• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Christopher Hitchens

LashL said:
Ditto.

*relieved*
Click to expand...

Another ditto. I don't expect Hitchens to hold out for much longer, but I hope at least he has the satisfaction of living to see his obit of Henry Kissinger (which I'm sure he's already written) in general circulation.
 
The Book of the Week on Radio 4 this week is Arguably, by Christopher Hitchens (read by Roger Allam). Each episode is available for seven days after the broadcast on iplayer, possibly outside the UK.

The five 'Essays'selected for Book Of The Week all originally appeared in The Atlantic Journal.
They are:
'Believe Me - It's Torture'
Hitchen's experience of being waterboarded (2008).
'Let Them Eat Pork Rinds'
How the rich perceive the poor (2005).
'The Vietnam Syndrome'
The ongoing tragedy of Agent Orange victims (2006).
'The Swastika and the Cedar'
The two faces of Beirut (2009).
'Flaw Of Gravity'
A review of Peter Ackroyds' biography of Isaac Newton (2008).
Click to expand...
 
zooterkin said:
The Book of the Week on Radio 4 this week is Arguably, by Christopher Hitchens (read by Roger Allam). Each episode is available for seven days after the broadcast on iplayer, possibly outside the UK.
Click to expand...

I caught a bit of it this morning, and I have to say he came across as an idiot. His rant appeared to be about the rich looking down on the poor, and our language is biased in that way. The example was 'chivalrous', which apparently just meant someone who could own a horse. Well, that's not what it means *now*, and I don't think it has any connotations of richness or status.

Of course society shapes language, I failed to understand what he was getting at.

But perhaps I just heard a bit out of context.
 
nathan said:
I caught a bit of it this morning, and I have to say he came across as an idiot. His rant appeared to be about the rich looking down on the poor, and our language is biased in that way. The example was 'chivalrous', which apparently just meant someone who could own a horse. Well, that's not what it means *now*, and I don't think it has any connotations of richness or status.

Of course society shapes language, I failed to understand what he was getting at.

But perhaps I just heard a bit out of context.
Click to expand...

Surely you can disagree with his statement without jumping to that sort of conclusion? Given his academic & published record, I don't 'think' idiot is a word commonly used to describe Hitchens. You're certainly free to object to what he has to say (hell the name of the book is 'Arguably') but resorting to name calling doesn't usually suggest the arguments about to follow are particularly strong.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Surely you can disagree with his statement without jumping to that sort of conclusion?
Click to expand...

It is true there are statements one can disagree with without considering the author an idiot. I did not find this to be such an occasion. But, notice I didn't call him an idiot, I said he appeared to be one.

Given his academic & published record, I don't 'think' idiot is a word commonly used to describe Hitchens.
Click to expand...

Right, I understand he's well published, which is why I was surprised when I heard what he had to say. And like I said, he appeared as an idiot. And just to make it clear, I'm not sure whether he's an idiot or not. Prior to today I thought he was a non-idiot. Now I'm not so sure. How is that jumping to a conclusion?
 
Last edited:
Well I would consider the sentence to be a bit judgmental. Anyways - Hitchens I'm sure is able to defend himself, and I don't need to defend him. Just saying I thought it was a strange way to voice disagreement with an author's ideas. Someone who 'came across as an idiot' implies that they wouldn't be able to structure a sentence.
 
zooterkin said:
... Arguably, by Christopher Hitchens (read by Roger Allam).
Click to expand...
I thought these two fellows were the same person. (Actually I'm just kidding. Or am I??)

I recently bought "The Quotable Hitchens," by ... by ... some guy who may as well spell his name "Bhitchens." Incredibly, most of the quotes sound like someone who is trying to make a crazed harpy with PMS seem agreeable. One cannot help but wonder, doesn't this guy like ANYTHING??

And although I've run into Hitchens twice in my life, if fate gives me another chance, I may well ask him such a question, although I may narrow the category somewhat to make things simpler: "Has there been a US president within your lifetime that you felt was a GOOD president?"
 
It's happened.:( :( :(

British-born author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62.

He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he was suffering from, at a Texas hospital.

Vanity Fair magazine, which announced his death, said there would "never be another like Christopher".

He is survived by his wife, Carol Blue, and their daughter, Antonia, and his children from a previous marriage, Alexander and Sophia.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418
 
Last edited:
Brown said:
I recently bought "The Quotable Hitchens," by ... by ... some guy who may as well spell his name "Bhitchens." Incredibly, most of the quotes sound like someone who is trying to make a crazed harpy with PMS seem agreeable. One cannot help but wonder, doesn't this guy like ANYTHING??

And although I've run into Hitchens twice in my life, if fate gives me another chance, I may well ask him such a question, although I may narrow the category somewhat to make things simpler: "Has there been a US president within your lifetime that you felt was a GOOD president?"
Click to expand...
Fate never gave me that chance. The chance is gone forever.

I shall take this opportunity to share one memory of Hitchens, in which he hobbled (and some might say demolished) a person's thesis without saying a single word. And he may have done it without meaning to.

At an Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas (TAM5, I believe), Penn Jillette was still taking some heat for his and Teller's stand on the program "Bull-Plop" (not the real name, but you know what I mean) that second-hand cigarette smoke does not cause cancer and therefore the government regulation of smoking is overreaching. Jillette's position was itself bull-plop because, among other reasons: the medical evidence went the other way (showing to a high degree of certainty that both first- and second-hand smoke were indeed carcinogenic); second-hand smoke even if not carcinogenic is harmful to health, and an irritant, and in the best case an obnoxious odor; and the right to breathe smoke-free air ought to supercede any "right" to pollute the air used by others, and it is a legitimate governmental function to act to protect the rights of innocents to breathe unpolluted air.

Jillette had been presented with evidence that his and Teller's position was untenable, and despite some feeble remarks to the TAM group, he did not withdraw the position, at least not with the publicity with which the original position was announced.

Enter Hitchens.

At a panel discussion, Hitchens sat next to Jillette. Even though there was (as I understand) a prohibition against smoking in the hotel's conference rooms, Hitchens reasoned, to hell with that, and lit up. I do not recall who happened to be at the lectern at the time, it wasn't either of these men.

The smoke from Hitchens' lungs and his cig went in many directions, and some of it went to Jillette (and to Randi, also sitting nearby).

Jillette tried to wave away the smoke. He made a "That stinks!" face. Eventually he tried to move away from the source. If Hitchens saw any of these gestures, he ignored them and went right on puffing.

I came very close to shouting to Jillette, "Come on, Penn! That smoke isn't giving you cancer, so you've got NO reason to complain, have you??"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom