"Even some of the critical commentary on Hitchens’s passing pays tribute to his atheism, which no doubt shocked readers of Vanity Fair.
But the ultimate irony seems to have gone over everyone’s head.
When I first learned that Hitchens was diagnosed with an excruciating and terminal cancer, it caused me to doubt my atheism.
Could it be merely chance?
The news came just as Hitchens was about to go on a book tour for his memoir.
It was as if he was setting out on his victory lap when the adulating crowds were supposed to fawn over him and—wham!—his legs were lopped off at the kneecaps.
Could it be the hidden hand of a Jehovah?
If I still had doubts, the events of the past week dispelled them.
First Hitchens passed.
If that wasn’t burden enough to bear, the next day Vaclav Havel imploded.
The deep thinkers among us were now beside themselves with grief.
But then, on the third day, Kim Jong-il kicked the bucket.
Was this a practical joke, and who was the joker?
Biblical scholars report that divine interventions usually come in threes.
Moe, Larry, Curly.
Christopher, Vaclav, Kim.
I cannot help but see in this otherwise improbable sequence a divine intelligence at play."
Read more
<span>
ReplyDelete"I get no satisfaction from Hitchens’s passing.
Although he was the last to know it, every death is a tragedy, if only for the bereft child—or, as in the case of Cindy Sheehan, bereft parent—left behind.
But, still, life is full of surprises.
No one should be too smug in his certitudes.
And if you’ve made a career of pissing on other people’s mostly innocuous beliefs, should it surprise that outside the tiny tent called Vanity Fair, your memory stinks of urine?"
</span>
Hitch and Vaclav were good. Kim was bad.
ReplyDeleteMay the transcendent infinite take them to the arms of heaven, to light, love and peace. The Hitch may not have believed, but we can believe for him.
Hitch was always a friend and supporter of Palestine. He never abondoned them, much the way he never abondoned the Kurds and Yezidis.
Finkelstein cares about Palestine, but who did more for Palestine? The Hitch argued the Palestinian cause better than almost anyone. [I really like Rashid and Barghouti.]
You really have nothing but bullshit anan. I fact i dare say you're made of it.
ReplyDelete<span>What a dishonest phony. He writes that he gets no satisfaction from Hitchens' death after exuding satisfaction in all the previous sentences. Yuck. At least when Hitchens took the knives out, he did not, in closing, claim that he did not enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's with the "son of Holocaust survivors" line in the bio after the piece? Could it be that the author of "The Holocaust Industry" is using his parents' Holocaust experiences for a little bit of manipulation of his own? Shocking, I say! Shocking!
And then, of course, we have the little dig at Vaclav Havel
(imploding?). I have noticed that Leftists of a certain stripe must denigrate Havel. Evidently he committed the unforgivable sin of believing there may be some things in this world more evil than the U.S.
Havel was repeatedly persecuted and imprisoned for what he said, wrote, and did. He put his life and all he held dear on the line, to actually stand up to totalitarianism. That is certainly more than the characters who sneer at him ever did.</span>
Well, VZA, you'll have to excuse me but it's your comment that I find revolting if not disgusting this time! Did it escape you that the bio at the end is not part of the article, it's Counterpunch's introduction to Norman, something he cannot be blamed for. Had it been part of the article you would have had a point. It's a very cheap shot, I have to say.
ReplyDelete<p><span>"The bio at the end is not part of the article, it's Counterpunch's introduction to Norman,"</span>
ReplyDelete</p><p>
</p><p>And so what , even if he did make it part of the article , let us not forget in which enviroment Norman operates , constantantly being accused for what he belives in and of being a false Jew or a self hated etc....
</p>
<span><span>Evidently he committed the unforgivable sin of believing there may be some things in this world more evil than the U.S. </span></span>
ReplyDeleteIs this cute turn of phrase meant to justify the war on Iraq that this loathsome individual, (also, surprise surprise! a staunch friend of Israel) have supported all along?
It is not necessary to derive satisfaction from CH's passing to express disgust at the whitewash job of the hagiographers. In my opinion he was a rat, now he's a dead rat. Should I have masses said for his soul departed?
ReplyDeleteAs Angry Arab points out, if he had remained a lefty (even a phony lefty) the US media would not have grasped him to their several bosoms, and few would be mourning his passing, least of all you, vza.
I am quite aware that it was probably included by counterpunch. If I were Finklestein, I would ask that it NOT be included. It has no relevence here. If the article had something to do with examining the effects of the Holocaust on the children of survivors, or even Zionism and Israel, then fine. Otherwise there is no point, and surely has the appearance of manipulation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough not analogous, it might be interesting to juxtapose Hitchens and Manning. Military prosecuters "linked Bradley Manning to aiding al-Qaeda,” which could have a chilling effect on journalists, according to one source. Following that "logic" I'm just curious (not really) as to why they didn't come down arder (or at all) on Reagan's people or even Rumsfeld.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is a cute turn of phrase at all. It is fact.
ReplyDeleteI do not have to agree with everything a man believes, in order to recognize the good qualities or the brave. Sorry, Havel had more courage in his little toe, than all of these narrow minded Lefties.
I admire some of Finkelstein's stand on Israel. I do not admire this nasty farewell to Hitchens....just as, Surprise! Surprise! I did not admire all things about Hitchens. However, I have always enjoyed his literary essays and learned something new and interesting when I read his reviews and critiques.
<span>As Angry Arab points out, if he had remained a lefty (even a phony lefty) the US media would not have grasped him to their several bosoms, and few would be mourning his passing, least of all you, vza.</span>
ReplyDeleteSorry, you are dead wrong. I read Hitchens long before he turned apostate and had a fatwa put on him by the loony Left. His always interesting and elegantly written literary essays were a delight I will sorely miss.
I think that if Hitchens had maintained a consistent drumbeat of anti-U.S. vitriol, few on the loony Left...least of all you, Jemmy... would have noticed any of his other failings as a human being.
I note you use the term, hagiography. I have not seen evidence of that at all. I have read quite a few of the remembrances...almost all include the flaws.
In conclusion, I envy all of you for your upright and flawless lives and thoughts. Let us close with the only words of value to come out of Finklestein's comment on C.H.'s death:
But, still, life is full of surprises.
No one should be too smug in his certitudes.
"No one should be too smug in his certitudes."
ReplyDeleteA fitting epitaph for your elegant belletrist.
A cheerleader for the war party, is that the attraction for those who think criticism of Globo-cop is anti-American? If you can't take criticism of your country's lunatic foreign policy without resorting to misrepresentation then you should throw off your liberal sheep's clothing and join fleming at the gun club.
<span>I am quite aware that it was probably included by counterpunch.</span>
ReplyDeleteWhy probably? You don't think Norman joins a bio to every article he sends and then goes to check how it's presented.
Another point, there's no contradiction feeling in a sarcastic kind of way, that a clean up from heaven took place without necessarily rejoicing at the death of a person. I don't feel any differently. I felt no particular pleasure from his death AT ALL, yet at the same time, I feel that less trash will be around. Hitchens was not a mass murderer like Charon or Bush for example.
Sharon not Charon, obviously.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is what I call bullseye:
ReplyDelete<span>"Like a querulous infant, he wants everything and he wants enormous helpings of it. His desire to belabor the social establishment is rivaled only by his gratification at belonging to it. This card-carrying atheist’s fantasy of paradise is to be fêted by the rich and powerful at the sleekest of Washington dinner parties for having mach<span>ine-gunned a marauding gang of terrorists outside the U.S. embassy in Sana’a while remaining a Marxist. No club must be closed to this man-about-town. One is reminded of the aristocratic woman in Evelyn Waugh’s Vile Bodies who has heard rumors of an Independent Labour Party and is furious that she has not been invited. Hitchens, in the tradition of Yogi Berra, thinks you can “follow” a fork in the road, a feat beyond even the most vacillating of politicians. He continues to imagine in postmodern fashion that all certainties are dogmatic, as he did in his recent autobiography, Hitch-22, while being as full of them as the rest of us."</span></span>
Terry Eagleton
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083729
<span>without resorting to misrepresentation </span>
ReplyDeleteOh, and what misrepresentation would that be, Jemmy?
This sort of misrepresentation? :
<span>As Angry Arab points out, if he had remained a lefty (even a phony lefty) the US media would not have grasped him to their several bosoms, and few would be mourning his passing, least of all you, vza.</span>
Just giving as good as I get, Jemmy. Surely, you can recognize that? You imply I would not mourn Hitchens if he had remained a Leftist, and I am supposed to just be silent? You can dish it out, but can't take it.
I criticize my country's foreign policy and have no problem with anybody else doing so, There is plenty to criticize. But the toxic stupidity from the loony Left ...(Note the distrinction I am making, sir.) with their, the U.S. is the root of all evil in the world, is beyond rational. I will not simply accept criticism from a group with a long tradition of apologetics for the most despicable mass murderers in history. Somehow, the millions the North Korean despot and his family have starved to death in that prison of a country, never seem to elicit the same sympathy and concern that the victims of U.S. actions do. The articles on the Left about Hitchens contained more vitriol than anything written about Kim Jon-Il. Very strange, indeed.
And then, at last, we come to this:
<span>without resorting to misrepresentation then you should throw off your liberal sheep's clothing and join fleming at the gun club. </span>
Is your invocation of fleming each time you tire of the argument supposed to intimidate me into submission? Ha!
Did you read the whole thing, Tgia? I thought it was a fair account, recognizing the good and the bad.
ReplyDeleteTGIA, VAA, Jemmy, everyone. How many persons can you name who did more for the Palestinian cause than the Hitch? Start naming.
ReplyDeleteThe Hitch was part of the reason I learnt about the Palestinian cause, and was open to TGIA's, VAA's, CSS', Molly's and Yasmin's throughts on it. The Hitch was able to reach audiences that almost no other pro Palestinian advocate could.
Is it possible that many lefties are slandering the Hitch because they were jealous of him?
Actually, I learnt a lot from by discussions and debates with Iraqi Mojo regarding Palestinians. The Hitch made me more open to Iraqi Mojo's arguements.
ReplyDeleteYes I did and it was balanced but that's not a reason enough for me to "understand" his cheerleading role in the war on Iraq or the vilification of the free Gaza activists.
ReplyDeleteI never argued that you should.
ReplyDeleteWhat are "free Gaza" activists.
ReplyDeleteOn Iraq it is simple. The Iraqi resistance who fought against Saddam 1980-2003 were the good guys. Those who supported them supported good. The ones who fought the good guys were bad. They included many tens of thousands of non Iraqi Sunni Arabs [and Pakistanis, and as Assange/Wikileaks reported many Hezbollah and Iranians.]
The bad guys tried to organize a genocide against the Iraqi people. They lost. The Iraqi Army smashed them. Albeit with some foreign help.
It is simple. The Hitch got it.
ReplyDelete<span>I place you in the same category as fleming because
i) You conflate capitalism and the United States. An attack on the first is for you an attack on the second.
ii) Though you may not have the same racist, supremacist, position on the US's trashing of the world beyond its shores you will brook no dissent from non-Americans. Just as the Zionists label any criticism of their flouting of international law as 'anti-Semitism', so you and your kind (e.g., fleming) dismiss any criticism of the US mad dog state as anti-Americanism.
I don't know what you mean by loony left. What constitutes the non-loony left for you? 'Left' is always a pejorative in your comments. If you think self-styled social democrat politicians who dare not distance themselves from an out of control superpower are of the left then you're deluding yourself. People who pretend to be internationalist (which socialists are, as opposed to national 'socialists', or Nazis) would not condone war against civilian populations or the attempt, by force of arms, to corner the planet's diminishing resources.
The United States is more than the criminals you maintain in Washington or the bigger criminals who own them. As in other countries you don't get the government you deserve, you get the government that the real rulers foist on you. Defend them if you wish, but don't be upset if the rest of the world demurs.
Kim Jong-il needs no demolition job, but the Hitchens facade needs a lot of work. That, I suggest, is the reason for the contrasting word-count. Once Hitchens set foot on your shores his approval compass pointed rightwards. That's where the big money is.</span>
<span>What are "free Gaza" activists. </span>
ReplyDeleteWhat is Google, anand?
"You conflate capitalism and the United States"!!!!!!!! ???????? Huh. Turkey, Brazil and increasingly China are more capitalist than socialist trending America. When has VZA ever conflated capitalism and America? Do you really read and believe what you write?
ReplyDelete"racist, supremacist, position on the US's trashing of the world beyond its shores you will brook no dissent from non-Americans." Jemmy, stop conflating foreign countries with England and the english mind. Other countries don't think and behave like you. Americans and really most countries that are not English want to facilitate other countries becoming rich and successful because they benefit from the success of other.
1 + 1 = 3. Suspect VZA thinks along those lines. The idea that we do not benefit from the success of others is in the modern context an English mindset.
"anti-American." The way I see it, the looney left is more anti "darkie" and anti poor people than anti American. But they don't come out and say it since that would be politically incorrect. Rather, they try to hide their true fealings behind a veneer of anti-Americanism. I dare say VZA gets this. Even you deep down probably get it.
For example, many leftists hate the 700 thousand Iraqi Security Forces. But want them dead and defeated. But instead of openly saying what they really believe and what really motivates them, they indirectly imply it by attacking America.
Another example. Many lefties hate the global financial system which they see as evil and unjust. Lefties know that America only earns about 18 percent of global income. And a smaller share of global wealth than global income since Americans love to borrow from foreigners. Yet, their way of attacking the global financial system is to attack America. How wierd is that?
" attempt, by force of arms, to corner the planet's diminishing resources." Please name countries that do this other than England? Even the other European countries stopped doing this many generations ago. Russia and China have also stopped doing this.
"As in other countries you don't get the government you deserve, you get the government that the real rulers foist on you."
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
The American people choose their own leaders. Yes, foreigners such as the Saudi, Chinese, Indonesian lobbies and their money have an influence. But elections are decided by Americans. Only Americans are responsible for America's government. Stop living in a dream world.
I think we all need to re-think or update this left-right dichotomy. "Left" has traditionally been associated with varyng degrees of socialism, while the "right" believes in a greater reliance on markets. Both of these have connotations that emanate squarely from the realm of economics. We should keep in mind that the dichotomy in and of itself is not a black vs. white cut and dry type of thing. There is a lot of grey in between. In the US, the distinction has become so distorted that Obama is called a socialist by his opponents for embracing policies that the Republicans used to stand for not too long ago. Where the two major US parties now differ is along THESE LINES, moreso than along any capitalism vs. socialism split.
ReplyDeleteThat said, there is a common tendency on both sides to use the Left-Right classication "system" to denote alliances of convenience irrespective of the underlying economics side. The overriding criteria seems to be whether they are "with us or against us" (and this applies to both sides). The most salient example is China, which is no longer "left" despite being governed by the communist party. In our hemisphere, Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega is more pro-business than many neighboring governments that are considered right wing. And for all the blah blah blah about Chavez, Venezuela is no more closer to socialism than is Brazil. Even Cuba has been quite capitalistic for quite some time, already.
Similarly, the term "democracy" also rings hollow, but that is a topic for another thread.
Where I think the current "divide" lies is with regard to specific policies (and the power politics that underly them) within the mixed capitalist economies/societies that make up the world. One very interesting development is the focus clearly converging on growing inequalities and the elimination of poverty. Both sides appear to agree that this is the problem. Where they disagree is with who is to be held responsible and what must be done to correct it. In a sense, the left-right dichotomy seems to me to have morphed into the [special] US case of Keynesians versus free marketeers. The so called "left" is now rallying agianst austerity or neoliberal policies, while the right simply wants government (except of course their dearly beloved imperialist military) to disappear. And yes, it is a class struggle just as the Republicans have called it.
By the way, Anan, I think you hinted on a very important point when you said:
ReplyDelete<span> Many lefties hate the global financial system which they see as evil and unjust. Lefties know that America only earns about 18 percent of global income. And a smaller share of global wealth than global income since Americans love to borrow from foreigners. Yet, their way of attacking the global financial system is to attack America. How wierd is that? </span>
I (and others) maintain that capitalism knows no nationality. I should know because I have taught economics for the better part of my life. It will "go" where there is money to be made, and if that means jettisoning the hapless US public and moving to undemocratic authoritarian China or Russia, then so be it. The CEO's couldn't care less. A great part of the American public's angst over the years can be traced to their believed in the propaganda of the system as being exclusively an American system (of course, as time passed, most of them have wised up to the reality). That character that used to flood this blog with his racist vitriol (fleming) is a perfect and very sad example of precisely that phenomenon. He believed the US to be the beacon of economic power and might coupled with democratic integrity. Poor guy seems to have been frozen in time in that immediate post World War II world where the US appeared to reign supreme. However, when those same US companies that formed the basis of what might have been termed the great American economic machine saw they could make more money in China, they could care less what happened to American workers. They fled en masse to greener pastures. Just to cite one example, US foreign direct investment has grown incredibly in Brazil, while the latters commerce has grown exponentially with -- guess who? --- not the US. China.
Mara, I can't believe I am saying this. But I completely agree with your comments. You said it better than I do.
ReplyDelete"In our hemisphere, Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega is more pro-business than many neighboring governments that are considered right wing." bingo! I like Ortega.
"And for all the blah blah blah about Chavez, Venezuela is no more closer to socialism than is Brazil." Partly true. Brazil is more free market and pro business. Chavez is a crony capitalist.
"Even Cuba has been quite capitalistic for quite some time, already." Bingo!
And speaking of the neo-liberals, HERE is yet more evidence that they aren't the only alternative.
ReplyDelete