I know they did a lot of horrible things to Roger Ebert in the hospital, but oh, wow, they sure haven't dulled his powers as a writer, and he's gotten kinda mean, which is great. Since he's been back, his writing has been a total delight to read, and his latest piece is the best thing he's done since, maybe, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. It's a long, lonnnng takedown of Ben Stein and his stupid anti-evolution movie, and you absolutely have to read the whole thing because it is stunning, so no excerpts here. I also recommend reading his recent ponderings on his alarming post-op appearance, quite possibly Pulitzer material.
I haven't always thought that Ebert was a great film critic (although he frequently is), but I've always, always thought he was a great writer.
Two sparkley hooves way, WAY up, Roger!
11 comments:
Thanks for linking to the article. I'll never understand how otherwise reasonably intelligent people can talk themselves into believing this nonsense.
I agree with you about Ebert. I have all of his books on film and he's a wonderful writer, although I don't consult him first for reviews (I think he's a bit of a softie). But I've learned more about film from him than a lot of other people.
One of the people that kept me sane during this election season was Richard Dawkins and reading his books. I'm glad to see that Roger Ebert has something more to say that I'll admire and share with others. Thanks for sharing.
Ebert rocks, no doubt.
However, I can't stand Richard Dawkins' public position on religion almost as much as I can't stand the religious crazies' position on evolution. Dawkins takes the most extreme "Christian" perspective on the nature of life and treats it as the party line of all Christians while he flays it. His atheism is at its heart the same sort of combative, braindead orthodoxy that characterizes the very people he takes to task. How can he be such a great scientist, while at the same time such a shitty philosopher?
Off topic of ID but on topic of Stein, he he one of the many so-called financial experts who mock and deride Peter Schiff about his dire predictions for the economy. I have the You Tube entry embedded in this post on my blog.
http://lotsasplainin.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-who-is-peter-schiff-and-why-is-he.html
While this has nothing to do with evolution, it does show how Stein and his ilk are completely shameless even when they are proven 100% wrong. There's just no shutting them up.
Just in case a Ben Stein supporter stumbles onto this blog, it won't do calling Schiff a liberal, because he's a Ron Paul supporter.
Oh my that was brilliant. Thanks for the link and the powerfully pony-pushing rec to read the whole thing.
Ebert and I actually share a taste in movies. I fell in love with his reviews when he admitted that he liked The Mummy despite his better judgment. I couldn't help myself either.
And here he goes again. Making me fall in love with his mind all over again. :)
What happened to Ben? I used to think he was so smart. Now I'm not sure... he clearly can't process information correctly.
I'm with Friday XIII on this one. I went on his TV show and didn't win his money. (I won money on Jeopardy! a few decades back, so I use that to salve my wounded pride.) But now, he is completely invested in the mindset that if a liberal, or anyone you can convince yourself is liberal, says "X", it is your sworn duty to proclaim "not X!" in your loudest and most derisive voice.
There are non-idiot conservative voices, but they don't get a lot of face time nowadays.
Thanks for the link. Marvelous article by Ebert.
One of the most embarrassing incidents of the last election was the republican debate in which the moderator asked who believes in intelligent design? and all those morons raised their hands. It was just plain humiliating to be an American that day (or at least, that was reason #2,346).
Drew in SF - Agreed. I liked Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker but The God Delusion seems a bit to attakity for me, as if he is preaching to the choir. I would assume most of the people who bought the book agreed with him and cheered him on as he eviscerated people with faith, or people with faith bought it to see what he was on about and were routinely insulted. I sure there could have been a softer tone to his writing he could have used to try to bring some questions into the mind of people with faith. It makes me wonder if he intended the book to help people understand his point of view, or point and laugh at those who believe in a God (selling more copies by being insulting).
MattyBoy I think at the end Ebert hit the nail on the head. Stein is made at Darwin because the idea of forced genetic engineering brought about the holocaust. He attacks the idea that was perverted rather than the people who perverted it.
Post a Comment