LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  March 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE March 2003

Subject:

Bin Laden's victory

From:

Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:04:48 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (132 lines)

Bin Laden's victory

A political system that delivers this disastrous mistake needs reform

Richard Dawkins
Saturday March 22, 2003
The Guardian

Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A
mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy
unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been
squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the
infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap.

There was always a risk for Bin Laden that worldwide sympathy for the US might
thwart his long-term aim of holy war against the Great Satan. He needn't have
worried. With the Bush junta at the helm, a camel could have foreseen the
outcome. And the beauty is that it doesn't matter what happens in the war.

Imagine how it looks from Bin Laden's warped point of view...

If the American victory is swift, Bush will have done our work for us, removing
the hated Saddam and opening the way for a decent Islamist government. Even
better, in 2004 Bush may actually win an election. Who can guess what that
swaggering, strutting little pouter-pigeon will then get up to, and what
resentments he will arouse, when he finally has something to swagger about? We
shall have so many martyrs volunteering, we shall run out of targets. And a
slow and bloody American victory would be better still.

The claim that this war is about weapons of mass destruction is either
dishonest or betrays a lack of foresight verging on negligence. If war is so
vitally necessary now, was it not at least worth mentioning in the election
campaigns of 2000 and 2001? Why didn't Bush and Blair mention the war to their
respective electorates? The only major leader who has an electoral mandate for
his war policy is Gerhard Schröder - and he is against it. Why did Bush, with
Blair trotting faithfully to heel, suddenly start threatening to invade Iraq
when he did, and not before? The answer is embarrassingly simple, and they
don't even seem ashamed of it. Illogical, even childish, though it is,
everything changed on September 11 2001.

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's
savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his
war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush
himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure
racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible
case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the
World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists
were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're
gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.

Bush seems sincerely to see the world as a battleground between Good and Evil,
St Michael's angels against the forces of Lucifer. We're gonna smoke out the
Amalekites, send a posse after the Midianites, smite them all and let God deal
with their souls. Minds doped up on this kind of cod theology have a hard time
distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Some of Bush's
faithful supporters even welcome war as the necessary prelude to the final
showdown between Good and Evil: Armageddon followed by the Rapture. We must
presume, or at least hope, that Bush himself is not quite of that bonkers
persuasion. But he really does seem to believe he is wrestling, on God's
behalf, against some sort of spirit of Evil. Tony Blair is, of course, far more
intelligent and able than Bush. But his unshakable conviction that he is right
and almost everybody else wrong does have a certain theological feel. He was
indignant at Paxman's wickedly funny suggestion that he and Dubya pray
together, but does he also believe in Evil?

Like sin and like terror (Bush's favourite target before the Iraq distraction)
Evil is not an entity, not a spirit, not a force to be opposed and subdued.
Evil is a miscellaneous collection of nasty things that nasty people do. There
are nasty people in every country, stupid people, insane people, people who
should never be allowed to get anywhere near power. Just killing nasty people
doesn't help: they will be replaced. We must try to tailor our institutions,
our constitutions, our electoral systems, so as to minimise the chance that
such people will rise to the top. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we in the west
must bear some guilt. The US, Britain and France have all, from time to time,
done our bit to shore up Saddam, and even arm him. And we democracies might
look to our own vaunted institutions. Are they well designed to ensure that we
don't make disastrous mistakes when we choose our own leaders? Isn't it,
indeed, just such a mistake that has led us to this terrible pass?

The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best
educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost
any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US
leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources,
and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest
quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party
caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of
non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300
million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush.

My American friends, you know I love your country, how have we come to this?
Yes, yes, Bush isn't quite as stupid as he sounds, and heaven knows he can't be
as stupid as he looks. I know most of you didn't vote for him anyway, but that
is my point. Forgive my presumption, but could it just be that there is
something a teeny bit wrong with that famous constitution of yours? Of course
this particular election was unusual in being a dead heat. Elections don't
usually need a tie-breaker, something equivalent to the toss of a coin. Al
Gore's majority in the country, reinforcing his majority in the electoral
college but for dead-heated Florida, would have led a just and unbiased supreme
court to award him the tie-breaker. So yes, Bush came to power by a kind of
coup d'état. But it was a constitutional coup d'état. The system has been
asking for trouble for years.

Is it really a good idea that a single person's vote, buried deep within the
margin of error for a whole state, can by itself swing a full 25 votes in the
electoral college, one way or the other? And is it really sensible that money
should translate itself so directly and proportionately into electoral success,
so that a winning candidate must either be very rich or prepared to sell
favours to those who are?

When a company seeks a new chief executive officer, or a university a new
vice-chancellor, enormous trouble is taken to find the best person.
Professional headhunting firms are engaged, written references are taken up,
exhaustive rounds of interviews are conducted, psychological aptitude tests are
administered, confidential positive vetting undertaken. Mistakes are still
made, but it is not for want of strenuous efforts to avoid them. Maybe such
methods would be undemocratic for choosing the most powerful person on earth,
but just think about it. Would you do business with a company that devoted an
entire year to little else than the process of choosing its new CEO, from the
strongest field in the world, and ended up with Bush?

Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat
outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the
world. And a dream for Bin Laden.

ˇ Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor at Oxford University.
His latest book is A Devil's Chaplain (Weidenfeld & Nicholson).

[log in to unmask]


http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,919618,00.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager