| The Rematch: Hitchens V. Boteach at the 92nd St. Y: Or, where the fu*k is Martin Buber when you need him?
|
| |
Thursday, January 31, 2008 |
|
# posted by Mark G : 2:09 PM
|

- Report by Alexander Zaitchik The last time I saw Hitchens debate, the subject was Iraq, his opponent the wide-tied British antiwar MP George Galloway. Outside Baruch College before the event, Hitch worked the line handing out Xeroxed fact sheets on his opponent—basically a collection of Galloway’s stupidest comments and proven fabrications. It was an oddly endearing sight: a disheveled Hitchens with sweaty pit rings struggling to keep his Xeroxed flyers in order against the wind, just like the guys hawking Socialist Worker and 9/11 Truth lit. It was hard to imagine many other established writers street hustling like this, a throwback to the lefty faction pamphlet politics of his youth. That night, in front of a largely anti-Hitchens crowd, Galloway proved himself a ridiculous character who did the antiwar cause no good. His performance is best remembered for the moment he told Hitchens, “You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay.” I don’t think more than 10 people in the packed house knew what a popinjay was, but damn if it didn’t sound good.
Last night at the 92nd St. Y, it was Hitchens’ opponent who handed out the pre-debate flyers. But the literature distributed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had nothing to do with the existence of God, the subject of the night’s debate. The host of the cable program “Shalom in the Home” instead handed out contribution cards for his newly founded Jewish Values Network. The piece of paper he pushed into my palm offered zero information about the organization other than it wanted my money. The form listed donation options of $180, $360, $520, $1000, $5000, and $20,000. There was also an “other amount” option and an annual platinum membership of $2000, to be sent to a P.O. Box in Englewood.
Hitchens was a no-show at the reception. Perhaps he knew from his previous debate with Boteach that it wouldn’t be a reception so much as a forum for Boteach to plug his latest projects. Tonight this meant the Jewish Values Foundation and his new book devoted to these values, The Broken American Male. Boteach’s nineteenth book, The Broken American Male lays out a plan for American men to feel better about themselves by adopting the Jewish values of family, spiritual life, and professional success. “People are so sad these days that some companies are making a fortune selling anti-depressants,” Boteach told the reception. “Companies I wish I owned shares in!” Nobody laughed because he wasn’t joking.
The sold-out debate, which was simulcast to 11 Jewish community centers around the country, was over before it began. As Hitchens noted in his opening statement, the burden of proof was fully on his opponent. Considering this was Boteach’s second time debating Hitchens on the subject—not to mention his numerous other debates with prominent atheists, including four matches with Richard Dawkins—he was shockingly unprepared to rumble. If they had been wearing gloves, it would have been stopped 20 seconds in.
Hitchens began his opening statement with a droll “Shalom” and proceeded to lay out the argument in God Is Not Great: “We are just poorly evolved primates… Religion is merely our first and worst explanation we came up with, our first attempt at philosophy and cosmology… Slowly we’ve been winnowing down the number of Gods, getting ever closer to the real number. The history of emancipation is the history of getting over religion…Religion is wish thinking. Who but a serf wants it to be true? To believe in interventionist God you must believe God was indifferent to us for most of our history, then started to care in Bronze Age middle East… If you want to chop off the end of your penis, that’s fine, but don’t force it on children…”
Seconds into Boteach’s incoherent response it was clear the debate stage would be a killing floor. “I am so depressed after listening to that!” the rabbi declared when Hitchens was finished. His first and biggest problem with atheism, it seemed, was that it lacked the power to uplift, and hence could not possibly be true. Boteach followed this observation by noting that God Is Not Great made Hitchens a lot of money—even though atheism is supposed to be a “non-prophet faith” (no one laughed) and even though it was “his weakest book.” The Rabbi then proceeded to plug his own books (Kosher Sex is now available in paperback) and quote Jack Nicholson in People magazine talking about how men are all dogs. Boteach wound up his first response by explaining that a watermelon is not a jellyfish and the difference surely points to the existence of an interventionist god. Then he called Hitchens “positively ignorant” and sat down.
To the extent it was possible, things devolved from there. Boteach became more spastic with each exchange. He attacked Hitchens for not understanding the true meaning of Hanukah (“Google it!”) and claimed that the complexity of the human eye proves the existence of a divine all-knowing creator. He also said Steven Jay Gould did not really believe in evolution and attempted to draw a direct line between the ideas of Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler, a trick last heard on AM Christian radio. He marveled at how the earth was perfectly positioned in the galaxy to allow life to flourish. He lambasted Dr. Kevorkian in such a way that condescended to terminal cancer patients in extreme pain. Then he sat down again.
In short, whatever one feels about Hitchens, it was impossible not to enjoy his systematic and merciless destruction of his loathsome opponent.
“There are no statements worth arguing here,” Hitchens said toward the end of the night, practically checking his watch. “All you can do is underline them.”
Winding down the clock, Boteach and Hitchens sparred over the extent of Einstein’s Zionism and whether an Israeli court ever signed off on a Jewish doctor’s refusal to treat non-Jews on the Sabbath. Hitchens showed no more patience for Boteach’s historical and political arguments (“so much white noise”) than he did for his religious ones (“wailing and bleating at an empty sky”). If Boteach understood he was suffering a severe public humiliation, he never showed it. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Hitchens Watch at NYC debate tonight
|
| |
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 |
|
# posted by Mark G : 12:14 PM
|
BOTEACH VS HITCHENS, WEDNESDAY NIGHT 8 PM EST
Just a brief announcement for our readers, assuming we have any left after the recent spate of smear campaigns directed against HW, and against me in particular:
We have a special correspondent attending Hitch's latest sold-out God debate, tonight in Manhattan. Our reporter's name is Alexander Zaitchik, former editor of the New York Press, current editor of Moscow-based newspaper the eXile.
(Shmuley Boteach left, doing a Hitchens-esque pose) |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Race (Still) Matters
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:15 AM
|
 South Carolina, not so long ago
The ever excellent Ross Douthat responds to Christophers confused position on Barack Obama's run for president
"A couple of weeks ago, Christopher Hitchens penned a pair of broadsides - first for Slate, then for for the WSJ - attacking the notion that anyone ought to be even the slightest bit excited to see a competitive Presidential campaign being run by someone who fifty years ago could not have shared a water fountain with a white man, and a hundred and fifty years ago could have found himself bought and sold as chattel. "Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade?" Hitchens wrote, with the air of a supercilious Martian anthropologist unburdening himself about the idiot natives after spending about, oh, ten days or so on Planet Earth.....
there's no question, the future looks bright for a more color-blind politics (in Democratic primary campaigns, at least). And God willing, this election will be remembered as a milestone on the march to a time when Christopher Hitchens - or whoever succeeds him the role of our political media's house contrarian - can safely accuse his readers of being "pathetic and embarrassing" for taking an interest in a candidate's skin color without sounding spectacularly obtuse."
We couldn't have put it better ourselves. In fact, we could not even have put it anywhere near as well. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| The two faces of Martin Amis
|
| |
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 |
|
# posted by Sonic : 6:09 PM
|

We've noted before Christophers' staunch defence of his friend Martin Amis, after the latter was accused for racism.
Johan Hari has just published an interview with Martin Amis which gives an interesting insight into the tortured psyche of the modern day liberal islamaphobe. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Divine Impulses: Christopher Hitchens
|
|
# posted by Greywolf : 1:40 AM
|
In this interview, courtesy of The Washington Post, which may take a tad to load, Hitch reveals his own miserable religious boarding school education and his negative reaction to it. According to the beadle, never before has a boy asked for no more! He also reveals that he thinks atheists are—rather like homosexuals—born rather than made by experience. Although if that's really the case, I find myself screaming to ask him, why does faith bother him so much?
Also, Hitch puts forward the contention that morality is innate in humans and that other animals have morals too. I really must discipline my cats when they persist in trying to steal food off of each other's plates and scratching the woodwork, because quite frankly they should know it's wrong. And we really all should stop worring about the swarthy Islamofacist hoards being out to kill every last man jack and woman jill of us because, after all, they're primates too. Their sense of right and wrong should protect us quite securely.
Sally Quinn: Let's talk about whether you can be a moral person without believing in God.
Hitch: Well I think that the answer to that is and must be yes. I think that our morality is innate to us. The likelhood is that religion took its morality from ordinary human reality rather than the other way around. How can I demonstrate that? Well for example, animals show social solidarity. They stick up for each other. They have a certain amount of code. Now, no one says that they got that from God. We're an animal species. We're primates. We have that innate in us. We wouldn't have got this far if we didn't. But we're the only ones who think so highly of ourselves that we think 'Oh, we must have got that from something devine.' " |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Amnesia
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:07 PM
|
 You'd think that one of the qualities of being a "top political writer" would be the ability to remember what you wrote a week ago or so.
You'd think, but alas gentle reader, you would be sadly mistaken.
Lets, as an illustration look at this weeks Slate bit, It should be no surprise that the Clintons are playing the race card.
It's mostly a rehash of his usual charges against Bill Clinton, rushing to defend Barack Obama he states,
"Barack Obama carries South Carolina having made no sectarian appeal to any specific kind of voter"
Which slightly contradicts his statement from the dim and distant past of last week., on Obama's race
"the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. I must say that the lyricism with which he does this has double and triple the charm of Mrs. Clinton's heavily-scripted trudge through the landscape, but the irony is still the same."
All fun and games of course, but one is reminded of the perceptive commentator who only three weeks ago who thundered, "There's something pathetic and embarrassing about our obsession with Barack Obama's race."
Who could fail to agree, and the identity of this voice of sanity?
Step forward, er, Christopher Hitchens (Slate January 2008) |
|
 |
|
|
|
| The political prognostications of CH
|
|
|
# posted by Mark G : 5:23 PM
|
After Obama's rout in South Carolina, I wonder if Hitchens would want to retract the following statement he wrote on September 24, 2007 in Slate.com. It's not exactly a prediction; I'm not sure what it is - a hope? a conceit? what? Seriously, what the hell was this supposed to mean? Sen. Obama cannot possibly believe, and doesn't even act as if he believes, that he can be elected president of the United States next year. Any guesses on what Hitchens was thinking? Could it have been something to do with Obama not being "black"? Of course Obama believes (and believed) he can win!
The quote is from that quirky article "Run, Al, Run" (referring to Al Gore) - much discussed here - where Hitch appeared to be trying to pull off some arcane magic trick. If I remember correctly, we were fairly divided on what he was up to: would he really have been a Gore backer as the article seemed to suggest? Or was the article merely an exercise in airy, aimless dinner-table speculation? I tend to think it was a failed bit of minor propaganda.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| She made me do it
|
|
# posted by yoyo : 1:14 AM
|
Christopher Hitchens, recently moved from a finished empire to one which appears to be on the decline. Like many expats, he seems to have a strong need to explain the country of his birth to his new country. In Hitch, this has taken the form of ruminating on the decline of the British Empire. Still being young enough to remember "when the sun never set," etc., there's a whining tone to these pieces as if to say, "if it could happen to us with all our sophistication, you may well be in danger too."
We have had his Flashman elegy, endless pieces about George Orwell, and now in the Atlantic Monthly we have a review of Paul Scott's Raj Quartet. This series discusses the British colonisation, control and ultimate loss of India. And guess what we discover courtesy of an aging misogynist? The English didn't lose India due to rapacious behaviour, poor handling of religious differences, a too long supply and command line, or any of the obvious reasons. The English lost India because of the "dreaded memsahib"—the white woman.
"And in the wake of this came the dreaded memsahib: the wife and companion and helpmeet of the officer, the district commissioner, the civil servant, and the judge. She was unlikely to tolerate the pretty housemaid or the indulgent cook. Worse, she was herself in need of protection against even a misdirected or insolent native glance. To protect white womanhood, the British erected a wall between themselves and those they ruled. They marked off cantonments, rigidly inscribing them on the map. They built country clubs and Anglican churches where ladies could go, under strict escort, and be unmolested. They invented a telling term—chi-chi—to define, and to explain away, the number of children and indeed adults who looked as if they might have had English fathers and Indian mothers or (even more troubling) the reverse. Gradually, the British withdrew into a private and costive and repressed universe."
We know Hitch is fearful and dismissive of powerful or uppity women—just look at the venom directed at Indira Ghandi and Hillary Clinton—but this is fatuous even for him.
"In this anecdotal theory, the decline of the British Raj can be attributed to the subtle influence of the female, to the male need to protect her (and thus fence her in), and to the related male need to fight for her honor and to punish with exceptional severity anybody who seems to impugn it. And so we may note with interest that it took one English homosexual, and one English bisexual, to unravel the erotic ambiguities of empire. “After all,” says the district collector Turton in E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India, “it’s our women who make everything more difficult out here.”
These were not powerful women, these were not the foolhardy policy makers of the last days of the Raj, these women didn't design Partition or invent the salt tax. These were Victorian chattels, without the dignity of the vote. For Hitch to give credence to this sexism makes me convinced that the mess that is Iraq is sure to become some woman's fault, and not that of his drunken aging boys yearning for lost glory.
This quote in particular confirms it.
"The novels also possess a dimension of historical irony, because they understand that the British stayed too long and left too soon. The date on which it became evident that the game was up is a date that every Indian still knows: April 13, 1919. Maddened by a report of a mob attack on (yes, it had to be) an Englishwoman, Brigadier General Reginald Dyer ordered his soldiers to fire into a crowd in the public square in the northern city of Amritsar." |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Siding with Kissinger
|
| |
Thursday, January 24, 2008 |
|
# posted by Mark G : 7:03 AM
|
Remember how Hitchens used to spin the fairy tale that Kissinger opposed the war in Iraq? Hitch did so in a pathetic attempt to convince himself and others that he was on the correct side of the argument in supporting the war. The "logic" went something like this: "Well, Buchanan and Kissinger are against the war. That must mean it's a good idea."
Problem was, we found out that Kissinger was actually a supporter of the war. Eventually, after it became painfully obvious that he was wrong, Hitchens dropped the argument like a hot brick.
Now we learn Kissinger is backing McCain for president. This makes things awkward for our Chris. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Hitchens himself has been leaning heavily toward McCain (ever since it became clear that Giuliani was finished). And we all know how highly Hitch thinks of Henry: "a proven coverup artist, a discredited historian, a busted liar, and a man who is wanted in many jurisdictions for the vilest of offenses" and, of course, a war criminal.
My guess is that Hitchens won't come out and openly endorse McCain, if only because Kissinger is now too a supporter. I would personally have a lot more respect for Hitchens if he just finally admitted he is now a right-wing warmonger himself like his old enemies Kissinger and McCain. But I'm sure he'll hold onto the myth that he's still the one true leftist (while the rest of us have become conservatives) until he dies. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Thou shalt not mock the Ten Commandments
|
| |
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 |
|
# posted by Greywolf : 7:44 PM
|
Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in Debate: Does God Exist?
These two have bashed Bibles together before but their latest clash, scheduled for January 30, promises to be a real catfight with plenty of fur and saliva flying. Apart from a common aversion to Islamofascist terrrorists, they have almost nothing in common.
Last June, Boteach took Hitch to task for mocking the Ten Commandments:
Didn't the ancient Israelites already know that thievery and murder were wrong? Quite right. Mankind would have easily legislated much of the morality contained in the Bible even without G-d. But then the whole point of the Ten Commandments is the establishment of absolute, divine morality. These are not laws legislated by man and subject, therefore, to human tampering. They are the absolute rules that dare never be changed - at any time, at any place, under any circumstances.
Then he went on to blame secular atheistic regimes for "the world's foremost genocides", daubed Hitler's master race ideas as "the direct product of evolutionary thinking", and suggested that:
before Hitchens claims, as he does in his subtitle, that 'Religion Poisons Everything,' he might stop to consider that the only basis for a belief that all human life is both equal and of infinite value is the Bible which he treads on with such glee.
More recently, in a January 14 article published in the Jerusalem Post, the good Rabbi set out in rough terms the nature of his criticism of the Hitchens worldview:
Hitchens, like Richard Dawkins, is a radical reductionist. To him we humans are nothing but intelligent mammals, thinking apes. Hence, seeing nothing uniquely human about our species, Hitchens has an extremely negative view of even those whom the rest of us consider saintly...
For Hitchens, the fact that saintly individuals exhibit serious flaws is proof that we are all nothing but unimpressive orangutans. For all our talk of a noble soul and human virtue, it is our beastly nature that most predominates.
This reduction of modern man to nothing more than his animal urges is what is most destroying him. Men like Hitchens would have us believe that the material is our truest essence. Hence, wasting our lives at the office making money so we can fill the emptiness of our existence with lifelong consumption is as inescapable as is the male tendency to indulge his genetic urge to inseminate as many women as possible.
To the enemies of faith, men are nothing more than walking sperm machines. It is not surprising that they cheat on their wives, programmed as they are to copulate with as many females as possible. Likewise, it is not surprising that they lust for power, conditioned as they are to hunt and horde resources in a world of limited supplies.
Both Hitchens's theory and book are seriously flawed, as I intend to point out in our debate. But its mass acceptance on the part of so many who now believe that humans were not created for any transcendent purpose is what allows them to squander their lives, without regret, on ephemeral pursuits like TV binge-watching and empty celebrity chatter.
Communism and terrorism remain the greatest threats to human liberty. But it is soulless capitalism that has now emerged as the most serious threat to human uniqueness, turning us all into an indistinguishable morass of shallow materialists.
Looks like this is shaping into a good, if not particulary fair, fight. Let's hope it goes the distance. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| When your friends dont like you.
|
|
# posted by yoyo : 1:42 PM
|

The popular and wonderful Pharyngula run by PZ Myers has a piece up called Hitch Has Big Brass Ones. It is a short piece making note of an upcoming debate between Hitchens and an idiot creationist, JayRichards. Myers is a supporter of Hitch and a fellow prominent atheist. Myers website mostly attracts a fairly educated atheistic crowd of commentators, so it was interesting to link though the comments section of this piece and see how many people were dismissive of Hitchens.
"Well, Hitch does have books and articles to sell. He can gain personally from it without doing much for "the cause" of either evolution or atheism. I also don't think he'll do much damage -- but he might. Hitchens, after all, isn't a scientist. He's liable to agree with things that shouldn't be agreed with. Nothing horrible, but just enough to distort the picture slightly. He's slipped before (in my opinion)."
"Of course, it will help if first, Hithcens (sic) is sober. Second, he doesn' mouth off more support for Bush and Irag and killing more Muslims."
"Of course, it will help if first, Hithcens is sober." How the hell do you know? When has anyone even seen Hitchens sober? "
"I don't know what to think about Hitch anymore. He still says idiotic things sometimes, and that debate against Dinette D'Setta didn't go very well, did it? Naturally I hope he trounces them. But I'm still watching with concern."
"HE DOESN'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT BIOLOGY OR GEOLOGY!! He will deeply fail if he is not trained for this..."
There were positive comments of course but what interests me, and should concern Hitchens is that these should be his people, educated, well read, atheists.
More and more it is sounding like Hitchens only friends are of the wingnut variety.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| Selective outrage
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 12:33 PM
|

In today's Slate Christopher Hitchens takes aim at Mike Huckabee for suggesting that South Carolina should fly the Confederate battle flag.
The piece is pretty pompously written and verbose of course, but it is difficult to disgree with it.
However one is struck by our muse's silence on this statement by Gov Huckabee
"The black community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not let them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're black ... Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children." (1)
Oh hold on, sorry that is not a statement by Mike Huckabee on Black people in the USA, it is a quote from Hitchens' good friend Martin Amis on how we should treat Muslims in the UK, a quote vigorously defended by our Christopher.
I'm not one to say selective outrage, however a note to people thinking of coming out with racist filth.
Make sure it's against Muslims and that will be ok.
Update
Our good friends at Sadly No also have much to add about Hitchens' strange attitude to racism. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Christopher repeats lie about Ron Paul
|
|
# posted by Mark G : 11:52 AM
|
In Hitch's latest Slate, he repeats an extraordinary LIE being spread about Ron Paul. Because Paul argued that the US, like other countries, could've and should've ended slavery without civil war and the deaths of 600,000 Americans, the neocons have responded by loudly denouncing Paul as a a supporter of...the Confederacy, and of course a racist, by extension. Toward the end of his righteous, puffed up anti-Chuckabee tirade, Hitchens inserts the lie about Paul: There are two Republican candidates in this election—the absurd and sinister Ron Paul being the other—who choose this crucial moment in our time to exalt those who attempted to destroy the Union by force, and those who solicited the help of foreign powers in order to do so, and whose treason led to the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Should their patriotism be questioned? I would say most definitely yes, and questioned repeatedly, at that, perhaps especially if they are seeking the nomination of the party of Lincoln. Chuckabee can fend for himself, but these accusations against Ron Paul are just plain wrong. Making an historical argument that the civil war did not need to be fought in order to end slavery is not even close to being the same thing as "exalting" the Confederacy! (And who the hell does Hitchens think he is now, Joseph McCarthy? Pointing his finger, shouting Treason all over the place! Christopher Hitchens questioning Ron Paul's patriotism!?) Jamie Kirchick's original TNR piece, which resurrected most of this bullshit, screwed up badly (Jamie was forced to amend it) by claiming that Paul attended a pro-Confederate meeting in 1995 (he did not). The meeting in question was an academic conference on the topic of secession in general. Lew Rockwell responded to Kirchick's slanderous remarks, which were also made on the Tucker Carlson show: Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know.... ...My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright)... ...But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference, which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book: Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University, Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it especially relevant to social scientists. In case you missed it, here's what Paul said about the civil war. From MSNBC: On Meet the Press this morning, Paul called the American Civil War a mistake, criticized Ronald Reagan as a "failure," and refused to rule out a third party run. Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert. "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach." I'm not sure what I think about Paul's view on this, but it certainly doesn't bother me. In fact, I think his view is intriguing and worthy of having a debate over. It reminds me of the sort of discussion we might've had at university, where, I don't recall anyone was ever berated and told to shut up during a controversial classroom discussion. Paul's best point, it seems to me, is that other industrialized countries didn't need to go to war to end slavery. In any case, our politics should encourage dissenting views (instead, Hitch tries to discourage dissent by accusing people of treason), and that's one reason why Ron Paul should be welcomed into the fold. As far as I can tell, there is nothing pro-slavery or racist about Paul's view of the civil war. Am I wrong? |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Hitch’s peculiar ramblings on “Identity Politics”
|
|
|
# posted by Mark G : 5:29 PM
|
Hitch has been writing a lot lately about “identity politics” and the media and political world's apparent obsession with race and gender as these themes relate to the presidential candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (“The Perils of Identity Politics”). I can go along with much of his criticism, but Hitch exaggerates the influence race/gender actually have over voters’ decisions, and by focusing so much of his attention on the matter, Hitch is only perpetuating the very media manufactured, bogus obsession with these topics that he ostensibly rejects.
Like he so often does these days, Hitch makes things up, and then knocks them down:
What are we trying to "get over" here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a "white" American. He is as distant from the real "plantation" as I am. How -- unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so -- does this make him "black"?
(Talk about obsessively thinking about color while affecting not to do so.)
Whoever said the election of Obama would be about “getting over” slavery? Perhaps some people think in these terms, I don’t know, but where is this conversation taking place? Who is having it? Does anyone know or is this, as I suspect, a simple product of Christopher's imagination?
More egregiously, Hitchens mischaracterizes Obama’s efforts, by writing:
Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something [race] at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him.
When, I ask the jury, did Obama "implicitly" ask us to vote for him because of his race? Must've missed that one.
As for Clinton, likewise, Hitch comes out against her for supposedly asking voters to choose her on the basis that she is a woman:
I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character.Okay, so Hitch isn't voting for Clinton, but we have some inside information here. Hitch confidante Michael Weiss now tells us that Hillary was once Hitch’s second choice for president, next to Rudy Giuliani. Weiss writes: I remember asking my old professor whom he was for in this presidential election. Choice one was Giuliani, who'd at least demonstrated some pluck and ingenuity in making the work of Al Qaeda just a little harder. Choice two was Clinton, who, despite a lifetime of co-sponsoring her husband's falsehoods and using any and all means of getting ahead in politics herself, at least showed that, as a senator serving on the Committee on Armed Services, she, too, wasn't shy about bringing the fight to the forces of theocratic reaction.What a mouthful, huh, that final sentence, with its glorious use of 7 commas? But you'd have to be a fool to imagine that Hitchens ever seriously considered supporting Hillary for president, a woman he has repeatedly showed a special hatred for over the years. In the WSJ article from January 18th, Hitch reminds us that his dislike for Clinton goes way back: Those of us who follow politics seriously rather than view it as a game show do not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think "first woman president." We think -- for example -- "first ex-co-president" or "first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent" or "first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap."
But Hitch was supposedly willing to forgive all that (in the name of the Great War), until Hillary crossed the line by playing not only the ‘woman’ card but the ‘race’ one as well (as if she hadn’t already performed the same routine during the 90’s). From the same WSJ article, Hitch writes:
Mrs. Clinton, speaking to a black church audience on Martin Luther King Day last year, did describe President George W. Bush as treating the Congress of the United States like "a plantation," adding in a significant tone of voice that "you know what I mean . . ."
Was Clinton still Hitch's second choice after this, back in January 2007? He continues:
She did not repeat this trope, for some reason, when addressing the electors of Iowa or New Hampshire. She's willing to ring the other bell, though, if it suits her. But when an actual African-American challenger comes along, she rather tends to pout and wince at his presumption (or did until recently).
When did she "pout" and "wince" at Obama’s presumption? And what does this even mean? What is this "presumption" that Obama has made? If Hitchens is referring to something in particular, he might’ve spelled it out for us, because I’ve been following the campaign very closely, and don’t have a clue of what he’s talking about here.
Rudy has never adapted or expanded his message. He seems weirdly clueless and insulated, as if he'd like to upstage his opponents by entering the debate forums wearing a surgical mask with a smoke machine going in the wings so that he could mime his 9/11 heroics all over again, with the Superman theme playing in the background. But perhaps that's the only option left to somebody whom the more voters see of him, the less they like him. His candidacy could only thrive in a climate of fear, but the fear shifted to the economy and Rudy didn't shift with it, which is why he now finds himself grinningly buried up to the neck in death ash like some character in Beckett. It's hard to gain traction from inside an urn.
No fear, latest reports have John McCain still kicking around, and though once described by Hitchens as that “Arizona reactionary,” McCain has since committed himself to the fight against the forces of “theocratic reaction” from abroad, and I'm sure that's now good enough for Hitch. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Tales from the Crypt
|
| |
Thursday, January 17, 2008 |
|
# posted by Mark G : 7:00 PM
|
Before Christopher Hitchens turned into a flesh-eating Zombie, before, that is to say, he became infected by the establishment virus, he used to rail against the very talk-show universe he is now widely respected by. In 1997, CNN’s Crossfire ran a Retrospective of their most Crossfire-y moments. Hitch, though he played a major role in these clips, was quick to denounce the whole premise of the show to The Washington Post:
(There are two options: run away from Hitchens and his co-Zombies, or try to fight them head on.)
“I think it's dying, if not dead," declared English-accented opinion-monger Christopher Hitchens…"The people who are throwing the big anniversary party very wittily came up with the idea of calling it 'Ceasefire.' Well, that should have been the name of the program a long time ago. . . . It's not real confrontation. It's not real passion. It's donkeys and elephants hitting each other over the head with rubber hammers."
True enough, but it never stopped Hitch from putting a Nerf helmet on his head to play along with the gang. He even once hosted Crossfire, the show he attacked.
"Shut up! SHUT UP!" Hitchens is caught shrieking, as he literally swats a Muslim layman invited on to defend the Iranian death sentence against "Satanic Verses" author Salman Rushdie. ("But -- but -- he stinks of wine!" Hitchens's victim was heard sputtering during the commercial break.) In another clip, a wild-eyed Hitchens and an equally energized Edwin Meese almost come to blows. The former attorney general actually looks quite mad -- as in nuts -- because of two huge bandages bristling on the side of his face. (More off-camera high jinks: Hitchens leaning into Meese's crimson face to rumble at him, "You're going to jail," causing Meese to make a fist and cock his arm.)
That’s the Hitchens I love. Imagine him staring down Bush, saying “You’re going to jail!” Ah, but that would’ve been back when Hitchens was actually Hitchens. Back before he got bitten and transformed into this Zombie imposter that we now have on our hands. Defending the Edwin Meese’s and the Donald Rumsfeld’s of our world… |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Hitchen's Shock Switcharoo
|
|
# posted by Hidari : 10:45 AM
|

It's all change in Hitchensland as our lad's latest from the Daily Mirror demnstrates. If you will cast your minds back: in our last thrilling installment, Hitchens had proved that Obama is not black and had repeated the various none too convincing rumours about Bill Clinton being a rapist, in an attempt to 'big up' the Republican party (and 'small down' the Democrats), whilst at the same time making the case for his preferred candidate, Giuliani.
But now Giuliani's campaign is in the toilet, and so our hero has a dilemma: who to back now?
Chris's latest screed answers that question. To be sure, it pretends to be about the Presidential elections in general, but the first half is merely a bored (and boring) rehash of some of his previously published pieces trashing the the usual Democratic suspects. It's only when Hitchens gets to the Republican race that he wakes up because, as he states: 'The Republic (sic) contest is very much more interesting, because there are real ideological splits between the candidates. '
The piece concludes: 'Only one of these men has any poetry about him. John McCain, the white-haired old lion in winter, embarking on his last hurrah, quixotically indifferent to money or polls, can still bring a lump to the throat. Stubbornly loyal to his comrades in uniform, adamant for victory in Iraq, he commands a certain respect of the kind that professional image-builders can only dream of. This may not turn out to be the year for old lions, but it’s nice to know, amid all the moisture and bogus emotion, that the country can still produce them.'
Hitchens seems to admit that McCain has no chance, and, in any case, Hitchens' imprimature is usually the kiss of death to any serious (or frivolous) candidate, as past experience shows.
However, for the moment, it would seem to be Hitchens for McCain.
(Stylistic note: this article also contains the following example of deathless prose: ' All the exit-poll evidence is that this mammalian moment was when the tide began to turn, especially among female voters.' For all his years of writing Hitchens has apparently not yet worked out that one of the key features of good English prose is to avoid alliteration).
The background to this is simple: Hitchens loves McCain because almost all American journalists love McCain. Despite his self-proclaimed iconoclasm, Hitchens, generally speaking, simply follows the journalistic herd. As the excellent Glenn Greenwald puts it: 'The media is uncontrollably in love with John McCain (because) McCain gives them unfettered access, so they love him. Everything is about them, and whichever politician flatters and charms these adolescent, coddled narcissists is the recipient of their uncritical love (that explains much, though not all, of their profound failure in covering the Bush campaigns and administration)....Those preferences -- all based in their own petty personal desires -- couldn't be more obvious in the media narrative spewing forth. Dancing around like munchkins in Oz, they proclaim that the wicked Clinton witch is dead and McCain is surging with a miraculous, glorious comeback.'
However, just to make clear, I would be the last person to accuse Chris of being an 'adolescent, coddled narcissist'.
The last person. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Hitchens the Badmash
|
| |
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 |
|
# posted by Mark G : 7:55 PM
|
At first I thought I was reading a simple homage to the recently deceased George MacDonald Fraser and his Flashman novels (shoulda known better). It's Christopher's latest piece in the vile Weekly Standard. I've only read the first Flashman book, but really enjoyed it and was appreciating Hitch's reflections on the series before suddenly realizing he was mainly just trotting out Fraser's corpse in order to throw yet another word in for the Great War on Terror.
Before we get to that, I was surprised to learn that Fraser was apparently a supporter of the British Empire. In the first Flashman book, at least from my perspective, Fraser portrayed the Brits as a pack bumbling idiots and their overseas adventures as ridiculous, reckless folly. But I'm no expert, and Hitch has read much more by and about Fraser than I have. Hitch writes, "Of Fraser's robust Toryism there can be no doubt." Then backs up the claim with this:
He [Fraser] described the British Empire as "the greatest thing that ever happened to an undeserving world" and bore arms for it in Burma (admittedly against another empire--the Japanese one--that was infinitely worse).
But then Hitch gives a slight nod to the obvious interpretation I understood:
But he [Fraser] does not romanticize or airbrush the gruesome and exploitative aspects of imperialism. What he writes about the slave trade, say, or about the horrific British destruction of the Imperial Palace at Beijing, is unvarnished and accurate. What he writes about the Zulus and the Sikhs and the Afghans is full of respect and admiration.
Anyway, with Fraser's "robust Toryism" established, Hitchens references a 2005 phone conversation he had with the author. Describing him as "suitably reactionary," Hitch quotes Fraser:
Tony Blair is not just the worst prime minister we've ever had, but by far the worst prime minister we've ever had. It makes my blood boil to think of the British soldiers who've died for that little liar.
Hitchens then respondes to this senile insult, concluding his piece with the following sentence:
It is an illustration of historic irony, and of the bizarre operations of fortune's wheel, that that very tone of voice should now be an indicator of the outlook of the British Right.
Huh? It also happens to be the outlook of the British Left, too. Well, certainly of the American Left and I believe the British Left as well (but I'll leave it to the native Brits here to say for sure). So the point is sort of null. There have always been people on the right who have opposed war and empire.
Is Hitchens still seriously trying to kid us into believing that the war in Iraq is a "leftist" effort? Now, his only evidence being that a few people on the Right, including the late great novelist George MacDonald Fraser, oppose it also. This is just cheap and lazy nonsense, inserted in the wrong context on the wrong time. The piece reads as if Hitchens actually expected Fraser to be supportive of the current war in Afghanistan because, well, that's where Fraser's hilarious anti-hero Flashman is first sent in the 19th century to fight on behalf of the British Empire? |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Hitch's hillarious obsession
|
|
# posted by Greywolf : 8:50 AM
|
Sonic has already covered some of this, but it bears repeating. Hitch's latest Slate piece is devoted to his old obsession—Clinton bashing. Of course, with Hillary in the midst of her bid to become the first woman to climb to the highest peak in US politics, this is hardly unseasonable, and lest Hitch be accused of picking on the fairer sex, he has taken the opportunity to tar Hilly and hubby Billy with the same bush of mendacity.
In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
It goes without saying that the entire Slate-reading public is deeply shocked to learn that not one but both Clintons are serial liars and bearers of false witness, and we are all in Hitch's eternal debt for ripping the scales from our eyes. But this indictment reads like an adolescent story of deceit and double dealing in the dorm, on the rugby field, and behind the bike shed, as related by the school snitch. And the moral of the story, boys and girls, can only be that those of us who have the franchise should use it to vote for somebody honest and truthful, although Hitch, despite his well-calibrated moral sensibilities, has yet to announce the names of any candidates he believes pass the test that Hillary so abjectly fails.
Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut.
Quite so. I haven't agreed with the conclusion of a Hitch column this much in ages. Although Hillary is in good company on most of the above attributes. For instance, is anybody in the race actually "hopeful" on health care? But most of all, this column was an attempt to bash the Clintons without really bashing them at all. There is no mention of the dark forces behind the Clintons, the allegedly rigged primary election victory of 1992, which looks like it is about to be repeated this year, or the even more sinister allegations of the couple's involvement in international drug smuggling. Are we to assume that as Hitch has ignored all this, there is nothing there worth reporting? That would be comforting.
Since Hillary Clinton's fairy story about her being named after Sir Edmond Hilary (spelt with one "l") and tales of Bill's sexual predations and subsequent defamations are just about all Hitch has come up with, this entire article may well be a piece of covert pro-Clinton propaganda that her defenders can dismiss with relief while declaring, "Is this the worst her most eloquent adversaries can lob at her?" Or on the other hand, this may actually be the worst they can lob at her, in which case the sighs of relief from the Hillary camp should be whole-hearted indeed. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| The Mormon Fights Back
|
|
# posted by Mark G : 6:31 AM
|
 Mitt the Mormon takes Michigan - Republican race wide open! I am rooting for Huckabee and Romney in the GOP primary because, well, they are the two candidates who Hitchens hates the most. Is that not a legitimate reason?
Hitch pretends that his opposition to Huck and Mitt has to do with their religious beliefs. But I think this is a feint. The Constitution doesn't allow presidents to 'impose' their religious beliefs on the American people, so it really doesn't matter how much of a "crackpot" Joseph Smith was. Anyway, does anyone really believe Romney is a true-believing religious crazy?
Huckabee is perhaps a true believer, but I don't think he's any real threat, in part because he easily has the best sense of humor of any of the candidates. ("Don't make me send Chuck back there," he once warned a heckler.) And his record in Arkansas is one of a moderately conservative governor.
As a practical matter, Mitt and Huck's social conservatism is no different than McCain's (i.e. they have all pledged to overturn Roe v. Wade).
I think Hitch most strongly opposes Mitt and Huck largely because they are x factors. Hitch doesn't know for sure if they can be relied upon to fully wage the glorious War on Terror. Unlike Giuliani (a Hitchens ally via City Journal and the Weekly Stanard) and McCain, who Hitch once described as "the Arizona reactionary." A reactionary no longer, I presume, given his "seriousness" about the war. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| If you think Islam is medieval, look at Catholicism
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 3:07 AM
|
 Mark Steel (a man who is most definitely one of us) makes a good point , and as always makes it well.
I don't want to cut and paste the whole article ( you should read it) however I will excerpt the bit pertaining to our muse, Mr C Hitchens.
"maybe the most interesting side to Benedict's defence of his 17th-century predecessors is imagining the furore if a similar attitude happened within Islam. If the leader of the Muslim world declared it was reasonable and just to have sentenced one of history's greatest minds to execution, piles of commentators would be telling us this proved Islam was a medieval, ignorant creed incompatible with Western values. So why hasn't Martin Amis written a pamphlet full of such pompous twaddle as, "Within Galileo's studies of orbits lie you, me, our knowledgification, our triumphant cleverment. So as I consider this catechismic papal assault on braininess, I feel a soulful urge to squeeze every Redemptionista into a giant confession box and set fire to the bloody lot of them. Don't you?"
Why aren't there articles by people claiming to be feminists that start, "What Catholics have to understand, if they're going to come over here from Ireland and Poland is that they should adopt our tolerant values towards gays and abortion?" Why aren't there politicians announcing that they will not speak to their constituents unless they are wearing a condom? Christopher Hitchens has compained that Islam is incapable of going through a Reformation. But not as much as Catholicism, seeing as the whole point of the Reformation was to replace it. So why isn't he demanding that we bomb Italy?
Presumably, we will soon have intellectuals insisting that the rejection of Galileo shows we are in a clash of civilisations, and the Sandinistas and the IRA and Guy Fawkes were all terrorists and Catholics, so that proves it."
Of course we know the answer, some religions are "poison" but some are more followed by suspicious dusky arab types poison than others.
Of course Hitchens defenders may say, "Oh he is just as hard on catholicism as he is on Islam" to which I'd respond, got any quotes glorying in the deaths of the followers of Jesus like the below on the effects of cluster bombs?
"It's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, "Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through." No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words."
Thought not. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Politics free Politics
|
|
|
# posted by Sonic : 12:36 PM
|
I've started to notice a strange, new trend about Christopher Hitchens' political commentary. It contains no actual politics at all.
It first came to my attention re his hit piece on Mitt Romney, The critique? He's a Mormon!
Next we have his take down of Barack Obama, Christopher's case against him? He is not really black, and goes to church!
Today we get our hero's deepest thoughts on Hillary Clinton Which even after a careful reading adds up to some tittle-tattle about supposed spin (from a politician? you don't say) and some lurid discussion of Bill's well documented sexual escapades.
I was struck however by one line, when our hero accuses Hillary of using "Vulgar libels" seemingly forgetting that, just a few short paragraphs before, he has indulged in some "vulgar libels" of his own, viz.
"Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.)"
So it seems if something has never been denied it must be true?
Well dear readers I note that my repeated assertion that our Christopher is the vile spawn of Jabba the Hutt and Princess Lea has never been denied by Mr Hitchens in any of his print articles or uncountable TV and radio appearances. Not only that but unlike Mr Hitchens' laughable rape claims, I have photographic evidence.
 Hitchens
 Jabba
I'd say, in absence of any denial from Christopher, that is "case closed." |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Hitch's Case Against Hillary Clinton
|
|
# posted by Mark G : 10:42 AM
|
It's not just "A" case folks, it's "The" case. The truth has been revealed by our dear leader, Christopher.
I think the funniest thing about Hitch's latest Slate piece attacking Hillary Clinton is the following boast: (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenge | | | |