Peter Slen Gannons Author

Author of book on language and culture is asked by Peter Slen "Doesn't Noam Chomsky write about this, too?"  The author instantly goes into a canned tirade saying he has claims proved Chomsky wrong, and that he has claims language comes from "millions of years" of culture.  I can tell he's wrong, or, at least, deceptive, because humans and modern language have existed for roughly 150-200 thousands of years.  It emerged rather quickly, during or around the last inter-glacial.

Inciting Murder on C-SPAN's BookTV

W.E.B. Griffin supports killing 7 Mulsims to save 1 American (Someone asks "What about American Muslims?")
He supports torture.
He jokes about killing 240 million Muslims.
He says the guy who filmed the Marine shooting the wounded guy should be shot, that he would "approve" of any accidents.
I do not believe it is rational for C-SPAN to have people inciting murder on their network, but that's what is happening.

Presidential Hagiography

Just one note.  The two gentlemen make repeated references to Presidents who seek mother's approval, and are distant from their fathers, or have absent fathers.  They suggest that by dropping their father's name (John Calvin Coolidge, Stephen Grover Cleveland, and one more) is a sign of this humility.  They contradict themselves when discussing George Walker Bush, whom they both admire.  Didn't anyone notice that by calling himself "G.W" (which George Walker Bush has asked people to do, including the author) he is consciously drawing parallels between himself and George Washington?  What insipid minds.  They manage to get out some lame Clinton cracks, too.

To show you just how biased this pair was, the interviewee said that the best Presidential parents in history were George and Barbara Bush.  They happen to be parents of the current President.

Sam Harris, Author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Discusses belief in the mundane sense, things we believe (when a television show might start, whether or not your home is on fire).

Asserts it is taboo to criticize faith in certain ways.  And that the taboo is getting people killed.  Worried that religion is incompatible with civilization.  Notes the circumstance of side-by-side fundamentalist religious States with nuclear-tipped arms.

States some people really believe that the author of hte universe has authored some book or other, and that there are things like this worth dying for.  Says that the concessions made by moderates are making things impossible.

Says he believes in ethics and principles.  Says there is nothing a person need to believe, without sufficient evidence, to keep people moral, building wonderful buildings, following rituals.

Nptes that if someone claimed Tennessee was on the west coast of the United States, that view wouldn't need respect.  That there is no obligation to hire this person.

Beliefs are contagious if backed by reason... except faith.

His argument tends to rely on the argument "sufficient evidence."

Side note: Harris is speaking to a packed synagogue, with hundreds of people.  The last BookTV Author spoke to a dozen or so.

Asserts, as I have done, that if a person really beleives the only way to the father is through the son, then it makes it impossible to respect people of other faiths (or heretics).  If I am eternally damned, what respect do I hold before them?

Aquinas thought heretics should be killed. Augustine thought they should be tortured. That we don't do this anymore is the result of secularism.  His argument is weak here, since it diverts from the main thrust, a discussion of religion, and instead goes to thanking science.

Says this is currently the system in Islam, where any critique of the Koran is technically haram (verboten).

22% of Americans are certain Jesus will come back in the next 50 years, 22% believe it is probably so. A similar 44% believe in Creation. 62% want Creationism in schools, 44% only want Creationism.  A 44% of people believe that God gave Israel to the Jews.

The same 44%, he argues, would see a nuked Israel or NYC as a sign that Jesus is coming soon, and so be, in some ways, a good thing.

The 50 years left theory is "perfectly hostile" to any sort of sustainable future. 

But his Islam bashing is a bit more extreme.  No wonder he is so "popular."

People are dying for an imaginary god.  The conflict in Palestine is always discussed as a conflict over land, when, he asserts, were it not for religion, there would be no conflict over land.

What are the alternatives? He says there need be no alteratives, that we can simply relinquish the beliefs, as we did with Santa Claus.

Questions and Answers:
Rabbi Rachlis, Host: What should liberal religionists do to help overcome this ignorance.  Specifically for those who believe God might be a metaphor for something that draws people to be good.
Answer: A new intolerance of religion in conversation.
Pastor Steve Swope, Irvine United Congregational: How to get in a dialog with non-fundamentalist Christians? Won't you get shut down in conversation?
Answer: It's an all or nothing game. Says it is a "War with Islam" Says it is a "War with Islam" He +believes+ there is a huge role for people like Pastor Swope, since he is not politic in his discussion.  His faith in religious liberals (whom he calls religious moderates) is misplaced.
Question: Why is Europe secularizing while America is becoming more religious?
Answer: This hasn't change much in many decades in America.  Says "marketplace of religions" helps, while in Sweden there was a State-controlled, stultifying system.  He isn't confident in this.
Question: What is the role of the Bible in the life of a secular humanist?
Answer: Literature.
Question: Is there a future for spirituality based community groups? What about Eastern philosophy and violence? What about the secular killers?
Answer: Stalin and Hitler were not terribly rational, but dogmatic. Religion is dogmatic. Notes Kamikazes.
Question: What would you say to the President about the situation in the Middle East?
Answer: Says it is an issue between Islam and the West, Islam and the Jews, and we must repudiate the theological claims of the settlers.  We must win the "war of ideas" with Islam.  We need allies, because we are irrational.
Question: Is there something good in getting religious moderates of different religions to seek the good in their collective religions?
Answer: Likes it, but also says it isn't enough.
Question: What is your background? What brought you to the topic?
Answer: Started writing book on Sept 12th. Now looking for neuroloscience answers to mundane questions.  That's sad.
Question: What about pre-9/11? What was your religion?
Answer: Mother gave me a choice, didn't want to go to Sunday School, so didn't get a Bar Mitzvah.  Interested in meditiation and buddhism.  Been a dogmatic Buddhist and Hindu.  Oh geesh, he lends some credence to psychic phenonmena.

BookTV: Thomas Woods "A Politically Incorrect History of the United States", Regnery

How Regnery gets its right wing trash... "We'd like you to write a book, and we'd like the title to be 'A Politically Incorrect History of the United States'"  That's what the VRWC is all about.

Thomas Woods, a history professor and "scholar," attempting to explain how difficult his Professor's job is, says it is "like slave labor."  Of course, its a common phrase, but as a someone who is holding themselves out as an expert on early American history (his book begins with the Colonial history, it is particularly offensive.

He holds himself out as the true inheritor of the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.  It's a typical Libertarian ploy, similar to the way the Clergy holds itself out as the true inheritors of the philosophy of Jesus the Nazarene.

The discussion of the Alien and Sedition Acts seems entirely mundane, minutes go by without anything resembling non-establishment history.  He discusses Jefferson's support for secession, and nullification.  He extends it to say, ludicrously, that Jefferson believed that without nullification the States would dissapear.  Goes on to recite the standard "died on the 50th anniversary" story.  I have rethought my position on nullification, his position is primitive.

He reveals this thesis, in passing, but I missed the phrasing... something about a "theme."

He compares the debate on whether or not slaves should be allowed in New Mexico territory to a debate on whether slaves should be allowed on Mars.  He supports this by saying that there were only a handful of slaves in one southwestern State.  His reminders that tariffs, free land, and other economic efforts also figured into the slave debate.

He makes a good case that "Civil War" is an unsatisfactory name.  There weren't, he fairly argues, two sides competing for control of one country.  The War of Southern Secession.

He cites someone else's research to talk about price declines in Monopolist's prices falling during the 1870-1910 period.  He neglects to mention three depressions in that period.

He blames WWII on Wilson getting involved in WWI.  Blaming him for the Treaty of Versailles.  He cites someone else who blames Wilson for Stalin, Hitler, et cetera.

Of course he cites the idea that FDR extended the depression, rather than helping.  Again, he ignores the four massive depressions in the seventy years before 1928, and the zero depressions since then.

He says war doesn't create wealth, because so much is destroyed, and he misses an important aspect here, which I shall leave unspoken.

Question from a High School Senior: Notes that he has a teacher whom he presents as exceedingly inept. 
Answer presented in a very discombobulated way.  I guess Woods has very little hope for a good question. 
Question: Same high school kid.
Question: Confused questioner.