Idiocy and the incompetence of a parachutee

Bit of a problem here. Near simultaneously have come emails from JD and Wiggia on different topics and the question is how to work them into a post. S’pose the best way is just to post them. Comment as and how you feel.


Richard Dawkins is an idiot… but you knew that anyway ­čÖé

Top Comments

  • Craig hit it on the button´╗┐ at the end. Krauss has avoided answering the question by changing the very meaning. Dawkins also looks dumbfounded because he is dumb.

    YahwehtheLORD 1 day ago

  • The video is funny, and the pwnage is summarized very well in that epic glass of WIN at 1:23 but the most interesting thing is that every now and´╗┐ then you’ll still find apologists for Dawkins with obvious brain damage from reading his books.

    IloveYOUviruses 22 hours ago

Further down is a comment using one of my favourite phrases – Dawkins is educated beyond his intelligence´╗┐ [heh heh].


James I do not usually watch Newsnight, but I was having a cup of tea before retiring when this interview started. Yes, Paxman can be rude and worse but in this he was correct.

This has to be one of the worst ever displays by an MP (and this one is supposedly a minister) I have seen. He finishes by asking her if she is incompetent, no need to say any more.

God help us where do they find them, starts at about 8 mins in.

12 comments for “Idiocy and the incompetence of a parachutee

  1. June 27, 2012 at 16:14

    “This has to be one of the worst ever displays by an MP (and this one is supposedly a minister) I have seen.”

    Me too. So acutely embarrassing I stopped it before the end.

  2. wiggiatlarge
    June 27, 2012 at 16:27

    There is quite a bit of flack out there over the Chloe Smith performance, and quite a bit directed at Osborne for putting up ms Smith in the first place to answer these questions in his place, fair comment, but not the point, not only was she abysmal in her performance but evidently had been equally bad on Chanel 4 news earlier, as they are all briefed as to the questions what was going on, if this is typical of the quality of people being recruited for ministerial positions, then I say it again God help us.
    There is also doing the rounds a quote that Cameron thought he was installing an accountant into the position, when told that she was in fact a management consultant working for an accountants he still offered her the job, says it all really.

  3. June 27, 2012 at 16:35

    JD – I just couldn’t bear watching it through. Had to stop it.

    Wiggia – she is the perfect example of a parachutee elevated for her cuteness rather than any ability. She should be nowhere near a ministerial role. Sure she’s better than a secretary but maybe as one of the Minister’s aides or PPS. How old is she? 25?

  4. JD
    June 27, 2012 at 16:54

    slightly off-topic:
    Cameron wants to put an end to the ‘something for nothing’ culture of entitlement.
    Good idea Dave. You can start with your father-in-law getting tax-payers money for allowing wind turbines on ‘his’ land!

  5. June 27, 2012 at 17:10

    Little gladdens my heart more than the sight of some squirming politico under Paxman’s grilling. Shades of that famous Michael Howard interview. Last night’s interview was delightful to behold – and I find it impossible to summon a single ounce of sympathy for any of his victims. Sadly, he meets his match when he speaks to Peter Mandelson, and Boris Johnson knows how to skilfully deflect his questions and use his charm to get away with it.

  6. Chuckles
    June 27, 2012 at 17:28

    And let us not forget that one of the main reasons for Osborne having to do a U-turn was the performance by another one announcing it –

    Incompetence and arrogance, how unusual.

  7. Moggsy
    June 28, 2012 at 07:24

    “if this is typical of the quality of people being recruited for ministerial positions” don’t forget the only qualification you need is for people to vote for yo, and there are places where if a party put up a horse it would have a fair chance of getting elected.

    Talking about Dawkins I often think there is more tribal predudice in some comments/attacks on him than informed thought. Like he said a “Yo mutha…”

    I really do wonder if some of the people attacking his writing actually read any of it. from the comment “obvious brain damage from reading his books.” I guess not, wouldn’t want to cloud a good rant with any actual facts.

  8. JD
    June 28, 2012 at 08:44

    Moggsy, this is why people laugh at Dawkins.

    ….. the public laugh aloud about the stupid atheist re-definition of “nothing” as “something which is simple or basic”. However, Dawkins doesn’t understand the (obvious) motive of laughs and ask “Why is that funny?” Look in Dawkins’ face: Personally I think Dawkins is being HONEST in his question: He simply doesn’t understand why people laugh on this, because for him it is very obvious that “nothing” is a very simple “something”.

    As I have said before, Dawkins doesn’t know how to think.

  9. Moggsy
    June 28, 2012 at 09:36

    JD, At least you make a proper argument.

    I would say that just because a person is unable to fully explain the detail of the origin of the cosmos, or anything else, does not mean it automatically makes anyone _else’s_ explanation correct. What do they call it? “Infinite regression”?

    I heard it suggested that the universe is essentially coming from nothing. A sort of vacuum quantum fluctuation that ‘ran away’ with itself, creating all the known particles out of empty space at the ‘instant’ of no-time.

    The total energy of the universe would add up to exactly zero and its maximum possible lifetime as a ‘quantum fluctuation’ could even be infinite!

    Dividing nothing up into lots of somethings is pretty neat any which way, the biggest most spectacular version of “loaves and fishes” you could find, if it happened by chance, or by will.

    Coincidence or not there is a lot of dividing going on in the construction phase in genesis, like algebra.

    To me some of what Dawkins says about organised religion rings true and I figure much of the visceral (great word) reaction to him is that he shakes weak faith. That makes those people hate.

  10. June 28, 2012 at 09:42

    if some of the people attacking his writing actually read any of it

    Certainly we’ve waded into it as far as poss without succumbing to brain damage.

  11. Moggsy
    June 28, 2012 at 09:49

    That would be a “not really, couldn’t really be bothered” then James? ^_^

  12. June 28, 2012 at 14:37

    How could we comment if we hadn’t read some of it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *