My impression of Dawkins is that he's a ground-breaking researcher in the specialized fields of biology and genetics who has somehow gotten it into his head that his undeniable record of accomplishments in that realm translates into some universal insight on the human condition- that he knows everything about everything.

With all due respect, my impression is that you don't seem to know much about his work. I can only go by what you write here of course.

Not as bad as some of the posters here calling him a "know-nothing" or "pseudo-intellectual" but still.

First of all you really don't seem to understand the concept of what memes are at all, you keep calling it linguistics or semantics which has nothing to do with it. Or rather, linguistics certainly could be one thing studied in terms of evolution, but one of many, many things that could be as well.

Second, I really don't think it was Dawkins who called anything he wrote "revolutionary", but the fact that others seem to have found certain ideas to have been so -- I mean it takes time, these things -- would seem to mean that he hit on something at least.

Listen, toned down a bit, some of this would be perfectly reasonable, saying "Dawkins was a biologist so he's really straying into other areas with this meme business" is one thing, and I mean who could argue with that, including him? However turning this into some gross condemnation seems sort of strange, especially coupled with this idea that he sees himself as some sort of god.

I think someone who knew a lot about evolution found himself examining psychology and culture using some of the same ideas, and hit on something fairly important, and no, it's not the one, unique place in the universe where anyone had come up with something vaguely similar, but it was pretty influential.

So Chomksy writing on politics is just "due diligence" and Dawkins writing on the dangers of religion is a travesty by a hack who should have stayed in his place? Or something?

Curioser and curioser, and much more to debate but I really do have to get to work now.

NB: That Dawkins "doesn't seem to know Chomsky" is pure hyperbole, do you really imagine that this is the case?

To respond to that by turning it upside down, here's some evidence that Chomsky certainly knows Dawkins:

"CHOMSKY: Well, Dawkins is an important scientist, and his notion of memes is--it was intended as a metaphor, and metaphors are useful insofar as they make you think in an innovative and constructive way."

He goes on to critique Dawkins work in some mild ways, but this should disabuse you of any notion that Chomksy is somehow an important thinker while Dawkins is just some sniping dilettante who writes books.

How's that "let's move further to the right!" campaign working out for you?

My amazement at their stubborn blindness is equaled only by my joy that they simply refuse to get it, that by becoming the party of Rush and Sarah and Sean and Glenn Beck, they're vanishing faster than a Cheshire cat, soon to only a smile, hovering in the air, until finally, that vanishes too.

Specter's Full Statement:

I have been a Republican since 1966.....

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.

That's it. Whether you think that Specter is really a disgusting conservative or opportunist or whatever it may be, the fact that he just stood up and said "The Republican party is too far to the right these days" is the whole story, and its massively important.

It's no secret to most of us of course but even the Republicans will have a hard time missing that statement, right out there coming from one of them. And if he's really a right wing conservative then it's even more significant that he thinks that the GOP is too right wing now for even him.

Oh I'm not saying that that's why he said it, or that anyone should respect him or not.

I'm just saying that that statement, a Republican standing up and saying "Too right wing. I'm outta here" is the entire significance of this, almost entirely anyway.

I'm almost sorry because it will be harder for the GOP to not wake up now and move back to the center and being a more viable party. Judging from their reaction though, which seems basically denial, that won't happen soon.

is the loud, trumpeted demonstration that the GOP has gone "too far to the right" just as you say it has.

You know this, and say it all the time, so do I. If everyone were like us however then the country would be a far different place. For certain swaths of the population to be hearing "the GOP is now too far right" is important.

If Specter is really not moderate at all, then it's even more significant that he claims that the GOP is too far to the right for even him.

The value is in the long, slow realization by the GOP that they've gone off the deep end. There are certain aspects of having them there that serve Democrats well, but for the most part a balanced, less extreme opposition party would be far healthier. This will serve to wake them up, or contribute to it. It won't happen soon, their reaction of denial, basically, is evidence of that. However they won't be able to ignore this now forever. Now it really starts.

good news for McCain!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/04/good_news_for_republicans.html

God, I almost missed hearing that every time something went well for the Democrats.