I’ve heard the name of Hitchens before, but never read anything by him. So I am not a fan or expert on his stuff. But, if you listen to the show, he makes some incredibly and clear intelligent points… if you give him a chance. To no surprise, most religious callers don’t actually listen to what he’s saying…
ok, it’s friday and everyone is already drunk, but still check this out and comment!
Share this post with
Hitchens
he's been on Maher's show on
I didn’t know that he was anti religion because whenever I’ve heard him speak it’s always to support the war in Iraq or to say that fanatic Muslims aren’t nice people. Glad he thinks that Planned Parenthood protesters are douchebags too.
Wet Brain
and?
propaganda efforts against the Islamofascistic threat"?
despite that claim, what I heard him say about religion (not "God", but religion) was quite thoughtful. He crystalized some ideas in a way I found to be good.
He didn’t really go into the war at all, but pointed out that Islam is as equally retarded to our species as Christianity or Judaism. Which, again, I found to be good.
It was refreshing to hear that on a mainstream radio show (granted, a hippie liberal show, but mainstream nontheless).
A drunk bastard.
He’s a drunk in that he drinks a lot. Here’s a bit on that: www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html
And he’s a Bush propagandist in that he had pushed for war on Iraq, and here he is pushing for war on Iran: www.youtube.com/watch
The interesting thing in that clip is that his mistrust of Iran comes out of his mistrust for fundamentalist Islam, yet when faced with the comeback that Bush has his own nutty fundamentalism, Hitchens flips off the audience. He’s intellectually dishonest. If you’re going to fear religious nutjobs, fear them all, and pay close attention to the nutjobs leading the more-powerful countries.
Here’s another account of the drunk: www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-not-drunk-only-asinine-thief.html
And speaking of powerful religious nutjobs threatening our freedoms, watch Bill Moyers’ show on Pat Robertson’s Regent University, how they’ve managed to get something like 150 of their grads in the Bush administration. Pay close attention to their young hopefuls talk about serving "a Higher Law," as they get their law degrees. www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html The good thing about that school is that they take an extra ten minutes in each class to do some intense praying. A ten minute nap in each class — I could’ve used that at WMU.
Oh, look: Monica Goodling, another proud Regent grad, is in the news again. www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/washington/12monica.html
From that story:
Ms. Goodling, now 33, arrived at the department at the start of the Bush administration after working as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Her legal experience was limited; she had graduated in 1999 from Regent University School of Law, which was founded by Pat Robertson. Deeply religious and politically conservative, Ms. Goodling seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department, several former colleagues said.
letters to a young contrarian
christopher hitchens used to write for the nation. he supported the war in iraq and parted ways with the magazine after that for obvious reasons.
his book ‘letters to a young contrarian’ is one of the better books i have read in a while. he’s a great political writer and he’s got a sense of humor, but, in a more refined way than, say, ‘the daily show’ and all it’s spin offs.
plus, he is a notorious drunk which only makes him more likable in my opinion.
Hitchens = neocon
these are all interesting points.
And, sorry, but (I’m starting to think that I might loathe his politics) that bill maher clip was freaking dead-on. (sorry to be suddenly changing a thread about religion to politics… lol) I think calling Bush an idiot really serves no purpose… sure, we’re all frustrated, but come on: everyone has said it now, so let’s move on to something a bit more constructive.
how is he a bush propagandist? wouldn’t a bush propagandist a) BE a Xtian and b) spewing the real obvious comic book banter supporting Bush and the war? So, far, all I see is his support of the war, but not any clear-cut party line. Can’t someone support the war and think organized religion is stupid? I don’t support the war, but it seems possible to me… And, just because he might be a "neocon", can’t he make some really solid points against organized religion? (Has anyone here actually listened to the interview linked above yet?)
Oh well, clearly, I’m still processing all of this…
I have to get around to watching that Moyers stuff! I heard he came out of retirement!
screw him
The Time for Nut-Kicking
Daily Show keeps me sane. Hitchens was on that just a bit ago, pushing his hatred of God. Like I said, I also spit on all religions (I’m not obnoxious about it, however). He didn’t seem drunk, but he showed signs of alcohol damage.
Many great thinkers have been heavy drinkers. But there is that line were brain damage begins. Signs include unrealistic notions like war against Islam, because of a radical minority, is great idea, especially if we start on Saddam’s Iraq, and take our their brutal, yes, but secular dictatorship. Bush, Hitchens, both show signs of severe brain damage from abuse of substances. On the other hand, some who seem sober also buy into the insanity.
"Can’t someone support the war and think organized religion is stupid?" Are you asking is it possible, or, is it allowed? Sure, why not. My point was that there is no reason to listen to this person on any topic, at any time, because all he deserves, unless he says he was wrong and that he is sorry, is a swift kick in the nuts. The time for discussion about the rightness and wrongness about the debacle is over. The time for nut-kicking has just begun.
I did!
I did. my main issue is this very anitquated religion vs. science debate. In my opinion, both — in their popular manifestations, at least — are fucked at this point. Religion makes people stupid and science makes people think they can rule the world and exploit nature until it’s totally destroyed (while also filling people up on meds just because they can’t handle a reality shaped by capitalism). Without sounding too over the top, we need a new model of the universe that reconciles the best of both and moves the fuck on.
not open?
I definitely agree with you, but I have to disagree with this. But this is more of a pet-peeve of mine, so don’t take it too seriously. But, I really don’t like it when people make armchair diagnosis of people they don’t have any direct contact with. TV, the Internet, Radio, and Newspapers in no way whatsoever prove that Bush or Hitchens are suffering from brain damage. Again, it’s one thing to disagree with them and dislike them, but I think stating as fact that they are showing signs of brain damage serves no purpose at all.
[quote=Dumb Yelling Zorak] My point was that there is no reason to listen to this person on any topic, at any time, because all he deserves, unless he says he was wrong and that he is sorry, is a swift kick in the nuts. The time for discussion about the rightness and wrongness about the debacle is over.[/quote]
I don’t follow this at all. the time for discussion is over? Forgive me, as I don’t know you, but isn’t that rather closed-minded? Are you saying you’re not open to having your mind changed ever?
and, again, has anyone listened to the interview on the website? If memory serves, we have a religion scholar amongst us on this site… seems ripe for his comments on organized religion.
science
I agree with you for sure. up until this point. science is needed to get us off the planet. and what about discovering pharms to cure things like aids and cancer? but, on the whole, I think I get your point… like the alcoholic switching from booze to jesus in AA; people are switching from religion to science and holding science up as their savior. which is another form of fanaticism.
[quote=QuantumNoise]we need a new model of the universe that reconciles the best of both and moves the fuck on.[/quote]
by "both", do you mean science and some form of spirituality? or science and RELIGION? I think we can do without religion, but I can see a use for spirituality (which, to me, would be an appreciation of the complexity of nature, etc). But I doubt we need a belief in anything supernatural, etc.
Hyperbole
Angry and close-minded and childish and a brutish rejection to a supposed support for reasoned debate — yes, it is, in this instance. But watch the end of that Bill Moyers episode — I think you can through the link above — were he details the cost of the war in blood, bucks, loss of world respect, damaged vets, damaged rights, etc., and you’ll see my point. That is, there’s no point in listening to anyone who still supports this war.
science and religion
I’m a fervent believer in space travel. I think the whole world should unite and devote itself to finding other life forms and friendly exploration. however, if humanity stays the course, then getting off the planet is nothing more than us needing to flee a planet that we’ve destroyed. This, I don’t agree with. I don’t think we should simply spread across the universe like a virus and destroy one planet after another. That’s not good for us in the long run, and it’s not good for other life.
I think discovering pharms to cure cancer and AIDS are wonderful. At the same time, I believe there are other scientific approaches (preventitive, Ayurvedic, etc.) that should be explored in conjunction with pharmaceutical research. I’m very skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry. They make their money off sickness. They need people to be sick in order to exist. That smells bad to me. A. Maslow always wondered why mental health dedicated the bulk of its research to "sick" people and not healthy people. I wonder that about all of medicine.
But I doubt we need a belief in anything supernatural, etc.
Belief is a tricky thing, because it does play a huge role in both science and religion; placebo tests prove this. Everything is a belief system in my opinion.
I haven’t thought about any of this stuff in a while, so it’s all a bit overwhelming. I really don’t have any answers for anything!!! And I really don’t know shit!!!
you go girl!
keep in mind that "I really don’t know shit" is THE most awe inspiringly profound thing ANYONE can admit to. Really.
ES: science is needed to get
QN: I’m a fervent believer in space travel.
To paraphrase John Stewart in that one movie, Have you guys ever looked at the stars…………………………on weed?!
Totally agree with the most basic idear that the world should be inspired and do some wacky and cool shit in space. But whitey’s on the moon makes some people mad, besides the Mennonites, when we got a huge income disparity within our own country and throughout the 4th world countries. Science Channel has been running lots of cool shows this week, Space Week. The black hole at the center of Andromeda, wow!
Hitchen’s idears about organized religion seem pretty okay, cool that somebody has the lips to come out and say stuff like that. Like stated above, seems kinda silly to be anti-organized religion but to be supportive of forced democracy and failed foreign policy. in 2001 I’d give somebody the jingoistic benefit of doubt (a tad) but in 2006 when he was on Maher’s program? Naaaaaaaah. Religion, bad for humanity, makes us sheepish, sure! War in Iraq, good. War in Iran, will be even better. Whoooops.
And fuck the pharmacuetical companies! Shit, why our GDP gotta include that shit? People wasting away, dying, getting some legs cut off, all jacked up on pills, and the more that happens the better our economy is. That’s stanky.
space is not the place?
that song rules. as does mr. heron.
I just watched Herzog’s WILD BLUE YONDER the other night. And it defnitely got me thinking about this space travel thing. Ultimately, it seems like we are not evolved for it. So, on one hand it seems like a pipe dream. But, really, why NOT try to do it? Even if it doesn’t work, it seems like we’d learn a lot along the way and hopefully invent some earth saving things.
aliens SUCK.
we SUCK.
I believe...
I’ve always entertained the thought that true scientific exploration of space (not the militarization or commercialization of space) is actually linked to creating a just society here on Earth. I don’t think it was any coincidence that space exploration and the civil rights movement overlapped historically. Questions of justice and equality seem tied to issues like is-there-life-on-other-planets, as well as environmental issues. Lofty dreams and lofty values seem to go together.
the hitchens paradox
hitchens has a new book out…i think this review sums up the paradox that is this man
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/05/10/hitchens_god/
and QN…i completely agree with everything you have written today…i am brain-damaged due to abuse of substances so thank you for articulating what i am no longer able to say because my synapses are are dried up.
I tried to listen. Does that count?
Seriously couldn’t make it all the way through, although truthfully the callers were bugging me more than Christopher Hitchens. But yeah, I think it boils down to, how can someone who has an interesting perspective on one topic (organized religion) be so totally wrong about another (war in Iraq)? And then, does’t that create suspicion towards the original logic that you found compelling?
It does make me want to read up some more on Thomas Jefferson, though. Maybe when this master’s degree is over…. I can get one in constitutional law. Oh, I kill me.
Double post....
That’s what I get for getting up to check on whatever it was that was making every dog in the world bark. It was probably Satan.
dio and sabbath
there’s a new sabbath record out with great r.j. dio lyrics…one that struck me is ‘…and the devil cried’
you have to admit, satan makes life a lot easier.
i stopped reading this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nETIWoZTxo&mode=related&search=
Hitler's dog!
Maybe Hitchens has mutiple personalities??? There is a school of psychology that believes this is the case with nearly every human on earth. One of the classic examples is Hitler and his dog. This guy was a homicidal maniac but fuckin-A did he nurture his pooch!
your brain on god
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/
One of the classic examples
i’d like to gas my roommate…..
oh yes matthew its a new sauna i put in….its in the basement….yes yes….go inside….breathe deep…..ahh….feel the cleansing…..mmmmm….
and then i’d comb my lovely dog and feed her as many biscuits as she wants….
Sheldrake vs. Wolpert
At the same time, Wolpert is one of these dogmatic skeptics that RAW and Sheldrake, who is mentioned in the article, have railed against.
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/telepathy_debate.html
uri geller sucks
that’s the whole placebo thing again. belief WORKS. which only shows me that WE really can control our own being to a great extent. Granted (here’s the downside), without a prefab dogmatic system, that control requires a LOT of work! whew! I try, but who has the time and energy to be a god?
and thanks for that link to the debate. I honestly can’t listen to it attentitively now, but I will later. but here’s my initial thoughts on telepathy: from what I know (my wife does cognitive research and has done a lot of FMRI studies, etc), there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting telepathy right now. If there was even the slightest bit of evidence, the grant money for that research would flood in. So far, on any "legitimate research" level, it has not.
Why? Because, we simply do not understand our own brains at the moment. And what we DO know suggests that there is most likely a BILLION tiny little procedures at work which help us notice things in other people, which appear as "telepathy". (keep in mind that, no matter what you FEEL, a "deja vu" is really only a chemical burp in your brain.)
That said, however, I would certainly love some solid evidence on telepathy or esp. having taken mountains of psychedelics over the years, I have definitely experienced a lot of "telepathy" that I was convinced of as authentic for years. Lately, however, I’ve been rethinking exactly what went on in my head at those times… and I’m leaning towards "chemical reaction" rather than actual telepathy.
But, I’ll listen to the debate today and maybe comment later…
BRAINS! MMM... BRAINS!
But why do chickens run around when their heads are cut off?
here's all the evidence you need!!!
creepy!
I am emailing that fantastic image to the Harvard/MIT fMRI lab NOW!
they live!
because their brains do NOT end in the head… their brains actually extend down the spine. there are several random cases of chickens that were beheaded that lived for MANY years afterward!! A famous one, that I can’t recall the name of, was toured in a sideshow in the 60s and 70s. I also read of another one more recently in the past few years. weird and cool stuff!
of course, they need to be seriously cared for: someone has to feed them liquids and clean their stump hole, etc. groovy!
mike the headless chicken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headless_chicken
telepathy
With "legitimate research" based on a materialistic view of the world, I don’t think any evidence will be found to support telepathy. It’s like using a relief map instead of a road atlas when driving.
headless chicken!.....holy
i want to know what it sounded like when it attempted some serious clucking……..did it still poop out eggs?
holy smokes….rad….clone that motherfucker now!
soft machine
I think that I know what you’re getting at… and it’s a valid point. and maybe it boils down again to me preferring "science" over "new age" (or "metaphysics" or "god" or whatever), so I’ll stick with science. But, I try to maintain some balance, as, yes, science might have (as a whole) a specific worldview which makes them overlook other possibilities (just like them Churchies overlook science!). But, also, I’m not sure that I can rally around behind saying that ALL of research science is based on a materialistic worldview. It’s a good guess, but I don’t see how one can "know" that as a "fact".
but, really, to me at least, the idea that our brains are complex enough to pick up on very *specific* things about another person or event without language, etc., is pretty fucking rad. I still am absolutely amazed that a deva vu is simply a chemical burp that makes our concept of "past" be confused with the "present". I’ve played with this idea WHILE having deva vus and it’s really fun. It doesn’t cancel out -to me- the possibility of a REAL deja vu happening, or ESP for that matter, but it just adds to my admiration for our own machines.
DUDE!
oh....its a rooster....i see
oh crackers
When is the Egg Man going to get here, Crackers? I love the Egg man!
this gets back to...
But what can I know as fact?
example:
some days I think the big bang theory is just as removed from my experience as creationism. Both require that I believe a certain group of experts who say they have certain "facts" on their side. But without me directly experiencing the big bang or those magical seven days — or experiencing anything that would help me think the big bang or those magical seven days are , uh, real — choosing one over the other is an act of faith in both directions that involves none of this thing called fact.
1) Some dude in the sky created the universe in seven days…then came all this other stuff like DNA and guns and flowers and toads and porn and typewriters
2) one minute there was nothing then there was this exploson and there was somthing…then we got all this other stuff like DNA and guns and flowers and toads and porn and typewriters
both sound totally mythological to me and that’s fine. but there a ton of people out there who are trying to cram both views as fact down my throat. in my opinion, both a huge chunk of the scientists and the priests don’t understand the concept of contingency because, in my very humble opinion, life is nothing but an ever changing web of contingencies.
Head Games
maybe this guy can help me!!!
If I don't know it's a "fact," is it really a "fact?"
a Zorak family portait
I'm glad this turned into a thread about chicken
‘Cuz I couldn’t follow most of this.
Last night, I did happen to catch a clip of Hitchens with Mitt Romney and Al Sharpton on a "Daily Show" rerun - he sounded more coherent than in the interview linked above, of which I made it through five minutes, since all I could hear when Hitchens talked was Oliver Reed singing in Tommy (talk about drunks - anyone ever see Reed on Letterman back in the ‘80’s, when Letterman referred to him as "a man in your condition", and Reed took his glasses off and started getting confrontational - "OH, what condition is THAT?" - I was waiting for a wrasslin’ match like Reed and Alan Bates in Women in Love). I had no idea that it was in this conversation that Sharpton made the controversial comment about "the true believers" defeating Romney in a presidential race, which has been construed as an anti-Mormon comment, for which Sharpton’s been making semi-apologies. This Hitchens is a real agitator.
Frankly, I get more out of reading the back and forths between forum members on these subjects (and their tangents) than I do out of the writers and talking heads that get us writing about the subjects in the first place. I know we need writers and thinkers to ruminate on the subjects that give us such food for thought, but have we hit an age when their non-print appearances make them come off like bullshit artists you can’t ever believe, because they’re so proliferate now?
what would Devo do?
which is why I used quotes. Which does bring us back to what hitchens was saying… what gives anyone the right to speak for "god", and for science, for that matter, to say "this IS True"?
I truly appreciate science, but try to confront it a lot. it still works for me on some levels. but I can totally accept it as just another crutch. check back with me in 20 years on how that’s going.
I don’t accept ANYTHING without first thinking about it as deeply as I can. that process can go on for ages too. But, I find, that the Process is the most amazing part of my life. Not the solution. Once someone says they have the solution, they become losers in my book. Why? Because they STOP. Having a "possible solution" is much better… because they keep seeking.
From the Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Bullshit artist, or deep faith-based philosopher?
on a same but diff note...
I feel the same way when I walk into a bookstore and the front tables — where the hot sellers sit — are filled with books about what went fron in Irag or what went wrong with this administration. fuckin-A, if there are so many experts writing about these subjects and so many readers supposedly buying these damn books, then why are we only diving deeper into the pickle jar! i swear the irag war must have been planned by liberal publishing houses who needed a sales boost.
science is really wacky,
"And after Joseph Smith found the golden tablets in Manchester, NY in 1893, God was out here on planetoid X908JF-RFU making a lake of methane which you can see on your right. God was fucking busy that one google of a nanosecond."
Big Bang Theory and Lo, He hath bespake from up on high, are both just humans trying to make sense outta some fucked up shit that we’re gonna need a few more eons to figure out and they’re both from a pretty egocentric human view of the world. Talk to your standard poodle, ask him what the fuck is up besides the parasites in his intestinal tract. I especially like the notion of there HAVING to be a beginning or an end to everything. Just because we get birthed and die doesn’t mean that everything else does too. Human characteristics applied to the creation of existence and worlds and time and reality, pretty silly, chew on a mushroom cappy that grew on a cowpat there chummer.