Death of Christopher Hitchens

[ramjambunath]

Ballsy to say it on the day of his death but if you asked me a week earlier or a week later, I would say something similar. He was an intellect (one of the better ones) but pompous and very misled on many issues, like his constant defence of the Iraq war even when it was abundantly clear that the war was a failure at every level from humanitarian to administrative. Also, the pro-Denmark cartoonist rally in the wake of the inflammatory Mohammad cartoon was also very much in bad taste.

 

[The Hitch]

For the record, to those of you who aren't familiar with Christopher's work there was absolutely nothing in his work or behavior to suggest that he was "In love with his work" or that he was "full of himself".

It does seem to be 1 of those default slander attacks people throw in when they want to attack someone who has annoyed them, but don't quite know what to say.

I do suspect he was proud of his work, just like I assume most writers are "in love" with their own works, and like movie directors are proud of their films, and cyclists are probably proud of their victories.

Of course, don't take my word for it, watch for yourself his performances or read his books, and check out if the arrogance charge has any validity.

As for the other major charge leveled against Hitchen's above, that he drunk, yes he drunk a lot.

Here is a list of great thinkers, writers, philosophers, who drunk heavily.

Ernst Hemingway
James Joyce
Imanuel Kant
John Stewart Mill
George Orwell
F. Scott Fitzgerald
John Steinbeck
Anton Chekhov
Friedrich Nietzsche
Sigmund Freud
Friedrich Engels
Alexander Pushkin

Heres a thought.

If only these " drunken pompous buffoons", had left the bottle, they "could have actually amounted to something quite good".

 

[boomcie]

Here is a list of great thinkers, writers, philosophers, who drunk heavily.

...
Friedrich Engels
...

What is Karl Marx' boyfriend doing on that list?

 

[Descender]

A remarkable human being. He will be sorely missed.

I was never a fan of his views. Of the so-called "Four Horsemen" of the New Atheism, he is the one I liked the least. Needless to say, most of his points were still rock solid, and he made some excellent propositions.

Politically, he was too expeditive for my liking.

However, and in spite of my despise for the painfully hollow custom of treating every recently deceased person as if he or she had been the ultimate role model, I do think one should underline the positive sides of the demised.

What I really admired in Christopher Hitchens was his disregard for the established rules and his deep contempt for political correctness. I wish everyone had that same spirit and attitude to life.

He was effortlessly charismatic, witty and relentless.

You will not be forgotten, Hitch.

 

[The Hitch]

Ballsy to say it on the day of his death but if you asked me a week earlier or a week later, I would say something similar. He was an intellect (one of the better ones) but pompous and very misled on many issues, like his constant defence of the Iraq war even when it was abundantly clear that the war was a failure at every level from humanitarian to administrative. Also, the pro-Denmark cartoonist rally in the wake of the inflammatory Mohammad cartoon was also very much in bad taste.

No, its good to say it on the day of death, Hitchens attacked Slobodan Milosovic, Yasser Arafat, and Jerry fallwell - guy who said that 911 was a message from God against homosexuality, in the immediate aftermaths of their deaths and defended peoples rights to do so, so he would have expected his enemies to do the same to him.

As for the Iraq War, I don't know quite where you stand on this so don't know what points to make. If you believe that humanitarian intervention is always wrong, then yes the Hitchens view on this is contrary to yours. If you believe humanitarian intervention is sometimes welcome, but that the Iraq war specifically was run was wrong, well Hitchens did criticize the running of the war very powerfully and frequently, something his haters usualy ignore, or most often, having not actually listened to him, have no idea of. I remember one of his more personal debates on the subject, where he pointed out that as someone who spent his life, often at his own risk, advocating regime change in Iraq, the dreadful way in which it was run, the destructions caused and the opportunities missed, hurt him more than anyone can imagine.

And as much as it may have been "abundantly clear" to you, that any rational individual should oppose the war, you may take care to note that Hitchens had a very personal stake in the war. Hitchens was risking his life to aid anti Saddam Kurdish fighters going back to when Saddam was an American backed dictator. He wore for decades a flag of Kurdistan in interviews, and was a personal friend of the Jalal Talabani, long before anyone knew who he was. The removal of Saddam meant the liberation of his beloved Kurdistan, a cause which meant the world to him, and he would always point out that it has since been by far the most peaceful and stable region in all Iraq.
Hitchens had also gone undercover both into Iraq and Iran many times, visited the mass graves in both countries of the Iran iraq war, knew intimately, first hand, the incredible suffering that went on under Saddam, and had many close friends trapped in both countries.

I personally would be hesitant to say that someone in that position was pompous or misled, to support the overthrow of that regime.

I myself strongly stand by Hitchens on the issue, but if you do want to continue debating the issue, and help me reach the "abundantly clear" position, then please do, though I would prefer move it to the politics thread.

I'd also ask the question why someone holding a different opinion on an issue would lead you to hate them?
Hitchens said a few times that there was no one he respected with whom he did not have a very very major disagreement at some point in his life, and that he would struggle to respect someone who held all his views.

Personally I hate the kind of politics developing, today especially in the US where there are 2 sides and everyone agrees 100% on 100% of the issues on their side, and anyone who dares disagree is a traitor.

As for the pro Denmark cartoonist rally , out of taste?

Firstly, the most offensive of the cartoons, came not from the accused cartoonists , but were deliberately added by a 2 Imams in order to add fuel to the fire.

Secondly- the cartoonists were being targeted for MURDER. Innocent people, who had been condemned without a trial. Most people who wanted to murder them hadn't even seen the cartoons. To many of us it was like the Salem witch trials in the 21st century.

Thirdly- Many of us believe in free speech. the Cartoonists had a right to say or draw what they did, regardless for whome it offended, and I don't think supporting their right to free speech is out of taste.

I doubt there was any issue Hitchens saw in his life that was as black and white. Free speech, the right to a fair trial, democracy. On the other hand fanaticsm, murder, the burning of books. On one hand, the enlightment on the other the middle ages.

He had defended his best friend from the same evils in 1988, and he was going to do it here.

I ask, if a middle eastern man had drawn a cartoon of an American flag chocking someone's neck, and people were trying to kill him, and someone held a rally in support of that man, would you see it as out of taste?

 

[El Pistolero]

Ballsy to say it on the day of his death but if you asked me a week earlier or a week later, I would say something similar. He was an intellect (one of the better ones) but pompous and very misled on many issues, like his constant defence of the Iraq war even when it was abundantly clear that the war was a failure at every level from humanitarian to administrative. Also, the pro-Denmark cartoonist rally in the wake of the inflammatory Mohammad cartoon was also very much in bad taste.

Why would it not be ok to draw cartoons about a historical figure?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Definitely an intellectual man who died too soon. I'll miss the way he didn't take a lot of crap from pundits on either political side and couldn't be pushed around, even if I didn't always agree with him. He'll be missed.

 

[oldborn]

Drunken imperialistic mediocracy writer he was.
Western so called culture is in big **** if guys like Hitchens are relevant for anything, expect bar small talk at midnight.

P.S. Oh yes he is good communist and probably mass murderer if had a chance to meet Lenin!

 

[The Hitch]

Drunken imperialistic mediocracy writer he was.
Western so called culture is in big **** if guys like Hitchens are relevant for anything, expect bar small talk at midnight.
P.S. Oh yes he is good communist and probably mass murderer if had a chance to meet Lenin!

Im confused, he was a western imperialist, or a communist?

But you are right, Reality TV, Justin Bieber and the Superbowl are far better representatives of "Western so called Culture"

 

[oldborn]

Im confused, he was a western imperialist, or a communist?

But you are right, Reality TV, Justin Bieber and the Superbowl are far better representatives of "Western so called Culture"

No, no way I did not say western imperialist, just imperialist. In fact communist imperialist as it best.

P.S. Wait a minute, he was imperialist on oil industry pay roll. What a brave way to write something.

 

[El Pistolero]

Im confused, he was a western imperialist, or a communist?

But you are right, Reality TV, Justin Bieber and the Superbowl are far better representatives of "Western so called Culture"

You think the Soviet Union wasn't imperialistic?

 

[The Hitch]

You think the Soviet Union wasn't imperialistic?

Do you know where I am from?

I thought he said "Western imperialism".

P.S. Wait a minute, he was imperialist on oil industry pay roll. What a brave way to write something.

Like many of your posts, my only possible response is this




BTW If the man is dead, does this rule still apply?

3. Illegal, libelous, or slanderous posts or threads will not be tolerated, and result in infractions or bans

7. No caustic insults or humiliation of individuals in public outside of this forum. Most public figures may be considered fair game for criticism or lampooning, but again, use common sense.

For the record, with both Im talking about the bizzare claim that he was on the payroll of the oil industry, not anything else.

 

[oldborn]

Jesus is dead young boy, not Hitchens.

 

[Rouetheday]

Drunken imperialistic mediocracy writer he was.
Western so called culture is in big **** if guys like Hitchens are relevant for anything, expect bar small talk at midnight.

P.S. Oh yes he is good communist and probably mass murderer if had a chance to meet Lenin!

You'd think that a man who had championed the intervention in Bosnia against the Serbs would have earned at least a little respect from you, of all people.

 

[oldborn]

You'd think that a man who had championed the intervention in Bosnia against the Serbs would have earned at least a little respect from you, of all people.

What I am having with Bosnia?
And what Hitchens championed again? I championed Lance should be Federal Reserves Governor but I was to drunk that people should listened me.

If Hitchens or any drunken fat Bourgeoisie, communist or just bohemianist self adore dude want respect from me?
Well show up in Bosnia Hitch, or at least attack Dutch Embassy at that time.
Now you have my respect.

P.S. I did not see any sign of any intervention in Bosnia, did you? Wait a minute, just have a call form my friend form Srebrenica, he said that Hitchens save them. Actually he said who the **** is Hitchens?

 

[El Pistolero]

You'd think that a man who had championed the intervention in Bosnia against the Serbs would have earned at least a little respect from you, of all people.

He's Croatian. Not that there is a lot of difference between Croats and Serbs except for religion

 

[Maxiton]

I was fond of his nerve, and the verve and vitality of his writing. This despite disagreeing with many of his positions (some of which were patently disagreeable). There was nothing else like his work in the daily flow of ephemera that constitutes mass media.

I too was first attracted to The Hitch here because of the moniker he'd chosen. I figured anyone who would do that must be either, A) Hitchens himself, or, B) my kind of cycling fan. In either case, in other words, someone I'd like to know.

All of which might help to explain why, upon hearing of his death, instead of starting a thread I wrote on The Hitch's wall. What I wrote is that Hitchens' work was an oasis of thought in a desert of stupidity.

Disagree with Hitchens' positions as you might, but at least he brought some sorely needed erudition and dynamism to public discourse. He made talking and thinking fashionable, almost, and the discussion a lot less bleak.

 

[oldborn]

He's Croatian. Not that there is a lot of difference between Croats and Serbs except for religion

Now you sound more like Hitchens, you German

 

[ramjambunath]

No, its good to say it on the day of death, Hitchens attacked Slobodan Milosovic, Yasser Arafat, and Jerry fallwell - guy who said that 911 was a message from God against homosexuality, in the immediate aftermaths of their deaths and defended peoples rights to do so, so he would have expected his enemies to do the same to him....
.....I ask, if a middle eastern man had drawn a cartoon of an American flag chocking someone's neck, and people were trying to kill him, and someone held a rally in support of that man, would you see it as out of taste?

Firstly, where did I say I hate him? Can I not disagree and criticise a person that I don't hate?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate
Secondly, where did I say blutto was wrong? I said it was ballsy and that means courageous not wrong.

Defending the war in 2005 and later was folly. It isn't necessary to point out the situation of the Kurds in Iraq as I've followed the "war" close enough. It was a failure by then and viewed from the eastern half of the world, it was pretty clear what the original motives for it were. Also, 100k Iraqis died in the war period, nice way to avert humanitarian crises, and if it had been some African leader that killed even a hundred, he'd be in the ICC facing charges now.

Let's not ask my view, let's ask the view of any American here and you want the view of Iraqis-
I'll show a pro-western way of saying the war in Iraq was a failure and I'll draw on Syria here. A couple of days ago a journalist gave an interview to the BBC after going underground into Syria and the people who fought against the Western invasion in Iraq were actually calling for the support of the international community to intervene in Syria.

As for the Pro Denmark protests, the cartoon wasn't satire, it was clearly meant to incite a part of the community into reactions of rage. Being an atheist doesn't mean that someone has the right to slurry any religion that he wishes (cartoonist, not Hitchens). Many of us believe that one's right ends where the other's nose begins. Before accusing me of being a fundamentalist, go and read my posts in threads pertaining to this topic. So, in your hypothetical case of burning an American flag, yes I'm against that as well.

If he was such a patron of free speech, why not do it where it really was not present. In Saudi Arabia, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, why did I not see many articles/protests of his targetting real issues but show boating issues like another controversy mongering cartoonist. He could get to the front page but couldn't really change anything.

Let's also not forget his controversy mongering article about Mother Teresa, when he called her a fundamentalist and fanatic. Try convincing me she's so by saying he went undercover. Missionary or not, come over to Kolkatta to realise the level of poverty and her impact to society cutting across community and religion. The Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, isn't awarded to fundamentalists, it's hardly even awarded to deserving candidates. Tell me, when the world, including, most importantly, Indian Hindus and Muslims, accept her as a person who worked for the society's good and one man decides to call her a fundamentalist based on one of her views, isn't he a so called moral authority over society. He just doesn't have a religion associated with him. By the same logic, let's not call him misled but a war and an atheist fundamentalist. He wasn't that and she most definitely wasn't but I'd definitely take her to spark real change.

I read and listen to Zizek but I know when to say when he's wrong. That would be when he stated Palestinians were anti semitist- a stupid statement. These guy are intellects (and the better ones at that) not Gandhi, even Gandhi made mistakes, and they definitely were/are not perfect and definitely loved controversy.

Let us give him credit for what he was, a good intellect. Let's not say things that he never was, like being a person who impacted every one of our lives, it takes a special kind of greatness (good or bad) to do that and that's left to a very exclusive club of national leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, Luther King and some others. I think Hitchens and Zizek and any other intellect who failed to change society falls a bit short of that.

I clearly won't be able to convince you about my points of view but these are my views on his negative side, as for the positives, there are more than enough posts that reflect his positive side.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Christopher+Hitchens/5874629/story.html

 

[Eric8-A]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crTE9RvRt_c

I found this and thought it was so respective. I can't think of a better way for people to honor and thank him.

 

[oldborn]

Even Angelina Jolie left more impression on me than Hitchens.
Those kind of mediocracy "modern" thinkers will always find a way to insult someone like those Danish cartoonist, they just do not care. All they want is sell their papers.
What I found funny that they even do not think to apologize, hiding themselves under free speech, cleric state or whatever. On the other hand Hitch lovers (like Hitch user here), immediately call cavalry to ban other user who even dare to speak something against Hitchens.
They are all the same type of potential dictatorship kind of guys, hiding themselves in cozy rich homes with swimming pools, calling names, but when someone try to kill them they are calling state to protect them.
Chomsky, Brown and Hitchens are best selling authors and reasons of western intelectual fall, I wonder why Oprah did not call them in show.
They are all on communist party pay roll.

 

[Moondance]

While I may have disagreed with him about a great many things, from religion to the Iraq War, Mr Hitchens was the finest and most eloquent polemicist of this age, and was always a true joy to read. His memoir, Hitch-22, released last year was one of the most fascinating, and touching, autobiographies I have read, and I highly recommend it to everyone, especially now. A life well lived, even though it was, perhaps, a good 20 years too short.

He will be missed.

 

[El Pistolero]

Now you sound more like Hitchens, you German

Well, the Balkan states were influenced a lot by German nationalism

 

[The Hitch]

post

In the wake of his death Hitchens, Ive seen as many Hitchens tributes as I could possibly fit into one day, and the key theme of praise for him, coming from all sides is that he was his own man, and crucially not afraid to challnege popular opinion. This came, as well as from his many friends and admirers, rational folks who disagreed with him, but who realise the neccesity of in today's society, having people like Hitchens who argue for the devil (Hitchens was ironically the last person to officially "argue for the devil" when he argued against Theresas cannonisation, just before the Vatican changed the name of the position), and challenge popular or even mob opinion, is essential.

Your entire post is on the other hand critiscsing him for this very reason. It is filled with 3 major examples of where Hitchens challenged popular opinion "swam against the tide" and despite displaying limited knowledge of the issues and more importantly of Hitchen's opinion's, you critiscise him, essentially, for not being afraid to swim against the tide, and offer contrary opinions.

More over your justification for being right, and Hitchens being so clearly wrong on these issues, is mostly pointing to popular opinion. He can't be right on Mother Theresa because she recieved the award. He can't be right on Iraq because it was abundantly clear to every one else that he was wrong. He can't be right on the Danish Cartoons, because didn't everyone else just bend over to religious funadmentalism when it happened.

Which makes it clear that the disagreement between me and you is black and white.
THose of us like me who believieve in the importance of people who don't tie their opinions to popularity, can like Hitchens and enjoy the man's work, and hope for more like him.
Those like you who just know they are right, don't want contrary opinions and point to popular opinion to justify this arrogance (didn't you accuse Hitchens of that btw), can continue to attack people like Hitchens who unfortunately use their intellect in negative ways because they help promote sides which are so obviously wrong.

To point out just how little you know about the opinions you are attacking, but save time going through the whole post, I will take just Theresa parapgraph, where it is "abundantly clear" to anyone who has read Hitchen's book on the issue, that you have no idea what Hitchens is actually attacking Mother Theresa for, you just vaguely know that he is attacking her, and that she must be good because everyone says so (and she recieved an award) which goes back to the whole theme of the post I laid out above.

Let's also not forget his controversy mongering article about Mother Teresa, when he called her a fundamentalist and fanatic. Try convincing me she's so by saying he went undercover. Missionary or not, come over to Kolkatta to realise the level of poverty and her impact to society cutting across community and religion. The Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, isn't awarded to fundamentalists, it's hardly even awarded to deserving candidates. Tell me, when the world, including, most importantly, Indian Hindus and Muslims, accept her as a person who worked for the society's good and one man decides to call her a fundamentalist based on one of her views, isn't he a so called moral authority over society. He just doesn't have a religion associated with him. By the same logic, let's not call him misled but a war and an atheist fundamentalist. He wasn't that and she most definitely wasn't but I'd definitely take the her to spark real change.

Hitchens was not alone in his criticism of Theresa of Calcutta. The book came from outrage from many on the left as to her international behavior. She for 1, accepted 1 and a half million dollars that had been stolen from the poor of Los Angeles by fraudster Charles Keating, in order to give him a blessing and a cross as he was facing trial, in a expensive attempt by the man to win over America as he was being tired.

She said that she looked into Keating's heart and saw that he was a "good man". Maybe we should take her word for it?

BTW If you care so much about "humanitarian" issues as you claim above, you might consider it "out of taste" that Theresa of Calcutta, flew to Haiti, on the other side of the world, during the notorious reign of Jean Claude"Baby Doc" Duvalier, and in exchange for money ( blood money) praised the ruthless dictator and said that the Haitian people (in starvation at the time, while Duvalier was spending millions on weddings) were "lucky to have him".

You might already be able to see why some people found her behaviour disgusting and thought that she should not be, above citiscsm.

The argument that because if someone recieves the highest civilian award they must be good btw, is laughable and tells me a bit more about the type of logic im talking against here.

As for the main body of the criticism, and the idea that Hitchens was 1 man trying to create controversy, Hitchens interviewed for the book, nuns who had joined the Theresas famous charities, and quit in disgust and it was they who inspired the book.

I won't bother explaining the whole charge against Mother Theresa to you, but it was fairly clear, from the interviews, and for anyone willing to spend just a bit of time researching more about THeresas foundation, that her attitude to life was not disimilar from those who conucted the inquisition. She cared not for people but for their souls. Despite through her popularity raising millions if not billions, her shelters would refuse to offer pretty basic medication because THeresa believed suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ".

Most damingly, despite the millions raised, care continued to be given in horrible conditions, by people without any medical qualificiations, this according to the British Medical Journal. With the money that was being raised she could have build several hospitals but yet those who investigated the places rather than just proclaim Theresa a saint, was exceptionaly poor. This care was btw critiscised in many papers and magazines, not just Hitchens.

Where did the millions go. Well the millions instead went to spreading not medicine around the third world, but religion. To build churches and monestaries and spread the faith. While people were giving money in the expectation of helping the poor, they didn't realise their money was only converting them.
Some, with not to high sensitivity to religion, might call this a scam.

To quote Twain, and Hitchens does in his book, " give a man a reputation as an early riser, and that man can sleep till noon".

She was free from cirtisicsm because the world assumed she was good, but with the actions above she embodied everything that secularists should oppose which is why Hitchens launched such attacks on here.

Of course an easier explanation for someone who isn't familiar with the work they are critiscising, is he was looking for controversy. Just like saying he was alone is easier than finding out where the criticism came from.


Oh and I can't resist this to show just how much you misunderstood my post lol.

So, in your hypothetical case of burning an American flag, yes I'm against that as well.

I didn't say burning a flag, I said drawing a cartoon of a flag around someones neck.

1 is a violent and threatening action. The other is a cartoon.


BTw, if you don't mind, ill bring this hard challenge at free speech, to the religion thread.

Being an atheist doesn't mean that someone has the right to slurry any religion that he wishes (cartoonist, not Hitchens). Many of us believe that one's right ends where the other's nose begins. Before accusing me of being a fundamentalist, go and read my posts in threads pertaining to this topic.