the Hitchens phenomenon

quote:

---

Question: What's your religion?
Answer: I'm bright

---

How about "none"?

Or "fuck off".

I agree with Bel'tov that Hitchens is being pretty stupid when crediting Bush for combatting religion.

The whole right-wing mindset is religion. This whole article establishes that the more religious you are, the more likely you'll support Bush.

quote:

---

That pattern held true even for voters who identified themselves as members of the "religious right," a group generally considered part of the Republican base. Bush was supported by 87% of those who said they attended church each week. But his margin plunged 31 points, to 56%, among members of the religious right who attended church less often.

---

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm]the "Religion gap"[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]I saw Hitchens on the Daily Show. He gave me the impression that he did much of his thinking and writting while "under the weather", as they used to say.

Odd that he would say that about Bush, because it is so utterly and completely without even one iota of merit.

It's so bad, it's not even wrong.

The whole reason we are in this mess is because the U.S. has handed Islamic fundamentalists one victory after another since the Iranian revolution.

Bush's victory over the Taliban looks likely to be at best partial at this point, more likely just a temporary victory.

And whoever eventually wins in Iraq won't be secular.

Scotch. I'm betting Hitchen's is a scotch drinker.[/b]

---

Although Hitch is a heavy drinker, he is still alert enough to know exactly what he is writing. You will see a significant elevation in the sophistication of his arguments in his middlebrow magazine venues: Vanity Fair and The Atlantic.

But he sees the Washington Post's online Slate Magazine as his main propaganda forum for the "unwashed masses"; it is a mistake to think that he actually believes all of his own rhetoric and, as I implied in my first post, as a neocon of the Wolfowitzian/Straussian camp, deception and "occluded" intentions are heartily approved of--and even thrillingly "charming".
This is from the first of over 200 articles he's spewed out for Slate:

"Machiavelli in Mesopotamia
The case against the case against "regime change" in Iraq."
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002, at 3:05 PM ET

Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss—and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow's novel Ravelstein—one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate. For those lacking a similar gift for hidden meanings, the best way to appreciate the unstated case for war may be to examine the criticisms leveled by its opponents...."

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]

While I know the idea is sometimes propogated that Wolfowitz and company are Straussians, that is actually very erroneous.

The neo-cons are radical pro-capitalists. Their whole ideology is the one which glorifies the individual and justifies the distribution of wealth on the basis of "merit".

Strauss hated Machiavelli (who Wolfowicz would admire) and most admired Moses Maimonides, who died in the year 1204.[/b]

---

Fair enough, but its undeniable that a huge bundle of that neocon foreign policy shower, including Wolfowitz, studied under Strauss at the University of Chicago. Wikipedia notes Wolfowitz personally made a point of seeking out Strauss. Perhaps he just didn't pay attention? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Hitchens is the establishment's favourite "leftist" - the kind that trashes "the Left"