Smear Journalism and Reparations

A remote ancestor of Richard Dawkins once made a lot of money and owned a bunch of slaves, which apparently means that he is evil. Prof. Dawkins says that the wealth of his ancestors has been almost completely squandered, and that his money was earned during his own lifetime by his own endeavors. This didn’t stop the Torygraph from finding someone to demand that Dawkins make reparations for the moral misdeeds of his ancestors.

The silver lining is that now we know that this sort of idiocy is not reserved to this side of the Pond.

Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering litigator. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Recovering Former Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

7 Comments

  1. Is *that* why he’s evil? I thought it was because of the whole atheist thing.

    I seriously need to start googling things more often.

  2. I’m glad you agree that being funded by an oil company is not a reason to discount research showing problems with climate modeling.

    • It’s hard to tell if this comment is sarcastic or not. In sincerity, I do agree with that proposition. The data, methodology, and reasoning of scientific research stands, or falls, on its intellectual merits.

      • It’s hard to tell if this comment is sarcastic or not.

        That’s what I like about that guy.

    • And I’m glad that you’re willing to take into account research done by a former flunkie of Gingrich… that shows that -all- anti-AGW paper have been funded by oil companies.

      Scientists ain’t that organized, kid.

      Yawn. But if you were capable of writing a model yourself, we could actually have a discussion on the merits, instead of the conspiracies.

      Until then… there’s always Burger Joint.

        • not what I’m talking about.
          Will, there’s papers out there disputing gravity.
          There’s papers out there disputing evolution.

          There are NOT papers out there disputing the Big Bang, because there’s too much evidence for that idea to be at ALL credible. (which is NOT to imply that some people don’t still hate the Big Bang… Respected scientists too).

          If you’ve got a good argument, you get published. It may be harder to find funding…

          And If you think I don’t know what Bush did to our civil service, you’re talking to the wrong person. NOAA had a revolt on their hands in Florida…

Comments are closed.