I suppose you are referring to post #11. I already defended #11 in post #17, and I will let each of our esteemed dopers decide for themselves whether or not I visciously misrepresented what Mr. Derbyshire wrote. Beyond that, this thread seems to have devolved into a circular shouting match, so I believe I’ll bow out.
Good day.
I have been an atheist since my teens, about thirty years ago.
Although I have reservations about the whole concept of measuring intelligence as a single quality, I know some people I consider extremely intelligent who practice things that I would call superstition.
Whether they do so because they really believe it affects them (and/or the universe), to keep peace in the family, or to imbue in their children some respect for authority greater than themselves, I don’t know. (FWIW, I came close to marrying one of these people).
They were almost always raised to believe in the power of these things, or some related practices (in contrast to my parents, who held very divergent beliefs).
Ronald Reagan, as president, regularly consulted with an astrologer. That impresses me as silly, but mostly harmless. Bush II, OTOH, by some accounts listens to Christians of the type who believe not only that we are living in the End Times, but that we should do everything we can to hurry the process along. Religion can be a lot more dangerous than mere superstition.
There’s definitely something to this.
At some point, the left became very divisive and addicted to publicity, or at least nefariousness. I recall women in college in the 1980s who believed that you could not understand “real” feminism unless you were a rape vicitm. I also recall those who measured their contributions to society in terms of the number of times they had been arrested at anti-whatever rallies. Neither of these is productive.
Also not productive was the idea that one could “withhold” one’s vote in protest of the Democratic Party’s failure to embrace one’s pet stance on some issue (even if you agrred with the rest of their platform), and have it make some sort of positive difference. That’s how the left lost the Democratic Party. Now the left has no real national-level voice of any strength in American politics.
The left needs to give up its love of public protest in favor of actual effective action. The number of situations where public demonstration works is nowhere near as large as much of the activist left seems to think.
Lunch counter sit-ins? I’ve seen a film clip, and my god, what a powerful image: a whole community heaping verbal and physical abuse on a person who just sat there. Very clearly laid out who the good and bad guys were there. But that led to a metastisization of whatever-ins that served no such purpose.
Bus Boycotts? Worked because the businesses that suddenly saw a drop in customers who were no longer taking the bus to them raised a stink. But unless you can organize a boycott that has similar economic impact, your boycott is merely symbolic, a point which escapes many of today’s liberals.
Viet Nam Era anti-war protests? If you’re 18 years old in 1968, and the government says you must go risk your life because they thinks Viet Nam was a good idea, and you don’t even get to vote for the people who make these shitheaded decisions, taking to the streets is one of few remaining options for voicing your disapproval. Once the draft ended and and the voting age dropped, anti-war demonstrations became a curiosity, a movement with no teeth. The same can be said for any number of public protests simply designed to be a show of numbers, rather than putting those numbers to work exploring avenues of real change. Every college student who attends a rally but doesn’t vote is an idiot.
The left needs to re-learn how to get the forces that control what they want to change turn to their way of thinking, rather than just scream at the world.
Cite?
IIRC, that was Nancay, not Ron.
I’m an atheist – I have as much belief in astrology as I do that Jesus rose from the dead – i.e., none.
I consider an elected offical’s belief in either of these a neutral thing – and harmless… *until he makes an important decision using this wacky belief as a guide. *
To my knowledge, Ronald Reagan never did this (although it appears Nancy did). Correct me if I’m wrong.
E.g., I am a diehard blues fan, who has driven 1000 miles to sing at gravesites of dead performers. But I would have real problems voting for someone who announced their intention to do this for guidance.
Well, if “Presidentialufo.com” says it, it must be true.
It was widely reported at the time and Reagan never denied it.
If it was widely reported, then it should be easy for you to provide a reliable cite.
It’s interesting that you are so ready to believe the wildest rumors about almost any Republican, and yet demand cites, for example, when Sam stated in your recent thread that Syria was behind the recent assasination in Lebanon.
Moto, John Derbyshire himself admitted that the viewpoint expressed in that first column was low, contemptible, mean-spirited and even a little irrational.
Does that style of political humor appeal to you? In your opinion as a former Republican leader, does it appeal to most Republicans you know? Most Conservatives?
I’m sorry to see that the standards for the NO have sunk so low. I used to read it to get insights into intelligent opposing viewpoints.
I hope that some of our Dopers from across the pond are offended that he tries to rationalize his bad taste by explaining that he was born in Great Britain.
This is the first time since the story broke in 1988 that I have encountered or even heard of any slightest expression of doubt that Reagan consulted astrologers – something which, as I noted previously, Reagan never denied. But try this one – http://www.parascope.com/articles/0497/reagan01.htm:
Like I said – silly, but mostly harmless. To this day, Joan Quigley touts herself as a “Presidential Astrologer.” http://www.joanquigley.net/flashindex.html
But nobody has yet found any proof as to who was behind that. Everybody blames Syria because the motive is obvious. But any man in public life makes many enemies, especially in the Middle East.
Bush’s association with the Christian Right, OTOH, is not harmless.
Gee, the author is some cypher named D. Trull on a paranormal web site. And further cites are from someone with an obvious stake in the story.
When someone asks for a cite, they typically don’t mean crap like this, BrainGlutton.
You don’t believe Donald Regan?
It may have been a little over the top.
Of course, it was probably in bad taste to make figures of fun out of Hitler and Torquemada. That didn’t stop a group of Brits and and American comedian from doing just that.
Does it matter that Chelsea Clinton hasn’t done anything quite as bad as did Hitler or Torquemada? :rolleyes:
Well, since it has been shown that Derbyshire in fact wasn’t calling for Chelsea Clinton’s murder, then no, no difference. Public figures can be figures of public entertainment, and Chelsea Clinton had achieved her majority when the column was written.
Press me on this, and I will present vast quantities of supposed “humor” about the Bush twins, and invite folks here to explicitly disavow it along those same lines.
Regarding any humor as petty and venal as Derbyshire’s column on Chelsea, but directed at the Bush twins: I wholeheartedly disavow it as… petty and venal.
To comply with your request that I do so ‘explicitly’, I will also refrain from any qualifiers, like saying that “it may be a little over the top”, or speculating that it might be all right because we’ve made fun of Hitler in the past.
I probably won’t even think it’s funny, since I’m not full of hatred for the Bush twins (hell, I voted for their old man four years ago) the way Derbyshire is for the Clintons.
Friends?