Glenn
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 119
Highly intelligent man, wonderful dry piercing wit, many good ideas. (Still misinforms about 9/11*, but apart from that.)
But there was no call for him to be so obnoxious on the panel Saturday. He could have more easily -- and more effectively -- made his argument about Islamic terrorism by being polite rather than by ridiculing his fellow panelist, the perfectly amiable Scott Dikkers of The Onion.
Worse, Hitchens misunderstood Dikkers' point. As Dikkers originally prefaced: looking at oneself is the first thing he does, not the only thing. It's insufficient and fails to address the full question of Islamic terrorism, or even most of it, but it is a valid point nonetheless. (And Dikkers was not talking about Afghanistan, which Hitchens intimated.)
Hitchens was right to amend Dikkers' point, but not to mischaracterize and bash it.
Unfortunately, Hitchens' own argument largely missed the point. The question was not about what the Koran says, because like all religious texts, it has many contradictory statements and is interpreted and cherry picked differently by different people of that faith. The question was about what Muslims actually do.
Everyone's answers skirted the more basic fact that Bin Laden was/is pissed off that we have bases in Saudi Arabia, bases which we will not and ought not abandon.
Hitchens is quite adept at speaking in applause-generating final sentences.
What a shame that it worked for so many in the audience, who applauded his uncivil, immature behavior. Brought the tone of the conference down.
Fortunately, Dikkers stuck to the high road, and responded courteously to correct any misunderstanding. And fortunately John Rennie of Scientific American made a rational and conciliatory argument with calm reserve.
Here's a headline that could only appear in The Onion some day: "Christopher Hitchens Speaks at Conference, Shocks Audience by Being Sober and Professional."
_________
*In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's a clip of Hitchens on Bill Maher offering flawed reasoning, then giving the whole audience the finger and twice telling them, "F--- you."
On that show, as most people know, he blatantly misinformed to make his points. Among his unverified, widely contradicted claims: the old chestnut that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda worked together on the 9/11 attacks, that Zarqawi was in Iraq (as opposed to the no-fly-zone) pre-invasion, that Hussein was supporting and cooperating with Zarqawi, that MoveOn.org "compared George W. Bush to Hitler", etc. Also, he continues to claim as fact that Hussein really did try to buy uranium from Niger (based purely on speculation), and that Joe Wilson has been lying about it.
It's Hitchens' own bit of "woo": with a seemingly desperate need to believe, he latches onto anything that he can conjecture supports his belief, then reports it as fact rather than speculation. None of Hitchens' disputed conclusions is verified. But he uses them to make his beliefs appear rational to those who are less informed.
Either he is knowingly lying, or he is only a selectively skeptical thinker. Not wishing to think so ill of a man whom I admire for other things, I will assume it's the latter, normal human behavior.
But there was no call for him to be so obnoxious on the panel Saturday. He could have more easily -- and more effectively -- made his argument about Islamic terrorism by being polite rather than by ridiculing his fellow panelist, the perfectly amiable Scott Dikkers of The Onion.
Worse, Hitchens misunderstood Dikkers' point. As Dikkers originally prefaced: looking at oneself is the first thing he does, not the only thing. It's insufficient and fails to address the full question of Islamic terrorism, or even most of it, but it is a valid point nonetheless. (And Dikkers was not talking about Afghanistan, which Hitchens intimated.)
Hitchens was right to amend Dikkers' point, but not to mischaracterize and bash it.
Unfortunately, Hitchens' own argument largely missed the point. The question was not about what the Koran says, because like all religious texts, it has many contradictory statements and is interpreted and cherry picked differently by different people of that faith. The question was about what Muslims actually do.
Everyone's answers skirted the more basic fact that Bin Laden was/is pissed off that we have bases in Saudi Arabia, bases which we will not and ought not abandon.
Hitchens is quite adept at speaking in applause-generating final sentences.
What a shame that it worked for so many in the audience, who applauded his uncivil, immature behavior. Brought the tone of the conference down.
Fortunately, Dikkers stuck to the high road, and responded courteously to correct any misunderstanding. And fortunately John Rennie of Scientific American made a rational and conciliatory argument with calm reserve.
Here's a headline that could only appear in The Onion some day: "Christopher Hitchens Speaks at Conference, Shocks Audience by Being Sober and Professional."
_________
*In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's a clip of Hitchens on Bill Maher offering flawed reasoning, then giving the whole audience the finger and twice telling them, "F--- you."
On that show, as most people know, he blatantly misinformed to make his points. Among his unverified, widely contradicted claims: the old chestnut that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda worked together on the 9/11 attacks, that Zarqawi was in Iraq (as opposed to the no-fly-zone) pre-invasion, that Hussein was supporting and cooperating with Zarqawi, that MoveOn.org "compared George W. Bush to Hitler", etc. Also, he continues to claim as fact that Hussein really did try to buy uranium from Niger (based purely on speculation), and that Joe Wilson has been lying about it.
It's Hitchens' own bit of "woo": with a seemingly desperate need to believe, he latches onto anything that he can conjecture supports his belief, then reports it as fact rather than speculation. None of Hitchens' disputed conclusions is verified. But he uses them to make his beliefs appear rational to those who are less informed.
Either he is knowingly lying, or he is only a selectively skeptical thinker. Not wishing to think so ill of a man whom I admire for other things, I will assume it's the latter, normal human behavior.
