The Right Tries To Play “Cool” Again

7:13 pm EST August 23rd, 2007 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

This time it’s with Ben Stein and Creationism (aka Intelligent Design). Oh boy.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

16 Responses to “The Right Tries To Play “Cool” Again”

  1. RedBastardGod says:
    August 23, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    The movie’s going to suck and no one worth knowing is going to see it. Ben Stein is a washed up hack.

  2. OxyCon says:
    August 23, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    And in other “right wing pointy heads explode” news:
    =========================

    U.S. OK’d troop terror hunts in Pakistan

    AP IMPACT: U.S. Military Gave Troops OK to Enter Pakistan in ’04, and They May Still Have It

    SCOTT LINDLAW
    AP News

    Aug 23, 2007 17:14 EDT

    Newly uncovered “rules of engagement” show the U.S. military gave elite units broad authority more than three years ago to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance.

    The documents obtained by The Associated Press offer a detailed glimpse at what Army Rangers and other terrorist-hunting units were authorized to do earlier in the war on terror. And interviews with military officials suggest some of those same guidelines have remained in place, such as the right to “hot pursuit” across the border.

  3. Rheinhard says:
    August 23, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    Oliver, you skipped the best part. The genial, affable, and always honest Mr. Stein is affiliated with a production company that LIED about the name of the film, LIED about the intent of the film, and LIED about their bona fides in order to score interviews with PZ, Richard Dawkins and others. Go read the link, it’s amazing.

    Amusingly PZ notes he would have been happy to talk to them even if they’d been honest.

    f Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, “bring it on!” We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol’ wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

    I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

    One thing’s fer sure, I never ever ever ever never want to hear any of these ass clowns bemoaning the so-called “ambush journalism” of Michael Moore. At least when Moore calls up the head of Scumco, Inc. for an interview he’s up front about who he is.

  4. Rex Mundane says:
    August 23, 2007 at 11:36 pm

    Cue Dugger sarcastically howling about “OMGZORZ, Teh science is settled! Why are scientists co closedminded about new ideas?” because that has anydamnthing to do with the fact that ID is not, by any definition of the term, a scientific theory. Nothing testable, nothing predictable, nothing explicable (in as much as any ID-based explanation regresses to the requirement of defining something outside of the universe, which is impossible) and nothing at all like actual science.

  5. Rex Mundane says:
    August 23, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    Also noting in passing, this movie apparently demonizes Richard Dawkins. How can you not be in favor of it, O-dub?

  6. Oliver Willis says:
    August 23, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Because while I don’t like Dawkins, he at least bases his beliefs on actual science.

  7. Oliver Willis says:
    August 23, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Because while I don’t like Dawkins, he at least bases his beliefs on actual science.

  8. Repack Rider says:
    August 24, 2007 at 1:59 am

    What’s not to like about Dawkins?

    That he’s an atheist?

    Please.

  9. Oliver Willis says:
    August 24, 2007 at 2:12 am

    That’s not what I don’t like about him at all. He can be atheist until the cows come home.

  10. Megamoze says:
    August 24, 2007 at 3:31 am

    A bunch of rich, white conservatives playing the “victim card” again. Shocking. Only slightly more ludicrous is Ben Stein claiming to be a rebel in any way, shape, or form.

  11. mambochicken23 says:
    August 24, 2007 at 4:15 am

    I have a problem that’s surfaced at least a couple times thus far. This movie will undoubtedly be worth seeing, just for the ridiculous, unintentional comedy of it all. I would love to sit in a theater in Kansas and watch this with a bunch of scientifically-illiterate farmers, and point at the screen and laugh. But I don’t think I can, morally, do it… give up to $12 of my hard-earned cash to support a project like this?

    It’s just like the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I think that a trip to KY in order to spend a day in that museum might be the single greatest day of my life. But can I give my money to these people, even if I only intend on mocking them? Can I? Please, someone, anyone… give me a rationalization. I’m in desperate need.

  12. Rex Mundane says:
    August 24, 2007 at 10:49 am

    What’s not to like about Dawkins?

    If you haven’t noticed, O-Dub the wise seems incapable of even thinking about Dawkins without inventing reasons to hate him, selecting context-free quotes of his when he’s being more aggressively pithy than usual, typically when he’s introducing or reiterating his argument, and never, I note, when he’s actually making it, which makes it all the more apparent that our esteemed host has never actually read him. Case in point, the website for this criminally stupid movie opens with this quote:

    “If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.”
    - Richard Dawkins

    Suggesting that matters of faith should be approached with a modicum of empiricism and logic? Clearly Dawkins is a raving bigot of the worst kind.

  13. Duros62 says:
    August 24, 2007 at 11:05 am

    mambo, I think that mockery has a value. You can go, safe in the knowledge that, even though you are indirectly supporting such crap with your hard earned “sweat equity”, you are taking away from the experience something totally different from what they intend.

    We will await your report.

  14. Rex Mundane says:
    August 24, 2007 at 11:11 am

    give up to $12 of my hard-earned cash to support a project like this?

    You could just pay for a different movie ticket (say for whateverthehell J.J. Abrams is doing) and sneak into this one after, course that might just end up creating a different moral dillema, but a much more cost effective one.

  15. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 24, 2007 at 11:47 am

    Recommended viewing:

    There’s a little-known Tim Robbins movie from the early 90s called “Bob Roberts.” If you haven’t seen it, you should.

    Note: Look for the awesome performance by then-unknown young actor Jack Black.

  16. Rheinhard says:
    August 24, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    Rex – or you can do what I plan to, download it off BitTorrent. Even paying for a different flick it’s possible I might be seen or worse – photographed – going into the theater for this dreck. And that’s not something I can abide.

    Flock of Dodos, on the other hand… THAT I’ll buy!