Herman and Hamid

November 8, 2011

Why is it so hard to speak honestly about allegations of sexual harassment or our corrupt ally in Afghanistan?
By Christopher Hitchens

There were two generally depressing controversies last week, in both of which an exercise of free speech might have done more harm than good. The first concerns our disordered policy in Afghanistan and the second our ongoing and increasingly dishonest discussion of sexual harassment.

Read More (Slate)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Have not enjoyed much of your work, have told you so, and believe your late in life anti-religion campaign comes from pain and conflict in your psyche, but I wish you recovery and the capacity and strength to continue doing what you love.

Please spare us and Mr. Hitchens your self interested condolences. Who asked you for your pompous piece of ignorant psychoanalytical drivel as well as your false wishes for continued strength and capacity?

Your message was a contemptuous and transparent attempt to make yourself look magnanimous and possibly "Christian" but instead revealed a crass and self absorbed ignoramus. Simply wish the man well if that was your true purpose and have the good sense and decent character to take your opinions to another forum.


Not Anonymous,

Dogan Tekben

CJ said...

In what way is Hitch's anti-religion bent late in life?

The man has had these same opinions for decades.

Anonymous said...

It was a successful attempt to wish him well AND piss you off.

Michael Dawson said...

Nice try, Anon, to cross these wires. GING was published in mid-2007, way before Hitchens knew he had cancer.

Religion poisons everything, not least -- the truth.

Anonymous said...

He became an outspoken atheist/anti-theist only when he felt safe enough to do so, once the sophomoric comic-con attending "new atheist" set became substantial enough in number to replace his is previous audience, his former political admirers.

Michael Dawson said...

Anon, do you have a point? You seem to be trying to say that the timing of an argument is somehow evidence of its validity. ROFL.

P.S. You also seem to be rad-baiting Hitchens, despite his present turn. Personally, I am a socialist who now hates and disagrees with what Hitchens has to say about U.S. wars, and what he has stopped saying about the nature of American society. Nonetheless, that topic is also utterly unrelated to the validity of what Hitchens says about religion.

@michael dawson:
I'm glad you can differentiate between hitchens' religious views and his foreign policy stances, because many people on the left, including your friend noam chomsky, can't seem to do that. When chomsky went on about hitch supporting "state religions" or some such mumbo jumbo, he seemed pleased with himself, as though he'd given a coherent answer. Even if one could let that pass, shouldn't he back it up with proof? Hitch has criticized the religious views of those who agreed with him on iraq. Hitch has also condemned "state religions" while rightly pointing out that they have their roots in primary religions. And what about all the other new atheists who disagree with hitch on iraq, like dawkins and dennett? Chomsky seems to lump them in with him. Truth is, most people on the left see atheism as a distraction from corporate state bashing. The religious extremists in this country are, in their mind, also explained away by corporatism.

Pathetic.

 
 
 

Christopher reads from Hitch-22: A Memoir