What?! Nonsense! Of course it is!
Jeez, if talent is not such an exuse, what is?! Money?!
Such timing. I just read Glen Greenwald tuning Goldberg up a little over his assertion that bombing Iraq stopped their nuclear program in 1981, when he claimed the opposite while sabre rattling for the new Gulf War.
Just one last comment and an honest-to-God question, and I’ll let the matter drop, since I don’t want to give any appearance that I think any person, even Hitchens, suffer from a terrible disease like cancer.
I find it hard to believe that people may be very familiar with his writings, which feature scathing criticisms of public figures in such stark and emotional terms, and somehow not believe that this is a guy with a very serious mean streak more than a mile wide. His writings remind me of a football coach who would think nothing of running up the score on an opponent, and be completely indignant that someone might say it was unsportsmanlike to do so. Not only that, but it seems he can’t take what others dish out on him – like a serious falling out with his brother for 10 years because he criticized Christopher as being historically soft on the Soviet Union. Lastly, if I recall correctly, Hitchens has had some choice words for people who would not support the war in Iraq, indicating that he does not see that it is possible to agree to disagree – not only on that subject, but on many others as well. I find it hard to believe that his insufferability isn’t plainly evident through his writings.
And, to my honest question: what contemporary figures does Hitchens speak favorably of? I’m racking my brain, but all I can think of is his blistering criticism of people with whom he shares no respect.
I’m on my way out the door and can’t flesh this out right now, but I believe Hitchens is motivated far more by hatred of and disgust for people and practices which he views as being harmful, repressive or fatal to other human beings than he is by a mean streak.
Your post does bring up though one of my biggest complaints about people with a leftist point of view (which Hitchens essesntially is) though, and that is a complete and utter contempt and intolerance for viewpoints not their own. That’s his biggest failing in my opinion.
:eek:
There are opposing views which are intelligent, but wrong. And then there are opposing views which are just plain old, down home stupid. We’ve been trying to explain that difference to you for about seven years now. Its taking a lot longer than we thought.
Jeffrey Goldberg may suck as an interviewer, but he at least deserves points for this.
No, not really. I’m well aware of what they mean. As it happens, you’ve since clarified what you think and expanded on your original statement. Based on that, no, that isn’t an ad hominem attack. i.e.
and as for
I deplore bad manners and I would call him out on it. I might not like the man nor seek his company and consider him a bad example of civil behaviour but I do still think him a net benefit to the world.
The interviewers found it necessary to continually interject their opinions in an interview with an important writer who is dying. They probably have a lot of time to express their opinions. This interview was the wrong place. They were terrible.
Hitchens doesn’t like to be pigeon-holed, and I’ve always considered him more contrarian than anything else, but Libertarian would probably be the best one word descriptor of him. It wouldn’t be a very good one, but if you have to pick one then I’m not sure of a better choice. He’s with the neo-cons on foreign policy, was for Bush in 2004, thought the Iraq war was just peachy, and considers a fetus to be an unborn child. Not exactly leftist newsletter filler. Have you not read his work since the 80s?
What the fuck is up with the stark raving right claiming that people like Hitchens and even people like McArdle (yes, the claim was actually on these boards) are “leftists”?
Let me try that tactic:
“I agree with Jon Stewart’s stance on making gay marriage legal in all 50 states, and he seems to have many excellent points in other areas that have convinced me of their validity, even though he is a member of the religious right.”
I guess we can all do this, but it seems a bit pointless.
I’d rather know what’s up with Mr. “Everything that’s wrong with this country is because of liberals!” criticizing other people for demonizing political opponents.
gonzomax, the second of the two other guys besides Hitchens in the video was Martin Amis, son of Kingsley and Hitchens’ best friend.
And my apologies for the anti-left snark I posted above. I was on my way out the door and posting in haste. I should have made the point in a more diplomatic way, if for no other reason than to avoid derailing my own thread. 
Honestly, we just want to know whether the words ‘leftist’ and ‘left’ have any more meaning to you than the word ‘motherfucker’, and if they do please explicate a definition of the word that includes Hitchens.
Hmm…what would be the word for people who ascribe evil intent to people whose actions and/or beliefs they strongly disagree with, and who find it utterly impossible to believe that these peoples’ actions or beliefs might have merit or honest intent?
Whatever that word is, it’s a word that would have more meaning to me with regard to “left” or “leftist” (and Hitchens) than would the word “motherfucker.”
But remember, I said that this inclination on his part is the only real complaint I have with Hitchens. Apart from that, I think he is utterly brilliant. He gives me pause on certain subjects in much the same way as he did Dio in regard to the Iraq war. Additionally, I just plain like the guy. If he dies I will feel a considerable sense of loss.
Hitchens has earn repect IMO from both sides. People on the right don’t like a lot of the things he says and visa versa. I disagreed a lot with him on Iraq and other ME issues but on others I agree. I always listened though no matter what.
He wasn’t polite or nice but that wasn’t what he was there for. Here’s a clip from Real Time with Bill Maher. His distain for cliches and platitudes “think of the children” is clear and refreshing. He may have been an arsehole but I listened to him and repected his opinion and will miss his voice when it leaves us.
So, is this what you think the word ‘leftist’ means, or ought to mean?
If so, it actually has a lot more meaning than ‘motherfucker’ does at this point: ‘Motherfucker’ is an extreme example of how insults quickly lose any meaning except the fact they’re insulting; nobody who calls someone else a ‘motherfucker’ actually intends to imply that they have carnal relations with their mothers.
A quick way to refer to this concept is the phrase ‘snarl term’, and establishing that ‘leftist’ isn’t just a snarl term for you is fairly important if we’re going to debate. Debates are, after all, very often all about how a given word is defined.
There’s a problem, though: Your definition has no relationship to how anyone else uses the word. That’s a problem because it encourages people to talk at cross-purposes: When you call Hitchens a ‘leftist’, meaning ‘someone who ascribes evil intent to everyone they disagree with’, nearly everyone else will disagree with you, because to them ‘leftist’ means ‘someone who holds <a given set of political opinions I’m not going to enumerate here>’ and Hitchens clearly holds almost none of those opinions unless he’s one hell of a liar. This forces people to talk seriously about words, something most people are ill-equipped to do, and it makes the whole experience less satisfying.
It gets worse: A lot of people call themselves ‘leftists’ and they certainly don’t intend to convey anything like your definition of the word. Redefining a self-applied term into something nasty is often seen as a deep and wounding insult, which is not the tone you wish to strike if you want a debate instead of a street fight.
So it’s good that you have an actual definition of the term that (at least debatably) includes Hitchens, but it’s probably very bad that your definition is so far from everyone else’s.
“People?”
Whatever that word is, it would apply no more to leftists than to rightists. As you know.