The View From Over There
I've been over in jolly England this week -- here's a picture of the place where I was staying, out in Essex. We had a very nice symposium, lots of bright people with good ideas, it's great to be in such a crowd -- humbling, really.
The pubs were full to the rafters on Saturday as England's rugby team trounced Wales in Six Nations competition, which I don't think many Americans watched.
I was surprised by how many Englishmen were planning to watch the Super Bowl.
But do you know what the Super Bowl news was in Europe? The big story was the controversy over the Rolling Stones playing at halftime. The British networks showed the American reporter in a press conference asking Mick Jagger, "Do you still have sympathy for the devil?" Jagger laughed off the question, he knows what he's doing after all these years.
It's like if a civilized country were to send a team of explorers to a place like New Guinea, where the natives worship the giant yam and fear the Evil Eye. And a party of natives walks out to the shoreline to greet the ship, but before they let the explorers come ashore, they want to know: do you plan to shake a Bad Mojo on our island?
Oh, and then what do you suppose the news is after the game? From the UK's Times OnLine: Network censors Rolling Stones' Super Bowl gig.
Before Jagger got to the dead man part of "Start It Up," I asked my wife whether he'd say it or not, and he didn't, but I thought he'd slurred it. Imagine that, in the States they show the Rolling Stones on a five-second delay, so they can take out the naughty bits.
I was surprised by how many Englishmen were planning to watch the Super Bowl.
But do you know what the Super Bowl news was in Europe? The big story was the controversy over the Rolling Stones playing at halftime. The British networks showed the American reporter in a press conference asking Mick Jagger, "Do you still have sympathy for the devil?" Jagger laughed off the question, he knows what he's doing after all these years.
It's like if a civilized country were to send a team of explorers to a place like New Guinea, where the natives worship the giant yam and fear the Evil Eye. And a party of natives walks out to the shoreline to greet the ship, but before they let the explorers come ashore, they want to know: do you plan to shake a Bad Mojo on our island?
Oh, and then what do you suppose the news is after the game? From the UK's Times OnLine: Network censors Rolling Stones' Super Bowl gig.
Before Jagger got to the dead man part of "Start It Up," I asked my wife whether he'd say it or not, and he didn't, but I thought he'd slurred it. Imagine that, in the States they show the Rolling Stones on a five-second delay, so they can take out the naughty bits.
posted by JimK at 5:34 PM
31 Comments:
"It's like if a civilized country were to send a team of explorers to a place like New Guinea, where the natives worship the giant yam and fear the Evil Eye. And a party of natives walks out to the shoreline to greet the ship, but before they let the explorers come ashore, they want to know: do you plan to shake a Bad Mojo on our island?"
This reminds of a story in today's Wall Street Journal about the evils of Darwinism. Back in 1904, Darwinists wanted to set up an evolution display at the St Louis World's Fair. They went to Africa and bought a slave who had been captured by a rival tribe. Then, they brought him to the Fair as part of an exhibit showing the transition of man from inferior primates to modern civilized man, the unfortunate soul being one of the former. After the fair was over, they sold the man to the Bronx Zoo, which kept him on display in a cage with orangutans. When a Christian group protested the degrading treatment of a human being, the NY Times dismissed the Christians in an editorial, saying that "the idea that everyone is equal and the same but for the advantage of a book education is now far outdated." I guess we'll always have the "sophisticated", half-educated, pseudo-intellectuals to look up to.
Check out yesterday's Washington Post magazine for a good description of the moral implications of Darwinism. It quotes Darwin as saying that the human race would be better off if the sick and weak were put out of their misery. And this sick guy is buried at Westminster Abbey. Jim probably went to pay homage.
"Rolling Stones Agreed to Super Bowl Censorship
By Claudia Parsons, Reuters
NEW YORK (Feb. 6) - Veteran rockers the Rolling Stones agreed to be censored at Sunday's U.S. Super Bowl halftime show, a National Football League spokesman said on Monday.
The NFL kept Mick and the Stones' tongue in check during their halftime performance, cutting two lines with sexual references.
The Rolling Stones delivered their usual slick rock 'n' roll performance with Mick Jagger stalking the stage, grinding his hips and pouting like a man half his age.
But during "Start Me Up," the line "you make a dead man come" was cut short and a barnyard reference to "cocks" in the new song "Rough Justice" also disappeared.
"The Rolling Stones were aware of our plan which was to simply lower the volume on his microphone at those two appropriate moments," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told Reuters. "We had agreed to that plan earlier in the week. The Stones were aware of it and they were fine with it."
ABC, which broadcast the Super Bowl, said it had a 5-second delay in place but it was not used to censor anything during the broadcast. "If there were any alterations of lyrics it was done by the NFL," said Mark Mandel of ABC Sports.
The New York Times said last week the Stones had agreed to tone down their language on other occasions in the past.
Back in 1967 the band appeared on "The Ed Sullivan Show" on the same day as the first Super Bowl, which was then called the world championship game. They wanted to sing "Let's Spend the Night Together," but Sullivan insisted they change the lyrics to "Let's Spend Some Time Together."
"Jagger consented, reluctantly, but rolled his eyes while he sang," the newspaper said.
Check out yesterday's Washington Post magazine for a good description of the moral implications of Darwinism.
If you meant THIS article, I agree, it was a good one. It seemed like a well-researched discussion of a complicated topic, combining some scholarship and some modern-day interviews into a good, thought-provoking piece. --The guy actually went back and did some reading for this article.
Darwinism has stimulated quite a bit of moralistic debate, but I don't think Darwinism has any "moral implication." I can't imagine how accepting the fact that humans are part of nature affects any moral decisions whatsoever -- oh, it might affect your theory of morality, as far as what lies behind it, the origins of right and wrong, but I can't think of any ways that Darwinism would change anyone's decisions about how to behave.
Social Darwinism is an ugly belief that the suvival of the fittest is an appropriate metaphor for setting social policy. The best examplar of that philosophy would probably be Hitler's Nazi Party, who assumed that the weak deserved to be exterminated and the strong deserved whatever power they could win. Perhaps a second-best example is the modern-day Republican Party, who believe that power and economic wealth should be distributed among those who are strong enough to get to it, and let the poor do whatever they can. Social Darwinism is a misapplication of Darwin's famous algorithm, showing that the qualities of a population can change over time in the direction of increased adaptation as a result of differential reproduction on the basis of fitness.
This article quotes a guy who cites sociobiology as a system that promotes immorality. No, sociobiologists can show you data from around the world, demonstrating that certain natural facts of human behavior are universal, for instance that men are more sexually promiscuous than women everywhere in the world, and they can explain that difference in evolutionary terms. That's not justifying male promiscuity, it's explaining it. And it seems to me that once we understand factors that disrupt our social structures such as marriage and the family, we can manipulate the qualities of the environment that might have causal implications, or at least we might work out a reasonable and maybe even clever strategy for dealing with them. Remaining ignorant of the workings of nature in our lives does not seem to me to hold any promise as far as improving the quality of human life.
The Darwinian algorithm explains the diversity of species and gives us a framework for understanding the various adapatations, or at least a template for understanding them, even if we can't explain a certain feature.
But the fact that humans are apes is obvious. Just look at us. Look at our DNA. It is almost identical to a chimpanzee's, just as our physical features resemble theirs. There are differences, for instance in the genes that regulate the development of speech centers in the brain and anatomical systems that allow speaking and interpretation of speech. And look, it isn't that we just started being apes -- we've always been apes. We're just reaching a level of sophistication that allows us to understand it. Knowing it does not mean we have to start eating bananas and swinging around in trees, it should not affect our ability to behaved in a civiilized way at all. To think that somehow recognizing our place in nature would cause us to behave less decently is just naive.
The Darwinian Crisis is the same kind of challenge to religion that the Copernican one was. I had a friend tell me that "If evolution is correct, then God can't exist." I found it shocking that she had such little faith in God that she felt she had to restrict her exposure to facts in order to preserve her belief in His existence. Is it possible that thousands of years of human spirituality should vanish, like vapor, suddenly, just because we realize we are part of nature? Does that make it all an illusion? Would being apes somehow invalidate all that has happened for these millenia? --I seriously doubt it. I have faith that the human spirit can overcome a shock of this magnitude, and in fact I have faith that by absorbing ever greater truths that spirit can expand to unforeseeable proportions.
I admit the reconciliation is very difficult. But I must say, these facile sorts of slogans that Anon drops on us do nothing to advance the discussion. They seem more intended to preserve ignorance than to find an intellectually honest solution to what is admittedly a profound dilemma for our time. Anon wants to insult those who disagree with him, not convince them or, heaven forbid, learn from them.
JimK
"I can't imagine how accepting the fact that humans are part of nature affects any moral decisions whatsoever"
If you profess to think the theory of evolution is that simple, you're lying. If you think that nature is a benign and believe the above, the blather that follows from you isn't worth addressing. I think it's obvious to all who read this that your ignorance is willful ignorance.
"Perhaps a second-best example is the modern-day Republican Party, who believe that power and economic wealth should be distributed among those who are strong enough to get to it, and let the poor do whatever they can."
An ironic statement from a person who belongs to a political party that supports the right of parents to kill pre-born children if they are inconvenient or burdensome.
If you think that nature is a benign and believe the above ...
Why would you attribute such a belief to me? I never said it.
And, do you think it is impossible for a natural creature -- the human being, a species of primate -- to be benign?
JimK
Jim,
I don't believe Anon is plain ignorant. This is all part of a theocratic movement in this country which has already taken over the Republican party. Just check out John Danforth's comments in the WP last week which echo Jimmy Carter's and that a few other brave souls.
Those in charge know the truth, and they are using their religion to help keep the masses willfully ignorant of reality, even when there is no intrinsic conflict between religion and science. When I think of the way the Dali Lama embraces science, I am ashamed of these Christianist neighbors of ours.
I had mentioned Marilynne Robinson's book a month or two ago, "The Death of Adam." She's a very religious woman, well-versed in her Bible, writes beautifully, but she, too, lacks the imagination and creativity to take molecular biology and evolutionary science and make it a positive force. Yes, the racists in Victorian England (a model for the Bush administration, by the way) used evolutionary theory to advance their racial beliefs. Darwin wasn't above that, either. But it is no different than what Christians have done with Jesus' words, to say nothing of the Hebrew Bible, for thousands of years. People make of things what they desire. Anon is too sophisticated to be a plain ol' bigot; he needs to couch it in terms of his particularist Christianist morality.
"Social Darwinism is an ugly belief that the suvival of the fittest is an appropriate metaphor for setting social policy."
Some of your friends may have misled you into believing that Social Darwinism is a misapplication of Darwin but here's Darwin's application, in his own words from his work, "The Descent of Man":
"It is highly injurious to the race of man that civilized nations care for and keep alive the imbecile, the maimed and the sick"
later, he says society would be aided by:
"the weak in body and mind refraining from marriage"
"the modern-day Republican Party, who believe that power and economic wealth should be distributed among those who are strong enough to get to it, and let the poor do whatever they can."
This is an unbelievable statement. For one thing, it seems to equate wealth with strength, which seems quite a stretch in the modern world.
But further, it accuses the Republicans of wanting to deny help to those in need. There's no justification for this. It might be true that Republican want capable poor people to "do what they can" but most would agree with that. If someone is poor because of some weakness though, Republicans would generally favor society meeting their needs. They may also recognize that religious organizations have been much more effective at delivering help than governmental bodies.
Finally, Republicans favor steps to end poverty that Democrats oppose on political grounds. Two factors that perpetuate poverty are lack of access to adequate education and lack of family inheritance. The poor languish in failing and dangerous inner city schools while the Democrats cynically side with teachers unions in opposing tuition voucher prorams that would provide some hope. Most poor die penniless, with nothing to leave their children, while Democrats oppose President Bush's proposal to create personal social security accounts that could be passed on to the next generation.
For Democrats to claim to side with the poor and weak is one of history's greatest lies.
"but I can't think of any ways that Darwinism would change anyone's decisions about how to behave."
Well, there's the zookeeper in the Bronx putting humans in the cage or the New York Times saying that the idea that all people are equal is "far out-dated" or the Nazis performing eugenics experiments on the weak or parents aborting a kid who might turn out mentally handicapped. The possibilities for evil are endless.
Those are evil people using Darwinism as an excuse. Real Darwinists obviously don't do those things.
JimK
"But the fact that humans are apes is obvious. Just look at us. Look at our DNA. It is almost identical to a chimpanzee's, just as our physical features resemble theirs."
Actually, the DNA of most living things is remarkably similar. It's for the same reason that there is so much similarity between a Camry and an Avalon. They have the same intelligent designer. It's a clue.
"The Darwinian Crisis is the same kind of challenge to religion that the Copernican one was."
Completely the opposite is true. The status quo supports Darwinism and anyone who doesn't is being systematically marginalized by the establishment, denied employment and education.
Further, while the world of physics once collided with religion, there is now peace because science discovered that religion was correct. Once it was believe that our physical world was eternal but the discovery of the Big Bang proved that Judeo-Christian scripture was correct- the universe was created at a certain point in time. When the Big Bang theory was first formulated, scientists reacted just the same way they now react to intelligent design theory. Although oppressed, those who seek truth will persevere- and, eventually, prevail.
"It's for the same reason that there is so much similarity between a Camry and an Avalon. They have the same intelligent designer. It's a clue."
I didn't realize God worked at Toyota designing cars these days. Should I trade in my blasphemous Ford?
"They have the same intelligent designer. It's a clue."
"Although oppressed, those who seek truth will persevere- and, eventually, prevail."
These statements are both clues that illuminate the intentions of those who seek to undermine our American democracy with their very own theocracy.
Observer
Anon,
You seem to have missed your fax from Grover Norquist today. You see, the Big Bang is now just a "theory" in government documents. Like evolution.
There was a Nobel Prize winning physicist who created the transistor back in 1948. He was also one of the most virulent racists around. His name was William Shockley. I guess you're going to go out and deep-six anything you own -- computer, car, refrigerator, television, radio . . . -- that uses a transistor.
Was Darwin a racist? Looks like it. So what? What possible relationship does that have with science?
Oh,and if your God is oh-so-powerful, why did he bother to design everything from the same blueprint? He really wouldn't need to, you know. And that says nothing about the tens of thousands of species that have gone extinct (oops!) or have serious design flaws (oops again).
You're blindness to reality is overwhelming at times.
"I didn't realize God worked at Toyota designing cars these days. Should I trade in my blasphemous Ford?"
Don't be flippant. These are serious matters. Your big concern should be whether Darwinism constitutes a false religion with its many implications about the origin and meaning of life- and the determination of its adherents and apologists to rationalize away its contradictions.
Ah, Anon, you slipped up. No one that I know of is trying to "rationalize away its contradictions." There are very few, anyway.
But you give yourself away when you say the word "implaications" right after "false religion." Of course, you're implying that YOUR religion is the only true religion, which is balderdash. Also, since you believe in a religion, you imagine all other worldviews also constitute a religion. Well, you don't get to determine the playing field and set the frame, not here at least.
As for implications, well, we can discuss those. There are some, to my mind, but they derive from the facts. But I know many scientists who deduce other implications, and have no problem with any of it. And I have no propblem with them, nor they with me. But we all have a problem with your "know-nothingness."
The again, you fit right in with our illustriously ignorant AG who claimed yesterday that " President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."
Ignorance of history and ignorance of science and technology seem to go hand-in-hand.
(Note to self: Anon can dish out the flippancy but can't take it.)
The "serious matter" and "big concern" we should all be focused on is the corruption of our public school curricula with unquestioned religious dogma.
Flippy
"Anonymous said...
(Note to self: Anon can dish out the flippancy but can't take it.)
The "serious matter" and "big concern" we should all be focused on is the corruption of our public school curricula with unquestioned religious dogma.
Flippy"
Flipper
You're right. The way these kids are taught evolutionary doctrine as if it's gospel is outrageous. It might be part of why the U.S. is slipping behind the rest of the world in science education. It all started to turn bad around the time the Supreme Court banished prayer from public schools.
US private and public school students have lower test scores than students from many other industrialized nations in science and math. You can check scores on various measures in the International Mathematics and Science Study at:
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/
Other interesting comparisons are found between US and other industrialized nations in relation to unplanned pregnancy and STD rates in teenagers. The rates are much higher in the US than in many other industrialized nations. For information on these rates see:
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/Teen.htm
Continuing to teach the out of date MCPS sex ed curriculum, as the CRC supports, is of questionable benefit to our public school students. Science is not stagnant and neither is medicine. Curricula dealing with these topics need to be routinely updated with the latest findings so that our teenagers can compete in the global economy and protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy and STDs.
Christine
"Curricula dealing with these topics need to be routinely updated with the latest findings so that our teenagers can compete in the global economy and protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy and STDs."
TTF don't even want anything beyond a few basic misleading pronouncements from professional associations taught. And now they're saying students need to know the latest findings? What a load of crap! Name one new finding in the last ten years that we need to get to students. We'd be better off properly teaching what we knew 25 years ago.
Oh, of course, 25 years ago. And I wonder what we "knew" 25 years ago that we no longer know? Care to enlighten us?
Let's turn back the clock- to the good old days when women and black people couldn't go to school-how about when Christianity was the only religion considered acceptable? I bet those are the good old days Anon means- when white men were boss and women knew their place. Margaret Atwood knew what she was doing with the Handmaid's Tale- she knew these fanatics are living among us right now.
"Let's turn back the clock- to the good old days when women and black people couldn't go to school-how about when Christianity was the only religion considered acceptable? I bet those are the good old days Anon means- when white men were boss and women knew their place."
I assume you're referring to when I said this:
"TTF don't even want anything beyond a few basic misleading pronouncements from professional associations taught. And now they're saying students need to know the latest findings? What a load of crap! Name one new finding in the last ten years that we need to get to students. We'd be better off properly teaching what we knew 25 years ago."
In case the sentence structure is too complex for the average TTFer, let me try again. It is quite disingenuous for TTF to say they want to bring kids the latest and best new findings when the few misleading statements they support in the Fishback curriculum is nothing that has not been around for, at least, the last 25 years. The association pronouncements are that old and didn't represent a consensus among experts then- and probably don't now.
When I said we'd be better off teaching properly what we knew 25 years ago, I'd also say we'd be better off properly teaching what we know now. There's really not much difference but I offered TTFers a chance to say differently. They didn't- for obvious reasons.
"TTF don't even want anything beyond a few basic misleading pronouncements from professional associations taught. And now they're saying students need to know the latest findings? What a load of crap! Name one new finding in the last ten years that we need to get to students. We'd be better off properly teaching what we knew 25 years ago."
Forget about what's new in the past 10 or 25 years. We need to fill the gaping hole in MCPS health classes that has been there since day one. Sexual orientation is not mentioned at all. The existing curriculum assumes there's only one orientation and we all know that is simply not true.
It's good you realize just how minor the "few basic" revisions to the curriculum were -- two lesson plans out of weeks of study. TTF, who had no input into the revised curriculum, has always advocated for the curriculum to "teach the facts." More facts would be fine with us.
It is CRC supporters who think outdated medical information is sufficient to provide to teenagers so they can know how to protect their own health. So fine, keep your kids out of MCPS health classes and teach them whatever you want them to know instead.
But the rest of us, in fact the majority of US citizens want our public schools to provide up to date abstinence based comprehensive sex education. We believe knowledge is power and that the proper way to raise our children is to empower them, all of them, with the basic knowledge and important life skills abstinence based comprehensive sex education provides.
Christine
"Forget about what's new in the past 10 or 25 years."
Fine with me. You're the one that keeps talking about the latest up-to-date findings. My point is that there really is nothing new that is worthy of putting in the curriculum and your use of this phrase is just propaganda.
"We need to fill the gaping hole in MCPS health classes that has been there since day one. Sexual orientation is not mentioned at all."
I personally don't see it as a pressing need since there's no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an orientation other than heterosexual exists.
"The existing curriculum assumes there's only one orientation and we all know that is simply not true."
No, we don't. Gay advocacy groups have converted "preference" to "orientation" for political purposes.
I guess given the media obssession, we could discuss the phenomena of same-sex attraction. The problem with TTF's position is that you only want the facts taught that won't lead to a stigmatization of homosexuality. As long as the curriculum is seen as a PR vehicle for GLAAD, you can't really say you want to teach all the facts.
"It's good you realize just how minor the "few basic" revisions to the curriculum were -- two lesson plans out of weeks of study."
I didn't say minor. They are brief but major in their capacity to mislead.
"TTF, who had no input into the revised curriculum, has always advocated for the curriculum to "teach the facts." More facts would be fine with us."
In the discussions here that doesn't seem to be the case.
"It is CRC supporters who think outdated medical information is sufficient to provide to teenagers so they can know how to protect their own health. So fine, keep your kids out of MCPS health classes and teach them whatever you want them to know instead."
CRC isn't in favor of outdated information. They want the truth taught. If you don't want your kids taught anything that offends your liberal sensibilties, keep them out of our version of the curriculum.
"But the rest of us, in fact the majority of US citizens want our public schools to provide up to date abstinence based comprehensive sex education."
The majority of Americans would vote against the Fishback sexual variations amendments and you know it. Same with the condom video.
"We believe knowledge is power and that the proper way to raise our children is to empower them, all of them, with the basic knowledge and important life skills abstinence based comprehensive sex education provides."
They'll never have the skills to cope with life from a curriculum with a secular humanist viewpoint.
As for life skills, teaching that promiscuity can be pursued safely is misleading.
Anon- don't you have something better to do with your time? Isn't there some right wing, gay bashing website waiting for your contributions? Maybe a homeschooling or ID website looking for your insights? Maybe you could find some friends there?
Just trying to bring a little light to a darkened corner. Light bothers those who have something to hide- for obvious reasons.
And you use the term "light" rather than "Anon's religious views" for obvious reasons.
Observer
Yes I do.
How about that?
Post a Comment
<< Home