|
If you can’t think of something downbeat to say about a man who preferred Saddam’s regime not be toppled, who elevated peace over freedom, and who was a unremitting foe of free market capitalism, what are you saving it up for? |
| |
Written By:
The Owner’s Manual
URL:
http://gcruse.typepad.com
|
|
Hitchens is part of that fast-dying breed of "journalist" (a little faster with the help of Hunter Thompson) for whom being the writer was always more important than whatever he was writing about... |
| |
Written By:
richard mcenroe
URL:
http://
|
hitchens was not against the iraq invasion. i’m in agreement he can be a grave dancer, but he made some very true comments about the pope and most pointedly about the disgusting bernard law. so it gets your panties in a bunch, i can understand that. but let’s not write inaccuracies.
|
| |
Written By:
dave
URL:
http://middleminds.blogspot.com
|
If one doesn’t like a message, the knee-jerk reaction is to attack the messenger. Even if he was wrong in previous instances, it doesn’t mean he is wrong now.
Please address comments to what he wrote. Only then can we have a reasonable discussion. |
| |
Written By:
Wait a minute
URL:
http://
|
Guys, I didn’t attack the accuracy of what he wrote (nor did I "write inaccuracies"). I attacked him for being a bottom-feeder at funerals, more concerned with being loud than with being truthful. Leaving aside whether this is an appropriate time to trot out the Pope’s failures, the fact is that Hitchens seems more interested in being a brat than in being a messenger.
If a fellow tells me I failed to file my TPS reports correctly, he’s a messenger. If he takes great pleasure in telling me—and cc’ing the entire company—every time I file my TPS reports incorrectly, then—correct or not—he’s simply an ass. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
"If one doesn’t like a message, the knee-jerk reaction is to attack the messenger."
Especially if the messenger is nice and dead!
Oh, wait... you were DEFENDING Hitchens? |
| |
Written By:
Sortelli
URL:
http://
|
But at least Hitchens knows what eulogize means...
The Pope told African nations ravaged by AIDS and overpopulation that birth control is a sin. How much surleyness is required before a person’s death no longer excuses him/her from criticism? Does his death make this any less true? When would be a better moment to discuss this? When he dies, will you accord Lyndon Larouche the same courtesies you expect Christopher Hitchens to show the Pope?
And what is this idea that we’re all somehow attending the Pope’s funeral? We’re not. The press is not bound by the same rules as the relatives of the deceased. It couldn’t function if it were. |
| |
Written By:
Douglas
URL:
http://lastofthefamous.blogspot.com
|
A eulogy has traditionally involved praise, but in common usage—and in some definitions—it simply means a "commemorative speech about someone who has died that is usually given shortly after his or her death".
And again, you might do me the courtesy of noting that I didn’t object to the factual content of his article. Indeed, I pointed out that there are times to speak ill of the dead, and a case can be made that this is one of them. I merely point out that Hitchens is an ass. I, on the other hand, don’t make it a habit to go looking only for bad things to say about the recently deceased. Hitchens seems to do nothing but. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Read that last paragraph in the Reagan obit. Hitchens’ Reagan piece wasn’t really about kicking Reagan at all, and the paragraphs above simply made the last sentiments more effective. W-R-I-T-I-N-G.
Furthermore I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this idea that Churchill and Mother Theresa are "easy targets." Are the possible consequences of being negative towards Mother Theresa best summed up as physical violence perpetrated by the lady in question? Are you retarded, sir?
Here’s the problem with your TPS scenario: how did you know the feelings of the messenger? He was, maybe, laughing at you when he called you on the phone?
The correspondence, then, is that Hitchens conveys a similar attitude. However, superficially he simple doesn’t—the tone of his pieces is usually that of reluctant-yet-grimly-determined. His stated view is that he’d rather not write about these things at all...
Of course he could be lying. For all I know, he loves putting people down when they’re already in the ground. But it’s at least equally likely that his personal philosophy holds him to it, and he simply does what he thinks is right, isn’t it?
But you have no problem making assumptions about his motivations, do you? He’s more concerned with being loud than being truthful? I guess two people can read the same piece two ways, but I think you’re not really paying attention and you’re reading what you want to read. This is called projection. Maybe Hitchens loves to break out the polemic generator on these historical figures for dubious motives and using only part of their, but you sure as hell love attacking Hitchens for dubious motives and using only part of his record, too. And as long as we’re assigning motives and judging people for them, what you got, and, how does it make you feel? Therapy!
Here’s your final bit of asininity, by the way:
"Hitchens...is ultimately little more than a literary vulture... He’s made quite a career of it, sure..."
If you think Hitchens career is based on these obituaries, you’re really too ignorant to be discussing the subject.
Finally, Richard McEnroe’s point is precisely and exactly wrong (about Hitchens anyway, not necessarily Thompson, whom I am less familiar with), but that’s an argument for a space greater than this one...
Yeah, go ahead and start telling me to crawl out of his butt. |
| |
Written By:
Daniel
URL:
http://
|
Dave,
"hitchens was not against the iraq invasion"
I think The Owner’s Manual is referring to the Pope rather than Hitchens.
OM,
As a long time opponent of fascism and communism, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Holy Father was happy to see Sadaam’s regime fall. All the papal arguments opposing the war I’ve seen have been couched in terms of means rather than ends, in accordance with Aquinas’ theory of just war, and I respectfully disagree with him.
To suggest that the pope was "a[n] unremitting foe of free market capitalism" grossly mistates his position. |
| |
Written By:
fidens
URL:
http://
|
While Hitchens’ criticism of the Catholic church’s hypocrisy is fair, it seems to me he and most liberals are hypocrites themselves when it comes to the issue of privacy. They’ve used the term as a cop out for looking the other way in the face of disturbing behavior.
Privacy stops being a right when it interferes with the rights of others. Liberals changed that when they said the right to kill an unborn child was a private issue. They continued down that road last week, when they allowed the state to starve a woman who’s intentions weren’t known. They play ignorant and refuse to see the broader implications.
As horrifying as it sounds, if killing an unborn child or a fully grown woman is a matter of privacy, then the day can’t be too far off when having sex with children will be considered private too. Thus, the ’progressives’ who charge these priest today, might well be their defenders tommorrow. |
| |
Written By:
mwfsu84
URL:
http://
|
The Pope told African nations...that birth control is a sin. How dare he preach Catholic doctrine. Gosh, he could have at least given them an alternate solution that is proven to be effective. Oh wait, he did. |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
|
Hitchens is pretty hit and miss. He’s good on the left’s pussyfooting around on Iraq, bad on Churchill, so-so on Graham Greene, just to name few. A far better example of the public intellectual is Mark Steyn. Knows more, writes better. Hitchens frequently appears drunk in his public appearances and perhaps this has some effect on his work. |
| |
Written By:
Jerry
URL:
http://
|
1) I mean no discourtesy either to your or to your dictionaries when I point out eulogy means "good word" or "good story" in Greek. You say there are definitions that say otherwise but I challenge you to find one that does not stipulate that eulogies are written in praise of the dead. Common parlance? Tradition? Piffle!
2) I did not say you objected to the factual content of Hitchens article You might do me the courtesy of noticing that. Furthermore, you did not "merely point out that Hitchens is an ass" (as if that were a trusim we could all see...). The title of your post is "necro-heckler" and in your very first paragaph you write that Hitchens "sees fit to kick a man when he’s dead." You describe what he has written as though he were misbehaving at a funeral and taking on subjects who cannot defend themselves. You cannot now deny that your post was attacking Hitchens for attacking the dead and you were quite clear in saying that in this particular case you found it indecent. And isn’t that why you said he was an ass?
So I reiterate my questions posted in the comment above.
3) Hitchens has not done "nothing but" give poor reviews to the recently deceased. For whatever reason, you fail to mention that the "literary vulture" has recently written several times about the dead without attacking them: Susan Sontag, Edward Said, Israel Shahak and Czeslaw Milosz are only the examples that appear immediately when you Google "hitchens" and "obituary."
4) I don’t even like Christopher Hitchens but this post is a nonstarter. |
| |
Written By:
Douglas
URL:
http://lastofthefamous.blogspot.com
|
How dare he preach Catholic doctrine... My thoughts precisely; however, I said it while the Pope was still alive. |
| |
Written By:
Douglas
URL:
http://lastofthefamous.blogspot.com
|
Maybe Hitchens is an ass. So what? Criticize what he said - not who he is. |
| |
Written By:
Wait a minute
URL:
http://
|
Frankly, I think Christless Hitchens is gay, his phrasing is that prissy-style that gives them away. The know-it-all with nothing good to say about anyone. He’s like critics who bash a very good movie or loosers who can’t make it against the compitition writting good things so he chooses negative writting to get attention.
The problem with op-ed writers like Hitchens, they don’t have what it takes to be leaders or even good followers and will never gain the higher positions their victoms hold. They are rats in the gutter anklebiting history makers. |
| |
Written By:
Jim Martin
URL:
http://
|
Hitchens did not fact-check, like so many Liberals on here, or he would have known that popes can resign. Many in the past did, or they refused the office when told they had been chosen. And there are anti-popes, those bishops who tried to steal the popacy. Check the links at:
http://www.popechart.com
And, no, I am not Catholic, but I DO respect a fine man who served his flok with dignity and grace. There’s so little of that today. |
| |
Written By:
Jim Martin
URL:
http://
|
When the deceased person was a complex mixture of good and bad, most of us prefer to be diplomatic in our eulogies or simply avoid saying anything. Politicians and government officials and pundits are in the pecular position of being expected to comment; silence is not a preferred option for their professions.
When the entire world ignores the substantial portion of bad, and instead gushes on and on and on about how wonderful the dead person was, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an occasional voice to be raised to present some contrary points.
Christopher Hitchens seems to have taken on that role in several instances. You’d have a better case against Hitchens as a "necro-heckler" if more people were willing to share his task. But if Hitch doesn’t undertake to do it, it doesn’t seem to get done. |
| |
Written By:
Daniel Wiener
URL:
http://wienerlog.blogspot.com
|
|
Dang, I was almost persuaded that Hitchens was out of line, when the most ugly, personal, mean spirited comment comes from someone who apparently is NOT Christless. |
| |
Written By:
Richard Scott
URL:
http://
|
|
Dang, I was almost persuaded that Hitchens was out of line, when the most ugly, personal, mean spirited comment comes from someone who apparently is NOT Christless. |
| |
Written By:
Richard Scott
URL:
http://
|
Correction: flock
Flok is what liberals do before going to a clinic. |
| |
Written By:
Jim Martin
URL:
http://
|
|
So, Hitchens got the facts wrong about Papal sucession . . . how about the facts of child rape? Think of an abuse victim, watching the MSM and wondering when they are going to mention that 500 lb gorilla. |
| |
Written By:
Richard Scott
URL:
http://
|
|
Hitchens on Pope John Paul II (who wasn’t made Pope until several years after US withdrawal from Vietnam), Reagan, Mother Theresa, etc. is interesting, but ultimately not useful in determining ultimate facts of character and accomplishment. Hitchens cuts himself slack when defending his own value laden interpretations of reality. But (somewhat like Chomsky on the US) he becomes a moral absolutist when analyzing those ideas, beliefs and believers that he disfavors. Can’t help but enjoy reading his prose, but understand, he is a very angry man ... (writing on Schiavo... "They {religionists} have gone too far, and they should be made to regret it most bitterly." |
| |
Written By:
Art
URL:
http://
|
|
So, Hitchens got the facts wrong about Papal sucession . . . how about the facts of child rape? Think of an abuse victim, watching the MSM and wondering when they are going to mention that 500 lb gorilla. |
| |
Written By:
Richard Scott
URL:
http://
|
Hitch eulogized self-hating-Jewish nutjobs like Israel Shahak or "Palestinian" con artists like Edward Said?
Figures. Hitch himself is technically Jewish (i.e., has a Jewish mother) and makes a point of dissing Judaism and Israel whenever the subject comes up.
Overall, his record is uneven. He’s great about exposing hypocrisy in the "left". But he’s still very much an ideological hard-leftist himself, and most of his positions reflect hard leftism. The reason he breaks ranks with the rest of the left on issues like the War on Terror is that he (correctly) identifies radical Islamism as a form of fascism. (In fact, I believe it was Hitch who coined the term "Islamofascism".) You know what they say about broken clocks showing the right time twice a day... |
| |
Written By:
Former Belgian
URL:
http://entre_nous.typepad.com
|
When the deceased person was a complex mixture of good and bad, most of us prefer to be diplomatic in our eulogies or simply avoid saying anything. Politicians and government officials and pundits are in the pecular position of being expected to comment; silence is not a preferred option for their professions.
When the entire world ignores the substantial portion of bad, and instead gushes on and on and on about how wonderful the dead person was, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an occasional voice to be raised to present some contrary points.
Christopher Hitchens seems to have taken on that role in several instances. You’d have a better case against Hitchens as a "necro-heckler" if more people were willing to share his task. But if Hitch doesn’t undertake to do it, it doesn’t seem to get done. |
| |
Written By:
Daniel Wiener
URL:
http://wienerlog.blogspot.com
|
When the deceased person was a complex mixture of good and bad, most of us prefer to be diplomatic in our eulogies or simply avoid saying anything. Politicians and government officials and pundits are in the pecular position of being expected to comment; silence is not a preferred option for their professions.
When the entire world ignores the substantial portion of bad, and instead gushes on and on and on about how wonderful the dead person was, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an occasional voice to be raised to present some contrary points.
Christopher Hitchens seems to have taken on that role in several instances. You’d have a better case against Hitchens as a "necro-heckler" if more people were willing to share his task. But if Hitch doesn’t undertake to do it, it doesn’t seem to get done. |
| |
Written By:
Daniel Wiener
URL:
http://wienerlog.blogspot.com
|
|
Sorry. Apparently when I refeshed the page my comment somehow was resubmitted. |
| |
Written By:
Daniel Wiener
URL:
http://wienerlog.blogspot.com
|
Frankly, I think Christless Hitchens is gay, his phrasing is that prissy-style that gives them away.
He’s married, you idiot. Five seconds of googling would have got you that info, but if you googled Hitchens you might have actually discovered that his writing doesn’t consist entirely of the polemics that get most attention on the net.
I think it’s telling that, wanting to insult Hitchens, what you immediately came up with was "gay" and "atheist". His phrasing "prissy"? Maybe - at any rate, at least he has learnt to spell at better than a grade five level. He’s one up on you there. |
| |
Written By:
ChrisV
URL:
http://www.gravett.org/yobbo
|
Here’s the refutation on Hitchens’ hatchet-job on Churchill, btw.
http://www.courts.fsnet.co.uk/wscatlantic.htm
|
| |
Written By:
Mike Campbell
URL:
http://www.mikecampbell.net/the_campblog.htm
|
As Art pointed out, the pope can hardly be criticised for the vietnam war as it occurred before his time in the top-right apartment.
If Hitchens also believes his title, "What no one else will say about John Paul II", then he is more than a bit deluded.
and Douglas,
I believe the Popes position against contraception has to be considered within the RC doctrine of sex being an act of love and procreation that only occurs within marriage. Saying he advocated against contraception is only part of the story.
If the african population actually followed RC doctrine, as you seem to be implying, they would also be abstaining from sex outside marriage as well as avoiding contraception.
This pope spreading aids in africa meme really has to stop.
|
| |
Written By:
Chris
URL:
http://
|
As Art pointed out, the pope can hardly be criticised for the vietnam war as it occurred before his time in the top-right apartment.
If Hitchens also believes his title, "What no one else will say about John Paul II", then he is more than a bit deluded.
and Douglas,
I believe the Popes position against contraception has to be considered within the RC doctrine of sex being an act of love and procreation that only occurs within marriage. Saying he advocated against contraception is only part of the story.
If the african population actually followed RC doctrine, as you seem to be implying, they would also be abstaining from sex outside marriage as well as avoiding contraception.
This pope spreading aids in africa meme really has to stop.
|
| |
Written By:
Chris
URL:
http://
|
Furthermore I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this idea that Churchill and Mother Theresa are "easy targets." Are the possible consequences of being negative towards Mother Theresa best summed up as physical violence perpetrated by the lady in question? Are you retarded, sir? I think you missed the sarcasm. Of course he could be lying. For all I know, he loves putting people down when they’re already in the ground. But it’s at least equally likely that his personal philosophy holds him to it, and he simply does what he thinks is right, isn’t it? Perhaps so, but that’s not my judgement. He’s a self-admitted contrarian. If you think Hitchens career is based on these obituaries, you’re really too ignorant to be discussing the subject. I didn’t intend to imply that. I merely intend to say that he’s done quite well with being a contrarian, and—in publicity—with these contrarian obituaries in particular.I challenge you to find one that does not stipulate that eulogies are written in praise of the dead. Here are a couple. There are more, but I’m not interested in parsing usage. I did not say you objected to the factual content of Hitchens article My apologies for being unclear. I was responding in general to previous comments. You cannot now deny that your post was attacking Hitchens for attacking the dead and you were quite clear in saying that in this particular case you found it indecent. And isn’t that why you said he was an ass? Of course it was why I said he was an ass. I fail to see how you can think that attacking Hitchens for attacking the dead (in his manner) is somehow different than calling him an ass. "I merely point out that Hitchens is an ass", because Hitchens is "a bottom-feeder at funerals". The two are interconnected. It’s hard to see why you would ask if I deny that my post attacked Hitchens for attacking the dead. (in his manner)Hitchens has not done "nothing but" give poor reviews to the recently deceased. Ok, amend that to "nothing but" poor reviews to the notable recently deceased. I don’t even like Christopher Hitchens I don’t have any particular feeling for him, beyond an annoyance at this habit. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Sorry but this blog is dead on. Hitchens is intelligent and interesting but in this case, as in many many others... he’s simply trying to bolster himself rather than bravely say things nobody else will. It’s incredibly transparent.
"Gather round children and Hitch will explain to you why all these people who are telling you how great a man the Pope was are wrong. I alone see his flaws and am willing to take a stand and lay them out for you here in these very pages"
He’s a pompous ass. |
| |
Written By:
Dash
URL:
http://
|
Perhaps a look at the people Hitchens targets in this way, would be instructve? Has he ever gone after someone who at least arguably, wasn’t a center-to-right icon? I wonder for example, how he would treat the death of a Bill Clinton.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
|
Absolutely right. Whenever the received wisdom is for something, Hitchens tends to go against it, and vice versa. His philosophy is negativity. Great writer; predictable thinker. |
| |
Written By:
Just Some Guy
URL:
http://www.google.com
|
To suggest that the pope was "a[n] unremitting foe of free market
capitalism" grossly mistates his position.
"...the most eloquent critic of the war in Iraq and a tireless
opponent of free market capitalism." —David Cairns is MP for
Greenock and Inverclyde and was a Catholic priest from 1991-94
Tireless vs unremitting? .... you say tomato, I say tomahtoe...
|
| |
Written By:
The Owner’s Manual
URL:
http://gcruse.typepad.com
|
|
Got it. You admittedly can’t refute any of Hitchens’ claims about John Paul II, but he’s a big meanie for not joining in the unqualified praise and adulation. I also like to dismiss those who point out facts that make me uncomfortable by saying that they are jerks. It’s fun, and that way I don’t have to, you know, think or persuade or anything. |
| |
Written By:
BIg Worm
URL:
http://
|
|
[sigh] Look, I’m not catholic. I don’t care about Hitchens claims about the Pope. I’m just pointing out that, whatever the merits of his argument, he’s still an ass. Please try to separate the two. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
One wonders however, about the pattern of his attacks as you’ve described it here, Jon.
One would think, after seeing the list as you’ve laid it out, that he thinks nobody to the right of what laughingly passes as centerist these days, deserves anything but his scorn. And one would also think that would be his position, regardless of the merits of the argument he presents... which are themselves questionable at best.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
I am disappointed at the snarling, adolescent tone of Hitchens’ piece. I admire Hitch on a lot of issues, but he is trying to shock for the sake of it. I am not unblinking admirer of the late Pope (he said some silly things, as we all do), but his achievement in giving the people of Poland the moral courage to face down their system makes him a great man, in my book.
Hitchens gives we atheists a bad name. |
| |
Written By:
Johnathan
URL:
http://
|
Hitchens is an equal opportunity discreditor. Sometimes he approaches civility (as with the Orwell book), but much of the time - as you point out - he’s a perfect example of an early English eccentric scoundrel, sitting in an Oxford Club, sipping brandy and trying to tear down people that cannot be torn down: Mother Teresa, Bob Hope, now Pope John Paul II.
A long time ago, I wrote of him "... the Oscar Wilde-turned-Darth Maul". Now and again I feel ready to retract that, but with this most recent, I’ll let it stand.
|
| |
Written By:
Mike
URL:
http://www.rigoletto.com/blogger.html
|
"Hitchens gives we atheists a bad name."
"Those who persecute religion are to be avoided at all costs. Antigone taught us to trust the instinct that is revolted by desecration."
(Hitchens—"Letters To A Young Contrarian", 2001, p. 65)
Johnathan: if what you say is true, then it’s only because most people are bloody morons who like to shoot off their mouths without knowing their subject.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
Mike: did you know that Hitch was the Vatican’s official Devil’s Advocate in the case of Mother Teresa? If you’re convinced of his "tear[ing] down", then it might interest you to know that the Vatican was at least as interested—officially—in the project as Hitchens was.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
Hitchens is an equal opportunity discreditor. I have my doubts. Which will remain, barring someone providing an example of him doing said tearing down against a leftist, or at the least a non-traditionalist.
Any takers? |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
He wrote a whole fucking book "tearing down" The Lying Bastard of The Ozark Long March, Eric.
Why can’t you pay attention?
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
|
He also wrote a negative obituary for Yasser Arafat, if I recall correctly. I wouldn’t consider Yasser "Left wing", by any means, but he’s certainly not "Right wing". In any event, my dispute is not over Mr Hitchens politics. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Billy;
Granted that far.
Yet, if I recall correctly, that book’s biggest compaint was he wasn’t liberal enough... a laughable suggestion, I thought at the time... and indeed Hitch complained rather loudly that he’d done damage to the liberal cause, by calling himself such and not BEING one....
Hmmmm....Which strikes me as strangely remeniscent of *another* discussion we’re having the last week or two, nu?
And Jon; Agreed; yet my point to this is that perhaps politics IS why Hitch does what he does.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
Look, Eric: nobody is disputing the fact that he’s a commie. But you really need to learn to manage the language. You asked for an example of him tearing down a leftist, and that’s what you got. It’s not my problem if you’re not happy with what you asked for.
As for "another discussion": it’s also not my problem that your pussy hurts whenever someone stands on and for integrity.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
|
Lot of avoidance of main topic. Pope handled child rape scandal with an apology and a cover up. Do you not care? Yes, Hitchens is an impolite "ass" for bringing this up. Yes, I think that is the right thing to do. |
| |
Written By:
Richard Scott
URL:
http://
|
|
Lot of avoidance of main topic. Pope handled child rape scandal with an apology and a cover up. Do you not care? Yes, Hitchens is an impolite "ass" for bringing this up. Yes, I think that is the right thing to do. |
| |
Written By:
Richard Scott
URL:
http://
|
Lot of avoidance of main topic.
Actually, as has been said time and time again, the main topic is whether Hitchens is an ass or not.
As Jon said earlier in the thread:
And again, you might do me the courtesy of noting that I didn’t object to the factual content of his article.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Well, the question to me is whether or not Hitchens’ raising the matter that he did, when he did it, makes him an "ass".
I’ll point out that there are lots of people to whom that word carries very seriously different connotations, especially since Cardinal Law made his escape to Rome. I have only two available conclusions: 1) John-Paul knew all about it, or 2) he was some kind of half-wit. Which would you prefer?
"Justice", Bruce, is an ethical act in favor of the truth. It’s too bad if some people find certain of those acts un-timely, but they’re no less true, and they’re true all the time.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
Which has zip to do with whether Hitchen’s chosen style of writing makes him an ass or not.
I happen to think it does. There are plenty of ways to do what you point to and do it in such a way that makes those points without it devolving into a bunch gratuitous insults and snarky asides toward a man who has just died and was a very important symbol to millions of people (and yet still a fallible human being). Hitchens purposfully chose another path.
That makes him an ass. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
(shrug) Not to me.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
OTOH, I say Henke’s a punk. So, there you go.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
Which makes you an ass.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Which makes you an ass.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Hitchens’ is a skilled writer. But he is also a silly ass.
Some people just find those two statements to be mutually contradictory, but there is no reason for that to be the case. The world is full of people who are highly skilled in a particular field and are nonetheless clueless about how the world works.
Lot’s of mention here of “child rape”, which are the kind of weasel words that Hitch himself would call out, under different circumstances. The “children” in question were all post-pubescent boys, being molested by homosexual priests. This is a homosexual issue, and a real contrarian with guts would have had the balls to say so. Hitch, unfortunately, is just a poser. Nobody would praise him for his "courage" in raising the point, so he ignores it.
There are plenty of other factual inaccuracies in his piece. For example, he refers to Law as a “wicked old fugitive” who “has fled the jurisdiction”. You might be forgiven for thinking that there is a warrant out for his arrest. But you would be wrong.
Also see his bizarre conflation of the Schiavo family with “the Christian Right” which he assures us “ was outraged by the idea of foreign governments influencing American courts”.
He has no idea of the political persuasion of the Schiavo family, if any. And I’m sure the writers at the Weekly Standard would be stunned to discover that they are some kind of Christian fundamentalists.
|
| |
Written By:
flenser
URL:
http://
|
As far as Hitchens attacking targets on the Left goes, the most obvious example, as someone else mentioned, is Clinton. It’s nonsense to say that his major attack on Clinton was that he is not liberal enough. The title of the book "No-one Left To Lie To: The Values Of The Worst Family" might give you a hint what he disliked about the Clintons.
Other obvious examples of polemics against left-wingers include his article on Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and the argument he had with Chomsky in the pages of The Nation (which included lines like "it no longer matters what Noam Chomsky thinks"). Indeed, much of the hard Left has come under fire from Hitchens in the last few years - Gore Vidal, for instance, is a regular target. |
| |
Written By:
ChrisV
URL:
http://www.gravett.org/yobbo
|
Hitchens likes to take aim at lots of people, so I certainly don’t dismiss his thoughts on JP II. But I think he could have used a little time to leave his computer, then come back and review.
The point about Kennedy is bizarre, to say the least. It doesn’t relate to JP II at all, and while he might have been trying to run a thread of Vatican coverups, it doesn’t all connect—unless he is to say that the Vatican cannot be trusted in the slightest.
Certainly, the Law issue is immensely disappointing and disturbing. Hitchens would have been better off, however, arguing that the bureacracy of the Catholic Church is the real obstacle to reform, and they are all very much alive and able. |
| |
Written By:
James
URL:
http://www.homestead.com/jdasilva/blog.html
|
Hitchens must have hit a nerve for Henke to call him a Necro-Heckler. Hitchens is just prolific and Henke picks out a selection that suits his argument. Someone already mentioned a bunch of less biting obituaries. Here are a couple more:
On Hunter Thompson, February 22nd:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2113865/
On Saul Bellow, today, April 6th:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116321/
He wrote a book on George Orwell that was mostly favorable. His take on Churchill is more complex than you suggest. First you should become familiar with the writer’s work before calling him a "literary vulture." Shame on you.
Hitchens has been toughest on the Left since 9-11. He hates religion and by extension religious fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden. Religious fundamentalists are the most anti-libertarian people around. His book on Mother Teresa was very convincing by the way. |
| |
Written By:
Peter K.
URL:
www.hitchensweb.com
|
|
Hopefully someday Hitchens will get to write an obituary for the blogosphere: the biggest collection of self-important silly asses in the universe. |
| |
Written By:
Arturo
URL:
http://
|
