"Darwin's Rottweiler" is a rather beautiful phrase, chiefly because it instantly brings to mind an image; a frothing dog firmly attached to the leg of a cursing creationist, held on a long leash by a mysteriously bearded man in a white lab coat. That image appeals to me, intensely, not only for its comic nature, but for its symbolism. I'm not the only one, either...in the late 18th century, a man named Thomas Henry Huxley, a biologist and comtemporary of Darwin, was deemed "Darwin's Bulldog" for his constant defense of the theory of evolution.
So, in my mind, the title was a compliment, even an honor, to whoever it was directed toward. Turns out that I was wrong, it was a thinly veiled attack on Dawkins, and in a larger sense an attempt to discredit those who refuse to soften their position in the face of opposition.
I'd full on tongue kiss anyone who ever called me "Darwins Rottweiler". It would mean that I'd been fighting the good fight, it would mean that I was a full fledged attack dog. So I wasn't too suprised when the piece was about Richard Dawkins, the biologist, author and all around enlightened guy who has given some of the best and most understadable defenses of evolution and biology ever written.
I needed only to read the sub title of the article, however, the little red letter beneath the actual article I always gloss over but that can, apparetly, speak volumes about the artlcles content. The sub title read: "Sir Richard Dawkins: Evolution's fiercest champion, far too fierce."
Dawkins approach to religion, and by association those who regect evolution on any pseudo-religious grounds, involves no forgiveness, no conscilation, and certainly no moving toward the middle. He has no tolerance for religion, and specifically those who attempt to reconcile religion and science into some sort of non-contradictory philosophical system. His quotes are occasionaly shocking, but always stir something in my mind that tells me he is right, despite my impulse to be replused. I don't always agree with him, to me there is an acceptable level of religion that can be tolerated outside science (he does not even grant these occurances), but I understand that his voice must exist to counteract the equally rabid proponents of a purely religious universe. It is a matter of balance, of yin and yang, as long as there is one, there must be the other.
What dosen't jibe, however, are those that take balance to mean a complete deference of opinion, those that instinctually run to the middle. The article suggests that, while Dawkins has been an effective champion of evolutionary theory, he hurts himself and his cause through his staunch refusal to compromise.
I think that is bullshit.
Regarding matters of humanity, I'm a proponent of the idea that there is no such thing as "being objective". By association, while I understand the need to address oposing arguments in your own logically sound argument, I complete refuse to soften my position because of those that oppose an idea.
This brings me to "jumping the shark", a phrse I saw thrown around posts today that I feel is important. The Fonz jumped the shark, litteraly, by doing away with a long running story device on Happy Days, after which it seemed the show lost some of its taste, and a great deal of its respect. Some have speculated that this recent row over Markos and his "war hawk" statement is the shark jumping for DailyKos. The cat is out of the bag, Markos disagrees with some of his readership, and some of the progressives he supports. Conspiracy? Hardly, I'd say it is a simple refusal to dilute his opinion in the face of its opposition.
Being for the war here, on such a massively left, occasionaly tin-foil hat, weblog is not moving toward the middle, it is blatently defying the consensus opinion. Like Dawkins refusal to accept religion, Kos's refusal to sweep away all thought of justified war puts him in a minority here, and in direct opposition to many, but it dosen't detract from his views, or the incredible service he has done for the internet political movement.
Soft-selling yourself so you can appeal to a broader audience is the worst kind of whoring, an insult to you and to what you speak for. Sewing your mouth shut to keep people happy is an offense worthy of death. Having a "leadership position" dosen't mean that your personal views suddenly sublimate out into the ether, simply because their expression might cause a dust up.
If you never read anything you disagree with, you will never be able to properly defend your beliefs. If you insist on back-pedaling in the face of opposition, you knowingly bring the karmic hammer down on yourself, you set the universe off balance.
Keep on truckin', Kos. Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll.
