Am on the AZ-Mexico border working this week. Posting could be slow.I’m sure you’ll survive.
This entry was posted
on Monday, January 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
http://www.slate.com/id/2134029/
An important piece by Christopher Hitchens….worth consideration Marc’s semi-absence…
(It’s been a long time since I’ve found two of Hitchen’s columns in a row seeming sensible, much less important. This one is the latter.)
January 9th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
hmmmm….. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1682246,00.html
January 10th, 2006 at 8:34 am
reg -
Now that you’re convinced Hitchens is capable of rational thought, maybe you could go back to the columns in which you wildly disagreed and reassess his logic and approaches in those.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:23 am
And maybe they fail on merit? People are known to be wrong on occasion and correct on others.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Why…I already did. Your assertion that my divide with Hitchens is based on whether he’s “capable of rational thought” is just tendentious bullshit. I can be rude and over-agressive, but at least I’m honest about it and I don’t tell myself I’m a fine, polite fellow and make deliberate twists of other people’s assertions at the same time. Most of the Hitchens stuff that turned me off, incidentally, would be even more embarrassing with the passage of time and the corresponding imposition of certain realities that Comrade Hitchens dismissed as nonsense when he wrote it. He now says stuff about Iraq like, “I still support the Kurds, even if Bush can’t competently fight a war.” Reassuring stuff…
Dumb comment.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:46 am
By the way, I also “support the Kurds” even though Bush can’t competently fight a war. Anybody who read the recent article on Marine deaths due to inadequate body armor – amongst all the other evidence of criminal negligence by the chickenhawks who brought us this fiasco – knows the latter to be a fact. If anything gets me pissed off, it’s people who don’t support the troops.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:51 am
After reading that Hitchens article, incidentally, I would be embarrassed – no, ashamed – to be in the position of trying to convince “leftists” that they should give Bush the benefit of the doubt on any aspect of his leadership or judgment.
Maybe that’s why you ignored the issue addressed in the article and tried to make it “about Hitchens” – or even more paltry, about me.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Hitch says, “It is high time that this question was ventilated by people other than British editors and journalists who labor under the repressive conditions of the Official Secrets Act. ”
Didn’t a major US news figure already ventilate this question even before the memo? CNN’s ex-head troop hater Eason Jordan? Judging from what happened to him, I think it’s safe to say that this question will stay unventilated. Depressing.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Reg, Paul is a victim, he can’t get out of the role.
His views are impossible to get attention except on major media channels like FOX News or MSNBC or CNN or NBC or PBS…or print media like WSJ, Washington Times, Tampa Trib, etc… or NYT or Washington Post….
January 10th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Hey you guys, I was just giving reg a little poke. I was under the impression we were trying to maintain a slightly jovial tack here on this blog.
But I do disagree on Hitchens’ old stuff. But I don’t have time now.
Interesting point by rolly fingers, although I think it sidesteps what angers me. But again, no time.
Reg, I’m not ashamed for refusing to bow to political correctness on what I saw and see on the situation with Iraq. I would see that as the easy way out of all this – to say “He lied to me! I changed my mind!”
Am I saying people should give W “the benefit of the doubt?” Perhaps slightly, but it’s incidental only; and I think I’ve made clear what I think of W in the totality.
Very interesting point by John Mc. It makes me wonder, though, why Mr. Jordan didn;t stand up for what he said and defend it, rather than refusing to acknowledge it and from what I could see, simply running away.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Bu they reg, I can see how you’d respond to an attack on your intellectual integrity. I’d do the same. I just did it on the spur of the moment passing through. It’s clear you take yourself as seriously as I do myself.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Not “they” reg. “Hey” reg.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
“refusing to bow to political correctness”
Really…glad to hear that, because I’ve got a backache from my constant bending over. Glad to hear there’s no “political correctness” on the pro-war side. You know, stuff like invoking 9/11 and then in the next breath rationalizing the Iraq invasionas the centerpiece in the “war on terror”.
(All jokes aside, if there’s any nauseating “political correctness” afoot among liberals who actually matter politically – as opposed to that annoying guy back in your college dorm who had a Che poster on his wall – it’s the Hillary Clinton/John Kerry types who supported Bush’s “speculative pre-emption” war resolution out of sheer political opportunism and moral cowardice and continue to do pretzel twists when they discuss the war. Also…there’s no “easy way out of all this” for any of us.)
January 10th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
“It’s clear you take yourself…seriously ”
Only when I laugh…
January 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Pointing out flaws is against protocol in conservative PC. They prefer the easy stereotypes, slogans and cliches. As long as folks repeat those, no thought and analysis is needed.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
reg…
…