2 posts tagged “hitchens”

There's one Christopher Hitchens who is as brilliant a thinker as there is. The other Hitchens is a raving lunatic. The problem is, they occupy the same body. 

I saw the latter Hitch on Joe Scarborough a year or so ago, and Scar said at the time he'd never have the hard-drinking Englishman back. I don't know if Joe kept his word, but after what I witnessed, I couldn't blame him for not wanting to worry about whether the thinker or the nut was going to appear each time.

I mention this because Hitchens has just shown his nuttier side in print, although I concede that it might be intentional this time since it involves George Bush's comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, and Hitchens may have seen that as an opportunity. But even if it was intentional on Hitchens part, it does him no good,

And of course, there are those who would argue that Hitchens can't be all that smart in the first place if he's a liberal. In my defense, I had never read one of his liberal arguments - that is until the one contained in this latest column in which he expresses disgust that Bush could have signed so many execution orders as Governor of Texas.... so now I join others in their skepticism - the "there" ain't there, at least some of the time.

But turning to Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison, it's not that it wasn't apt, it's that liberals feel they own that comparison and how dare a Republican turn the tables on them?!?

Since Hitchens has, for a decade, been severely out of touch with his ultra-liberal associates, first about Clinton's behavior (he was against it) and now about Bush's Iraq stance (he's for it), and with Bush's term coming to a close, Mr. Hitchens, somewhat understandably (if you excuse the preposterous ideology), might like to re-endear himself to his former compadres. And what better way to do it than to take a stand against Bush over something that's almost irrelevant, but which is very significant to those Mr. Hitchens would like to impress again?

In his commentary, Hitchens had to know that he was guilty of gross obfuscation if for no other reason than most of his points about why Vietnam differed from Iraq are ones in which he and the President would be in firm agreement. That's why Bush eschewed past Vietnam comparisons.

But Mr. Bush's recent comparison was very narrow and Hitchens had to know that - because he dismissed it in the course of his blusterous "refutation:"

"It is true that the collapse of the doomed American adventure in Indochina was followed by massive repression and reprisal, especially in Cambodia, and by the exile of huge numbers of talented Vietnamese. But even this grim total was small compared to the huge losses exacted by the war itself"

At least he characterized the aftermath properly, "massive repression and reprisal."

I know from personal experience how hard it is to be a man without a side, but Hitchens is smarter than I am, and he has to know that intellectual integrity is supremely important. If he doesn't, then he's not the man I thought he was.

And if he doesn't see how disingenuous his column is, Mr. Hitchens is not the man I thought he was.

And since it's already out there, he's, in fact, not the man I thought he was, and he's definitely not as smart as I thought he was. His column is disgraceful on several levels, and it conclusively and forever tarnishes his integrity and credibility across the board.

I just had a second look at the column, and the most interesting thing is that Hitchens has apparently failed to win back any support from those to whom his attempt at reconciliation was directed.

I almost lost my mind while watching O'Reilly yesterday, but don't worry, that happens every time I watch him. The reason for this particular episode had to do with the Pace University student who has been charged with a "hate crime" for mistreating the Quran. Apparently no one told the authorities this is America.

But as horrendous as that is, O'Reilly agreed with the charge!

He said that the student did it purposely and right in front of Muslims he was angry at.

Yeah... so?

If you don't watch "The Factor" much, perhaps this one little story will help you understand why I hate O'Reilly so much that I'd joyfully break a Factor mug right in front of him - or maybe right on his own mug!?!

But this is just a preface to something bigger - a column by one of the smartest guys on the planet who argues essentially what I've been saying - that contrary treading lightly around Muslims, we have a duty to insult them. You've gotta read the column here.

Now I'm not saying you all should start gratuitously insulting Aput, but think about it, will ya?

Actually, the point is not to offend decent people which Aput appears to be, it's to stop according Muslims extraordinary deference - or any, really. You probably don't realize it, but they really don't deserve it. I mean, respect the person, not the silliness.

Now I know you might wonder, how can you respect the person, but not his beliefs? Why are you asking me, that's his problem. I mean, you do it with liberals, right?

Just kidding, I know you don't respect them as people either. No problem, we know they're just replicas.

Anyway, Hitchens writes a brilliant piece in which he outlines the preposterous basis of Islam (Don't worry, Mussies, he feels all religions are more or less equally preposterous, as do I), but he notes that Islam is rather unique in the level of intimidation its followers employ, and that must be confronted at every opportunity, even to the point of manufacturing opportunities if necessary

So, have you insulted a Muslim today?

Because I feel pretty sure that I have...