Just How Nutty is Scott Adams?
Scott Adams is the creator of the popular comic strip, Dilbert. Personally, I'm a big fan. Dilbert is funny in all the right ways and does a terrific job satirizing what life as a mid-level employee is like in a dog-eat-dog corporate world. Reading the strip one might get the impression its creator is a brilliant, eccentric and cynical man. Most of that is apparently true, although which characteristics are dominant seems to be up in the air.
Those who have seen interviews with Adams or read his blog are probably aware of his propensity for discussing evolution in a combative manner. He often qualifies himself by stating that he's not saying evolution isn't a well-proven fact, but then proceeds to attack it anyway.
Well, just a few days ago he seemed to go off the deep end in another department. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled to be in New York to speak at the UN and also to debate at Columbia University. Ahmadinejad also requested to lat a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center but was told this wasn't possible due to security concerns.
The Iranian President's visit to New York, as well as all three proposed stops, have caused some outrage among Americans and this in turn apparently sparked outrage in Adams, who railed sarcastically against those who would deny the Iranian President the same freedom of speech they enjoy.
I'm all-for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak freely, but Adams didn't stop there. He suggested that the Iranian President's comment that "Israel should be wiped off the face of the map" was mistranslated and really just means he wants Israel's government to change some of their policies. Although he is correct that the exact translation can't really be nailed down in English, no one seems to share Mr. Adams' drastically different interpretation of what Mr. Ahmadinejad said.
But Adams didn't stop there. He continued on about one of the Iranian President's other famous comments: That the holocaust is a myth. Adams seems to think that Ahmadinejad meant "Myth" like a parable by which we can learn a valuable life-lesson. It is unclear why Scott would think this since Ahmadinejad has been quite clear in his beliefs and even hosted a International Holocaust Denier's Seminar last year.
Not content to leave a badly misinformed opinion alone, Adams added a number of further comments which make his opinion of Israel seem to be, well… a bit negative — and that's perfectly fine but coupled with his (woefully false) character un-assassination piece on the Iranian President and his sketchy views on evolution I have to wonder if the guy who has been sitting in the cartoon cubicle next to me all these years is a religious nutbag and I just never noticed.
In the end, Mr. Ahmadinejad did speak at Columbia and he was publicly criticized by University President Lee Bollinger. The Iranian President was hard-pressed to hide his true colors as he hinted at popular (among stupid people) 9/11 conspiracy theories and when asked directly how he could deny the holocaust when it is so well documented he avoided the question entirely and only said that whether or not it happened has nothing to do with the plight of Palestinians.
It's reassuring to know that we, as Americans, weren't seeing only some distorted version of Ahmadinejad handed to us by the media and the government, but disturbing that some otherwise educated public figures refuse to believe the facts and would rather distribute false information to their fans and the world community at-large.
- One
“Those who have seen interviews with Adams or read his blog are probably aware of his propensity for discussing evolution in a combative manner. He often qualifies himself by stating that he’s not saying evolution isn’t a well-proven fact, but then proceeds to attack it anyway.”
I find it amusing that you do the exact same thing:
“Personally, I’m a big fan. Dilbert is funny in all the right ways and does a terrific job satirizing what life as a mid-level employee is like in a dog-eat-dog corporate world.”
And then you attack Adams just as Adams might go on to attack evolution.
“It’s reassuring to know that we, as Americans, weren’t seeing only some distorted version of Ahmadinejad handed to us by the media and the government, but disturbing that some otherwise educated public figures refuse to believe the facts and would rather distribute false information to their fans and the world community at-large.”
Because his opinion and thoughts about the world community are different from yours, it’s ‘disturbing’? Give me a break. I guarantee the “facts” considered by the “world community at large” lead to very different conclusions about America than your own likely do. But don’t think about that, it’d be too disturbing for you.
Comment by Mike — September 27, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Adams acknowledged evolution as a fact and then criticized it. I acknowledged Adams as a cartoonist and then criticized his opinions on evolution, Israel and the Iranian president. Sliiiiiiight difference.
And, the disturbing thing is that Adams is claiming that Ahmadinejad is misunderstood and unfairly demon-ized when the facts show time-and-again that he is COMPLETELY WRONG.
Ahmadinejad damned himself yet again when he spoke at Columbia University. According to Adams, his invitation to speak there was rescinded. Once again (or twice again, in this case) Adams is proven to have his facts completely wrong and yet he continued to hold opinions based on those incorrect facts — THAT is what is so disturbing.
…and also it’s disturbing that he influences the opinions of others through a combination of his celebrity and bad facts.
Comment by one — September 27, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
I do have to agree with one thing that your first commentor said, ” I guarantee the “facts” considered by the “world community at large” lead to very different conclusions about America than your own likely do.”
As I posted this week in my blog, the rest of the world has opinions about America that are “disturbing” to those who are aware of them.
Now, because of the misguided attempt by Columbia University to provide a platform for a world leader to speak (or create publicity for themselves, take your pick), the USA has ANOTHER “black eye” in the world-wide media.
First they invite Ahmadinejad to speak (big mistake), then the President of the university introduces him by attacking him. BIG NO!NO!
Reports from as far away as China are reporting how “brave and spiritual” Ahmadinejad was in the face of “being attacked by his American hosts”.
Ahmadinejad is a master manipulator and he played the world-wide press beautifully. We Americans got “sucker-punched” again because of the unrealistic and completely STUPID behavior of an elite group of pedagogues, who thought they knew more than seasoned political veterans.
As I said in my post: “STUPID COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY! Don’t you know if you invite a scorpion to dinner you may get stung!”
I agree with your post. It demonstrates a perfect example of the “idealistic ivory tower” that some so-called “intellectual free thinkers (sic)” live in.
Thank goodness there are still some individuals who are realists.
Brennan
http://setourteachersfree.com
Comment by Brennan Kingsland — September 28, 2007 @ 8:51 am
I don’t think inviting him to speak was a mistake. It reinforced existing beliefs about the man and not all existing beliefs *should* be reinforced, but when it comes to Ahmadinejad, they’re right on target.
Where I totally agree with you is how he was introduced by Lee Bollinger: “Mr, President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” That is totally disrespectful considering Ahmadinejad was an invited guest. Let the man damn himself with his own words, but don’t attack him before he’s even had a chance to speak.
Comment by one — September 28, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Actually the most disturbing thing about Adams is that he seems to be on board with most neo Nazis and holocaust deniers regarding Ahmadinejad’s statements. He is the most public figure to date that I can think of that comes close to espousing such extreme anti-semitism.
Comment by Bill — September 29, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Actually, several respected scholars endorse his position, as do I. Have you read Professor Juan Cole on the matter? Arash Norouzi? Google it or try this link.
Iran, it is worth repeating, has never threatened the US. Nor has it ever threatened Israel’s existence (as well as the propagated myth of President Ahmadinejad’s purported “wipe of the map” comment is an acknowledged mistranslation, Iranian Jews also number in their tens of thousands in Iran and are proud Iranians happily residing there as a continuous community for hundreds of years.
In contrast, the Likudnik-steered Bush administration has repeatedly threatened Iran with nuclear first strikes. In 2002, the US Nuclear Posture Review envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states, in a policy of “offensive deterrence”. We recall that when questioned about the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush responded that “All options were on the table”.
Many people outside the USA don’t share in this demonisation of Ahmadinejad and Iran. What we see of your media is what is alarming to us. What has become of America, a place we should be looking up to? This is not “European arrogance” either, I’m from a country that is an English-speaking US ally.
I support what Adams says about “myth” as a worldview. As a social scientists, that’s how I immediately understood the term. As for the “Iran has no gays” comment, even Seymour Hersh (see Democracy Now! interview) has confirmed, from Persian-speaking colleagues) that the Iranian President properly translated said “There is no gay problem in Iran.”
President Ahmainejad may be a loose cannon lost in translation, but he is not an anti-Semite.
Comment by Peacemonger — October 5, 2007 @ 7:08 am
That’s not what Adams said at all. The translation you link to says the Israeli Regime will vanish from the pages of time. Uh-huh…. slight difference from Adams’ interpretation: “Scholars tell us the correct translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel’s government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.”
I don’t know where you get the impression that what I wrote somehow supports the U.S.Government’s official policies towards the country of Iran. To make it clear, I do not.
As far as their (and the media’s) “demonisation” of Ahmadinejad, I’m going to tie that into your qualifying remark that the Iranian President properly translated said “There is no gay problem in Iran.” — The REASON there is “no gay problem in Iran” is because they are executing anyone convicted of the crime of being gay.
So there may be some European arrogance at work after all, in the form of Europeans being arrogant enough to think that their governments and their media gives them a crystal-clear picture of the world and its only us poor Americans who are in the dark on some of these issues.
The bottom line is that regardless of U.S. policy, the opinion that Ahmadinejad and the country he represents are duly demonized by their own words and actions remains well founded. And beyond that, sticking to the topic at hand, Adams demonstrably has his facts all-wrong. The only thing you attempted to support him on was the translation and what he wrote doesn’t agree with your translation at all, so I’m at a loss to decipher why you think the man’s credibility is no longer in question.
Comment by one — October 5, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Serious discussions on self-admitted social satirists always crack me up.
Highly entertaining stuff.
Comment by The BGM — October 17, 2007 @ 12:15 pm