In the early to middle nineteen nineties Christopher Hitchens became a poorly disguised toady of the reactionary right and those corporate powers that sustain it. Even I, at this sadly late date, am still willing to register it as something of a loss. So let's take up the Silver Lining: how would a leftish misanthrope, even one of Hitch's occasionally justified reputation, ever do justice to the fallout of the Bush years?
There is a general numbness afflicting everyone on the now deeply grotesque subject of Rudolph W. Giuliani. Hell's Mayor was on the tube last month for two consecutive days. After saying on the first (in an attempt to make Obama look weak) that there had been no attacks on American soil under George W. Bush; he corrected himself. Now, this first hokum had been trotted around by other freakish right wingers, yet coming from Giuliani it was tenaciously wicked.
Rudy had, after all, let us know in 2004 that his visceral reaction to to watching 3,000 people crushed and burned to a crisp three years previously was was to think and say, "Thank God George Bush is President." So that next day, he was back, clarifying that he had meant to say no attacks AFTER 9-11. This statement bears a slightly less obscure relation to the truth than his rot from the day before—as Mars is closer to us than the Sun.
Let me risk nausea with a bit of reflection. Joe Biden scored with a campaign season joke that went "To Rudy a sentence is comprised by a noun, a verb, and 9-11." It was an effective wink to the audience. By then it was obvious that Giuliani had used the catastrophe to enrich himself personally and ruthlessly advance his Party's fortunes.
There is also a polite cowardice to the joke. There is nothing wrong with Giuliani talking about 9-11 every day for the rest of his life, even if promoting a view of terrorism a leftist could take issue with. No one had more right. The problem is that his thanks to the Almighty was used as crude campaign fodder; it reveals him as a ghoul and a fool. Such was Hitch's man through most of campaign 2008. Credit the voters for passing on the high marks Rudy was drawing from the likes of Chris Matthews, who told his viewers repeatedly that "Rudy owns 9-11."
Beyond that, the problem with this bizarre glimpse into his mind's eye is that it sounds much like relief that he had a friendly administration—which shared his negligence surrounding the event—and thus had an added hedge against answering any tough questions. We later learned how sadly plausible this interpretation is; culminating in the black comedy of Rudy's hoodlum pal being briefly entrusted with the Baghdad Police. Stuff beyond virtuoso satire, to be sure. Yet there stood our Gadfly, cheering it all on.
The virtual U.S. press blackout on Tony Blair's testimony last week was more ghastly, amoral politeness. Blair's defense boiled down to pure Cheney; all must be seen and excused in the context of 9-11. Tony's mantra was a variation on a White Album Theme: "Number 9-11, Number 9-11...." Or, one dead Arab is as good as another.
However this politeness insists we "look ahead not back", however Hitchens would like us to forget the kite flying children of Iraq whose slaughter he did more than sign off on, we should not. No attacks on American soil AFTER 9-11. Rudy seeks not so much to move the goal posts, but to replant Stonehenge in the French Countryside. The likes of Hitchens would have him do it.
Murtha on the Haditha Massacre: "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."
Hitchens on the Haditha Masacre: "Haditha is not My Lai."
As the talk builds in US policy circles for the umpteenth time for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran, news has arrived this week of the death of one of the earliest congressional opponents of the pre-emptive thingy on Iraq, Congressman John Patrick Murtha, Jr.
Actually, the Pennsylvania Democrat dillied and dallied and dallied and dillied quite a bit on the Iraq War, after initially voting for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in October 2002, but he was far from a firm supporter of the war and was openly calling for a withdrawal by early 2005. In the end, given the cost of the occupation in lives and prestige and in view of its potential for escalation, he was, unlike Hitchens, unable to give the enterprise his continued backing.
So it is rather apt at this time for Hitchens Watchers to take a trip down memory lane to November 2005, when our antagonistic protagonist took an uncharacteristically non-polemical attitude to old John's call for US forces to withdraw from Iraq, and went to considerable pains to draw a distinction between Murtha's stance, wrong though Hitch believed it to be, and that of "Cindy Sheehan and her co-thinkers." The main thrust of Christopher's argument in this case was summed up by the non-sequitur in the subhead: "We're sticking with Afghanistan. Why would we ditch Iraq?"
You can read the Slate column in question here. It' a piece of pure Hitchcraft. Nobody beats around the bush and quite like the Hitch does, or dances quite as many points on the head of a paragraph. Here's the final one just to whet your appetite for the feast awaiting you on the other side of that link:
The perfect solution was hinted at by President Jalal Talabani on his last trip to Washington, several weeks before Rep. Murtha spoke up. He said he looked forward to the day when American troops could be withdrawn, and he said so plainly enough for the White House to issue a slightly nervous clarification about "deadlines." Iraq is not "occupied" by men like Talabani: He is a true son of the country and used to be a genuine insurgent at the head of an authentic peoples' army. It would be wonderful if an elected Iraqi government and parliament—which is thinkable after this December—took the decision to thank the coalition and to invite it to fold its tent and depart. But anyone who thinks that this would stop the madness of jihad need only look at Afghanistan, where a completely discredited and isolated minority continues to use suicide-murder as a tactic and a strategy. How strange that the anti-war left should have forgotten all of its Marxism and superciliously ignored the fact that oil is blood: lifeblood for Iraqis and others. Under Saddam it was wholly privatized; now it can become more like a common resource. But it will need to be protected against those who would shed it and spill it without compunction, and we might as well become used to the fact. With or without a direct Anglo-American garrison, there is an overwhelming humanitarian and international and civilizational interest in defeating the Arab Khmer Rouge that threatens Mesopotamia, and if we could achieve agreement on that single point, the other disagreements would soon disclose themselves as being of a much lesser order.
Murtha's death at 77 appears to have been the result of a medical cock up. As CNN put it, "Murtha was hospitalized for an infection caused by an accidental cut to the bile duct during gall bladder surgery. He died a week later on the afternoon of February 8, 2010, in the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia with his family by his side."
Let me leave you with the final thought that now Murtha is safely out of the way, Christopher is finally free to talk really dirty about the old guy. And there is plenty of dirt for a partisan porker to wallow around in, including the ABSCOM scandal and the three-sizes-too-big John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport. As for the title of such a hit piece in Slate, with all the gifts bestowed upon the deceased in his time, my recommendation would be "Gold, Frankincense and Murtha".
Have you ever wondered why the Hitch is why he is? That bitterly attractive little beastie we love to see savage the unsuspecting. Well, several men in white coats have a theory, and they had it in that crucible of wisdom and knowledge: Japan.
Being human, and I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that the Hitch is human, his "DNA carries the artifact of an infection so ancient that it predates humanity itself. The brain-attacking disease, known as bornavirus, infected proto-hominids forty million years ago. It may provide evidence of how our evolutionary ancestors dealt with infection." And it may be discovered that there are two mutations of this virus; bornagainvirus and bonovirus. This would explain the propensity to embrace an ideology based on sentiment and achieve demigod status.
"Keizo Tomonaga of Osaka University in Japan led a team of scientists in the hunt for signs of bornavirus in the genomes of a range of animals, including humans, other primates, elephants, and marsupials. They discovered several fragments of bornavirus in human DNA, including two genes that were somehow affected by the pathogen."
"Although bornavirus is not the first disease to be passed from generation to generation, all previous examples observed in vertebrates were retroviruses. [which may explain the variation] While retroviruses take over their host cells to reproduce, bornavirus is a neurotropic virus, meaning it attacks but does not control the nerve cells. Rather, it reproduces in the cellular nuclei of its hosts. Bornavirus's name derives from the town of Borna, Germany, where the first documented incidence of the virus was observed in horses in 1885."
So there you have it: 'Beyond demonstrating a new way for viruses to latch onto the human genome, bornavirus may have evolutionary implications for humans. The wave of infection that struck our protohominid ancestors forty million years ago may have led to either genetic mutation or adaptive innovation.' As FGFM would so aptly put it: indeed.
(The pics are hot-linked to Hitch's views on evolution)
Feeling compelled to comment on an Orly Taitz video, I logged into my "hitchwatch" YouTube account so that I could do that and catch up on my mail. F1REbomb was kind enough to send his regards.
Another correspondent, alstaring, was a little confused about the political affiliations of one Maryam Namazie, who is on the Central Committee of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran.
MrLewey10 was kind enough to provide some constructive criticism along with supporting comrade Irish0583.
J.D. Salinger, described by Charles Laurence as a "narcissist, enigma and nutcase" has died aged 91. Christopher Hitchens tells us of the impact Salinger's most famous book, 'The Catcher in the Rye' had on him (here). For all those across the world who cannot access the dulcet tones of our Hobbit-like object of fascination on the BBC website, allow me to paraphrase (and worry not; Hitch has nothing on 'The Man in Black', Valentine Dyall, broadcasting when 'Catcher' was published.)
1951; what a year! 'The Catcher in the Rye' is about 'a 16-year-old boy, Holden Caulfield, who runs away from a boarding school to find his true self. Along the way, a story unfolds that deals with sex, rebellion and swearing and when it was first published; the book was immediately banned from many libraries, schools and bookstores, deemed to be too racy for young people and even older individuals. The book was an "instant classic" and sold over 60 million copies world wide. It was the most censored book for 20 years in a row but remained a top best seller'.
I don't think it fair to describe Salinger as a one-hit-wonder but his seminal work was certainly 'The Catcher in the Rye' which is said to have inspired Hitch to want to live in America, and two assasins: Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon, and John Hinckley, who shot President Ronald Reagan.
The Times tells us that Salinger "was the poet of youthful alienation before youth really knew what that was". Er.. right. To be fair I haven't read the book but in browsing through the responses to Salinger's death, and there are as many as cars slowing on the opposite carriageway of a motorway accident, it seems that the book is not about general teenage angst but the specific reaction to bereavement and grief.
Contributor 'Rev316' tells us that ' "The Catcher in the Rye" is highly overrated, but it does go to show how the left heaps endless praise upon those who are considered landmarks in their fight against conservatism'. Hitch, who has a 16 yr old daughter, tells us that the book is no longer relevant to modern teenagers. He excuses that view saying "the true measure of literature is rather more subtle than a mere translation into what we already pretend to “know” " which I agree with. But looking back on my own teenage years I cannot imagine the book would speak to me; there was no sex and swearing.
Aged 16 I didn't have any angst. I was well past the age where we had to make a choice of sanitary protection. Not that there was much choice. In fact the only angst I can remember came before the age of 16 when I realised I was one of the few in the changing room not wearing a bra. In contemplating this rite of passage I compared notes with a friend. It was like comparing raisins to sultanas on similar pastry boards but a contraption of pink elastic was duly applied for. I remember the crushing reaction of my mother - "Why??". The more sensible liberty bodice and regulation knickers went the way of the dodo.
For years I stuffed my lithe body into various arrangements of lacy strapping, only later realising that in freeing myself from these contraptions and wearing a vest and pants there was pleasure in the bounce and feel of unconstrained silken comfort. My rite of passage was nothing more than a distraction from more subtle lessons. Being a grown-up is not a constrained choice of underwear or music.
However, I see schoolgirls on the street wearing skirts no bigger than a wide belt and with no more than a blazer to protect them from the snow and I think how stupid they are. We were not allowed to go to school looking like a tramp. It's not authoritarian it's just cold, and stupid. But should we try to better understand the teenager? Or would they be better served by adults 'failing' to demonstrate how to have 'safe sex' and urging them not to have sex at all and to keep their pants on past puberty? In the news I see a 9 year old has given birth recently.
With Newsnight asking if we in Britain hate children, and asking the ridiculous figure of Camilla Batman-Ghelidjh (where does she get her 'facts' from?), I wonder where we're heading? We are told that violent deaths among children in England and Wales has fallen by almost 40% since 1974 because of State interference. The conclusion glosses over the 'Baby P' tragedy and others of that kind, and the false allegations and families broken by them. It ignores the fact that parents barely let their children out of their sight any more and that children nowadays can sit quietly, parked in front of 24-hour TV or their Nintendo DS. No, we are safer because of the all powerful all intrusive Big State.
Holden Caulfield was born in 1951, aged 16. I wonder if he would have fared better today or whether his salvation was always due to his sister, who loved him and was prepared to take his hand?
According to Hitchens, "we" are about to be attacked by a bunch of dwarves. Really nasty dwarves, too. Koreans. They have brown skin and bite at the ankle.
This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.
Be afraid, folks. Be very very afraid. If you peep through your fingers, what you see coming is a yellow menace the likes of which we haven't seen since WWII. Hold on to your loved ones.
|
Hitchens Watch Obtains Rare Tape Of Hitchens' Babysitting Adventures
Our Popinjay (although these days it's probably more fair to describe him as our "Poppin'-Fresh," The Pillsbury Decent, than "Popinjay") is undeniably a man of many talents. Not just any plain old ordinary writer, this rambling raconteur ably rants, raves, rages, rails, roars, harangues, slimes, slanders, smears, and snitches--often all in the span of a single Slate column. But don't think our boy's skills are limited to his mastery over the mighty pen or public speaking. It turns out that once, many moons ago, when Hitch was holed up in Andrew Cockburn's basement as struggling new emigre to America, he employed his vast skills at the ancient art of babysitting. And who would have thunk that the young lass he babysat for would grow up to be one Ms. Olivia Wilde, the beauteous Hollywood actress:
"Christopher Hitchens used to babysit me when I was young."
"With Olivia you could tell it was going to be the movies or stage or TV or nothing," says Hitchens, the noted writer and political racon-teur who briefly lived with the Cockburns and describes it as the type of place where the worn memoirs of the French military leader Ferdinand Foch were used to prop up a window. "Olivia sort of lived the part--very pretty, and, well, the Victorian term for it is headstrong. She wasn't going to be overlooked or ignored."
In light of this, we sent our own HW Special Correspondent James O'Keefe to investigate this development by having him break into Hitchens' home posing as a telephone repairman, and while wiretapping Hitchens' phone he stumbled upon a rare and candid tape that appears to be a recording of him during one of these jobs. We have authenticated the tape as the real McCoy, though it wasn't hard to tell that it was actually him, experts on The Hitch as we are. Take a listen here.
And a thousand thank yous to this comrade who helped bring this to our attention.
Update: It appears that a Ziocon or Reptilian shapeshifter (we're still investigating this) managed to hack into the site, mess up the url of the recording I linked to, and then somehow implant false memories of me not properly checking the link before I published the post. Rest assured, their agenda has been thwarted and the link fixed.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
