Here's something to take your minds off all the depressing current event articles I have posted recently. It's a collection of great team goals from the 'Guardian' online's Joy of Six series:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jul/17/joy-of-six-great-team-goals
They are indeed cracking goals, with Brazil's fourth against Italy in the 1970 World Cup final being the best. However, there are some great ones missing. I'll get to my favourite Man Utd team goal in a moment, but first, to show I'm not biased, here is the greatest team goal I've ever witnessed live, and the greatest goal I've seen scored against Man Utd.
It's from the 2002/03 Champions League quarter final second leg at Old Trafford between Utd and Real Madrid. Real had torn Utd apart in the first leg in Madrid, winning 3-1 and playing some divine football against the side that later went on to win the Premiership that season. Utd went out despite winning the second leg 4-3, with the three coming from the Brazilian Ronaldo, giving perhaps his last ever great performance. He got all the headlines, but the star of the show was my favourite player of all time, Zinedine Zidane. He tormented Utd in the first leg and did it again in the second, and no goal exemplifies his puppeteering genius than Real's second that night.
The match highlights begin around 1'34", with the buildup to Real's second coming at 3'06". Notice how, in the first stage of the attack, Zidane effortlessly rides a challenge from Giggs before eventually making the killer pass for Carlos to square to Ronaldo. Exquisite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0QiX2KgiV8&feature=related
Neutrals everywhere mourned when Juventus knocked that Real Madrid team out in the semi finals. Here is another example of the stellar football they played that year. This comes from the group stage against AC Milan. The video begins about halfway through the full move, which is a shame, and also the quality isn't great, which is an even greater shame because the brilliance of the one-touch pass from Zidane is not immediately clear. Watch it again. Figo finds him on the left with a perfect cross-field pass from the right. As the ball is arriving, Carlos is bombing behind Zidane on the overlap. Without ever taking his eyes off the ball, Zizou finds him with an immaculate, perfectly weighted flick into his path. Carlos finds Raul, who was then in his prime, and he doesn't mess around. Fantasy football.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AyRmtT_cdE
As for Man United, well, there are a number of sensational team goals that could be chosen. Andy Cole's goal against Barcelona in 98/99 was, as Clyde Tyldsley said at the time, "out of this world". Mark Hughes' late equaliser against Oldham in the 1993/94 FA Cup semi final was memorable (more so because it featured a young Nicky Butt in the buildup). John O'Shea's dagger goal against Arsenal at Highbury in 04/05 was very special (as are all John O'Shea goals). But for the sheer number of passes, the quality of the final pass and the quality of the finish, it has to be Paul Scholes' goal against Panathanikos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnQad_ulgQ
Friday, 13 November 2009
More proof that meat production harms the planet
Here's an article from the Independent that says C02 emissions from the meat industry are even higher than previously thought:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
It's important to stress that it's not necessary to go completely meat-free, but rather to reduce meat consumption. I've never claimed, as some vegetarians do, that eating meat is wrong or evil. It is, however, very bad for the planet, and in some forms very bad for your health. Like all things that are bad for the planet it's not a case of No, Never, Nothing, just less. That must be the message of environmentalists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
It's important to stress that it's not necessary to go completely meat-free, but rather to reduce meat consumption. I've never claimed, as some vegetarians do, that eating meat is wrong or evil. It is, however, very bad for the planet, and in some forms very bad for your health. Like all things that are bad for the planet it's not a case of No, Never, Nothing, just less. That must be the message of environmentalists.
Harold Pinter's 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
Here is a link to one of the greatest, most important things I have ever read. In 2005 the great British playwright Harold Pinter won the Nobel prize for literature. I had never heard of him prior to this award, but after reading his acceptance speech he instantly became an idol. It is a beautiful and terrifying exposé of truth in both art and politics, specifically the truth as presented by the US government. Here is one of the most damning excerpts:
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
"I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'"
From the beginning of his career Pinter was a staunch opponent of both British and American foreign policy (in fact he would argue that there is no distinction). Sadly we will not be able to read further critiques. He died last year.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
"I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'"
From the beginning of his career Pinter was a staunch opponent of both British and American foreign policy (in fact he would argue that there is no distinction). Sadly we will not be able to read further critiques. He died last year.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
Thursday, 12 November 2009
FC Irlande - Matchday 10
Besace 0 - 3 FC Irlande
So four matches, three wins, one draw, 13 goals scored and two conceded. We're getting back on track. It was a must-win game against the worst team in the league, and after labouring in the first half with cold and stiff legs we showed our superior class and fitness. The midfield dominated, the defense left Chris a lonely spectator, and after barely doing anything in the first half, I opened the scoring in the second half with a header from new boy Francis' great corner. I put one on a plate for man of the match James not long after. Charles burst through from midfield and put one on a plate for me after Sigve had let it run through his legs (or completely missed the ball, depending on your vantage point). 3-0 in finished. A more benign opponent would have been a cadaver.
FC Irlande: Chris, Adrian, Christian (37th birthday!), Alec, James, David (Francis), Mark, Kieran (Iwan), Charles, Ross, Sigve
Goals: Ross (2), James
Man of the match: James - Ran up and down the wing all day, putting in tackles and getting on the scoresheet.
So four matches, three wins, one draw, 13 goals scored and two conceded. We're getting back on track. It was a must-win game against the worst team in the league, and after labouring in the first half with cold and stiff legs we showed our superior class and fitness. The midfield dominated, the defense left Chris a lonely spectator, and after barely doing anything in the first half, I opened the scoring in the second half with a header from new boy Francis' great corner. I put one on a plate for man of the match James not long after. Charles burst through from midfield and put one on a plate for me after Sigve had let it run through his legs (or completely missed the ball, depending on your vantage point). 3-0 in finished. A more benign opponent would have been a cadaver.
FC Irlande: Chris, Adrian, Christian (37th birthday!), Alec, James, David (Francis), Mark, Kieran (Iwan), Charles, Ross, Sigve
Goals: Ross (2), James
Man of the match: James - Ran up and down the wing all day, putting in tackles and getting on the scoresheet.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Gore Vidal
Here is a great article by one of my favourite columnists, Johann Hari. It's an interview in 'The Independent' with Gore Vidal, whom I have regretfully only learnt about in the last few months. I would say he's the wisest, most important voice in the US at the moment, and will be for as long as he can keep his engine running. Here's the link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gore-vidals-united-states-of-fury-1798601.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gore-vidals-united-states-of-fury-1798601.html
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Like banning your headscarf against a wall
There’s been a bit of a furour in Belgium in the last few weeks about Muslim students and the veil. Some schools and universities in Flanders have banned students from wearing it, and the Exécutif des Musulmans de Belgique (EMB) is not happy about it. They see it as a violation of their human rights, which is a phrase I always find amusing when it comes from someone who practices Islam.
What is great about a veil (or headscarf) ban in public institutions is that it will make Muslim women realise that not wearing it will make no difference to the way they are treated by members of the public. They certainly won’t get raped. The sight of hair is apparently too much of a turn on for men in Islamic countries, and the veil, along with the burqa and niqab, exist so that their sexual urges aren’t stirred in any way.
In Antwerp 300 students quit the local university in protest at the ban, though around half have since re-enrolled. I find the former fact quite incredible. If you want to go to a state-funded school or university where the veil is accepted or perhaps even compulsory you can choose any of the Islamic states on the list at the bottom of this page.
You’ll have to scroll down to page two, though, for this is the World Economic Forum’s annual gender gap survey. Iceland heads the list, followed by the other Scandinavian countries. While the top and bottom halves of the ranking are generally made up of developed and developing countries respectively, there are some surprising exceptions. Lesotho, for example, is in 10th place, while Mongolia comes in 22nd, far ahead of the USA in 31st (it might also grieve the Americans to know that they were beaten by Cuba).
What’s not surprising, however, are top and bottom ends of the list. Most of us would have predicted the Scandinavian countries at the top and the Islamic countries at the bottom. The highest placed Islamic country is Indonesia in 93rd, while the highest placed member of the Arab League is Kuwait in 105th. From there until last placed Yemen at 134th the list is almost exclusively Arab or Muslim, or both. Some notable exceptions are Guatemala in 111th and South Korea in 115th. Countries like Nigeria (108th), India (114th) and Benin (131st) are majority Muslim or have large Muslim populations, hence their inevitable presence in the latter half of the ranking.
The majority of Muslims in Belgium come from Morocco and Turkey, which are ranked 124th and 129th respectively. Turkey’s ranking is particularly worrying as they aspire to join the EU. In any case it’s incredible that Muslim women in Belgium are trying to replicate the behaviour and status of women in these two countries rather than follow the example of Belgian women, who have helped put Belgium in 33rd place.
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm
What is great about a veil (or headscarf) ban in public institutions is that it will make Muslim women realise that not wearing it will make no difference to the way they are treated by members of the public. They certainly won’t get raped. The sight of hair is apparently too much of a turn on for men in Islamic countries, and the veil, along with the burqa and niqab, exist so that their sexual urges aren’t stirred in any way.
In Antwerp 300 students quit the local university in protest at the ban, though around half have since re-enrolled. I find the former fact quite incredible. If you want to go to a state-funded school or university where the veil is accepted or perhaps even compulsory you can choose any of the Islamic states on the list at the bottom of this page.
You’ll have to scroll down to page two, though, for this is the World Economic Forum’s annual gender gap survey. Iceland heads the list, followed by the other Scandinavian countries. While the top and bottom halves of the ranking are generally made up of developed and developing countries respectively, there are some surprising exceptions. Lesotho, for example, is in 10th place, while Mongolia comes in 22nd, far ahead of the USA in 31st (it might also grieve the Americans to know that they were beaten by Cuba).
What’s not surprising, however, are top and bottom ends of the list. Most of us would have predicted the Scandinavian countries at the top and the Islamic countries at the bottom. The highest placed Islamic country is Indonesia in 93rd, while the highest placed member of the Arab League is Kuwait in 105th. From there until last placed Yemen at 134th the list is almost exclusively Arab or Muslim, or both. Some notable exceptions are Guatemala in 111th and South Korea in 115th. Countries like Nigeria (108th), India (114th) and Benin (131st) are majority Muslim or have large Muslim populations, hence their inevitable presence in the latter half of the ranking.
The majority of Muslims in Belgium come from Morocco and Turkey, which are ranked 124th and 129th respectively. Turkey’s ranking is particularly worrying as they aspire to join the EU. In any case it’s incredible that Muslim women in Belgium are trying to replicate the behaviour and status of women in these two countries rather than follow the example of Belgian women, who have helped put Belgium in 33rd place.
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm
FC Irlande - Matchday 9
FC Irlande 4 – 0 La Lorraine
As we pummeled La Lorraine with wave after wave of attacks towards the end of this match I almost, almost had a modicum of sympathy for last seasons’ runners-up. I admire La Lorraine for their footballing ability and their attitude. Nevertheless, we should have scored at least four more goals against the 9 opponents left on the pitch and sent an even more emphatic message to the rest of the league.
There was a good buzz in the dressing room and on the pitch during the warm up, and our very strong line-up battled well in the first half against a good side. They caused us some problems with their good passing and technique, and prior to our opening goal they had the best move of the match. They also forced several corners, but apart from that it was quite even. The goal came when Charles, fuelled by his endless supply of sultanas, drove forward and threaded a neat ball through to Sigve, who had found space thanks to my highly intelligent, Bergkamp-esque diversionary run. Through on goal, the big Norwegian fired high into the net with his left foot.
La Lorraine had already been forced into a change. As early as the second minute their right back went down injured and thus forced them to use their only sub. As against Jefke, their lack of numbers would be their undoing. Towards the end of the first half another player got injured, and so we went in at the break a goal up and a man up, and with three subs on the bench.
We took the initiative in the second half, and Sigve was quickly in the thick of it. Like a marauding sperm whale (a reference to his very white skin, not his abundant man juice) he beat a defender in the box and fired beyond the keeper to make it 2-0. We were flying.
His third was the pick of the bunch. We worked the ball brilliantly up field. Alvaro fed me from the left, I chested the ball into the path of Charles, and his shot rocketed off a defender. It would have been some goal, but our disappointment didn’t last long. We recycled the ball, David played in Sigve, and he forced a shot over the line. 3-0. In trying to block the shot one of their defenders collided with their goalie and had to go off. It was now 11 against 9.
Yann and I were replaced by Benoit and Mark, and the chances kept coming thick and fast. Alvaro missed a sitter, continuing his impressive record of never having scored for FC Irlande. Benoit and Charles also missed good chances, and even Cryans stormed into the sparsely defended box to try his luck. The fourth came from a Cryans free kick that was bizarrely kicked away by the hitherto impressive keeper. Four of us followed up the shot while La Lorraine stood watching. It fell to Sigve and he fired home for his and our fourth.
While it was easy going forward, La Lorraine didn’t give up in their search for a consolation. It took some stout defending from Alec and Adrian, as well as a superb close-range double save from Chris Jones to preserve only our second clean sheet of the season.
FC Irlande: Chris Jones, Adrian, Christian, Alec, James, David, Yann (Mark), Alvaro, Charles, Ross (Benoit), Sigve
Goals: Sigve (4)
Man of the match: There were many other impressive performances, but there was only going to be one winner. The Norwegian was back to his pillaging best. Pure Viking.
As we pummeled La Lorraine with wave after wave of attacks towards the end of this match I almost, almost had a modicum of sympathy for last seasons’ runners-up. I admire La Lorraine for their footballing ability and their attitude. Nevertheless, we should have scored at least four more goals against the 9 opponents left on the pitch and sent an even more emphatic message to the rest of the league.
There was a good buzz in the dressing room and on the pitch during the warm up, and our very strong line-up battled well in the first half against a good side. They caused us some problems with their good passing and technique, and prior to our opening goal they had the best move of the match. They also forced several corners, but apart from that it was quite even. The goal came when Charles, fuelled by his endless supply of sultanas, drove forward and threaded a neat ball through to Sigve, who had found space thanks to my highly intelligent, Bergkamp-esque diversionary run. Through on goal, the big Norwegian fired high into the net with his left foot.
La Lorraine had already been forced into a change. As early as the second minute their right back went down injured and thus forced them to use their only sub. As against Jefke, their lack of numbers would be their undoing. Towards the end of the first half another player got injured, and so we went in at the break a goal up and a man up, and with three subs on the bench.
We took the initiative in the second half, and Sigve was quickly in the thick of it. Like a marauding sperm whale (a reference to his very white skin, not his abundant man juice) he beat a defender in the box and fired beyond the keeper to make it 2-0. We were flying.
His third was the pick of the bunch. We worked the ball brilliantly up field. Alvaro fed me from the left, I chested the ball into the path of Charles, and his shot rocketed off a defender. It would have been some goal, but our disappointment didn’t last long. We recycled the ball, David played in Sigve, and he forced a shot over the line. 3-0. In trying to block the shot one of their defenders collided with their goalie and had to go off. It was now 11 against 9.
Yann and I were replaced by Benoit and Mark, and the chances kept coming thick and fast. Alvaro missed a sitter, continuing his impressive record of never having scored for FC Irlande. Benoit and Charles also missed good chances, and even Cryans stormed into the sparsely defended box to try his luck. The fourth came from a Cryans free kick that was bizarrely kicked away by the hitherto impressive keeper. Four of us followed up the shot while La Lorraine stood watching. It fell to Sigve and he fired home for his and our fourth.
While it was easy going forward, La Lorraine didn’t give up in their search for a consolation. It took some stout defending from Alec and Adrian, as well as a superb close-range double save from Chris Jones to preserve only our second clean sheet of the season.
FC Irlande: Chris Jones, Adrian, Christian, Alec, James, David, Yann (Mark), Alvaro, Charles, Ross (Benoit), Sigve
Goals: Sigve (4)
Man of the match: There were many other impressive performances, but there was only going to be one winner. The Norwegian was back to his pillaging best. Pure Viking.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
I will literally kill you...
Here's a good article sent to me by the footballing legend that is Michael Hough. It's from the Irish Independent newspaper:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/i-will-literally-explode-if-i-hear-you-use-that-word-again-1908934.html
The writer gives his opinion on many annoying words and misuses of words, with 'whatever' being the most critiqued. It's annoying, but nowhere near as annoying as the hideous misuse of the word 'literally'.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/i-will-literally-explode-if-i-hear-you-use-that-word-again-1908934.html
The writer gives his opinion on many annoying words and misuses of words, with 'whatever' being the most critiqued. It's annoying, but nowhere near as annoying as the hideous misuse of the word 'literally'.
FC Irlande - Matchday 8
Forestois 2 – 2 FC Irlande
If you’d given us this result with ten minutes to go we would have been very disappointed, but when the final whistle blew we were, for the most part, relieved that yet another dominant performance had brought at least some reward. We bossed this game, but almost threw it away in the dying moments. Only a late, late equaliser spared us from immense heartache.
We had a very strong line-up, with Yann, David and Charles providing the skill and metal in midfield, and our three big guns at the back (though not Adrian, who managed to get his ID card nicked while at Club You).
As early as the second minute we had them under the cosh. From a corner Fred had two shots blocked on the line. We looked strong, and our early promise bore fruit when I was fouled on the edge of the box and Axel, who had been bragging vociferously before the match about his ability from such positions, stroked home one of the jammiest free kicks you’ll ever see. To say he scuffed it is a generous description, but under the wall it went, off a defender’s foot and into the corner.
They were a strong side, but not particularly dangerous, except for their captain at one moment shortly after that goal. He held off a few challenges 30 yards from goal and let fly. It was a great effort that flew past Chris before he could move. 1-1.
In the second half we kept playing our patient football and really started causing them problems with the introduction of Alvaro, who might have started the match had he not forgotten his ID at home. Que boludo! He whipped in a great cross from the left, but Axel’s header was straight at the keeper. Shortly after this chance I had a couple of one on ones, but was let down both times by poor final touches. David had a great shot spectacularly saved by their keeper, and then hit the post with a looping effort.
A draw would have been immensely frustrating, but with just a few minutes left it looked like we were going to go home with nothing. I failed to control a pass near their box, and for one of the only times in the mach they managed to put together a decent move. Through on goal their striker hit a shot that Fred could only half block. The ball looped up and over Chris and into the net. 2-1.
With time running out we got a free kick on the edge of the box. Alvaro hit it straight into the wall, but collected the rebound and floated a cross in with his right foot. I got a faint touch on it and planted it in the far corner. We were out of jail.
FC Irlande: Chris, Fred, Christian, Alec, Yann, David, Benoit (James), Iwan (Alvaro), Charles, Ross, Axel (Kieran)
Goals: Axel, Ross
Man of the match David – Distributed well, broke up the play and was unlucky not to score.
If you’d given us this result with ten minutes to go we would have been very disappointed, but when the final whistle blew we were, for the most part, relieved that yet another dominant performance had brought at least some reward. We bossed this game, but almost threw it away in the dying moments. Only a late, late equaliser spared us from immense heartache.
We had a very strong line-up, with Yann, David and Charles providing the skill and metal in midfield, and our three big guns at the back (though not Adrian, who managed to get his ID card nicked while at Club You).
As early as the second minute we had them under the cosh. From a corner Fred had two shots blocked on the line. We looked strong, and our early promise bore fruit when I was fouled on the edge of the box and Axel, who had been bragging vociferously before the match about his ability from such positions, stroked home one of the jammiest free kicks you’ll ever see. To say he scuffed it is a generous description, but under the wall it went, off a defender’s foot and into the corner.
They were a strong side, but not particularly dangerous, except for their captain at one moment shortly after that goal. He held off a few challenges 30 yards from goal and let fly. It was a great effort that flew past Chris before he could move. 1-1.
In the second half we kept playing our patient football and really started causing them problems with the introduction of Alvaro, who might have started the match had he not forgotten his ID at home. Que boludo! He whipped in a great cross from the left, but Axel’s header was straight at the keeper. Shortly after this chance I had a couple of one on ones, but was let down both times by poor final touches. David had a great shot spectacularly saved by their keeper, and then hit the post with a looping effort.
A draw would have been immensely frustrating, but with just a few minutes left it looked like we were going to go home with nothing. I failed to control a pass near their box, and for one of the only times in the mach they managed to put together a decent move. Through on goal their striker hit a shot that Fred could only half block. The ball looped up and over Chris and into the net. 2-1.
With time running out we got a free kick on the edge of the box. Alvaro hit it straight into the wall, but collected the rebound and floated a cross in with his right foot. I got a faint touch on it and planted it in the far corner. We were out of jail.
FC Irlande: Chris, Fred, Christian, Alec, Yann, David, Benoit (James), Iwan (Alvaro), Charles, Ross, Axel (Kieran)
Goals: Axel, Ross
Man of the match David – Distributed well, broke up the play and was unlucky not to score.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Richard Dawkins vs. Bill O'Reilly
In the next few days and weeks I would like to start writing some entries about interesting articles and videos I've come across. I'll start with this "interview" between Professor Richard Dawkins and FOX news commentator Bill O'Reilly on his show 'The O'Reilly Factor', which aired on the 10th of October. Dawkins was on the show to promote his new book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. Here is the link:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4432,Bill-OReilly-vs-Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-,Fox-News
If you have never seen or heard of Bill O'Reilly you are in for a nasty shock. As this "interview" shows, he is one of the most belligerent and hypocritical ignoramuses in the US, a country where the ignorance barometre is higher than anywhere else. In critiquing this man it's hard to know where to start, but I'll begin by explaining why I put "interview" in quotes. The reason is simple: this is not an interview. This is, sadly, a typically one-way rant from O'Reilly in which the vast majority of the five minutes is taken up with his very loud soliloquies. Dawkins can hardly get a word in. O'Reilly shouts down his reasoned counter-arguments, then pretends to be gracious by giving him, "the last word", which lasts about ten seconds.
He's hypocritical and ignorant, but he's smart enough to have created a medium in which he can dominate the discussion and loudly diminish the opposition. It pains me to say it, but Dawkins made a mistake in agreeing to appear on such a forum. He would do much better to debate O'Reilly in a formal debate and for much longer than five minutes.
To the exchange itself, and again, I'm at pains to say that Dawkins did not do very well. The most crucial point they debated was why "creationism" should be taught in a science class. Dawkins did not say what I was screaming at the computer, which is that "creationism", "intelligent design" or any of those other nonsense ideas have absolutely no scientific merit. There is no science behind them - no experiments, no reports, no fact checking. Nothing. They can be talked about in an ethics class, a religion class or a debate class, but not in a science class. Dawkins did not make this point strongly enough.
"Until you guys can explain it [the creation of the universe], I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy." This is what O'Reilly says in the clip he showed from a previous interview, and the point he parrots again in the recent interview. Dawkins says very politely that this is an extraordinary piece of logic, and he's right. Science is very close to explaining the origin of the universe; there is plenty of evidence for it. But because it's incomplete, O'Reilly chooses to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence and defies all scientific beliefs.
Dawkins doesn't challenge the assumption that Jesus existed. People believe this because it was in the New Testament. That's not evidence. Jesus did not exist. If he did, he certainly didn't walk on water, or rise from the dead or fly bodily up to heaven. And his 33 years on Earth (of which only the first 12 and the last one are documented in the New Testament) were, in many ways, filled with examples we should not follow. He never married, nor had children. In fact, his attitude to women seems entirely sexist - what kind of modern leader would want a band of followers that contains no women? He is not the perfect example of human behaviour that O'Reilly claims he is. And I believe George W. Bush followed Jesus. He executed 165 prisoners as Governor of Texas and launched two wars as President. Just as Jesus would have wanted it.
Around 1'10" there is another gem from O'Reilly: "I'm a creationist. I believe in evolution, but I believe it was overseen by a higher power." Dawkins is a very polite Englishman, but he should have jumped in immediately and asked for an example of this. "Overseen"? How? When? And what on Earth does that mean? Did God suddenly throw all the fruit on the ground so our ape ancestors would have to walk on the ground to collect it? After 2.5 billion years did he suddenly lob a few fish out onto the land? It's an absolutely ridiculous belief. O'Reilly is one of these modern Christians who tries to fuse his fairy-tale beliefs with modern science. It actually makes him, and all the other people who do it, look more absurd than those lunatics who believe everything in the Bible is real. He says later in the clip that he doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, so presumably he doesn't believe in all the other fairy-tales of the Old Testament (e.g. the man in the whale, the flood, the ark, the talking snake, etc). Thus we can conclude: he believes in the central character of this book of fairy-tales (God), but not the actually fairy-tales that involve him. Or as I like to put it, he believes in Jack, but not the beanstalk. It's ridiculous.
Dawkins must challenge this moron to a full debate. Given a forum in which he cannot be interrupted every 10-15 seconds and in which he can ask his own questions, he would expose this man for the ignoramus and hypocrite that he is.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4432,Bill-OReilly-vs-Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-,Fox-News
If you have never seen or heard of Bill O'Reilly you are in for a nasty shock. As this "interview" shows, he is one of the most belligerent and hypocritical ignoramuses in the US, a country where the ignorance barometre is higher than anywhere else. In critiquing this man it's hard to know where to start, but I'll begin by explaining why I put "interview" in quotes. The reason is simple: this is not an interview. This is, sadly, a typically one-way rant from O'Reilly in which the vast majority of the five minutes is taken up with his very loud soliloquies. Dawkins can hardly get a word in. O'Reilly shouts down his reasoned counter-arguments, then pretends to be gracious by giving him, "the last word", which lasts about ten seconds.
He's hypocritical and ignorant, but he's smart enough to have created a medium in which he can dominate the discussion and loudly diminish the opposition. It pains me to say it, but Dawkins made a mistake in agreeing to appear on such a forum. He would do much better to debate O'Reilly in a formal debate and for much longer than five minutes.
To the exchange itself, and again, I'm at pains to say that Dawkins did not do very well. The most crucial point they debated was why "creationism" should be taught in a science class. Dawkins did not say what I was screaming at the computer, which is that "creationism", "intelligent design" or any of those other nonsense ideas have absolutely no scientific merit. There is no science behind them - no experiments, no reports, no fact checking. Nothing. They can be talked about in an ethics class, a religion class or a debate class, but not in a science class. Dawkins did not make this point strongly enough.
"Until you guys can explain it [the creation of the universe], I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy." This is what O'Reilly says in the clip he showed from a previous interview, and the point he parrots again in the recent interview. Dawkins says very politely that this is an extraordinary piece of logic, and he's right. Science is very close to explaining the origin of the universe; there is plenty of evidence for it. But because it's incomplete, O'Reilly chooses to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence and defies all scientific beliefs.
Dawkins doesn't challenge the assumption that Jesus existed. People believe this because it was in the New Testament. That's not evidence. Jesus did not exist. If he did, he certainly didn't walk on water, or rise from the dead or fly bodily up to heaven. And his 33 years on Earth (of which only the first 12 and the last one are documented in the New Testament) were, in many ways, filled with examples we should not follow. He never married, nor had children. In fact, his attitude to women seems entirely sexist - what kind of modern leader would want a band of followers that contains no women? He is not the perfect example of human behaviour that O'Reilly claims he is. And I believe George W. Bush followed Jesus. He executed 165 prisoners as Governor of Texas and launched two wars as President. Just as Jesus would have wanted it.
Around 1'10" there is another gem from O'Reilly: "I'm a creationist. I believe in evolution, but I believe it was overseen by a higher power." Dawkins is a very polite Englishman, but he should have jumped in immediately and asked for an example of this. "Overseen"? How? When? And what on Earth does that mean? Did God suddenly throw all the fruit on the ground so our ape ancestors would have to walk on the ground to collect it? After 2.5 billion years did he suddenly lob a few fish out onto the land? It's an absolutely ridiculous belief. O'Reilly is one of these modern Christians who tries to fuse his fairy-tale beliefs with modern science. It actually makes him, and all the other people who do it, look more absurd than those lunatics who believe everything in the Bible is real. He says later in the clip that he doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, so presumably he doesn't believe in all the other fairy-tales of the Old Testament (e.g. the man in the whale, the flood, the ark, the talking snake, etc). Thus we can conclude: he believes in the central character of this book of fairy-tales (God), but not the actually fairy-tales that involve him. Or as I like to put it, he believes in Jack, but not the beanstalk. It's ridiculous.
Dawkins must challenge this moron to a full debate. Given a forum in which he cannot be interrupted every 10-15 seconds and in which he can ask his own questions, he would expose this man for the ignoramus and hypocrite that he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)