying to suggest that it was okay to use stereotypes like this. My comment was only related to Richard Dawkins, nothing broader than that.

I don't agree with your analysis that the reason we stereotype gay men as effeminate is a defence mechanism for those not convinced of their own sexual orientation. But as Sigmund Freud once said to Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

I think it's something more basic than this, less to do with sex. All of us are a little afraid of not fitting in. When we see someone who fits in even less than we do we secretly rejoice in a kind of relief, and sometimes not so secretly. We feel just that bit closer to the warm centre and a little more remote from the cold fringe. Our thoughts are something like, 'Wow, deep down I might not conform to what society wants but look at that poor bugger!' We thus exaggerate the difference. Maybe the same is true of all things which set people apart like disabilities or being unusually tall or small etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Maybe this defense mechanism only works as long as we don't feel comfortable with the things that set us apart from the crowd. Perhaps it's only when we have learnt to accept ourselves as different and not be scared that we are going to be rejected by others because of it that we have the confidence to embrace people nearer the fringe rather than stigmatize them. Or maybe this is all bollocks. I was just thinking out loud. Feel free to tear it apart.

322. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #88017 by keith on November 14, 2007 at 6:46 am

Scottishgeologist,

Very funny car advert with the terrorist. After watching it I remembered that series of ads with a very pretentious bald fashion designer and his sensible little assistant. They were on a few years ago. What car were they advertising? I want to watch them again!

323. Holy communion

Comment #88010 by keith on November 14, 2007 at 6:12 am

For me there's no question that Richard Dawkins is supposed to look gay in this cartoon. I can't believe that anyone wouldn't see it like that. The gay stance and the Out 'n' Proud banner would just be too much of a coincidence. Nobody can tell me that the cartoonist would be surprised if someone were to draw his attention to this possible interpretation: "Christ, I'm so-o-o sorry. It had just never occurred to me that it might be taken that way!"

I think if I were gay I would probably feel exactly as Steve does: Surely we are intended to laugh at the Dawkins figure, and why? Because he looks gay and gays are funny, aren't they?

I also agree with Dr. Benway that it's odd that our so-called allies are producing this kind of stuff which ridicules both Richard Dawkins and gays equally. I mean, who needs friends when you've got enemies like these? For us even to find it odd that Humanists are creating such drawings must mean that it is saying something negative to us; the degree to which it mocks Richard Dawkins is of necessity precisely the degree to which it mocks being gay.

Having said all this, however much I try and however much solidarity I feel for the gay movement, I personally just can't whip myself into enough of a passion to feel offended by this cartoon. Maybe you either have to be gay, have a very strong sense of empathy for the feelings of others or be Richard Dawkins himself to do so. But since he isn't anti-gay, why should he mind being depicted as one? So scratch his name from the list...Or on second thoughts, maybe put him with the empathisers.

324. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87960 by keith on November 13, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Xenocratic,

despite refuting virtually all your arguments against Chomsky you insist on making the same ones over and over

Really? Did you refute something? I must have missed it. Could you tell me again, please?

it has taken you the entire thread to finally admit what we knew all along, namely that you "have read almost nothing by Chomsky".

Did I ever claim to have read much by him? Why would I? I thought it was clear that I hadn't read much by him.

The fact that you trust my views on Chomsky is a great compliment

I don't. I might have conceded Windweaver's claim that you are knowledgable about Chomsky. This isn't the same as trusting. In fact, where the truth is concerned, I wouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you.

You seem to think that merely having the ability to form an opinion, "a view on [people's] views", however misguided, is good enough for that opinion to actually count. Would that kind of thinking pass muster if you had to write an essay about Chomsky for the London Review of Books, or for an academic essay?

No, but then again I'm not thinking of writing an essay about Chomsky for the London Review of Books.

Fanusi ages ago: "an appalling number of Moslems are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised".

Xenocratic now: The only way to treat someone who holds this view, even someone who simply entertains it, is with utter contempt. Your silence on this quote speaks volumes for your own moral character.

Yes, you're right, it does speak volumes about my character. Or rather, it would if I had ever seen the quote before. The truth is that I only became aware of Fanusi's existnce a couple of weeks ago and I suspect that this quote is from your previous argument with him. I humbly apologise for not searching it out and I promise to look over his whole back catalogue of posts and give my opinion on each one in turn. Anybody else I have to read up on?

after I've proven you to be a deliberate dissembler

I must have missed that bit too. Sorry Xeno, please jog my memory.

You keep harping on about what Windweaver has claimed about accepting Chomsky at his word about whether or not he made certain statements, whereas Windweaver simply quoted from an interview with Chomsky

I suspect that you're really not doing Windweaver any favours by constantly bringing up this issue of 'The evidence that never was'. You might have noted that he hasn't responded to my question of whether he agrees with you that I have misunderstood him. Why could this be? Could it be that he realises that he made a mistake? If this is the case, he really won't thank you for bringing this up again.

Anyway, thanks for the maths lesson but it was wasted on me since I'm rubbish at maths ("Ah, so Keith finally admits to being rubbish at maths after so many postings, something we all knew all along"). The hundreds of words you spent on explaining my mistake were wasted, not because I'm rubbish at maths, but because you clearly haven't understood where the problem lies. This was not, as you claim, all about what Chomsky had said. It was that Windweaver thought that quoting an interview with Chomsky was definitive proof of what Chomsky had actually said in the past. He was taking Chomsky at his word and using this to show how Casey had misrepresented Chomsky. If he hadn't used the word 'actually' and put SAID in capitals it would have been okay. As it is, he clearly thought he was putting the record straight, which he wasn't. I suspect he wishes you would drop this now. Here is the relevant passage:

One thing I did pick up on in the Casey article was a misrepresentation(it happens so often to this man) of Chomsky's views on America.
Here is what Chomsky has actually SAID about this anti-American charge:

Question:Some of your positions, on Kosovo for example, have led people even on the left to suggest that you think no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it.

Chomsky:If people believe that, that's because they insist on pure propaganda and refuse to look at the facts. You can easily see whether in fact I said that. I didn't. And I don't believe it. I can't help what intellectuals decide to believe. If they want to fabricate propaganda images and believe what they say or they hear in gossip, that's their metier.

Windweaver's silence on this point is almost deafening.

By the way, I noticed that although you dedicated a lot of space to slating me, you didn't try to deal with my comment 157 (#87784). Until you do, this will continue to make you appear a little foolish. Why not deal with it now or admit that what you wrote made no sense and have done with it?

Incidentally, I'm still waiting, after several months, for your evidence that Israel started the 1948 war. You might remember that you insisted various times that Israel had started every war it had ever been involved in. I have asked you for evidence seven or eight times but for some reason you remain silent on the subject, even when you are anything but silent on other subjects. So, feel free to address this any time you like. No hurry.

325. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87784 by keith on November 13, 2007 at 5:32 am

Just an example of Xenocratic's much-vaunted lucidity from earlier in this thread:

Xenocratic: There seems to be a deep double standard on many of these threads because some of the things that both Sam Harris and particularly Christopher Hitchens have written and said would have inspired harsh condemnation had they emanated from Chomsky. I wonder why this could be? Is it perhaps because when it comes to Muslims anything goes, even the most repulsive bigotry?

This means the following: If Hitchens and Harris bash Muslims, we don't object. But if Chomsky were to do the same (i.e. bash Muslims), we would be on his case immediately. So in this scenario Hitchens, Harris and Chomsky all bash Muslims but we only criticize Chomsky and the reason for this is? Because we are bigoted in relation to Muslims. Huh?

When I pointed this out to Xenocratic this is how he responded:

I am also not prepared to explain every little point to you. I thought you were a reasonably intelligent guy, but I'm starting to have my doubts as you don't seem able to grasp the simplest of concepts. Isn't English your first language? If so, and I'm sure it is, the statement apropos Hitchens and Harris should be clear to an eight year old, so I don't quite know what's so inscrutable about it. How have you gotten through life with such a limited grasp of basic language? Or are you being intentionally difficult just to annoy me or because you have this obsessive loathing of my person, or as you would say, my "ideas"? What would the point be of explaining what I wrote in any case because you'd simply find some other means to defame me and distort what I write?...[etc. etc. The tirade went on for longer but I've cut it short for brevity's sake]

326. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87775 by keith on November 13, 2007 at 4:43 am

Windweaver,

I'm with Steve on this one. Xenocratic has shown himself very knowledgable about Chomsky's 'oevre' but without lucidity this does him no good. And of course you're right, I have read almost nothing by Chomsky. Why would I? How many times do you have to tread in dogshit before you know you don't like it? How much Darwin have you actually read? How much Copernicus? Does this stop you from having views on their views? Because Xenocratic has read more Chomsky than 99% of the rest of the world, does this disqualify everybody who has read less from debating him? I have never read the bible. However, I have a basic understanding of what the religious believe. Similarly, I know the main thrust of Chomsky's views. I had them rammed down my throat by Xenocratic months ago. What would constitute having read enough Chomsky to take part?

I notice you, like Xeno, have a talent for evasion. I like to think that if someone challenges me on something I will attempt an answer. Often I am convinced that I am right but if it becomes clear to me that I have argued myself into a ridiculous position I am capable of admitting as much, horrible as this may be. Your tactic when challenged seems to be merely to ignore it.

You appear to think that the reason I have argued so vehemently and sometimes even rudely on this thread (and others) is because I have a particular distaste for Chomsky. (Incidentally, I hope one thing I will never do is savage someone and then complain about how someone is having a go at me. Xenocratic's nauseating moaning is nothing more than the bully who's been punched pleading he's been hard-done-by. After an opener like his against Fanusi then I think it's open season).

As I was saying, my dislike of Chomsky is not the reason that I sometimes became impolite. That was purely down to you, Rtambree and Xenocratic. What I really can't stand and what makes me go after the likes of you is your dishonesty. For you it's not about getting any closer to the truth. It's about winning, or at least not losing, the argument. This takes the form of dealing with the points you can deal with and completely ignoring the ones that you can't.

Let me give you examples of questions asked just in the last day or two that have remained unanswered:

But surely you must have noticed that this is not what he actually SAID. This is what he SAID about what he actually SAID. There's a difference and with Chomsky it's a meaningful difference. It's like the police asking me if I killed someone, me saying "No", and them saying, "Ah, that's alright then. You're free to go". This is neither evidence for, nor against what he has actually said, though you present it as clinching the matter.

I've asked you about this but you haven't answered why you think this refutes what Casey claimed about Chomsky. You said Casey had misrepresented Chomsky and this was your evidence that he had. When I pointed out that it wasn't evidence at all you remained schtumm. Why? Why not defend it or admit that in reality it is no evidence at all, despite Xenocratic's insistence that I was misrepresenting you. Am I or aren't I?

Windweaver: The western world went into a state of shock. Would the same thing have happened if muslim terrorists had crashed planes into skyscrapers in Mumbai? I don't believe so.

Keith: I don't believe so either. However, I'm not sure you can put this down to racism (though it might be). I'm sure the people in Bombay were also less bothered about 9/11 than the people in the west. No doubt they would have been more bothered if it had happened in, say, Delhi. Is this racism?

Answer? None.

Nothing I have read by Chomsky (how much have you actually read of his work Keith?) suggests anything other than the fact that he is a scrupulously moral man.

Well, if you can read an article like that and still find him a scrupulously moral man then you won't find anything against him, will you?

This, I admit is not a question, at least only a rhetorical one. However, I would have felt a need to say why an article that has depicted Chomsky as a liar hasn't dented my faith in him. Had you said that Casey had fabricated all his facts I would have understood this, but to not even find it necessary to say why none of Casey's points need dealing with seems dishonest.

It's still instructive that Chomsky cited three independent sources for his figures. How often do you see mainstream analysts backing up what they say with multiple references?

If you had read the Casey article you would have known that he questions these sources. Even so, you didn't feel it necessary to even pause for breath when putting this forward as a fact. If you hadn't read the article I could have understood this, but you had. Again, no reason was given for dismissing Casey out of hand. Why?

327. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87755 by keith on November 13, 2007 at 3:29 am

Dr. Benway,

Very interesting. I was going to read the whole article until I saw I had to pay for it and then changed my mind! Even so, I think I can see where it's going from the fragment and it sounds quite a reasonable idea. I'm not sure how closely this is related to empathy since this kind if altruism is simply one that benefits the group that the altruistic person belonds to, and for this you don't need to put yourself in the shoes of other group members. The fact that your group benefits is enough.

I'd be more than happy to believe that the feeling of love necessitates the concept of hate to give it any meaning. After all, if everything was coloured green you would really have no concept of green. It only gains meaning in opposition to other colours. We understand it more from what it isn't than what it is. However, when it comes to this love - hate polarity, the people I know who I'd call caring are caring to almost everyone. Wouldn't the discriminatory principle mean that the more they love some people the more they must hate others? In that case, the best way to avoid conflict would be to strive for total indifference in all your relationships! This surely can't be right. Help me out.

328. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87691 by keith on November 12, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Rtambree,

How are western governments getting "savaged"? The Blair, Bush and Howard governments were all RE-ELECTED for another term of office, two of them with INCREASED majorities. It's a case of "rewarded if they do good, rewarded if they do bad".

They get savaged by Chomsky and his supporters, whether justifiably or not. Perhaps it's just as well that Chomsky and his supporters are a minority group, or god knows who they would have voted in in the US, Britain and Australia. Since both main parties of the US and Britain are right-wing according to you, then it hardly matters which one gets in, does it? Or, maybe you'll say that the so-called left is still preferable to the acknowledged right. In which case, you can't blame the people of Britain for using the same logic and voting in Blair again, can you? Or did you have in mind voting for the Communist Party?

I can't believe you honestly feel sorry for poor misunderstood western governments. Are they so maligned? Should they be defended more from nasty bullying critics? Have they had their feelings hurt by Chomsky et al? You make me laugh.

Well, I'm pleased about that. At least I made someone happy. However, I think you have misunderstood me here. You must have thought that I had written we shouldn't criticise western governments when what I actually said was that we shouldn't criticise them when they are not in the wrong. However, if you can find a quote where I said what you claim I said, then I'll happily swallow my words and apologise. By the way, are you still feeling a little sheepish about pretending that one of your previous comments was in reality an analogy for religious thought? This was similar to Xeno's claim that his first post to Fanusi was not, in fact, the vitriolic attack it first appeared, but actually a kind of 'humour'. I almost felt embarrassed for him as he squirmed and tried to get out of this one. However, Xeno I can forgive because I'm really not convinced that he's completely normal and it's clear from his posts that he doesn't know his arse from his elbow. I still haven't made up my mind about you.

I have to say that it isn't without interest that you failed to distinguish between justified and unjustified criticism. This was precisely what I was accusing Chomsky of doing and you really couldn't have supplied me with a better example, even if I had asked you for it. Thanks.

Windweaver

Xenocratic is convinced that I misrepresented you by saying that you were presenting what Chomsky claimed to have said as evidence for what he had actually said. Would you say that he was right? Did I misunderstand your post? I'm interested in your reply.

Here is your original post again in case you can't remember it:

Here is what Chomsky has actually SAID about this anti-American charge:
Question:Some of your positions, on Kosovo for example, have led people even on the left to suggest that you think no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it.
Chomsky:If people believe that, that's because they insist on pure propaganda and refuse to look at the facts. You can easily see whether in fact I said that. I didn't. And I don't believe it. I can't help what intellectuals decide to believe. If they want to fabricate propaganda images and believe what they say or they hear in gossip, that's their metier.

My point was that this is hardly evidence for or against what Chomsky had actually said in the past. For that you would have had to go to the relevant comments uttered by him in the past. What he claims to have said is of no relevance. You seem to be accepting him at his word. Why would you do that?

329. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87397 by keith on November 12, 2007 at 3:04 am

Dr. Benway,

Some information is in the DNA. Some is passed on culturally. And some arises inevitably out of the interaction between organism and environment.

Love, being discriminatory, implies hate. It's likely that empathy and warfare compliment each other.

In your first paragraph, what is the difference between information being passed on culturally and it arising out of an interaction between organism and environment?

I'm fascinated by the subject of paragraph two and have also thought about it a little and got nowhere. Surely a gain in empathy would reduce warfare? I've heard you say before that we can't have love without hate. If it's true, why is this? Do both extremes have to exist in individuals or does a loving person throw into relief a hating person? I actually have lots of questions. Do you fancy expanding a little on it?

330. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87094 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 7:29 am

Rtambree,

Brilliant Xenocratic - you obviously put a lot of effort into refuting someone who probably didn't deserve the attention lavished on him. Your list of atrocities could easily have been three times as long, but that won't make any difference to the brainwashed, just like all the evidence of evolution makes little impact on the fundamentalists.

The thinking goes something like this:

I love the USA
Chomsky criticises the USA
I don't like that
Therefore Chomsky is wrong

A bit like:

I love God
Dawkins criticises God
I don't like that
Therefore Dawkins is wrong

I left the last bit out for brevity because it didn't relate to the main part or what I was referring to but since you insisted I've now added it. Happy now? It had nothing to do with dishonesty. But while we're on the subject of honesty, would you honestly say that your claim that:

If you were honest and examined the entire quote, you'll see it's an analogy to religious thinking.

is true? No it's not. The religious bit is just added at the end and the entire quote isn't an analolgy to religious thinking at all, is it? You should be ashamed for calling me dishonest.

331. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87087 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 6:50 am

Rtambree,

Keith: I thought it was daft of you to say that anyone who doesn't trust Chomsky must necessarily love America

Rtanbree: I never said it.

Rtambree yesterday: Brilliant Xenocratic - you obviously put a lot of effort into refuting someone who probably didn't deserve the attention lavished on him. Your list of atrocities could easily have been three times as long, but that won't make any difference to the brainwashed, just like all the evidence of evolution makes little impact on the fundamentalists.

The thinking goes something like this:

I love the USA
Chomsky criticises the USA
I don't like that
Therefore Chomsky is wrong

Well?

332. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87083 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 6:42 am

Xeno,

Excellent point, Rtambree

I was going to respond to Steve99, but you made all the points I was going to, Rtambree. Thanks again for your astute posts.

Another brilliant post, Rtambree. Your thoughts are lucid, incisive and superbly apposite. I couldn't concur more with what you wrote.

You really are a slimey toad, aren't you Xeno.

1948?

333. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87079 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 6:36 am

Windweaver,

I don't believe that the exchange between Chomsky and Casey is evidence of a "damning indictment" of the way he operates.

Really? I do. I found that he was lying and accusing his opponent of being a racist among other things. These are not mistakes.

You remind me of a creationist who thinks if he can find a flaw in Richard Dawkins' research output the whole edifice of evolution comes crashing down.

Windweaver wins a coconut for being the first person today to start a sentence with, "You remind me of a creationist who..."! There's a coconut to be won every day!

Nothing I have read by Chomsky (how much have you actually read of his work Keith?) suggests anything other than the fact that he is a scrupulously moral man.

Well, if you can read an article like that and still find him a scrupulously moral man then you won't find anything against him, will you?

Another cheap shot but it's the price I'll obviously have to pay to play ball with you.

You're not one for self-pity, are you Windweaver?

It's still instructive that Chomsky cited three independent sources for his figures. How often do you see mainstream analysts backing up what they say with multiple references?

His sources were not independent. They were mainly Sudanese government figures. The three main aid agencies working in the area couldn't back up his figures so he didn't quote them.

But surely you must have noticed that this is not what he actually SAID. This is what he SAID about what he actually SAID. There's a difference and with Chomsky it's a meaningful difference. It's like the police asking me if I killed someone, me saying "No", and them saying, "Ah, that's alright then. You're free to go". This is neither evidence for, nor against what he has actually said, though you present it as clinching the matter.

I notice you didn't comment on your attempt to sneak in supposed evidence that never was. The comment that you made had nothing to do with this. So what was it, a mistake on your part or a subconscious wish to see this as evidence?

334. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87068 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 6:16 am

Rtambree,

Let's assume that you are correct and the left is all completely lunatic. Let's assume everything that comes from the left is wrong, a lie, crazy, harmful, misguided, whatever etc.

You must be confusing me with someone else or you've been taking Xeno at his word. I don't think any of this is true for a minute. I said in an earlier post that if I had to categorise myself I would call myself a socialist. However, I think that people like Chomsky and Livingston are perverting the idea of what left is. I don't want to weigh in on whether New Labour is really right or left. Suffice it to say that I'm not a fan of Blair wherever you decide to put him.

I agree with you that it's pointless to criticise the powerless and I can understand why Chomsky would concentrate on those who do have power. At the same time, I feel he should make this clearer to his readership lest they think that America really is the sole wrong-doer. I genuinely think that some of his readers (Xeno) is convinced that if America isn't the sole evil-doer in the world then they are at least the worst. I don't believe this for a moment. They could and should be much better than they are. However, there's no need to reach for superlatives (Xeno again) every time America is mentioned.

You're trying desperately to expose some error or inconsistency (among thousands of statements) of Chomsky

Actually I really don't have to try that desperately. The examples of his tendentiousness are not so hard to find. But it's not his inconsistencies that bother me. All these do is highlight and are evidence of a much worse trait. My objection is that all his thoughts are slanted in a certain direction, his whole way of looking at things is skewed. It has nothing to do with the fact that he might have made one or two mistakes. If it were the latter then I wouldn't mind at all. Everyone can make mistakes. It's the fact that he is just so determined to find the west in general and America in particular guilty, even when they're not.

He is very skeptical about the mainstream press (i.e the press that doesn't agree with him) but his skepticism only seems to extend to the west. When it comes to China and Cambodia and Sudan he is happy to make pronouncements on the situation and then excuse himself later by saying these were the best figures available at the time. So where's the skepticism now? He took the Sudanese government at their word about casualties when any fool would know that they weren't really an objective, independent source. They were bound to put an absolute maximum figure on what was likely to be believed in the hope of greater compensation and I don't blmae them at all for this. The problem is that Chomsky clearly isn't a fool. So why did he (apparently) believe the figures so willingly? When you can answer that, you'll know why I don't trust him.

Perhaps you think that a few false alarms, a few false accusations just keeps the US government on its toes because it knows someone is watching. However, I think what also happens is that confidence in the government among the general public is seriously undermined. This is fine if the government has genuinely behaved badly. However, if it gets savaged regardless of whether it acts morally or immorally then there is much less reason to be seen to be moral. I mean, why bother. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

By the way, I think you know that I thought it was daft of you to say that anyone who doesn't trust Chomsky must necessarily love America. This is just a way of not having to deal sensibly with anyone who criticises him. You'll have to take my word for it that I don't love America. I mean, just look at the reversed baseball caps.

335. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87038 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 4:29 am

Windweaver,

It's healthy for all intellectuals who make claims about the world to be subject to critical scrutiny.

Yes, it is isn't it? And?..Would you like to expand on that? After all, you just read an article critcical of Chomsky. What came to my mind was that if true, this was a rather damning indictment of the way he works. And what came to your mind? The observation that it is healthy for intellectuals to be subject to scrutiny. Have you ever thought of going into politics yourself?

I'd be interested to see new evidence about the al-Shaifa fatalities

What, like non-dead Sudanese people?

One thing I did pick up on in the Casey article was a misrepresentation(it happens so often to this man) of Chomsky's views on America.

Why is that, the poor man?

Here is what Chomsky has actually SAID about this anti-American charge:

Question:Some of your positions, on Kosovo for example, have led people even on the left to suggest that you think no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it.

Chomsky:If people believe that, that's because they insist on pure propaganda and refuse to look at the facts. You can easily see whether in fact I said that. I didn't. And I don't believe it. I can't help what intellectuals decide to believe. If they want to fabricate propaganda images and believe what they say or they hear in gossip, that's their metier.

But surely you must have noticed that this is not what he actually SAID. This is what he SAID about what he actually SAID. There's a difference and with Chomsky it's a meaningful difference. It's like the police asking me if I killed someone, me saying "No", and them saying, "Ah, that's alright then. You're free to go". This is neither evidence for, nor against what he has actually said, though you present it as clinching the matter.

336. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86996 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Windweaver,

You say you find Christopher Hitchens "refreshingly honest". How about some honesty on your part Keith? Isn't the reason you vilify and mock people (yes, and their ideas) like Chomsky, Xenocratic and Livingston because you're a rightwing ideologue who has a rooted aversion to leftist politics and its adherents?

You are exaggerating my political motivation and to call me a rightwing ideologue is to credit me with far too much political nonce. I barely know what the the right wing wants. I'm almost tempted to admit to the label, just to appear more knowing than I really am.

The truth is that I almost never think about politics or where I line up politically. I can tell from the way that you talk that you do. That's fine. However, whenever elections come round I feel a little bit like Kissinger did about the Iran - Iraq war: It's a pity that they can't both lose. I can almost hear you saying, "Keith, that's very telling that the person you chose to quote was a dispicable right-wing zealot". And I would agree with you...i.e. that he's a dispicable right-wing zealot, not that it's telling. I have to say that you read far too much into a lot of things. For example, my inclusion of the Frost poem. You're right, it was a cheapshot, but it was actually not meant nastily. I just found it funny. I love that poem. Sorry if it upset you.

I find the way that people like Xenocrat and perhaps you simply dismiss someone because they are apparently 'rightwing' is ludicrous. Hitchens is a case in point. People here seem obsessed with whether he belongs to the Neo-cons or not. It's like belonging to gangs at school. He has said he is not a Conservative of any kind. However, even if he had said that yes, he is a Conservative, how would this have changed the rightness or wrongness of his views?

Rather than view Hitchens' shift from left to right as a kind of treachery, I see it as a gradual disillusionment with the current left which itself had shifted. The catalyst that pushed Hitchens into the camp of the Neo-cons was the sudden realisation on 9/11 that if anyone was going to stand up against Islamism it was not going to be the new, effete left but his old enemy, the right. A case of when needs must.

Perhaps in the circles you move in it really is an insult to be called right-wing. To a certain extent I don't move in any circles because I live in Japan most of the year and I don't know anyone who is vaguely interested in politics. I'm sure that none of my friends would know who I vote for though they might be able to hazard a guess. Actually, I always voted for the Green Party because I have belonged to Greenpeace for 20 years. More recently I started to vote Labour because my Green vote seemed a little wasted. Nothing would ever intice me to vote for David Cameron, even if the only other choice were Gordon Brown. However, if they draft in more people like Zac Goldsmith to the Conservatives I might be tempted to move my vote. If Alan Millibank becomes Labout Party leader I will vote Labour for certain.

When I was younger I read a lot of Orwell and I can't think of anyone better to have as a role model. My thoughts about race were formed in my teenage years by the two-colour music of ska groups. I called myself a socialist for many years without really thinking about it, without being interested in it or knowing anything about politics. To vote Labour was de rigour with circles I moved in and I just went along with it.

The truth is that I if pushed I would still describe myself as socialist though I wouldn't want to align myself with the present left, which is where Nick Cohen finds himself and even more extremely, Hitchens. I think both these men have a fair vision of society at heart but their way to achieve it isn't the same as that of the vile Ken Livingston or various others. Good people are being pushed right by just how rubbish the left has become. However, this is okay. As long as there are still good people around it doesn't really matter. It's possible that the right will soon be standing up for more of Orwell's values than the current left. Maybe it already is.

To say I find it sad what has happened to the left would be overstating the case since, as I mentioned before, I don't really consider myself a political animal. However, it does seem to me that there has been a gradual falling off since Orwell's day of what it means to be a socialist. I now see it to be more of a badge that some people like to wear, especially on this site. To me much more important is what people think and do. For you and others to reject whatever Theodore Dalrymple says because he's been labelled right-wing by others I find incredibly childish. Dalrymple may in fact be right-wing, I really don't know. However, I do know his views on many things and they seem really quite sensible to me. Should I never quote him because this would mean that I'm a right-wing ideologue? Xenocrat is left-wing but I have to say that I find Dalrymple talks more sense.

Incidentally, there is often a belief that if you admit to being right wing, you don't care about other people and fairness is unimportant. This is like being called immoral because you're an atheist. Many people who are classed as rightwing do care about such things. They just go about achieving it in a different way to the left. I actually think that the welfare system is a wonderful idea in theory but an inmitigated disaster in practice. Does this make me right wing when I criticise the welfare system? Some people here seem to think so.

By the way, you must surely know that the reason I "vilify and mock" people like Xenocratic and Livingston is because they are eminently mock-worthy in Xenocratic's case and simply vile in Livingston's. It has nothing to do with me being a right-wing ideologue. Incidentally, I now regret going after Xenocrat. It was only during his last posts that I realised that he is quite delicate and should be handled with care. I mean it.

To lump Chomsky in with Xenocrat and Livingston would probably please the latter two but not Chomsky very much and to do so is to do him a disservice. I find him highly intelligent, interesting and worth listening to. However, I also find his views tendentious and his self-image so grand that he will try to defend any previous remarks, even if this leads him to extreme comments such as labelling as racist people who simply refuse to agree with him.

To finish on a high note, I thought that Bonzai's partial support was heartening, not because he was vindicating anything I might have said, but simply because he had jumped the tracks of what had become a Chomsky-good versus Chomsky-bad slinging match, where all detail had been lost. Well done to him.

337. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86967 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Xeno,

Okay Xeno, enough's enough. Your last three posts haven't addressed any of the points I made, perhaps because you're a bit stumped for answers. Instead you have gone on a little repetitively, severely reprimanding me for what was often very little. At first I found it fun but I think I might have misjudged you and I'm now beginning to feel like I'm playing the mutinous officers of the Caine to your Captain Queeg, so out of kindness I'll stop now.

Good luck,

Keith

338. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86851 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 10:11 am

Alright Xeno, calm down, calm down. You're beginning to sound like The Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Anybody! ANYBODY! Can anybody please explain post 88 to Xeno?

339. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86842 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 9:38 am

Windweaver,

It's not relevant. I didn't intend it to be relevant. Many of my postings are just to provide interesting reading material for readers of the thread.

Acquainted with the Night
by: Robert Frost

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.

I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
A luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.

Just a little light entertainment for the readers. Anyway...

You obviously see the US attack as a minor crime.

Minor as in less, yes. Minor as in unimportant, no. I see it as a different crime with different goals and intentions. I also believe that thinking so doesn't make me a racist.

The western world went into a state of shock. Would the same thing have happened if muslim terrorists had crashed planes into skyscrapers in Mumbai? I don't believe so.

I don't believe so either. However, I'm not sure you can put this down to racism (though it might be). I'm sure the people in Bombay were also less bothered about 9/11 than the people in the west. No doubt they would have been more bothered if it had happened in, say, Delhi. Is this racism?

Or are you talking about the reaction in places like England? Well, we have a lot of cultural ties with America, some family ties, and in many ways our fate is tied up with theirs: attacks on them might mean there will be attacks on us. We have good reason to be interested. There are many reasons other than race why we are more bothered about some people than others.

I don't always agree with everything he writes (just like I sometimes disagree with some of what RD says).

Careful, RD might be reading this. Like god, he always knows when you say bad things about him.

In his article, Chomsky provides three independent sources to support his figures. This is the sort of misrepresentation I'm talking about.

Yes, he did, and he chose sources that had done no research but could give him the kind of figures he was after. Other aid agencies either weren't asked or couldn't give him the numbers he wanted, I don't know which. You might say that, of course he's going to quote the sources that back up his argument. But you also have to ask yourself why he wants this to be the case.

Theodore Dalrymple is now persona non-grata on this website and for good reasons but he wrote an article asking why it is that some intellectuals seem to want to cover their countries in guilt. He was talking mainly about Keith Windschuttle's denials of the genocide of the aborigines. You would have imagined that if someone came up with the evidence that their country hadn't been involved in genocide, then everybody would be quite pleased. However, despite any evidence that Windschuttle put forward, he was vilified from the start by some intellectuals and it was almost as if they actually wanted him to be wrong. Why should that be? Perhaps you'll say that his evidence was simply too shaky to be believed. My own opinion is that some people love to be seen as the champions of the weak since it enhances their self-image, but if the weak turn out not to be as downtrodden as had previously been thought, rather than rejoicing, they reject the evidence since this will downgrade their own role. In my own personal view, this is what motivates both Scott Atran and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone and perhaps, dare I say it, Chomsky himself. However, this is just a bit of homespun psychology and I don't pretend to have anything whatsoever to back it up. It's just my personal opinion. I offer it just for your delectation.

I'd like to end this post with a couple of questions if I may. When Christopher Hitchens was confronted with the argument that the Iraq war was largely about oil he replied "Since when is oil not worth fighting over?"
Do you agree with Hitchens remark?
What do you think the reaction would be if Chomsky made such a remark?

I think that Hitchens was being only half serious. Clearly you can't invade another country simply to steal its oil and I don't think for a minute that Hitchens believes it. However, I think there is a certain hypocrisy that he might be exposing here, namely the one that you can never go to war to shore up your interests. Really? Not even if the only oil left on the planet was in Iraq and they refused to sell it to the west, the west still shouldn't invade 'just because of oil'? Not even if the whole economy of the western world or the lives of millions of people depended on it should you invade 'because of oil'? The truth is that many people would soon manage to get over their qualms about what is right and what isn't in those circumsstances. Of course, we aren't in those circumstances, not even nearly, so the remark was flippant. I suspect (though I really have no idea and your guess is as good as mine) that Hitchens was trying to highlight the naivety in the question, a naivety that seemed to force him into giving just one possible answer. So of course, being Hitchens, he had to chose another.

Perhaps, when lives are at stake, you see the remark as either too flippant if said not wholly seriously or if meant, incredibly cynical. If he meant it, I also find it cynical (though refreshingly honest).

"What do you think the reaction would be if Chomsky made such a remark?" Of course, Chomsky couldn't have said anything like that or he wouldn't be Chomsky. I'm sure no interest for self could ever pass his lips. However, if he had said anything like that, I would have been amazed at the honesty. If a political commentator actually dares to utter his real opinion, especially if he knows it's going to be unpopular and jumped on the next day, I always find this refreshing and I gain a real respect for that person, even if I hate his opinions.

You'll probably tell me that Chomsky is brave in his opinions and in a way I'd agree with you. However, he's brave in a Jesus Christ kind of way: so selfless and always thinking of others. Someone with this kind of self-image doesn't really need to be brave.

For precisely the same reasons that I dislike Scott Atran and Ken Livingston, I also dislike Chomsky. There's a self-satisfied, self-righteous smugness about all of them that makes me shudder.

Sorry, but you did ask me.

340. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86797 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 7:05 am

Xeno,

How you make me chuckle! You spend half a page telling me that it's not worth replying to my posts and in a quarter of that time you could have answered me.

Anyway, want to have a go at getting out of check? By the way, this wasn't a trap I set for you, honestly. You set it yourself. You simply talked about the 'right-wing faction' and I assumed you meant the Republicans. You then mocked me for my naivety and said you had meant both main parties because both are right-wing. Don't you know anything, Keith? But then, I asked myself, how can both parties be "the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright prejudice"? It made no sense. I'm sorry Xeno, but however much you want to put this down to my trickery, you tied the noose and put it over your own head. I simply pointed it out. Now you're adding comedy to the whole affair by claiming that I've somehow been unfair.

1948? Surely you must remember. I have now asked you five times to give me proof of your claim that 'every war between Israel and its neighbours has been started by Israel' and every time you send me endless information about 1967. Please, 1948.

Finally, (and I'm not trying to trick you, really), can you explain this for me?

There seems to be a deep double standard on many of these threads because some of the things that both Sam Harris and particularly Christopher Hitchens have written and said would have inspired harsh condemnation had they emanated from Chomsky. I wonder why this could be? Is it perhaps because when it comes to Muslims anything goes, even the most repulsive bigotry?

As far as I can see, this translates as:
1. Harris and Hitchens sometimes go in for Muslim-bashing.
2. If Chomsky did this we'd be up in arms.
3. Why the double-standards?
4. Because anything goes where Muslims are concerned.

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all. Even if it did make some kind of sense, it still wouldn't be true that we pick on Chomsky for anything other than his ideas. We don't know the man, we didn't start off with some personal grudge against him, he's never done anything to hurt us. Why should we have anything against him apart from his ideas? I have to say that in this case your persecution complex has gone even beyond yourself.

341. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86666 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Windweaver,

I'm well aware that Hitchens used to like Chomsky's writings and still finds his earlier writings wonderful. In what way is this relevant to the issue of whether or not there is an equivalence between the Sudan attack and 9/11? How about you? Do you find an equivalence here? Also, according to Chomsky, if you find no equivalence in the two actions, then you are necessarily expressing racist views. Would you go along with this? If you don't, then surely you can understand some of the objections to the way Chomsky looks at things.

It's always instructive to read what Chomsky ACTUALLY says in relation to an issue for which he has received criticism.

Actually, I was quoting Chomsky's words. I have read the whole exchange between Hitchens and Chomsky, and Chomsky's initial response to 9/11. To what extent haven't I ACTUALLY read what he says? Could it be that you assume that because I don't agree with him I can't possibly have read him properly?

342. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86629 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Rtambree,

Steve99 said:
I can't pin it down precisely, but Chomsky seems to me to share with others (such as Galloway and Pilger) a kind of distorting lens through which they view both current events and history. Everything they write and say seems reasonable in and of itself, until you compare them with historical facts, then it seems to me that the bias becomes apparent.

Rtambree responded:
It seems you're desperately trying to find a chink in the armour, a flaw in the logic, something to disagree with.
Keep digging. I'm sure that after 40 years, writing millions of words about hundreds of subjects, there must be inconsistencies. After all, who has ever been absolutely correct and consistent about everything in their lives?

I feel precisely the same as Steve but I think I actually can pin it down and, you'll be pleased to hear, with a concrete example.

Chomsky saw an equivalence between the missile attack by Clinton on the Pharmaceutics factory in Sudan and the attacks on 9/11. He found both equally bad because, he claimed, similar numbers of people had died as a consequence. The only reason we found 9/11 worse was because it was done to America, not to Africans.

Hitchens, who had openly criticised Clinton for the bombing and had done a lot of work on exposing what had happened in the attack on the factory, replied that although the attack on the factory had been bad, it was facile to claim an equivalence between it and the attacks on 9/11. In the Sudan attack, Clinton had made sure to attack the factory at night so as to minimize casualties. In the end just one person, the night-watchman, died as a direct result of the attack, though Chomsky was keen to factor in all the Sudanese people who would die as an indirect result of the destruction of the factory through lack of medicines. His estimated figure of deaths from lack of medicines ran into the thousands and therefore made the attack comparable to the 9/11 attacks in terms of pure numbers. However, not even the aid agencies working on the ground could verify these numbers.

Hitchens' point was that although bad, Clinton had been acting on what he thought was reliable information that the factory was making weapons, not pharmaceuticals, though he should have done his research better since this turned out not to be the case. Remember that the attack on the factory took place in retaliation to the bombing of the USS Cole, for which Sudan has since been adjudged responsible in court.

Unlike Clinton's decision to attack at night to minimize casualties, the 9/11 attacks had attempted to cause as many civilian deaths as possible. For Hitchens the intention behind the attacks and the number of direct deaths made a comparison of the two attacks tendentious.

Chomsky responded by saying that, 'He (Hitchens) must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime'.

Hitchens felt that he had been accused of racism and took offence to which Chomsky responded, 'Hitchens claims that I accused him of "propensity for racist contempt." I explicitly and unambiguously said the opposite'.

Now, although Chomsky didn't actually call Hitchens a racist, what he was saying was that any view which didn't see an equivalence between 9/11 and the missile attack on the Sudan pharmaceutical company must be racist. Hitchens, however, had already put forward his reasons for saying why he thought there was no equivalence.

Hitchens also said that if Chomsky was so keen to factor in the indirect deaths from lack of medicines to bring the number up to the 9/11 mark (as I understand it, practically all medicines came from foreign aid anyway and not from the factory) he would then surely wish to factor in all the children living in poor countries who would die as an indirect result of the drop in the economy after 9/11, which the world bank estimated at around 40,000, plus another "10 million people (who) will fall below the bank's extreme poverty line of $1 dollar a day or less as a result of slower economic growth".

It seems to me that Chomsky was determined to see these attacks in a certain light, the 'distorting lens' that Steve was talking about and which you tried to change to 'inconsistencies'. This is not about inconsistencies. I'm sure Chomsky's world view is completely consistent to him. It's just a bit skewed, in my view.

The truth is that if you wish to see an equivalence between the two attacks and label as racist those who don't (and then claim that you didn't call them racist, just their view), you can. For me personally, one act was worse than the other and I don't think I'm a racist.

Clearly, one of us is looking at things from a strange perspective. You would say it's Hitchens and me, I would say it's Chomsky and you.

343. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86617 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Steve99,

Either I've been constantly drunk these last few weeks or you've done something to your avatar. Either way your face has suddenly zapped into focus!

344. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86400 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 6:25 am

Why, when I read ADH's comments do I have the guilty temptation to phone my mates and tell them that, 'Hey, we've got a genuine mad bloke on the thread at the moment!'? I say guilty temptation because in the same way we have learned not to laugh at 'The Bearded Lady', 'The Elephant Man' and 'The Flying Midget', I feel we shouldn't really make fun of the religiously mad. Still, sometimes it's hard not to when you hear the funny things they say about what God's like and what heaven's like and what hell's like, as though they somehow knew. No, stop it. That's enough. Don't mock the afflicted.

345. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86390 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

ADH,

Why wouldn't there be any Christmas trees? Are you under the impression that Jews knew about Christmas trees, mistletoe and holly in Nazareth? These are all things from the original celebration that your lot stole from us centuries ago. And as for doing without turkey, does it say in the bible, 'Thou shalt celebrate the birth of our Lord with Turkey, a bird that will be found in fifteen centuries' time in a place that lies as yet undiscovered which shall be called America'? No, I don't think it does. Even if we ditch all the rubbish like the mawkish nonsense about 'Likkle baby Jesus', we can still graft on the good stuff like giving presents and putting on a bit of myhrr, something I like to do every year.

346. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86358 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 4:03 am

Keith, you seem to have some petty, cynical agenda against me

No Xeno, I have some petty, cynical agenda against your views. Please remember that I don't actually know you.

so there really is no point engaging in any discussion with you because you'll simply mock, ignore or distort whatever I have to write.

Mock yes, ignore and distort, no. With the things you write there really is no need for me to further distort them. They stand, gnarled, on their own.

I will address one point, however, namely your implied belief that Democratic presidents aren't right wing. As Gore Vidal and others have pointed out, the United States isn't a two party state, but rather a one party state, namely that of the Business Party, with two factions [my emphasis] – the Democrats and the Republicans. Indeed all US presidents since WWII have been war criminals, with no exceptions...The fact that you don't realise this about the Democratic Party, particularly those who have held power in its name, indicates to me how out of touch with reality you are. The United States is a corporatocracy, which should be obvious to anyone who is serious about examining who holds the real power in this society.

Yes yes, you have told me all this before. However, I think you're being a little bit dishonest here and what's more, I think I can prove it. So, when you mentioned 'the right-wing', you weren't simply referring to just the Republicans but to both main parties. You have just stated this, right? Please be careful how you answer because I think I'll have you in checkmate in one more move. If what you were referring to was in fact both parties, how do you make sense of the following:

In case you have missed most of recent history, let's limit it just to the last fifty years in the United States, the right wing has always been the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright prejudice. Always will be, always has been. I could list the amount of atrocities and distortions that the American right have been responsible for in the last decade alone...

Now, what 'faction' might you be referring to in this passage? Is it the Republican Party, in which case I understood you correctly the first time and you have been falsely accusing me of being a bit dense and also distorting your views? Or is it the 'faction' of both main political parties, which really can't be described as a faction at all by any normal person since they really constitute the whole? Checkmate, me thinks. Or am I twisting your meaning again? I know you're not above any kind of mendacity so perhaps you can find a third alternative up your sleeve that will save you from being impaled on the horns of this dilemma. In fact, I think I can see one hoving into view and it looks something like this:

Your last post is so patently ridiculous and completely erroneous with regards to what I have actually written, that I'm simply going to ignore it because you seem intent on purposefully falsifying and childishly belittling my contentions.

Look forward to your reply,

Keith

p.s. 1948?

347. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86306 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 12:58 am

Xenocratic,
Some additional comments on one of your posts to Steve99.

First he pointed you in the direction of some respected journalists. You said you wanted quotes from Chomsky himself. Steve quoted Chomsky looking a fool on his views about the Srebrenica massacre. You then asked for him to quote some respected journalists! When does this merry-go-round stop?

But, you specify, neither Francis Wheen, nor Nick Cohen, nor any writer for the New York Times will do. No, only journalists like John Pilger can be consulted on this. Can you really not see how odd this all is, only accepting as valid criticisms from writers who agree with Chomsky? Doesn't the circularity of it send you even a little but dizzy.

Apart from this, surely bells must start ringing in your head when you can find so few writers who will support his views. I know Chomsky would say that this is because most journalists are conservative lackeys, albeit unbeknownst to themselves. They are part of the self-protecting machinery of capitalism. Only certain people have seen outside this hermetically sealed capitalist Matrix-like world to the Truth. And who are these people? Chomsky and Pilger! Chomsky is our Neo!

But what about the writers that criticise American policy but don't agree with Chomsky? Mere diversionary tactics to give a semblance of criticism to quiet the conscience and lead us all to believe that what we hear is the truth.

And how did Chomsky and Pilger manage to escape the all-pervasive influence of capitalism and see through things? That remains a mystery, but it's as true as the Emperor's new clothes. Can't you see it you fools!

348. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86278 by keith on November 8, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Xenocratic,

If I remember the last time we had an exchange you managed to be more civil, so something has perhaps happened in the interim to turn you so sour

Yes, life in general and the nastiness of your post in particular.

By referring to Chomsky as a "famed linguist" I was merely stating an objective fact.

Like 'The Venerable Bead' and 'The Sage of Boston'?

Yes, I admire the man, but Hitler is also famous, as is George W Bush, so by your logic by referring to them as such I would be indicating how much I "idolize" them.

This, I'm sure you know, is just silly. If you were to write a eulogy of Hitler and refer to him as 'The Saviour from Linz', this would be much closer to what you actually wrote and is a world away from merely referring to him. I have to say that the way you twist these things around really is remeniscent of your hero.

If I also recall from the last exchange we had some months ago, you were deeply deluded about a number of aspects about the real world, and I can well understand why, considering you take the strategy of "picking paragraphs at random" and assuming that my "whole post was just more of the same". It's pretty much a truism that you'll never learn anything about the world unless you confront certain uncomfortable facts, so until you're able to do so, and actually read what people (not just me or Chomsky) have written then be prepared for people who do actually make the effort to read widely to dismiss you as a dweller in a fog of befuddled ignorance.

Actually, 'deeply deluded' might be overstating the case. Occasionally a bit pissed-off would be closer to the truth. Also you were over-generalising. When I said I had chosen one of your paragraphs at random and wouldn't (and haven't) read the rest, this only referred to your post. I usually read things in their entirety. Please don't imagine that I'm 'deluded about a number of aspects about [sic] the real world' because I didn't read yhe whole of your post. That would be an odd conclusion to draw.

Just to spell it out to you, Keith, denying that genocide was committed against the Aboriginals is akin to denying the Holocaust.

Thanks for spelling it out but I beg to differ. My understanding is that Windschuttle is more right than wrong in his assessment of the possibility of genocide. Apparently he has been more rigorous in his research than many historians. The truth is that I, and - and this is really my point - I suspect you too, don't know enough about the facts to make a definitive judgement. Whereas this doesn't seem to worry you, it does me. For you it's enough that you can label him right-wing and that's that, he must be wrong per se.

You're claim that denying the genocide of the Australian and Tasmanian aborigines is akin to Holocaust denial just shows me what a sloppy thinker you are. In the latter case, a mass of evidence points to the conclusion that the Holocaust happened. In the former case it doesn't, or it is at least inconclusive. Can you see a distinction here?

Are you aware, Keith, that there were 'whites only' bars in Australia up until the 1960s, and it is rumoured there might still be some in various small towns in the Outback?

Sorry but this is racism, not genocide.

You also probably don't know that throughout the 19th century and up until the 1960s the federal government of the 'Lucky country' used to hand out licenses to allow people to hunt Aborigines?

No, the truth is that I didn't know, but if true, it still isn't genocide.

The fact that he is right wing and writes for "right wing journals" should further have alerted most people to the dubious nature of his character.

Why?

In case you have missed most of recent history, let's limit it just to the last fifty years in the United States, the right wing has always been the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright pr