Derbyshire At NRO Supports Ron Paul

Brainster

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
21,973
This should cause at least some moderates and liberals to gulp a bit.

Jonah: I have pretty much decided for Ron Paul myself. I am sympathetic to many of the reservations you have posted, but every piece of serious policy analysis I read confirms to me that our country has gone too far down a wrong path—a path that leads to nothing I recognize as conservatism.

Derbyshire's definitely an original. For example, on his disdain for Political Correctness:

I am not very careful about what I say, having grown up in the era before Political Correctness, and never having internalized the necessary restraints. I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going.

Derbyshire is the one writer at NRO whom you can never predict his position on an issue. He scorns Richard Dawkins, but thinks Intelligent Design is a crock.

He's every bit as complex and downright weird as Ron Paul himself. He's easily as controversial among conservatives as Ann Coulter, although obviously much less well-known.
 
I don't know why you think Paul is confusing unless you understand
the Non-American POV about the world as well - but I don't even have
an Idea who this Derbyshire or the NRO is...

Does it matter -or in other words: What is the NRO???
 
I don't know why you think Paul is confusing unless you understand
the Non-American POV about the world as well - but I don't even have
an Idea who this Derbyshire or the NRO is...

Does it matter -or in other words: What is the NRO???

NRO=National Review Online. The National Review is probably the most influential magazine among conservatives and Republicans in the United States. It was founded in the 1950s by William F. Buckley, and its online version is widely cited among conservative bloggers. Derbyshire's been a columnist over there for several years and his endorsement is certainly worth something, although the magazine itself has endorsed Mitt Romney.

As I pointed out in the OP, Derbyshire himself is a very unique and controversial individual.
 
NRO=National Review Online. The National Review is probably the most influential magazine among conservatives and Republicans in the United States. It was founded in the 1950s by William F. Buckley, and its online version is widely cited among conservative bloggers. Derbyshire's been a columnist over there for several years and his endorsement is certainly worth something, although the magazine itself has endorsed Mitt Romney.

As I pointed out in the OP, Derbyshire himself is a very unique and controversial individual.


So she or he did wrote it against the magazines stance?
Or is it the "most influential republican magazine's" -stance
as well?

And if not: Why did they allow Derbyshire to publish it in
the first place??? :confused:
 
And if not: Why did they allow Derbyshire to publish it in the first place??? :confused:
Because NRO is probably the most freewheeling place for exchange of ideas you'll encounter on the web. Go to www.nationalreview.com, click on "Blog Row," and then click on "The Corner." You'll see intelligent, thoughtful discussion, including strong disagreement on ideas and issues. No, you won't get any left-wing points of view, but what you do get will make you think, even if you end up disagreeing with everything you see. I wish there was a left-wing equivalent. Or maybe there is and I haven't seen it - can anyone direct me?

Derbyshire is a strange duck. He's a grim pessimist about the fate of civilization, and an accomplished mathematician. And he once wrote this lovely bit that I thought enough of to put in my "good quotes" file:
Lots of people wanted to tell me that the sort of super-complex molecules found in living things could not possibly have arisen by random chance in a universe a mere 13.7 billion years old, as the probabilities concerned are so immense — 10 to the power of 40,000, according to one reader.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning. In the first place, it is based ultimately on a common statistical fallacy — one so common that it has a name: "the fallacy of numerators without denominators." (The numerator is the top number in a fraction; the denominator is the bottom one.) Consider, for example, the New York State lottery. I believe the probability of any one ticket winning the lottery is around one in twelve million. And yet, most weeks, someone wins it. How? The answer, of course, is that twelve million is merely the numerator here. The denominator is the several million people who buy lottery tickets every week. Divide the numerator by the denominator, and you have a reasonable-sized number: 1, or 30, or 0.5, or something similar.

The probability of any particular thing happening is microscopically small. The probability that I flicked my eyes away from the screen to glance out of my study window just then, rather than a millisecond sooner or a millisecond later, is very tiny. However, in a busy universe, something must happen. In fact, untold trillions of things are happening all the time — that's the denominator. The physical universe is a far, far bigger assemblage than the population of New York State (it may in fact, for all we can prove to the contrary, be infinite!) so that extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time.

A second problem arises from the term "random chance." In fact, even the most materialist of scientists does not believe that the universe is governed by random chance. There are organizing principles everywhere: subatomic particles organize themselves into atoms and molecules, interstellar gas organizes itself into stars and planets, and so on. Science consists of the search to understand how these organizing principles do their work. Why they are present is a very interesting question, but outside the scope of science. However, no thoughtful scientist, not even the most materialist atheist, thinks that the universe is the result of purely random processes.

A third problem is the one raised by the so-called "anthropic principle." However improbable you may think it was that human intelligence arose from inanimate matter, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to discuss it! Possibly the Big Bang happened 10 to the power of 40,000 times before we showed up. Now that we have shown up, we can sit around and discuss the whole business. The other (10 to the power of 40,000, minus 1) occurrences of the universe were — as an atheist friend of mine likes to say about the Afterlife — very quiet.

And as regards his racism - now, keep in mind that he's a native born Englishman, naturalized American, bears something of a resemblance to John Cleese - his wife is Chinese.

As I said, a strange duck, but obviously a man possessed of a wide-ranging mind.
 
So she or he did wrote it against the magazines stance?
Or is it the "most influential republican magazine's" -stance
as well?

And if not: Why did they allow Derbyshire to publish it in
the first place??? :confused:

Because they don't require slavish devotion to the editorial line. Individual writers are free to express their individual opinions on the candidates without regard for the overall editorial endorsement of the magazine or newspaper they work for, and if they weren't, why would anybody trust what they write? I'll grant you, if a writer for the NRO started hawking Hillary Clinton they probably would not find their services required for long, but that's because their readers would be complaining.
 
Because they don't require slavish devotion to the editorial line. Individual writers are free to express their individual opinions on the candidates without regard for the overall editorial endorsement of the magazine or newspaper they work for, and if they weren't, why would anybody trust what they write? I'll grant you, if a writer for the NRO started hawking Hillary Clinton they probably would not find their services required for long, but that's because their readers would be complaining.


So what's the magazines average stance on Paul? Agree -or- disagree?
 
Because NRO is probably the most freewheeling place for exchange of ideas you'll encounter on the web. Go to www.nationalreview.com, click on "Blog Row," and then click on "The Corner." You'll see intelligent, thoughtful discussion, including strong disagreement on ideas and issues. No, you won't get any left-wing points of view, but what you do get will make you think, even if you end up disagreeing with everything you see. I wish there was a left-wing equivalent. Or maybe there is and I haven't seen it - can anyone direct me?

Derbyshire is a strange duck. He's a grim pessimist about the fate of civilization, and an accomplished mathematician. And he once wrote this lovely bit that I thought enough of to put in my "good quotes" file:


And as regards his racism - now, keep in mind that he's a native born Englishman, naturalized American, bears something of a resemblance to John Cleese - his wife is Chinese.

As I said, a strange duck, but obviously a man possessed of a wide-ranging mind.


I will look it up - even if I have to do this tomorrow since
it's getting pretty late over here. But thanks for providing
this information to read about their republican stances...
 
Because NRO is probably the most freewheeling place for exchange of ideas you'll encounter on the web. Go to www.nationalreview.com, click on "Blog Row," and then click on "The Corner." You'll see intelligent, thoughtful discussion, including strong disagreement on ideas and issues. No, you won't get any left-wing points of view, but what you do get will make you think, even if you end up disagreeing with everything you see. I wish there was a left-wing equivalent. Or maybe there is and I haven't seen it - can anyone direct me?

Probably the closest is The Plank at the New Republic. Not Left of course, but moderate liberal.
 
Because they don't require slavish devotion to the editorial line. Individual writers are free to express their individual opinions on the candidates without regard for the overall editorial endorsement of the magazine or newspaper they work for, and if they weren't, why would anybody trust what they write? I'll grant you, if a writer for the NRO started hawking Hillary Clinton they probably would not find their services required for long, but that's because their readers would be complaining.


By the same token, Ann Coulter got the boot after her "invade their countries and convert them" article.
 
Hah! Here it is. Derbyshire's Pessimist Manifesto. Grimly amusing. Or amusingly grim. I'm not sure which. But you wonder why, if he really believes all this will come to pass, he hasn't already done away with himself and his family.
 
So what's the magazines average stance on Paul? Agree -or- disagree?
Approximately this:

[Casablanca]

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

[/Casablanca]
 
Approximately this:

[Casablanca]

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

[/Casablanca]

I can not understand you Americans..
When you get to have one good presidential candidate, who speaks the truth, is a real Republican, and seems a nice chap, you despise him.
 
Most people fear change from the common no matter the depravity of the common.

Maybe he is just ahead of his time..
Wait until the Irar war is over, the Isreal-Palestinian issue settled, and what will be the justification of having a 500-billion-dollar-per-year army?
War against Cuba?
 
[Casablanca]

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

[/Casablanca]

I can not understand you Americans..
When you get to have one good presidential candidate, who speaks the truth, is a real Republican, and seems a nice chap, you despise him.

The army is funded at it's current level for other reasons. And no, Jerome, that's not why we dislke Ron Paul...
The primary meaning of "despise" is not "hate." It's "to hold in contempt." Not the same thing.
 

Back
Top Bottom