# Nobel winner Harold Pinter lays the smackdown on Bush, Blair and Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 8, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697 "2005-12-08T16:31:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/21 "2005-12-11T03:42:42Z")
Bush is a succesful politician. That qualifies him as an expert on being elected, but says nothing concerning his knowledge of huiman rights, and does not give him any moral authority concerning human rights. What it comes down to is that Bush supports torture but denies it, and Pinter has called him on it. Both speak to the masses. Would it be better if only Bush were given a wide audience? I think not. Artists have been bringing attention to human rights and political issues for thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/22 "2005-12-11T19:33:42Z")
> [@Hello Again](#): > > I’m saying that his views are no more or less worthy than those of someone **who thinks about these things quite a lot in the course of his/her work** – which I wouldn’t say Barbara Streisand or any Hollywood figure does, thus the analogy is not very valid. Well, I’ll agree with you about Ms. Streisand. She can’t even write a proper letter to the editor: “In light of the obvious step away from the principals of journalistic integrity, which would dictate that journalists be journalists, editors be editors and accountants be accountants, I am now forced to carefully reconsider which sources can be trusted to provide me with accurate, unbiased news and forthright opinions.” Snerk. [http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html](http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/23 "2005-12-11T22:13:16Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Bush is a succesful politician. That qualifies him as an expert on being elected, but says nothing concerning his knowledge of huiman rights, and does not give him any moral authority concerning human rights. > > What it comes down to is that Bush supports torture but denies it, and Pinter has called him on it. Both speak to the masses. > > Would it be better if only Bush were given a wide audience? I think not. > > Artists have been bringing attention to human rights and political issues for thousands of years. Yeah. That Charles Dickens guy was a successful author. What in hell did he know about the poverty that he wrote about? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/24 "2005-12-11T23:34:13Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Yeah. That Charles Dickens guy was a successful author. What in hell did he know about the poverty that he wrote about? Yeah, this is what gets me about some of the people who rail against folks like Pinter. They seem to believe that we should actually accord him _less_ than the usual amount of credence simply because he happens to be prominent. Not only that, but they often appear unwilling to draw distinctions between celebrities who simply jump on a passing bandwagon, and celebrities who arrive at their political views through long years of reading, involvement, and activism. I certainly don’t believe that we should accord someone authority on a particular political subject just because the person happens to be well known in some field of cultural endeavor. But, like it or not, celebrities get afforded more opportunities to speak in front of large audiences than most of us. So when they do speak, and we do hear what they say, surely it’s better to listen to the content of their speech and evaluate its merit, rather than adopting a knee-jerk position that dismisses their opinion out of hand just because they happen to be famous. And how about learning to separate someone like Pinter, whose politics and social engagement form a crucial aspect of his cultural work, from those who specialize in vapid sound bites bereft of any evidence of careful consideration or introspection? ---
**Author:** ![NicePete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ee7513/32.png) [@NicePete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NicePete)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/25 "2005-12-12T02:53:18Z")
Why should give any credence to Harold Pinter? He conflicts with my dearly held pre-conceived notions! ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/26 "2005-12-12T14:49:11Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > …although he’s well-spoken, Noam Chomsky is a pustulant windbag. He may speak very well, but that’s not a reason to give any special import to what he says. That’s the point Weirddave is making. Then **Weirddave** is making a bad point, and doing it poorly. IIRC, Sokal & Bricmont quote Chomsky on this very sort if issue in Fashionable Nonsense. When Chomsky speaks to mathematicians on mathematics, nobody cares what his credential are, they just care about his arguments; however, when he speaks about politics, everyone tries to dismiss him because he lacks credentials, rather than considering his reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/27 "2005-12-12T15:39:45Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > Then **Weirddave** is making a bad point, and doing it poorly. IIRC, Sokal & Bricmont quote Chomsky on this very sort if issue in Fashionable Nonsense. When Chomsky speaks to mathematicians on mathematics, nobody cares what his credential are, they just care about his arguments; however, when he speaks about politics, everyone tries to dismiss him because he lacks credentials, rather than considering his reasoning. Exactly! Also, even if the credentialist argument were valid—which it’s not—it would be interesting to know exactly when someone like Chomsky should be considered sufficiently qualified to speak on political issues. After all, _American Power and the New Mandarins_ was released in 1969, and since then Chomsky has produced literally dozens of books dealing with political issues. Most of those books are extremely heavily footnoted, with literally thousands of references to newspapers, magazines, journals, television programs, scholarly books, popular books, reports by NGOs, government reports and documents, and a multitude of other sources. Just how many hundreds of thousands of pages does Chomsky have to read about politics? Just how many dozens of books, thousands of pages, and multiple thousands of footnotes does he have to produce before people concede—even if they don’t agree with what he says—that he might be sufficiently well informed to speak on the subject? I’m not arguing that **Unclebeer** or **Weirddave** (or anyone else) should agree with Chomsky’s position. I’m just arguing that the credentialist argument is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a rabbit hole that allows the person using it to avoid dealing with substantive issues while making a belligerent and completely irrelevant claim regarding qualifications. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/28 "2005-12-12T16:21:13Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I’m not arguing that **Unclebeer** or **Weirddave** (or anyone else) should agree with Chomsky’s position. I’ll second that. And I didn’t mean to be disrespectful to **Unclebeer** or **Weirddave**. I’m awfully inclined to say, “Oh, that guy is a playwright, what the hell does he know?” That’s why I’m in tune to it. And, of course, if the guy is just spouting assertions without any actual reasoning, then… ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697/29 "2005-12-12T16:45:25Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > And, of course, if the guy is just spouting assertions without any actual reasoning, then… Sure. But to make that determination, it is necessary to actually listen to what he has to say, rather than dismiss him out of hand simply because he doesn’t have some particular qualification. People who make the credentialist argument also have to deal with one possible corrollary. If they dismiss people out of hand for not having the right credentials (whatever they might be), then do they accept other people who _do_ have the right credentials, even if their arguments are crap? For instance, this person sounds like they might be pretty well credentialled to speak on issues related to politics and the law: > [@](#): > > [Person A] clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates. > > After practicing law in private practice in New York City, [Person A] worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. > > A Connecticut native, [Person A] graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. Despite those impressive credentials, however, i still think that [Ann Coulter](http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/content.cgi?name=bio) makes some very poor arguments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nobel-winner-harold-pinter-lays-the-smackdown-on-bush-blair-and-iraq/334697.md?page=1)