In the mid-nineties, Ron Mwangaguhunga was one of Hitch's interns at The Naton. Which is pretty rich if you think about it. The Big Man wrote a 1,000-word column every two weeks and he had interns, plural! "What DID he do with them?", I'm sure you're all asking. Well, unlike Bill Clinton, who did his entertaining in the Oval Office, Hitch took his interns out to lunch. Ron was one of the few who survived to tell the tale.
"One of the benefits of the job at The Nation was that Chris Hitchens had (he no longer writes for The Nation) a custom of taking his interns out to lunch. The lovely editor-heiress at The Nation, Katrina Van Den Heuvel gave an ironic smile during the beginning of the internship presentation process when mentioning the customary Hitchens lunch. Like she knew something we didn't know. It was uncanny. One got the feeling that this luncheon was the stuff of legend. I needed to bust in on that fucking tea party!"
"But back to Hitchens -- a man whom, although I disagree with him on his position vis-a-vis the Iraqi war, was very good to me over the years as a mentor and a friend. At the Grammercy Tavern bar, he and an old Oxford friend welcomed me with open bottles. We began immediately with some red wine. Then, we talked Classics..."
"How to describe Chrstopher Hitchens? He has an intense attraction to argument and debate. It is his nature, the process by which he judges the character of a person. He has been doing it since Prep School and will debate on everything from the precise wording of a quote rendered to the human rights record of whichever dictator or record. If you can charm your way out of the argument -- Christopher is one of the world's most formidable debators, and he sometimes fights dirty -- or are not obsessed by winning or getting in the last word, he is a delightful and interesting and funny guy with an incredible storehouse of DC gossip."
Many very clever people, such as Oliver Kamm who as we all know is terribly, terribly clever indeed, have noted how the rise of the intertubes has cheapened, lowered and befouled our standards of political debate.
The power of anonymous commentators to attack even such luminaries as Christopher has now reached new depths (or heights depending on how you look at it) Doubt it, then look at this cowardly comment (from a so called "G" from some place called "London") re this fawning piece on our hero from the Times of London
This son/daughter/second cousin twice removed of Satan himself, picked up on one sentence in article, viz;
"I observe that Hitchens has a curious habit of holding his right hand firmly and correctively with his left."
And dared compare Mr Hitchens with this fictional character.
I'm sure you, like me, have had enough of this sort of online thuggishness. Is the only solution to ban anyone from ever commentating online on anything ever again?
I have to say Sadly, Yes.
|
Warning: Horroscopes Can Seriously Damage Your Wealth
A big thank you to Mike Gildersleeve for this link to Chritopher Hitchens's recent post in the Post, Astrology Not the Only Cosmic Hoax.
Hitch is irritated that the Washington Post publishes horoscopes.
Harmless enough, you may say. But how true is it that nonsense and pseudo-science are harmless? Astrology is widely considered to be discredited because of certain very obvious objections:
1) It gives people the impression that they are the center of the universe and that the constellations are somehow arranged with them in mind. 2) It suggests that there is a supernatural supervision of our daily lives, and that this influence can be detected and expounded by mere humans. 3) It bases itself on the idea that our character and personality are irrevocably formed at the moment of birth or even of conception.
Who does not know how to laugh at the credulity of those who fall for this ancient hoax? And why would it matter, except that religion, too, believes that the cosmos was created with us in mind, that our lives are supervised by an almighty force that priests and rabbis and imams can interpret, and that – by way of doctrines such as “original sin” – our natures have been largely determined when we are still in the womb or the cradle.
Credulity, in the sense of simple-mindedness, is often praised by those who claim to admire the “simple faith” of the devout. But the problem with credulity is that it constitutes an open invitation to the unscrupulous, who will take advantage of those who are prepared to believe things without evidence. This is why, for so many of us, the notion of anything being “faith-based” is a criticism rather than a recommendation.
I remember driving my mother crazy with these self same arguments when as a 14-year-old I couldn't bear to see her wasting her time, money and attention on a monthly astrology magazine called Prediction. Her reply was always along the lines of, "Leave me alone. I don't believe in it, but I've got to have something pleasant to look forward to, married to your dad." And she was right. Astrology is far less harmful than smoking, drinking, gambling and many forms of sexual intercourse. Moreover, astrology has less to do with credulity than with the pursuit of pleasure.
His protestations notwithstanding, Hitch isn't really quite as deficient in the faith department as he makes out. An examination of his writing on a host of issues reveals a propensity to belive quite a few things on the slimmest of evidence, and in the best bully pulpit tradition he attempts to coerce his readers into doing the same. Faith is a virtue when invested wisely and a vice when invested foolishly. What faith Hitch expresses seems to be in the service of his sponsors, for whom he is happy to go to incredible extremes of credulity. Let's hope he does better with hope and charity.
|
Hitchens blames Russia for "our woes in the Islamic world"
"the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan—the true and original source of many of our woes in the Islamic world."
This is extraordinary, for several reasons. For one thing, Hitchens has until this time refused to recognize the existence of any root or undelying causes to violence emanating from the Islamic world (such as US military presence in Saudi Arabia, etc.). Islamic radicals kill, we were told, quite simply because their interpretation of Islam dictates that they kill all infidels - this was not so much better than Bush's stupid explanation that they attack us because they hate freedom.
Apparently not satisfied with those answers anymore, Hitchens now appears to be blaming the Russians for...what, exactly? "Our" woes in the Islamic world - what is he referring to? The 9-11 attacks? Any guesses? And who is the "our"? The West? All white people? I'd like to know.
Also, Hitchens seems to be saying the US bears no responsibility for funding and arming the muhajadeen. That it was all Russia's fault, and that the CIA simply did what it had to do by propping up bin Laden in the first place. I think it would come as quite a surprise to Russian historians to learn that America's troubles in the Islamic world are the result of the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
I'm sure Hitchens could explain himself if challenged, but at the least I wonder how he could possibly drop a line like that without thinking it would require an explanation?
For today's Slate bit Christopher waxes lyrically about how great it is that some chum or other of his has become French Foreign Minister.
Indeed this is the "The single best symbol of the change in France"
All good stuff, and certainly a useful counterpoint to people, who only a few short weeks ago were bemoaning a "France that is moving steadily to the right." and even saying "France has now become the most conservative major country in Europe"
One commentator was even predicting, and try not to laugh out loud, that Jean Marie Le Pen would "rise again" at this election. I bet whoever wrote that feels like a bit of a fool today eh readers?
The culprit, well I'm sure some of you have already guessed.
This is a bit off-topic, but it's a good illustration of how the pundit game is played. These days, Michelle is busy smearing Ron Paul as a "9/11 truther," yet the lass herself was questioning the official version of 9/11 back in 2002, going a lot further than Paul's understanding of the events as a form of blowback.
|
Congressman Kucinich on "The truth about oil and Iraq"
It's so nice to hear some straight talk from an American politician.
On May 23, Congressman Dennis Kucinich said:
Oil was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq. There were, of course, no weapons of mass destruction, no connection between Iraq and 911, no connection between Iraq and Al Queda’s role in 911. Despite that the Bush-Cheney Administration, with the approval of a Democratic-controlled Senate and the Democratic leader of the House, supported and commenced a brutal campaign of shock and awe, of bombing, invasion and then occupation of Iraq.
Iraq may have as much as 300 billion barrels of oil untapped. With oil headed toward $70 a barrel, the oil wealth of Iraq could be worth as much as $21 trillion. Nearly 3,400 sons and daughters of America have been sacrificed. As many as 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in the course of the US occupation. The taxpayers of the United States will pay between one and two trillion dollars for this war, which is based on lies.
All you Hitchaholics out there will be pleased to know you can watch eight appearances by the Popinjay on The Charlie Rose Show.
For instance, back in 1999, when Hitch was still putting marginally more effort into producing his writing than promoting his brand image, he sat for an interview with the affable Charlie to discuss his book on Bill Clinton, entitled—as I’m sure the entire class knows—No One Left to Lie To. Towards the end, Hitch also talked about that affidavit and how he hoped he and Sydney Blumenthal could still remain friends.
Several things struck me about watching this interview the other day. The first was the serious, almost dignified atmosphere —Hitch sitting like a Mastermind contestant in a dark and subdued suit, and an almost complete lack of interruption by host or guest when the other was speaking. How polite things were back then!
Secondly, Hitch still seemed to have a reasonably well functioning conscience—although this is something Alex Cockburn has warned us against assuming. At least, the superficial appearance of him having a veneer of essential decency was very much on view then in a way that it simply isn't today.
Thirdly, from my present vantage point eight years down the road, I was intrigued by how well or badly what Hitch said has stood up over time. And more than that, about how Hitch himself has developed. Conveniently (for purposes of comparison), you can see some more recent videos on the same page of Hitch on the Rose show. Recently, he has undergone a makeover from Hitch the Grey to Hitch the White—loosing his tie in the process. In the 2007 video, his absolute conviction in the certainty of his position comes through more brashly and determinedly than ever, and his identification with his masters appears complete. Listen to him waxing on about “our oil” in Iraq and you’d be forgiven for thinking he owned some concessions himself.
But enough from me—let’s hear it from the man himself.
On Bill Clinton: “I really, really, really, really don’t like him.”
“My differences with Clinton are not political. They are to do with the ruthless megalomaniac political style, and with the real self-advertised readiness for corruption and dirty work, which is what got me into trouble with him and his cohorts.”
“He lies about everything, uses his daughter as a prop, uses the help as his comfort women, and uses public money to defame and then blackmail them.”
“A creepily sadistic attitude”
"A willingness to bid for the racist subconscious"
On the book: “My little book—in part it’s a reproach to the American left, the American liberals for falling for him, and for defending him, when apart from anything else, he is an extremely and always has been an extremely conservative person. But also because of his corrupt and selfish, and I would say mean, almost psychopathically deceitful, tendencies.”
On Hitch’s own ideological position: “Well to the left of Mr. Clinton’s, well to the left of most people, well to the left of the Nation….a democratic socialist.”
And lastly, on liberals: “How liberals lost their souls.”
|
Antichrister Hitchens enters temple, insults Islam, bashes Buddhists and jibes at Jews
Dan Markel at Prawfsblawg gives an excellent report on our Athiest's recent gig at Temple Judea in Coral Gables, FLA along with Rabbi Goldberg ( Jew), Lama Karma Chotso (Buddhist), Prof. Daniel J. Alvarez (Christian), Prof. Nathan Katz ( Jew and buddy of the Dalai Lama), and Prof. Aisha Musa (Muslim).
Highlights: "Katz, in his response, pointed out that Hitchens had fallen for the claim that Orthodox Jews make love through a sheet with a hole in it. The claim is an arrant myth. And Katz rightly tweaked Hitchens for not having done his homework. But in the course of making his rebuke, Katz said that telling such a story was effectively only a few degrees less bad than raising the canard of the blood-libel.
When it was Hitchens' turn to speak, true to form, he went apeshit upon Katz's comparison of what he wrote to the blood-libel, saying, essentially, that if Katz hadn't been his invited guest at this house of worship, he would go outside and beat him senseless.
Professor Musa took Hitchens to task about which translation of the Koran he was purporting to use in the book, and the one he actually used, and then made a larger point: the Koran is a wonderful book demonstrating that Islam is a religion of peace, and Islam is being corrupted in some places by the human element.
Showing he was not afraid, as he put it, to attack the ideas of a Muslim woman in a wheelchair, Hitchens called bollocks: why is it that not a single Muslim authority issued a Fatwa against Saddam's genocide against the Kurdish Mulsim population? Why does the Koran call for death to infidels in this and that sura? And on.
Prof. Alvarez, meanwhile, chastized Hitchens for having evinced no empathy for the religious worldview in his book, and more sharply, contended that Hitchens' preferred secular humanism and scientism led to the Nazi and fascist worldviews. Hitchens responded with a learned disquisition on the Catholic Church's ties to fascism throughout Europe, and how the Church during WWII asked its priests to say prayers for the Nazi regime. Alvarez responded: Albert Speer once wrote that the Germans weren't better killers because of their Christian conscience. Hitchens: 25% of the German killing machine were practicing Catholics. Not one got excommunicated. Know who got excommunicated? Goebbels. Know why? He married a Protestant. Game over.
Even the gracious Buddhist nun got her drubbing from Hitchens. Sure, everyone thinks Buddhists are such lovely people. And you're no different. But Zen Buddhism was the religious motivation for the Japanese suicide bombers during WWII and much of the ongoing violence in Sri Lanka is inspired by Buddhists too."
Why isn't Hitchens tearing into John Edwards? Edwards recently said the following to a group at the Council on Foreign Relations:
"The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan," Edwards said. "It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world."
"By framing this as a 'war,' we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set -- that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam,"
said the former senator from North Carolina.
I would've thought this something Hitchens would jump all over. He's been dedicating his career over the last 6 years to the very idea that we are at 'war'. The Edwards speech was only on Wednesday, so we'll give Hitch some time to write his 1,000 word, savage takedown of Edwards in Slate, but I wouldn't hold your breath: remember that sunny profile Hitchens wrote of Edwards back in 2002? Yes, the two men used to be pals. It must make Hitchens grind his teeth to watch his old friend participating in such blasphemy (truth-telling), but my bet is that we won't be seeing any "The Sinister, Frivolous Mr. Edwards" headlines appearing in Slate. Call it a hunch.
Rachel Zoll, AP Religion Writer, has noticed the parade that Hitch, in the finest Trotskyite tradition, has jumped in front of. Currently the #1 most emailed story on Yahoo News.
Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," has sold briskly ever since it was published last month, and his debates with clergy are drawing crowds at every stop.
...
"There is something like a change in the Zeitgeist," Hitchens said, noting that sales of his latest book far outnumber those for his earlier work that had challenged faith. "There are a lot of people, in this country in particular, who are fed up with endless lectures by bogus clerics and endless bullying."
...
Some say liberal outrage over the policies of President Bush is partly fueling sales, even though Hitchens famously supported the invasion of Iraq.
To those Americans, the nation's born-again president is the No. 1 representative of the religious right activists who helped put him in office. Critics see Bush's Christian faith behind some of his worst decisions and his stubborn defense of the war in Iraq.
We've heard at some length Hitch's take on Jerry Falwell as a "Chaucerian fraud" who conned the credulous out of their savings, uttered vile antisemitic ravings, and, almost as bad—
"In the time immediately following the assault by religious fascism on American civil society in September 2001, he used his regular indulgence on the airwaves to commit treason. Entirely exculpating the suicide-murderers, he asserted that their acts were a divine punishment of the United States."
Well, now, it turns out Falwell's evil doings may have gone a good deal deeper than even Hitch could comfortably contemplate. Most of us took it for granted the televangelist was a big-time fraud with mafia connections, but how many of us suspected he was an associate of Wally Hillard, owner of the very flight school at the airport in Venice, FLA, where Mohamad Atta, the alleged 9/11 hijacker-suicide-murderer and lap-dance enthusiast did his training? Falwell apparently "borrowed" a million dollars from Hillard, and he didn't even keep up with the repayments.
Hillard, a Mormon convert, owned a lear jet discovered to have been used for heroin smuggling, and his born-again-Baptist buddy Falwell served as the producer of The Clinton Chronicles, a 1994 “documentary” that sought to implicate Bill in the Mena Airport cocaine-smuggling conspiracy.
According to Daniel Hopsicker, one of the best investigative journalists in the US today (who also provided the above info):
"The Rev. Falwell’s second curious association at the Venice Airport involves a dummy front company working at terror flight school Huffman Aviation in Venice Florida which moved, amid great controversy, to the Baptist minister’s hometown of Lynchburg VA., where the firm was mysteriously awarded a five-year contract to run a large regional maintenance facility at the airport, beating out a respected and successful local firm with 40 employees and a multi-million dollar balance sheet.
Britannia Aviation from Venice Florida, in contrast, had two employees, no corporate history, did not possess the necessary FAA license to perform the aircraft maintenance services for which it had been contracted, and was worth less than $750. "
Where we also learn that "One of the flight trainers who trained Atta in Venice moonlighted flying missionary flights for televangelist Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing."
So Hitch is right about one thing—Falwell sure as hell was one dodgy vicar. But he was also so much more than that, and given his connections within "the Octopus," what Jerry said about pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and People For the American Way being responsible for 9/11 may well have been more than just a slip of the tongue.
And his death, far from being an act of divine retribution..... Well, they say the Kingdom of the Lord comes like a thief in the night, but you never know.
"The problem with credulity is that it constitutes an open invitation to the unscrupulous, who will take advantage of those who are prepared to believe things without evidence"
Mr Hitchens on the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction?
By popular request, we present some snippets from a post on Hitch and Lebanon. Pinched from READING THE MAPS, it goes back to August 2006 and examines Hitch's predicament in the wake of Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
"It is rather difficult, though, to put any sort of humanitarian, 'left' gloss on the carnage in Lebanon. The US's claim to be liberating the Iraqi people always rang hollow to most of us, but not even the most shameless warmonger would try to argue that Israel's invasion is an attempt to liberate the Lebanese."
The brutally punitive nature of imperialism's new war does not trouble neo-cons ensconced snugly in the thinktanks of Washington.....Matters are somewhat more complicated for scions of the old pro-war 'left' like Norm Geras and Christopher Hitchens. Both Hitchens and Geras argued that the left should seek a temporary rapproachment with the neo-con right, in order to take advantage of a supposed sea change in US foreign policy. For these folk, the war in Iraq was a war for democracy, human rights, and the ending of the humanitarian disasters Saddam Hussein's rule had created. It must be clear even to Geras and Hitchens that the war in Lebanon is undermining a bourgeois democratic government and creating a humanitarian disaster of colossal proportions."
"Hitchens' opposition to the new war, and Geras' typically mealy-mouthed criticisms the worst atrocities, have to be understood as attempts by the better-known members of the rump of the old pro-war 'left' to distance themselves from the latest disastrous consequences of US policies in the Middle East. Jay Sparrow suggested recently that the last vestiges of Hitchens' reputation are in danger of going up in the fire Bush and Blair have lit:'I reckon he's changed his tone now because he recognises that he's starting to lose his influence in liberal circles -- and once that happens, what's he left with? He doesn't want to end up with the Bible-thumping Right and, more to the point, they have no use for a cosmopolitan literary egghead, anyway.'"
Certainly, there's not a chance in Hell of Hitch ending up with the Bible-thumping Right, but if he keeps up his current course he may well end up head his own modest political movement one day.
It has often been said that Time makes fools of us all. It would however be my contention that some people end up looking more foolish than others
For example? well lets compare and contrast.
"All of this has been done in my name, and I feel like bearing witness." ( Slate April 03) Crowed Mr Hitchens as American troops entered Baghdad. Yet now, as the death toll mounts and the chaos seems endless his proud bluster has turned, not to shame, but to blame. The question now for our hero seems to be who is responsible for the hell Iraq has become?
Now I'm sure we all have our own theories. Some (including myself) have argued that the whole invasion was a crazy idea from the beginning. Others have pointed to failures in the initial period of the occupation or the decision of Paul Bremner to disband the Iraqi army.
Mr Hitchens though, ever the contrarian, has indentified a new culprit. Lets listen in to a recent interview on Australian TV's Lateline.
"[This] means that those who wish to reduce Iraq to the level of Somalia or Afghanistan in the name of God, the Al Qaeda forces and the other parties of God who are in the process of destroying Iraqi civil society have only to wait it out now. The anti war side appears to have won the argument... I hope that they will be delighted by the Iraq they'll get."
So there you have it brothers and sisters, the people responsible for the outcome of the war are those who argued against it ever happening in the first place. Those who must bear the blame for Iraq being reduced to bitter sectarian war and chaos are those who oppossed the actions that caused it.
This is, I must say, a novel line of argument. Where else could we apply this style of reasoning? Did you try and stop that drunk driving his car away? well then you bear the responsibilty for anyone he runs over. Did you argue with your friend not to take that first hit of crack? Well I hope you are happy now that he is now a hopeless addict, you b*stard.
Whatever happens though gentle reader lets remember that the only people who come out of the Iraq war with clean hands are those who did everything to start it. The only ones who can look the victims in the eye are those who did their damndest to ensure the bombs fell and the tanks rolled.
You are free to think that this is insane, you can even believe that it represents a staggering, almost pathological avoidance of responsiblity.
David Wong not only has one of the best web page names in the universe pointlesswasteoftime.com he is also, underneath the dick references and funny pictures, an excellent writer who always has interesting things to say.
His latest feature piece on religion is a great antidote to much of the ravings we hear from both sides of the issue. Hitchenswatch is proud to link to..
When I began this site a couple of years ago it was still possible to argue that Christopher Hitchens actually represented a body of ideas (however much you disagreed with them)
However increasingly it seems that our subject has abandoned the world of ideas for the school of "throw enough dirt and perhaps people will forget what the point was,
Mr Hitchens starts with an quote from Jimmy Carter.
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including [those of] George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
Now many would say that is pretty non-controversial stuff, with plenty of facts to back it up. Opinion polls show that America's standing is at it's lowest point ever, and even respected historians have argued that Bush is the Worst President in US history.
However, as always, there is room for disagreement and I'm sure a case can be made against the thesis. However what we are presented with is not a case but a violent ad hominem attack.
Carter has a "big, smug mouth" suffers from "sophomoric slackness" Carter it seems was single handedly responsible for the first gulf war, made the "United States an international laughingstock." has a "beer-sodden brother" his mother was a "grisly matriarch" and worst of all Carter made "spiteful and cheap remarks on the retirement of Prime Minister Tony Blair."
I could go on, however there is one thing totally missing from Hitchen's critique of Carter's comments. There is no rebuttal of the content, none at all. Hitchens does at one point suggest that in his opinion Nixon might have been worse that Bush 2, but this point gets no time to develop with all the mud that is being slung around.
In football (soccer) there is a tactic of "playing the man not the ball." Where a player, usually one who is outclassed in the game, sets out to injure his opponent. Watching Christopher being reduced to this when dealing with Jimmy Carter (hardly the sharpest knife in the box himself) reminds us of how much the quality of his argument has deteriorated.
Oh Ye Gods, is there no justice? That a poor, hardworking bank manager can be hounded out of his job merely for trying to do the right thing by his paramour, sorry, partner, is sharper than a serpent's tooth and twice as venomous.
Yes, our Hero is at it again, gallantly defending the honour of his friends Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Ali Riza—this time on Australia's ABC TV show Lateline. And it's quite a performance.
There's the harsh injustice: "[The forced resignation is] an injustice in itself, and as I was saying, it's self imposed because he realised that he couldn't go on without damaging the bank. But it's an injustice that's been necessitated by an initial injustice and that's the simplest thing to understand. "
Then there's the cruel unfairness: "I can't see how - in any sense, legal or moral - that is fair, and if I had been her, I would have sued, as she had the right to do and would have had the right to do under all possible laws governing discrimination."
The appalling racism: "Had her referred to in the press as "girlfriend" and "mistress”, terms that are almost never used these days about unmarried people who have some kind of relationship. Usually the neutral word "partner" is used. In this case, even in newspapers like the New York Times "mistress" and "girlfriend" were bandied about freely. I have a feeling that it might not have been the case if she wasn't an Arab woman for example."
The horrible slandering: " I know both of them well. I have known her longer than him. I suppose the thing that would surprise most people on Wolfowitz is what a bleeding heart he is. He's had to read all the time, for many years now, that he's a member of a Jewish, heartless, neocon, cabal of hardline interventionists. As a matter of fact, I came to know him because he was in favour of an intervention to save the Muslim population of Bosnia from extermination by Christian fascists in the 1990s, a subject in which the State interests of Israel were not involved, can I just say. I knew that previously he'd been instrumental in persuading the Reagan administration to dump the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, even if it meant losing the American bases there, a very important change in the early '80s. I was impressed by his view the risks of democracy and democratisation are very great. They're nothing compared to the risks of dictatorship. He's been relatively consistent on that, more than most in Washington."
And lastly, the vile schatenfreude: "Well I hope they're all happy with having done this."
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much, especially about the use of "girlfriend" or "mistress." But I am old fashioned. Having said that, the poignancy of Hitch's delivery touched my heart, and I honestly haven't cried so much since watching Cathy die in Wuthering Heights.
We've been displaying far too many depressingly ugly mugs on this site recently. So in the interests of maintaining aesthetic balance and cheering up the patrons, we're bringing on the felines.
Those of you with long memories will remember how slammmed and slated your humble hedgehog host was for noting that Mr Hitchens was telling fibs when he said he knew the late, lamented Paul Wolfowitz only "slightly"
Indeed one nitpicking comentator went so far as to call me a liar for daring to doubt Mr H's word on the matter. Well luckily enough an Article in this weeks Sunday times (for which our hero is obviously the main source) finally says it out loud. "The writer Christopher Hitchens, a friend of Wolfowitz"
Thank goodnes for that, I would not want either of my regular readers to get the impression that I just make stuff up as I go along.
Mr Hitchens makes a couple of bizzare statement in this article such as "“It is not a coincidence that Wolfowitz has an Arab and Muslim companion because he has always been interested in those issues,”
Interested in the Middle East? Better get an ethnic girlfriend/boyfriend if you want to be taken seriously.
Christopher's main point however is expressed in his usual pity style.
" “The main noise in Washington right now is that of collapsing scenery. The Republican party is in total disarray. They’ve been dropping their most intelligent people over the side."
We have all been, rightly in my opinion, impressed by Christopher's attackd on the odious Gerry Falwell. However while that episode has shown up all of Mr Hitchens' undoubted strengths, this one alas shows up his undoubted weaknesses.
Firstly there is his over reliance on cliche,
"It seems almost quaint to recall the long opposing tradition, whereby British stoicism and endurance - whether it involved PoWs or men in the trenches, or people on long night-shifts or arduous stints at the coalface - were almost exemplified by the consoling fag or baccy or snout"
Now this is a great example of thoughtlessness, if anyone near a coalface lit up a consoling fag they would not have long to worry about any more "arduous stints" as they would be blown up into a thousand little pieces by exploding methane.
Then we get the 'just making sh*t up' technique
"I did notice a wonderful moment in the brilliant German film Downfall, about the last days of the Third Reich. Those in the Führerbunker who found the situation becoming a little too tense, and who wanted a drag to relieve the strain, were required to step outside into the garden, amid the rain of Red Army shells. A good way to prolong your life. And several historians have described the moment, just after the suicide of Hitler, when the surviving occupants could and did gratefully light up out of sheer relief. How amazing that we now have a minister who would quite humourlessly say that it was the latter group that was setting the bad example.
Patricia Hewitt has not, to my knowledge, ever said anything along the lines of "say what you like about Adolf, but he was damn right on smoking" but hey, why let facts get in the way of a bogus point.
Finally hypocrisy.
" I am not so much alarmed and depressed by the swift and total nature of the ban as I am struck by the ease of its victory. I haven't actually lived in Britain for some time, but I would have expected a bit more resistance to such a crude extension of state and schoolmarm power. Is it really true that people do not mind having the cigarette snatched from their hands, everywhere from the boozer to the night-club to the billiard hall"
Those useless Brits. Another sign of the decline of that once proud nation into a collection of namby pamby cowards, not willing to fight back against the "nanny-state"
Yet for some strange reason our hero fails to mention that exactly the same legislation has been in place in Washington (his home town) since January 2006.
It's an interview with Hitch by Holiday Dmitri of RADAR, in which he isn't spending 95% of the time on religion. The topic get plenty of space—after all, the man has to plug his latest book—but for those of you who are bored stiff with that subject, there's much, much more!
Like what he reads, how he writes, his latest stalker, why he decided to become an American citizen, and who he's going to vote for in the 2008 election.
Clue: " I would vote for a pro-war, religious person over an anti-war atheist."
Actually, this was basically a Hitch solilioquy. Al Sharptongue tries to ask a simple and reasonable question: "If there is no supervisory being, then what do we base morality on?" And Hitch replies by stating that some people beleve that in the absence of divine supervision everything is permissible, but that he himself thinks there is an enormous amount of evidence that that's not the case. Then he goes off very entertainingly on all sorts of tangents, without ever really answering what was really a very simple and straightforward question.
The closest he came to an answer was the declaration that "Morality is innate in us." In an otherwise very slippery display of wordplay, this was one of the few solid statements a listener could cling onto. But it is only the barest beginning of the foundation of a possible answer to Al's question. This is a great shame, because it would have been enlightening to have heard more about what Hitch thinks morality is, whether he thinks it is universal or culturally relative, or purely an individual lifestyle choice, and how he thinks we should distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate moral imperatives.
This is important because if you are determined to knock down God and religion, you really ought to be clear about what you propose to put in their place for all the simple, perplexed people out there.
But instead, by waltzing around the issue, Hitch has given the impression that he doesn't hold the idea of morality in very high regard and that it is only a fear of near universal disaprobation that prevents him from saying so openly.
|
"People in thrall to religion are 'groveling, abandoned serfs"
You take up the argument at the end of your book that people argue that the worst societies—the Nazi and Soviet regimes—were atheistic.
Twentieth-century Germany was not, in the main, an atheist state. Hitler never renounced the Catholic Church. He was happy to receive the prayers of the Catholic bishops in every town in Germany on his birthday, as ordered by the pope—the concordat with whom pretty much allowed him to consolidate power in the first place. He undoubtedly had the hope of replacing Christianity with a state religion based partly on paganism and partly on worship of himself. But to say that he was an atheist is utterly false.
Fascism and communism—the roots of the totalitarian impulse are in faith, not in skepticism. Because [the totaliitarian impulse] claims to be a total solution. And to make essentially no difference between the civic and the private life, and to arbitrate on everything from sex to diet.
Actually Christianity doesn't, to its credit, do a whole lot about diet. It does go on a lot about sex, though. It has ruined, irreparably ruined the happiness of millions and millions of people for generations by doing so and threatens to do the same now—and my view cannot be forgiven for that.
The religious impulse, if, shall we say, secularized a bit, is still dangerous: the impulse to worship, the impulse to take things on faith, the impulse to believe in miracles, the impulse to adore and to believe in incarnate good and evil. All these things have dire consequences.
Update: Hitler on Christianity (1941)
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."
