Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ah Neil, if only you were as generous to the Greens over genetic modification ...
I'm not sure that describing the attitude of conservatives to evolution as "hostile" is all that generous, but I take your point. I have a hostility towards the Greens because I would like to vote Green but see that part of the political spectrum occupied by cuckoos (in both senses of the word). Whereas since I don't vote conservative I have a more detached view of some of their silliness.
But they're not debating how their philosophy should change: quite a few of them are saying "it challenges our philosophy, therefore we should refuse to believe it."
Well, not all since you end by quoting Derbyshire saying the exact opposite -
" if that [evolution] turns out to be “bad for conservatives, then so much the worse for conservatism.”
Which is my point. Conservatives see evolution as a threat and/or challenge whereas liberals like PZ Myers see it as merely a stick to beat low hanging conservative fruit - which shows a complete lack of intellectual curiosity. Of the two views I have more sympathy with the first since I'm sure of my views on evolution and don't have to spend my days in imagined jousts with creationists and Liberals should be asking themselves exactly the same question as Derbyshire.
I'm put in mind of Stephen Colbert's observation that "reality has a known liberal bias."
Fun, but also an interesting question. Is Nature Liberal or Conservative?
-
The New York Times has a somewhat bizarre story about a philosophical split in the conservative movement over evolution,
Conservatives arguing over how Conservative political thought might/should be affected by evolution strikes me as a real recognition that evolution could have consequences outside the lab and classroom.
In some senses Conservative hostility towards evolution suggests a more profound understanding of its potential political implications. Liberals tend to go "evolution true, no problem, no real consequences" where as Conservatives think that there could very well be consequences. The NYT's article concludes with -
As for Mr. Derbyshire, he would not say whether he thought evolutionary theory was good or bad for conservatism; the only thing that mattered was whether it was true. And, he said, if that turns out to be “bad for conservatives, then so much the worse for conservatism.”
Apart from rare instances such as with Peter Singer there's not a lot of Liberal thinkers putting Liberal views on the line against evolution.
-
The most important radio station on the planet right now is a small coloured box made by Steve Jobs, Creative, Nokia and Sony-Ericsson, and we have just begun.
So true. my iPod has re-invigorated my love of music (Viagra for the jaded ears?). I've spent much more time and money on music since getting one. Currently on high rotate are Suzy Quatro, Kylie Minogue, Lucinda Williams and The Jesus and Mary Chain (but only because Scarlet sang with them at their reunion - Neil F should have thought of that).
-
Simon, who would like to see making these funding decisions? This seems to be an inherent problem - some people have to be set up to make decisions about taste and merit on behalf of others (i.e. the public).
-
The cultural consequence of uncontrolled digital development will be social vertigo. Culture will be spinning and whirling and in continual flux. Everything will be in motion; everything will be opinion. This social vertigo of ubiquitous opinion was recognized by Plato. That's why he was of the opinion that opinionated artists should be banned from his Republic.
And that's one reason why his Republic and every other utopia was a bad idea. Still, there's something there in the general topic of technology and democracy. There couldn't really be democracy with the sorts of populations we have without technology.
As for Bono and the big media engine - who zoomed who?
-
It claims they believed there was fraud, but not enough to turn the result.
Does that mean we've agreed on something? I must be slipping.
-
oops, on thinking 2004 was stolen
-
Because he's a pussy. That hardly disproves irregularities.
I agree, it doesn't disprove there weren't any irregularities - I do think there were, there's lots of evidence for that. But it suggests to me not so much that Kerry lacked any fighting spirit but they he didn't think he won because at then end of the day he got less votes.
I also agree with the general sentiment that the system for US elections needs some major attention but looking at the Democrat hopefulls they're all focused on trying to get more votes. One consequence of spending time on thinking 2006 was stolen when this didn't happen is less time spent working out why the Dems just got less votes.
-
The whole thing stank, basically. And it's incorrect to say the Democrats thought otherwise.
But you still have to explain Kerry's actions. Why did he not fight like they did over Florida? I just don't think that having come so close Kerry was going just going to role over for fear of looking like a sore loser. That doesn't make sense. What makes more sense is that Kerry looked at the figures and decided he lost.
If Kerry was convinced he lost because of election fraud in Ohio I really think he would have fought that to the bitter end - he looked like a guy with that sort of principle ans ambition. It really makes no sense for the Dems to feel cheated by 2000 to then let the Reps get away with it again.
-
But tellingly Conyers didn't push for overturning the election either. I think they spotted irregularities that when they added up the votes weren't going to make a difference. There's a lot that could be improved in how they run elections.
The other thing that suggests incompetence rather than successful electoral fraud was the Republican losses in 2006. Or maybe their fraud became incompetent.