Richard Dawkins, a very smart man, takes to the pages of the Independent to spout gibberish. Note this rage about Bush:

Victory over Iraq will play well in Peoria. It will bomb – literally as well as metaphorically – in the rest of the world. In that post-war climate of seething hostility, are we, in Britain, going to let ourselves be identified, throughout the world, with this uncouth fundamentalist redneck? And are we really going to help him finally to get elected?

Those of us opposed to the war are sometimes accused of anti-Americanism. I am vigorously pro-American, which is one reason I am anti-Bush. They didn't elect him, and they deserve better.

Dawkins also offers up a plea to American academics to flee George Bush's Amerika. He recommends Ireland and New Zealand. He despairs, though, that all these fleeing academics will not go to Britain because of Tony Blair. Even by academic standards, Dawkins is being delusional. American academics are not going to flee from tenure and high salaries, any more than Alec Baldwin will really leave Hollywood.

I had no idea this fellow was demented. I only knew of him in connection with sociobiology and "The Selfish Gene."

Hmm.

When the stated aim was to disarm him, Saddam had only to comply and war would be averted.

Saddam let that option expire.

But if the aim is to save the poor helpless Iraqis from their wicked tyrant, everything changes. Why would anyone disarm on the eve of an inevitable attack?

Why would any idiot, whose military was soundly defeated in 1991, subject himself to another defeat? The ball is in Saddam's court.

Bush wants oil and he wants the 2004 election.

The US doesn't need Iraqi oil. It's hardly critical to our economy and refusal to decisively act, with the polls supporting Bush at a steady 60%, will cost him 2004.

"I know, of course, without even asking, that you were a member of the majority who voted for Al Gore. When your majority in the country, reinforcing your clear majority in the Electoral College but for dead-heated Florida, was reversed by the Supreme Court coup d'état, you must have been saddened, even infuriated. You presumably consoled yourself that it couldn't last more than four years.

Ah, Florida again. So, if Gore had won, we would still have a contested election with a President at the time not supported by 50% of the population. And does anyone know what Gore's actions or approval rating would be today?

Cowboy Bush is saying, in effect, "Stick your hands up, drop your weapons, and I'll shoot you anyway."

Dear God, the American cowboy parody again. Straight out of a monolithic caricature of John Wayne circa 1940's. Another ignorant Brit's insular perception of the American West. A piece of fact: cowboys aren't reckless. People raising livestock for a living aren't reckless. And to be successful at it you need good accounting, commodities trading and computer skills now days.

My advice to Richard, put your little flowered teacup down. Buy a plane ticket to Denver. Rent a car. Drive south to New Mexico and turn left to the Texas panhandle. Talk to folks. Then rewrite your drivel.

Ironically, Richard Dawkins has published articles in "skeptic" publications advocating critical thinking over superstition. Go figure.

Well "Fisked", Penny!

Paul's point is what really depresses me. Dawkins demonstrates such clarity of thought on matters scientific but politically he is an awful muddle. He is also, by the way, aggressively anti-religion.

I have a theory about Dawkins, I think it was Chis Patten (in Tory grandee mode and not transnational diplomat mode) who said "the facts of life are conservative" It seems to me that if you have any understanding of human nature, market forces and indeed natural selection, you may not neccessarily become a libertarian but it would be difficult to sustain most softheaded left liberal ideas. With Dawkins, I think that he just resists with all his fibre what his science is telling him because he'd hate to think that it contradicted his comfortable academic left-ish views.