The Sneetches

Sean at 1:21 pm, December 21st, 2007

Atrios is right, this is pretty amusing:

“Who is your favorite author?” Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.

Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.

In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.

“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.

If Aleya had been keeping up with blogs, she would have been less surprised at Huckabee’s reading level.

Humor
[digg] | [reddit] | [stumbleupon] | [slashdot] | [del.icio.us]

41 Comments on “The Sneetches” rss feed

Jorg on Dec 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm

At least it wasn’t Jack Chick comics…
Jason M. Hendler on Dec 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pm

For a moment, I thought she was citing H.A. Rey ….

I always thought it would be helpful to ship thousands of copies of the Dr. Seuss book about the star bellied sneetches to the Palestinians, so that they would learn to get along.
MercuryBlue on Dec 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Attn: politicians: kids aren’t stupid.

Attn: kids: politicians, far too often, are.
jeff on Dec 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Bush’s reading level didn’t prevent him from getting elected. It was probably still higher than the general population. Let’s face it, “President Huckabee” is one scary phrase. I’m already looking around for various countries to move to - just in case.
Neil B. on Dec 21st, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Aleya Deatsch, 7
“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.
Hey, this kid is smart! And, she seems not to be an atheist…
John Baez on Dec 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pm

I enjoyed C. S. Lewis as a kid even though I was an atheist. You don’t need to believe in fairy tales to enjoy them.
John Baez on Dec 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pm

This remark by Huckabee is also pretty amusing:

I think we ought to be out there talking about ways to reduce energy consumption and waste. And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.
Greg Egan on Dec 21st, 2007 at 10:40 pm

I enjoyed C. S. Lewis as a kid even though I was an atheist. You don’t need to believe in fairy tales to enjoy them.

Absolutely, though in the case of C.S. Lewis it definitely helps to be a kid. I tried re-reading him as an adult and found the prose eye-wateringly bad.

Still, maybe I have Lewis to thank for just how much I enjoy gorging on Turkish Delight …
Pingback from It’s not just in India on Dec 21st, 2007 at 11:24 pm

[...] Huckabee is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, evidently. Here’s what he said on record: “I think we ought to be out there talking about ways to reduce energy consumption and waste. And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.” [Via Cosmic Variance.] [...]
Farhat on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 am

In politics, appearing stupid is a major political advantage as has been demonstrated repeatedly. People forget that Bush lost his first election because people thought he was too intellectual. He subsequently readjusted his style to appeal to a different more widespread set of voters and the results are before us. Kerry was repeatedly hammered on for being too intellectual. The same reason is why Gore is unelectable.
Neil B.. on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 am

OK, sure, that’s why I said “seems” and of course I was making a gentle tweak - but I was thinking, maybe she meant the non-fiction, or the religious pseudo-fiction. (But reading any of his work at seven y.o. is great, in a nation where many fifth graders read at third grade level or below.) In any case, please don’t be sloppy cocktail party philosophers and confuse the “fairy tales” of specific sectarian notions with the deep issues of why is there anything at all, what if any is a necessary being versus being contingent, etc.
frodo on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm

“we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade”

I want my politicians to be fairly ambitious, but there is a limit.
chemicalscum on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm

I read the C.S. Lewis science fiction trilogy as an adult. I found “Out of the Silent Planet” an engrossing and positive story. Then I read “Preleranda” and I found something disturbing about it which I couldn’t quite put a finger on even though I new the work from a radio production of Donald Swann’s opera version.

Finally I read “That Hideous Strength”, and I found a profoundly immoral, anti-human and ultimately evil book. It is obviously the product of a deranged personality with a hate for people in general which showed his own extreme personal grudges, for instance in the portrayal of a character who was clearly based on H.G. Wells.

However I think it shows the deep peronality difference between an atheist humanist like myself and a certain sort of dangerous religious reactionary like Lewis.

Now the Golden Compass trilogy, that’s a good read for adult as well as for children with lots of thought provoking ideas.
spyder on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Really??? Dr Seuss??? In this photo-opped, sound-bitten world, the best he could come up with was Dr freakin Seuss???? Even Bush could stroke the lapping heads, and skritch the earlobes, of his xTian base, with that most idiotic bit about Jesus being his favorite philosopher (must have really pissed off the Randians that time). The Huck couldn’t suggest that his most favorite of all authors is that one dude, that wrote that one book, he loves more than any other book–the bible?????
Diocletian on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Farhat sees the depressing truth. Bush’s fundamental appeal has always been his ignorance. You will recall his 2001 commencement speech in which he boasted:

“To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students–I say, you, too, can be President of the United States. A Yale degree is worth a lot, as I often remind Dick Cheney–who studied here, but left a little early. So now we know–if you graduate from Yale, you become President. If you drop out, you get to be Vice President.”

His message to a largely ignorant U.S. population is that ignorance is okay. He makes people feel good about their ignorance, and he gives them his blessing to remain forever ignorant. He boasts of not reading books or even newspapers, and that he receives his insights from God or from his gut. Those who counsel thinking or investigating before acting are depicted as weaklings and useless eggheads.

I read recently that there are 194 million adults in the U.S. Of these, 44 million are completely illiterate, and another 50 million can read at no better than an 8th grade level. These are the people that politicians must persuade.

Through its stultifying schools, which teach only ready made and shallow values that students repeat by rote, and through its relentless television propaganda, the government insures that the population will remain ignorant.

Don’t get me started on the churches.
David Nataf on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Rather smart girl that she’s seven years old and already reading chapter books like those of CS Lewis!

Does anyone remember being surprised when it came out that Bush was reading Albert Camus?
frodo on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm

I always thougt Camus was overrated. If I needed a comfirmation, this was it.
frodo on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Or maybe even a CONFIRMATION. See? Our childrens are learning.
Neil B. on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm

David, it “coming out” about Bush could have really been almost anything. That machine manipulates the media and its image so much.
foldedpath on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm

“we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade”

I want my politicians to be fairly ambitious, but there is a limit.

If he’s elected, he gets the secret service agent with the briefcase and the Big Red Button, right? That’s one way to end energy consumption. Just start WWIII — the old school, Cold War version.

For a guy who is running on Christian identity politics, I think it’s amazing that no reporter has yet asked him (as far as I know), if he’s a dominionist, and if he believes in the Rapture. Is that supposed to be an off-limits question, like Mitt’s holy underwear?
Jason Dick on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 am

Funny

But, to be honest, understandable. It’s not at all surprising then when asked by a child for your favorite author, that a person might think the natural response would be a children’s author, one that the child is likely to recognize. Perhaps this statement, then, says more about Huckabee’s low opinion of child intelligence, or low achievement in his own childhood years (since we often judge others by looking at ourselves).
daisy rose on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am

I love Dr. Seuss - he is so very practical - The Zax - Too many Daves -(try memorizing all those names) and the - the story with - Oh I dont like this bed at all so many things have come to call - (who has not had that problem?) and - What was I scared of ? (the pale green pants with nobody inside them.)
The Almighty Bob on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm

chemicalscum, you’re showing your prejudice.

However I think it shows the deep peronality difference between an atheist humanist like myself and a certain sort of dangerous religious reactionary like Lewis.

Now the Golden Compass trilogy, that’s a good read for adult as well as for children with lots of thought provoking ideas.

C.S. Lewis was an atheist who converted because one day he asked himself why he felt something was unjust. He was no reactionary. He may have had a personal disagreement with Mr. Wells, but that’s called something else.
Perelandra is a retread of the Genesis Adam and Eve myth, with an added Earth human to chase off the Serpent. It’s kinda weird, to say the least.

And it’s the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, and the first book is “Northern Lights”! Damn it all to shit, I’m going to invent a time machine solely to bitchslap that publisher and make them use the right name.
spyder on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Under the heading Follow Huckabee’s Money, Brink Lindsey writes:
I read in Robert Novak’s column this morning that Mike Huckabee held a fundraiser earlier this week at the Houston home of Dr. Steven Hotze. As Novak notes, Hotze is “a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement.”
Christian Reconstructionists, for those unfamiliar with the term, are Religious Right radicals who believe that America, and the rest of the world besides, should be governed in accordance with strict Biblical law. And yes, that includes stoning adulterers. Here’s a snippet from “A Manifesto for the Christian Church,” a 1986 document from an outfit called the Coalition on Revival that was signed by, among others, Steven Hotze:

We affirm that the Bible is not only God’s statements to us regarding religion, salvation, eternity, and righteousness, but also the final measurement and depository of certain fundamental facts of reality and basic principles that God wants all mankind to know in the sphere of law, government, economics, business, education, arts and communication, medicine, psychology, and science. All theories and practices of these spheres of life are only true, right, and realistic to the degree that they agree with the Bible.

Meanwhile, Novak reports that among the members of the fundraiser’s host committee was Baptist minister Rick Scarborough. The founder of Vision America and a self-described “Christocrat,” Scarborough made news earlier this year when he argued that the HPV vaccine improperly interferes with God’s punishment of sexual license.
Just when you thought the Huckabee campaign couldn’t get any creepier….
Richard on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I’ll bet that the “Christian Reconstructionists” and others of similar persuasion secretly admire the Taliban for their conviction and methods.

When I first heard about Huckabee appearing on TV with the cross, my first thought was of the swastika.
chemicalscum on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 pm

@The Almighty Bob

C.S. Lewis was an atheist who converted because one day he asked himself why he felt something was unjust. He was no reactionary. He may have had a personal disagreement with Mr. Wells, but that’s called something else.
Perelandra is a retread of the Genesis Adam and Eve myth, with an added Earth human to chase off the Serpent. It’s kinda weird, to say the least.

And it’s the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, and the first book is “Northern Lights”! Damn it all to shit, I’m going to invent a time machine solely to bitchslap that publisher and make them use the right name.

You avoid my central point. I said:

I read “That Hideous Strength”, and I found a profoundly immoral, anti-human and ultimately evil book. It is obviously the product of a deranged personality with a hate for people in general which showed his own extreme personal grudges, for instance in the portrayal of a character who was clearly based on H.G. Wells.

You ignore the my comments on “That Hideous Strength” , which is the central thrust of my argument, completely in your response. You also miss the real point about H. G. Wells. In the book a character, who is obviously based on H. G. Wells, is brutally killed together with a large number of other people by a rampage of wild animals, which which is gloated on as divine intervention and divine justice.

I find that pathetic, immoral and ultimately evil to kill off in literary way your intellectual opponents. It suggest that Lewis might be prepared to do it in a literal way if he had the power. It gives rise to visions of Christian fascists running concentration camps and gulags like the Nazi’s and the Soviet state capitalists, a vision that might not be too distant in the US especially if Huckabee ends up president.

The fact that Lewis was originally an atheist who converted to Christianity in his thirties is irrelevant. His views and work in later life indicate that he degenerated into the kind of religious reactionary that provides the ideology of todays Christian right. I do not think that all or even a majority of Christians fall into this category, Martin Luther King, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Lord Soper and indeed many of the clergy of the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church (Lewis’s own church) prove otherwise.

Finally on the point of pedantic trivia yes you are right Pullman’s trilogy is correctly called the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, a reference to “Paradise Lost”. However the retitling of “Northern Lights” to the “Golden Compass” by the book’s North American publishers appears to be the result of accidental confusion rather than the typical US cultural industry’s desire to rename everything to make it more accessible to middle America. Pullman doesn’t seem to be too concerned about it. I used the title here because the book I read as the first part of the trilogy, here in Canada, was entitled the “Golden Compass”.

I mentioned Pullman’s trilogy because not only has it been regarded as a sort of anti-Narnia given Pullman’s expressed views on Lewis but it is a lot better written than Lewis’s children’s fantasies.
chemicalscum on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 pm

I said:

you are right Pullman’s trilogy is correctly called the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, a reference to “Paradise Lost”

I omitted to point out that Pullman’s allusion is not only to Milton’s “Paradise Lost” but also to the dark matter of modern cosmology. A point that may be of interest to readers of Cosmic Variance.
milkshake on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm

John Baez quoting Huckabee (#6)reminded me the Czech politburo members discussing in 70s problem of the country’s economy falling behing in technology - and one comrade was arguing: “There is no need to hurry with licensing these half-conductors from West - why not wait few more years and we can then buy the full conductors from them”. (In czech semiconductors is literaly translated as “half-conductors”)
The Almighty Bob on Dec 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am

I’m t’other side of the Atlantic. The re-titling of everything gets to one significantly eventually; this being the most egregious example recently, it tends to draw most of my bile. Sorry you were standing in the way.

I avoided your points about “That Hideous Strength” for a good reason; I haven’t read it. Therefore anything I said on it would be valueless at best.

‘Burning in effigy’ an enemy in your art is not restricted to C.S. Lewis - see ‘Minos’ in Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgement”, or pretty much the entirety of Dante’s “Inferno”. Maybe the example you use is especially horrific; I wouldn’t know (previous point). But Dante was downright sadistic, so I doubt it.

My main reson for pulling you up was the smugness in the “However I think it shows the deep peronality difference between an atheist humanist like myself and a certain sort of dangerous religious reactionary,” rather than to attack Pullman or defend Lewis.
We atheists may be better than everyone else, but it is unkind - not to say gauche - to rub their noses in it. (”,)
chemicalscum on Dec 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

@The Almighty Bob, you said:

Maybe the example you use is especially horrific;

Not exactly, perhaps the best comment on that is from George Orwell’s review of “That Hideous Strength”

The book ends in a way that is so preposterous that it does not even succeed in being horrible in spite of much bloodshed.

However Orwell, incisive as he was, does not see through to the fully reactionary nature of Lewis’s work. Lewis’s mixing of the mythic pagan elements with the mythic Christian, in his fictional works, on the one hand and and a hatred of modernity on the other gives rise to the same sort of “muck and mysticism” that powered the Nazi’s ideological appeal.

This appeal is ideally suited to an Anglo-Saxon milieu and easily crosses the Atlantic to the US where it is already being incorporated into the armoury of the religious right. As in the hyping of the movie version of “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” by them.
The Almighty Bob on Dec 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Ah. We’re having two different arguments.
I’m not as fussed as you about fundamentalist Christians, really - they’re less of an issue over here. What I am trying to do is what we keep telling all religious moderates to do; be vocal moderates, and don’t let the fundamentalists be your public image. I find there’s little more ugly than a fundamentalist atheist, because they claim to know better (witness Richard Dawkins) so I chip in when I can.

(And yes, atheism is a religious belief. The rational reaction to the question of the existence of God is T.H. Huxley’s agnosticism).
Crudely Wrott on Dec 24th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

There are quotes referring to wisdom from the mouths of babes, but right now no one needs a quote or a verse or a parable!

Here exists the real thing, dwelling among us. We are indeed a lucky people. Our children can see through the veneer of calloused adults who assume a less than realistic knowledge of, well, knowledge.

Merry Christmas, little girl!
chemicalscum on Dec 24th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

And yes, atheism is a religious belief

No it’s not .

Atheism - means not a theist. A theist is someone who believes in a personal god. An atheist is therefore someone who doesn’t believe in a personal god . On this basis even a deist is a form of atheist. She is after all a deist not a theist.

It is quite possible that that we and the entire universe are an emulation on a higher level computational system. Such a computational system could be considered as possessing some if not all the attributes attributed to god. This is purely an hypothesis, it would require scientific evidence in its favour to raise it to the level of requiring even qualified belief.

So there is no difference between atheism and agnosticism. Huxley merely introduced a new and confusing name for it. Agnostic means not a gnostic and Huxley even said:

It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history

Which is confusing as any mainstream Christian is by this definition an agnostic. They not are not Gnostics and would be against the currently reborn trendiness of Gnosticism as put forward in in the Wachowski brothers’ Matrix movies or on another level by the academic high-priestess of Gnosticism Elaine Paigels (widow of physicist Heinz Paigels). Indeed the ultra neo-Platonism of many modern physicists could be considered almost Gnostic. I don’t think this is what Huxley really meant

On the other hand when he says:

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

He is merely stating he is an atheist - he has no evidence to believe in a personal god.
chemicalscum on Dec 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am

@The Almighty Bob

I’m not as fussed as you about fundamentalist Christians, really - they’re less of an issue over here.

They are even less of an issue here than in Britain, at least in Canada we don’t have millionaires putting up part of the money (most of the funding coming from the state) to create so-called “City Academies” that are out of democratic control and are used to sneak in creationism by the back door. The country has indeed continued in its precipitous social, cultural and political decline since I left it twenty years ago.

It has not been helped by Bliar’s religiosity. I was a member of the old Labour Party when we were there to fight Thatcherism not to promote it as “New Labour” does. However the point is that when in Britain, as now here in Canada, you have a government who thinks its prime function is to ensure that it acts as a satrap of the USian empire, the political influence of the religious right in the US is important as you will be dragged along behind. This is particularly important when we understand that many of them believe we are in “end times” and wish to bring about Armageddon.
The Almighty Bob on Dec 25th, 2007 at 11:01 am

You’re using the dictionary definition of atheist, I’m using the observational: most of the atheists one comes across categorically state there is no God. There is no evidence to support that claim; therefore not a supportable statement, therefore an opinion or belief.
All of which supports my claim that the English language is stupid. (”,)

That ‘end times’ belief is kinda worying when they’ve got their thumb hovering over the ‘Apocalypse’ button, isn’t it?

And any “Old Labour” hack gets respect. The bastards have slightly butchered it, haven’t they?
Blair’s religion is a problem with the creationism thing - though now, thank fuck, there’s a fairly hard-headed realist (well, kinda…) in the office, it’ll stop. Maybe. Hopefully. &ltInsert weael word here&gt.

(Irish, so an external observer-ish).
The Almighty Bob on Dec 25th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Perhaps someday I’ll learn to type…
that should be ” &lt Insert weasel word here &gt “.
George on Dec 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Saying that Dr Seuss is his favorite author isn’t a statement of stupidity to me. I have no way to determine what Huckabee’s intentions were, I am not a Republican, and I’m quite sure I won’t vote for him if he is nominated. However, some of Dr Seuss’s work does have good messages that I agree with and that tackle some real issues in contemporary society (i.e. The Lorax — conservation vs economy, The Butter-Battle — message of peace, etc.). And, of course, outside of the pseudonym as Theodore Giesel he did produce some work for adults, if you still think that literature has to be “adult” to be relevant.

Bottom line, don’t try to pick apart sound bytes — we do too much of that in our political system, when most of the time a soundbyte is so vague and uninformative that several interpretations are possible, and a lot of people buy the media interpretation wholesale. (I personally like Dean’s “scream” — but then I was liking Dean before that, so I was more disposed to interpret it as positive enthusiasm.) What we need to do is have some substantial debates that can help people figure out what the candidates actually believe and get a clear idea on what they’ll actually DO.
jorge on Dec 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am

chemicalscum, as an aside, you write,

“Now the Golden Compass trilogy, that’s a good read for adult as well as for children with lots of thought provoking ideas.”

The Dark Materials trilogy is typical of Pullman. When you read his other books, you see that the central conflict in virtually every book he has written involves parental abuse or neglect of their child. Because he keeps returning to work on that single topic, his ideas should be considered in light of the probability that the author is attempting to cope with unresolved personal trauma.
John Phillips, FCD on Dec 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am

Almighty bob, if asked, I will say that I don’t believe there is a god. However, what I don’t bother saying each time is that that is based on the fact, that like the evidence for fairies, pink unicorns or orbiting teapots etc, there is none for god/s, therefore the possibility of there being a god/s is so infinitesimally small that it can be discounted. Of course, if anyone ever produced any significant genuine evidence for the existence of any of the above then I, and all atheist I know, would consider that evidence and decide accordingly. See the difference? Someone who believes based on faith will not do that while someone who believes or makes a decision based on the evidence, or lack of, will change their position if appropriate. I.e. to call atheism a belief is simply a cop out that religites use to make them feel at least the intellectual equal to atheists by trying to drag atheist down to their level of irrationality. To repeat a now common saying, atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
chemicalscum on Dec 26th, 2007 at 10:48 pm

@John Phillips, FCD

The Dark Materials trilogy is typical of Pullman. When you read his other books, you see that the central conflict in virtually every book he has written involves parental abuse or neglect of their child. Because he keeps returning to work on that single topic, his ideas should be considered in light of the probability that the author is attempting to cope with unresolved personal trauma.

Interestingly enough this is a theme common to most fairy tales. The fact that Pullman’s father died in an air crash when he was only seven may also be a contributory factor to certain plot themes. A quick look through the synopses of his other work indicates that the loss or absence of a father though a common theme is not always present.

I only read the Golden Compass a few months ago after hearing of the controversy the filming of a version the work was causing amongst overly sensitive Christians.

I was at first dubious about reading a book for thirteen year old girls, as I do not generally read children’s’ fiction, but the ideas behind the trilogy seemed interesting enough to try reading the first volume. It became an unstoppable read and I quickly worked my way through the complete trilogy. In my opinion the prose is far superior to that of Lewis and has the advantage of lacking of the racist and sexist ideology that creeps into Lewis’s work. I would recommend it to anyone for adult reading as well as for children.
chemicalscum on Dec 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Correction my post above is a reply to jorge not to John Phillips, FCD. I’m getting sloppy with my copy and pasting.

Sorry folks.

« What Is Interesting? Peace »

Trackback URL for this post: http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/12/21/the-sneetches/trackback/

The Sneetches

41 Comments on “The Sneetches” rss feed

Leave a Reply

Search

Contributors

Alumni and Guests

Recent Comments:

Recent Posts

Links

Meta