The Live8 Follies (or, You Couldn't Make It Up!)
I have been trying to think of a collective noun for a large number of idiots. A 'vacuum' of idiots? A 'herd' of idiots? A 'flock' of idiots? (Addendum: My very good friend Hazel has won the top prize for the best suggestion of a collective noun for idiots - 'a thicket'. Terrific!) Suggestions welcome and they can all be applied to the 200,000 or so dim-wits who thought (well, actually none of them could think their way out of a paper bag) that following that thick 'Mick' into Hyde Park, and holding hands, and waving their arms in the sky like so many evangelists, they were going to do anything other than worsen the plight of the African poor. We all do foolish things from time to time, but it takes the monumentally stupid to do the same dumb thing twice over! The thick 'Mick' had them dancing, or rather, running, to his ridiculous tune twenty years ago. I said then that it would not make a damn's worth of difference except to Mengistou's retirement fund. I believe that particular murderous gangster is now a resident of Zimbabwe, where I suppose he feels right at home. I wonder what his residency cost in back-handers to various members of the Zimbabwean government? Not that it matters, you suckers paid for it! And now you want to do it all again but twice as big. Poor Africa!
Next week, of course, all that 'peace and love' rubbish will go straight out the window as the hard-eyed zealots of the SWP/Respect Tendency whip up some really nasty punch-ups. Well, at least for me, that will make better viewing than watching and listening to those hopeless squealers and squarkers parade their non-existent talents whilst letting drop a few crocodile tears as their agents and publicists counted the money.
Turkey Comes Home to Roost!
I am obliged again to Britain's best newspaper by far, The Business, for a timely warning on events in Turkey. They point out that Franco-German opposition to their entry into the EU is causing widespread resentment. Blair is attempting to overcome this opposition but will fail. The veneer of western European mores is fairly thin in Turkey. They tried hard to match the requirements laid down by Brussels, and a rejection at this stage is likely have repurcussions. Either they will turn to extreme Islamist parties, or the army will take a hand once again and may choose to re-forge strong links to America. If even Turkey, with its partial efforts towards democracy, turns it back on the whole idea, what chances of spreading democracy to the rest of the middle-east? Watch this space!
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Alive and Well in Bristol.
For me, the best playwright of the 20th century is Tom Stoppard. Indeed, I would vote Arcadia the greatest play of the 20th century, and I would go further still, and vote Travesties the second best play, so there! (Don't tell the 'sainted' Norm, he'll have a top ten vote going before you can say 'Australia are going to win the ashes'.) Of course, I am a bit biased because I had the privilege of directing both of those plays. I have only seen one professional performance of Travesties, in which Anthony Sher suffered a very rare failure. The character of Henry Carr is based on a true-life English officer, gentleman, public school man and minor British diplomat. Anthony Sher, alas, looked like the nice little Jewish boy he is, and was thus totally unconvincing.
I have lost count of the number of times I have seen Arcadia. From the first time I saw it, I fell helplessly in love with Thomasina, and admired deeply her witty, erudite tutor, Septimus Hodge. When their awful and tragic ending slowly dawned on me toward the end of the play, I very nearly wept! The last time I saw a performance was at the Bristol Old Vic last year, and I could have taken the director outside and cheerfully shot her. It was almost as though she had decided that the poor old audience couldn't possibly take in all of Stoppard's dazzling myriad of ideas, so she had told the actors to just belt it out at high speed. Idiot!
Anyway, next Tuesday I am going to see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I am both ashamed and surprised to say that I have never seen this play which was, of course, the one that made Stoppard's name and fame. I am going once again to the Bristol Old Vic, and this time, I hope they take their time! Late Review: Saw it last night and it is terrific. The text, of course, is absolutely brilliant, but so are the company, each and every one of them, but in particular, James Faulkner (who has a startling similarity to Billy Connelly) as the Player. After this week in Bristol it goes to Richmond and then Cambridge. Don't miss it!
The Late, Great David Stove.
Larry and his henchmen have been beating me up, or trying to, over the subject of Darwinism. I won't rehearse the arguments here, suffice to say that you would probably get a calmer, more reasoned response from your local imam if you suggested that Allah was a figment of his imagination, than you would from a Darwinist if you even hint that his theory is not total, whole and complete, let alone if you point out that there are some huge, gaping holes in it! It hardly needs to be said that I am not an original thinker. I get all my ideas from books. My only part in the exercise is to try and discriminate between the various ideas on offer. One set of ideas that are very powerful because of the remorseless logic behind them, come from the late David Stove. In boxing terms, Stove must count as one of the greatest counter-punchers in the history of philosophy. Sometimes I find myself cheering him on, as in the case of Darwinism which has recently become virtually a religion with its adherents; at other times I wince as he lands blow after blow on one of my favourite 'fighters', Karl Popper. Whatever your particular bias, and we all have them, try a dose of David Stove as an antidote - he's nasty but good for you! His books are not easy to buy but you can try the excellent abebooks.com for a second-hand copy, or Amazon are still selling Roger Kimball's anthology of Stove's work, Against the Idols of the Age. Any philosopher who can write an essay 'proving' that men are more intelligent than women has to be worth a read!
David, you accuse me of not responding in a "calm and reasoned way" to you "pointing out" that there are "some huge gaping holes" in Darwinian theory. I admit that I did find arguing with you pretty frustrating.
But if the gloves came off, it was because I found myself infuriated by someone, who clearly didn't have the first idea what he was talking about, showing outright contempt for the work of professional scientists.
I tried to point out that the "gaping holes" you professed to see were in fact a mirage created by your fundamental misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory does and doesn't say, and I attempted (in a mostly calm and reasoned way) to explain your mistakes to you.
Your response was to stick your fingers in your ears ("la la la I'm not listening") and stand by the position you first thought of, even after it had been thoroughly and painstakingly shot to pieces fifteen times over. Your attempts to back-up your own misunderstanding of evolution by directly quoting Darwin at length were particularly disastrous (not that you noticed).
Even now I bet you still believe all that drivel about the primary evolutionary drive being the fight for food between conspecifics in a population too large for the available food supply. ("But Darwin says so!" No David he doesn't, and even if he did, he would be wrong.)
I've never heard of David Stove, but if the remorseless logic of his writing involves misinterpreting a variety of major scientific theories so as to turn them into obvious nonsense, and then crowing about how a variety of major scientific theories are in fact obvious nonsense, then why should I read him, when I can argue with you who have mastered this skill so well?
Other things that occur to me are that (i) using racist slang like "Mick" tends to undermine any political point you might be making, and (ii) I've seen "Rosencrantz and Guilenstern are Dead" on stage twice, and enjoyed it thoroughly both times. I agree with you that Stoppard is one hell of a playwrite, though probably on almost nothing else.
Posted by: Larry | Tuesday, 05 July 2005 at 17:52
Two more things (and then I promise I'll leave you in peace):
(iii) I find your cries of "poor Africa" in fairly poor taste since as a realpolitiker you'd happily let them starve if it would make you a penny richer to do so; and (iv) I have a suggestion for a communal noun: a 'Behe' of IDiots.
Posted by: Larry | Tuesday, 05 July 2005 at 18:44
Sorry to clog up your comments section.
But I was just searching Amazon for this David Stove character, and found some reviews of his book which put your objections to the theory of evolutionary in some context:
"...The book reaches its low point in the third section, his criticism of Darwinism. As he strays further from the field of philosophy, Stove finds himself on unfamiliar ground, and often relies on the same techniques he was sharply critical of in earlier essays. The misstatements he makes, both errors of fact and errors of logic, are numerous and diverse. For instance, in the first sentence of the first essay of the section he makes both kinds of error by saying: `If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive...' On the contrary, nothing in Darwin's theory precludes cooperation (Robert Axelrod has written a couple of excellent books on the subject) - in fact, it has been shown to be one of the most successful evolutionary strategies..."
"...consider Stove's essays on Darwinism. A basic tenet of Darwin's theory starts from the fact that when living beings reproduce they do more than replace their parents. Anyone who has ever owned a dog or a cat know that litters have more than two children. Human beings do not stop having sex once they have produced two children. Insects can have thousands, possibly millions of offspring. Now if these rates of reproduction were maintained, the world would be overwhelmed not merely with humans, but with roses, eucalyptus trees, octopi, emperor penguins and panda bears. Obviously, this has not happened. There is in fact, a great struggle for existence, and it is this struggle which sets the stage for natural selection. What Stove does, however, is to *amend* Darwin's theory to say that Darwinism stands for the proposition that everywhere and always populations are filled to the bursting point and that populations seek to reproduce as many of themselves as conceivably possible. Having *misstated* the theory, Stove easily shows that it is wrong, since often people are celibate, they rarely engage in incest, pets are often neutered (though this is done to prevent them from breeding out of control) and population numbers are often kept low by predation. But Stove has not refuted Darwinism, he has simply engaged in polemical slight of hand."
Well at least I know now where you get it from...
Ok that really was the last one, I'll go away now.
Posted by: Larry | Tuesday, 05 July 2005 at 23:17
Larry 'fights the good fight' - again! I won't rehearse the debate *we* enjoyed (I'm not sure about anyone else!) but you can read it for yourself at:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12672718&postID=111971312011555082
If you're not sleeping well, that lot will send you off in no time. But, if you want a lively read on the subject I cannot recommend David Stove's book "Darwinian Fairytales" highly enough. Pay no regard to the amateur reviews mentioned by Larry above, they're obviously hurt and bewildered neo-Darwinists who've just experienced the equivalent of a church-goer hearing some-one say bollocks to the bishop!
Larry then goes on .. and on .. and on .. (Just joking, I enjoy our bouts enormously and you're always welcome here, Larry). However, I do get fed up with these youngsters dissolving into tears if you use old-fashioned terms about other nationalities. Irishmen have been 'Micks' for as long as 'Taffies' have been Welsh, and Americans have been 'Yanks' (you never hear Lefties complaining about that one, do you!), and us Brits have been 'Limeys'. Nobody minds, so brace up, Larry, and stop snivelling!
As to Africa and real-politik (see entry below), it's a bit rich Larry complaining thst I have completely mis-understood Darwin (even though I quote his own words!) when he then goes on to distort *my* own words. I talked of our national interest which does *not* necessarily mean us getting richer. I specifically gave the example of 16th c. Spain which indulged in mass murder to gain gold and which did them absolutely no good whatsoever. I also pointed out, several times I think, that *our national interest was free trade* which makes us richer *and also the Africans*.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 06 July 2005 at 08:03