Mental Meanderings

Ya I saw that a few days ago. I got no mention at all.:)

Take it as a compliment

And, Fiona.. he also compared you Richard Dawkins - a significant thinker after all.. that's got to be good too?

What's that?.. he has complaints about Dawkins too?.. hush now.. "a significant thinker".. that's the quote to focus on. :)

I couldn't read that site. The layout was all over the shop.

Should I know Mark Humphrys? Bearing in mind that the only newpaper I read on a regular basis is the letters/opinion pages in the Irish Times. And the sports section on a Monday. And the ticket.

He seems to be a lecturer in computer science i DCU but I don't know anything else about him at all

You're no one unless you're on Mark's enemies list.

The GOP stands for gay rights (or even tolerance for homosexuals)? Maybe inside the Beltway, but most certainly the opposite outside. If Mark believes otherwise... p.s. congrats to Twenty and Slugger!

I think the DCU guy is a different Mark Humphreys Fiona, luckily for him.

I can assure everyone that the GOP does not stand for gay rights. If fact the slightly more socially progressive DNC doesn't stand for gay rights either. Both parties openly support the Orwelian "Defense of Marriage Act" and the ban on gays in the military known as the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

This leaves gays in the states the choice between "discrimination" and "discrimination light".

Can I get my discrimination with the sauce on the side?

copernicus - have a look at the bottom of this page http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/

i think it's the same guy

He needs to update that pic. He looked nothing like that on the Late Late or at the Leviathan political caberet. I actually thought they were two different people. Maybe I'm hopelessly confused. Who was the guy on the Late Late with Fintan O'Toole?

I thought I knew the cousin of what I thought was the computer guy but it turns out he is the cousin of Ireland's nutiest wing nut. The cousin is a barrister and all round good guy with sane political views.

If fact the slightly more socially progressive DNC doesn't stand for gay rights either. Both parties openly support the Orwelian "Defense of Marriage Act" and the ban on gays in the military known as the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

(Do you mean the DNC or the DLC?)

I thought I knew the cousin of what I thought was the computer guy but it turns out he is the cousin of Ireland's nutiest wing nut.

Actually, he has stiff competition for that title in Tony Allwright (and you-know-who as well, I suppose). The latest 'wisdom' over at Tallrite is that Mary McAleese ought to do prison time for having had the verve to defend 1916. I wish I were kidding.

Can I get my discrimination with the sauce on the side?

In the bizarro-world we live in, a US government composed of a coalition of religious fundamentalists, whacko libertarians and big business tells the world that they're on a mission to bring liberal Western democracy to the world - and some liberals actually still believe this tall tale, five years in.

("nerve", even)

"Who was the guy on the Late Late with Fintan O'Toole?"

Mark Dooley.

Does Mark Dooley have a website? Do I really want to know?


EWI, the competition is indeed fierce. A blog awards might be the only way to distinguish the champion.

"a US government composed of a coalition of religious fundamentalists & whacko libertarians"?

Wrong! (Well you got the first half right)

For the record, there are no Libertarians in the U.S. government. We have the Democrats and the Republicans. (oh yea, there is one libertarian in congress, out of 535)

The U.S. Libertarian Party is completely opposed to all foreign intervention. It supports the removal of all troops from foreign soil.

We refer to the Republicans as the GOP: Grand Old Party & The Democrats as The DNC: the Democratic National Committee.

As for "getting my discrimination with the sauce on the side?" That's sarcasm, a form of humor wherein you agree with a unsavory position in order to expose its stupidity.

Hi Fiona,
I just discovered this post.

First, yes, I am the computer lecturer at DCU. I try to keep these sides of my life separate. Though sometimes students discover my blog and do want to talk about it. See recently: Discussion with a student.

Second, you have not seen me on the media because I have not appeared there (at least, not talking about politics), and do not plan ever to (yes I have been asked). I prefer to live on the Web. My blog is an outlet for things I want to say and things that annoy me. I feel better once I've written them. I do not have the time to take it any further. I have my own research projects.

Third, I greatly enjoy hearing negative, sneering, cynical lefties like "copernicus" and "EWI" describe me as a nutcase, wingnut, etc. Hard to explain how much I enjoy hearing people whose opinions I don't respect giving out about me. I regularly read pro-American, pro-West, sites saying they like me, and that's nice. But then I stumble across some moonbat site shocked by my very existence, spluttering that I am a nutjob, and funny enough I enjoy that even more. Please, copernicus and EWI, keep it up. You may not use reason and logic, but I enjoy your insults.

Fourth, on gay rights in America, I actually prefer the Dems to the Republicans. On keeping religion out of the laws, I prefer the Dems to the Republicans. On keeping "creationism" out of science class, I prefer the Dems to the Republicans. But that's all at home. Who's actually standing up to the gay-murderers, religious fascists and heretic-burners internationally? On that issue, the Republicans are clearly better.

In an ideal world, it would be the Dems who would be leading the war against the violent totalitarian religious fascism of Islamism. But it's not an ideal world, and the Dems are not serious about the War on Islamism. And the war matters more than anything else.

I did support Bush against Kerry, but that was because of the War on Islamism, and despite Bush's domestic policy, not because of it. I'm like the 23 percent of gays who voted for Bush. So no need to criticise the Republicans on gay rights at home. I agree with you.

Part two in a second.

Mark

Finally, Fiona, I may not fancy you precisely, but I am fascinated by people like you and David Norris and Richard Dawkins. You are members of minority X. Philosophy Y is the biggest persecutor, torturer and killer of X on earth. There is a hot war on against Y, and brave men and women are dying fighting it. And yet you oppose them, and all your criticism seems for them rather than for Y. I don't get it.

Is it displacement? Is it easier to hate those close to us trying to protect us rather than the stranger who wants to rape us, kill us and burn down our house? Why is it easier for the middle-class "anarchist" student living in his parents' 5 million euro house in Blackrock to hate the police who are protecting him rather than the violent criminals they are protecting him from?

So the Republicans don't want gay marriage. Well that's not nice, but the Islamists want to exterminate every gay on earth. Dawkins is the same. So the Republicans go on about God, and that's annoying. I agree. But the Islamists want to exterminate every atheist on earth. These guys are the genuine Nazis of our time. Don't you believe that? Or do you think somehow Islamism is "valid". Do you think religious fascism is bad in the West, but maybe ok for foreigners?

This, in short, is why I find people like you and Dawkins so hard to understand. To me, a War on Islamism is a no brainer. Everyone should support it, including all moderate Muslims (and indeed many do).

I'd prefer a coalition of gays, atheists, women and Jews fighting Islamism, since these are the four major groups it hates. But failing that, I'll take Republicans and anyone else who's willing, because I want to see Islamism destroyed. I want to see Islamism defeated. Don't you?

Mark Humphrys
http://markhumphrys.com/
http://markhumphrys.com/blog.html

For the record, there are no Libertarians in the U.S. government. We have the Democrats and the Republicans. (oh yea, there is one libertarian in congress, out of 535)

I'll amend what I said to "faux-Libertarians/corporate shills", which is more exact.

The U.S. Libertarian Party is completely opposed to all foreign intervention. It supports the removal of all troops from foreign soil.

Yes, I've heard of them/ye.

We refer to the Republicans as the GOP: Grand Old Party & The Democrats as The DNC: the Democratic National Committee.

I'm not too familiar with referring to the Democratic Party as the DNC. They pretty much refer to themselves as Dems/Democrats/the Democratic Party, and Republicans typically use myriad nasty little pejoratives.

As for "getting my discrimination with the sauce on the side?" That's sarcasm, a form of humor wherein you agree with a unsavory position in order to expose its stupidity.

I know. I was agreeing with what you said.

Third, I greatly enjoy hearing negative, sneering, cynical lefties like "copernicus" and "EWI" describe me as a nutcase, wingnut, etc. Hard to explain how much I enjoy hearing people whose opinions I don't respect giving out about me. I regularly read pro-American, pro-West, sites saying they like me, and that's nice. But then I stumble across some moonbat site shocked by my very existence, spluttering that I am a nutjob, and funny enough I enjoy that even more. Please, copernicus and EWI, keep it up. You may not use reason and logic, but I enjoy your insults.

Fine enough. We can continue abusing each other with pejorative labels into eternity so.

Fourth, on gay rights in America, I actually prefer the Dems to the Republicans. On keeping religion out of the laws, I prefer the Dems to the Republicans. On keeping "creationism" out of science class, I prefer the Dems to the Republicans. But that's all at home. Who's actually standing up to the gay-murderers, religious fascists and heretic-burners internationally? On that issue, the Republicans are clearly better.

Who was running the invasion of Iraq, which now has an Islamic , non-secular constitution? Who was running the invasion of Afghanistan, which now too has an Islamic, non-secular constitution? It sure as hell wasn't Ted Kennedy or Hilary Clinton.

In an ideal world, it would be the Dems who would be leading the war against the violent totalitarian religious fascism of Islamism. But it's not an ideal world, and the Dems are not serious about the War on Islamism. And the war matters more than anything else.

"Dems are not serious about the War on Islamism"

i) explain what you define as "Islamism". I do so hope it's not the LGF definition which can be summed up as "non-whites".

ii) show how anyone other than fringe figures on the left have been capitulating to religious extremism. I certainly haven't been doing any such thing. I live in Amsterdam in a now-Muslim quarter enough days in the year to be quite fully aware of the nature of the fundamentalist beast, thank you very much (as Northern Irish Catholics are undoubtedly, as well). My better half knew Theo van Gogh, and their young children both played together in the same park.

iii) with reference to the disasters which both Iraq and Afghanistan are still (and look likely to remain) from a secular, humanist POV (i.e. the one we both evidently share) please explain how Bush has achieved any significant progress against Islamic religious extremism. Iraq has gone from being a secular, Arab nationalist dictatorship to the brink of civil war along religious lines - a civil war which will produce even more hardened extremists. Al'Qaeda (and indeed the Taliban), meanwhile, may have lost the battle in Afghanisatan but aren't looking in desperate shape as regards the 'war'. Bush has achieved the opposite in allowing them to cast themselves as holy warriors against Western infidels in Iraq.

Jimmy Carter, when faced with the hostage crisis, sent in the US military. We cannot tell why they released those hostages when Reagan came in, but the later links between the Reagan administration and the Ayatollah's regime (Iran-Contra) are certainly suggestive. Bush and the other oil industrialists in the GOP were only too happy to cosy up to Saudi, to the bin Ladens, to the Taliban when it profited them financially. None of this should be in dispute.

I did support Bush against Kerry, but that was because of the War on Islamism, and despite Bush's domestic policy, not because of it. I'm like the 23 percent of gays who voted for Bush.

And quite unlike the 77 percent who didn't, presumably.

Is it displacement? Is it easier to hate those close to us trying to protect us rather than the stranger who wants to rape us, kill us and burn down our house? Why is it easier for the middle-class "anarchist" student living in his parents' 5 million euro house in Blackrock to hate the police who are protecting him rather than the violent criminals they are protecting him from?

Bzzzzzt! Multiple strawmen arguments, disallowed.

So the Republicans don't want gay marriage. Well that's not nice, but the Islamists want to exterminate every gay on earth. Dawkins is the same. So the Republicans go on about God, and that's annoying. I agree. But the Islamists want to exterminate every atheist on earth. These guys are the genuine Nazis of our time. Don't you believe that? Or do you think somehow Islamism is "valid". Do you think religious fascism is bad in the West, but maybe ok for foreigners?

I'd take a good long, hard look at those you consider to be your comrades in this so-called GWOT. The Christian fundamentalists, the corporate interests, the power-politics players and all the rest. Reliogiously-inspired thug vs. religiously-inspired thug is a game that the Enlightened secular west will always lose out in.

buggery - I have a lot I want to say about this and to be honest I think what Mark writes shows something that I find in a lot of people I describe as neocons, i.e. people who are essentially good and whose ultimate goals are essentially good but who go about achieving those goals in a mala fide, destructive and blowback-inspiring manner. I'll have time to write in response to all of this properly tomorrow but there's a big and, I insist, respectful conversation in this.

"Actually, he has stiff competition for that title [Ireland's nutiest wing nut] in Tony Allwright (and you-know-who as well, I suppose). The latest 'wisdom' over at Tallrite is that Mary McAleese ought to do prison time for having had the verve to defend 1916. I wish I were kidding."

Thanks for the compliment, EWI.

What I actually said about president McAleese was that her glorification of 1916 terror in a speech at UCC fulfilled the criteria set out in Tony Blair's new glorification-of-terror bill, for which the maximum penalty includes seven years in clink.

That's not quite the same as my saying she should be locked up.

I did however suggest that she's not looking healthy and may be losing her marbles after the strain of eight years in the job.