The man has wit, charm, and such a great breadth of knowledge that could fill up the Grand Canyon. I'm beginning to think that I may have penis envy, but I gladly will acknowledge it. Thank you Norm for this clip! :)

This new video application is pretty hot.

"maladjusted elderly virgins"

What an apt description.

Michael Kingsley has a review of his book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/books/review/Kinsley-t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=792dbabcda928549&ex=1180670400

"But speaking of foxes, Hitchens has outfoxed the Hitchens watchers by writing a serious and deeply felt book, totally consistent with his beliefs of a lifetime. And God should be flattered: unlike most of those clamoring for his attention, Hitchens treats him like an adult."

Okay- quick show of hands- who squirmed during the Q&A?

B

Okay- quick show of hands- who squirmed during the Q&A?

*raises hand*

Honestly! The lady had to defend atheism? And here I thought that was Hitchen's job. My mistake.

Oh and the theist needed to grow some balls. Quivery voice, hunched over, apologetic...ah, if only I lived in Europe. Oh well, a man can dream can't he?

On a more serious note I agree with you. There were some crazies in the room. In the words of Jon Steward...awk-ward.

Stewart*

Worst Q&A ever.

To be fare, most Q&As are awful. The first questioner was, however, brilliant.

Thank you and yes, the Q&A was bad. I looked forward to it, knowing he would say nothing I haven't read or heard from him before, and I was disappointed.

Yup, most Q&A participants ask highly obtuse questions.

The new video app stinks! It kept pausing all the time in Firefox on my souped-up MacBook with ADSL.

My favourite quote: "The spirit of simple credulity, for example, the humble faith, for a man to arrange his life and his family according to precept is not evil at all. But simple credulity can be evil for this reason - someone who can see that there are millions of credulous people will soon take advantage of them."

"Can I say one more thing?" "NOOOOO!"

The new video player crashed at the halfway point for me.(firefox 2.0.0.3)
Hichens really is the greatest. I love how he compares north Korea to heaven.

Pretty inspiring for a slobbering drunk Saddamophobe.

Good video. I'm not too thrilled about the video player, though. If I had a dollar for every time it crashed on me I'd never have to work again. Does anyone know of any way such videos can be downloaded and saved?

Don't worry, I don't think Norm will be switching to this player any time soon. I think that's just how the video came to him. The same happened for this Hitchens/Shartop debate.

It kept pausing all the time in Firefox on my souped-up MacBook with ADSL.

Souped-up? Oh so it's a car now? lol

Don't worry, I don't think Norm will be switching to this player any time soon. I think that's just how the video came to him.

I tried to convert it to quicktime but the audio gets out of sync. I would never switch to something like this.

"The great day on which... Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin are born. Two great emancipators. Darwin much the greater one."

Placing metaphysics above real human lives! Isn't that one of Hitchens's main beefs with religion? And here as well, on this site, his ideology apparently trumps all. He feverishly supported a ridiculously short-sighted and self-serving course of action that's directly cost over half a million lives, but he gets a platform here because he's an atheist. Seriously, if Andrew Card became an outspoken atheist, would he receive such a warm reception here, too? I fear he would.

"Someone who can see that there are millions of credulous people around will soon take advantage of that fact. Will soon find a way to do so. So the struggle between people who think like me and our enemies is the struggle to raise the culture to the level where people are immune to appeals made by the cynical to the credulous."

Oh, the irony.

Christopher Hitchens:

In extreme darkness where you don't know the road, even a local who is blind and deaf may be a good guide, but when the dawn breaks you can bid adeu.

That sentence reminded me of this.

He feverishly supported a ridiculously short-sighted and self-serving course of action that's directly cost over half a million lives, but he gets a platform here because he's an atheist.

Are you talking about Social Darwinism?

Are you talking about Social Darwinism?

No, I'm talking about his continued support for the Iraq war. If one considers the Iraq war to be an inexcusable, disgusting, incredibly cynical human catastrophe of staggering proportions -- as I do, and as I believe Norm and many others on this blog do -- then it seems like the very least one could do would be to withhold support for its loudest proponents and enablers. And yet, Hitchens keeps turning up in here, day after day, because he's championing atheism. According to the 2006 Lancet survey, the war has cost 654,965 lives. Even if you go with the most conservative studies, you're still looking at tens and tens of thousands of human beings whose lives have been destroyed. I suggest that Hitchens helped that happen, and thus is partly responsible for that. To say, "oh, we'll ignore that as long as you're knocking Mother Teresa" is disingenuous. The message is clearly that it doesn't matter what atrocities you condone, as long as you're peddling a book against religion we'll help you sell it. I don't think that's the message anyone consciously intended, but I can't think of any other conclusion one could draw.

Holding the proper ideology -- in this case, staunch atheism -- trumps any level of real human suffering that one might be responsible for. Isn't that one of the most frequent criticisms that atheists put forth against the religious? That the ideology one holds is more important than one's actions? How is this any different?

[quote]Placing [b]metaphysics[/b] above real human lives![/quote]

Quit conflating biology for philosophy you wretched douche.

Way to duck the point, spanky.

Raucous and righteous, very entertaining at times.

I don't see how you can connect his position on the war with his position on religion. And I've never heard any atheist say ideology is more important than actions. Keep your ideology to yourself, and we'll live in peace. Take the action of imposing it on me, that's the rub.

Also Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809, not 1819. He's made that mistake in previous talks.

Hitchens said Steven Weinberg was a biologist when he is in fact a physicist. He most likely knows this and it was just a slip up.

Hitchens pulls no punches. Good stuff.

I don't see how you can connect his position on the war with his position on religion. And I've never heard any atheist say ideology is more important than actions.

His stance on the war isn't necessarily directly connected with his position on religion, but his stance on the war is somewhat unavoidable; it's a significant part of how he has defined himself over the past few years. If we try to look the other way, or try to pretend that it's not relevant at all, we have to justify our dismissal of that aspect of him somehow. We either have to say that his involvement in this war isn't important, or that his advocacy of atheism is incredibly important.

We all make choices in life about who we want to associate with, and morality is a factor in this. Most people probably wouldn't hang out with an open antisemite, or an unrepentant rapist, or whatever. We would consider those behaviors immoral and unacceptable, and would consider ourselves tarnished by our association with such an individual. Maybe you disagree with the whole premise that associating with those who are unapologetic about continuing immoral acts constitutes, to a certain extent, a tacit approval of those acts. I don't know how you'd argue that, but I'd be interested to hear it.

Now, posting interviews and articles by Hitchens -- and gushing about them -- is a form of association. Moreover, it enriches him personally. He's a writer and a television personality, so it makes him money and advances his career. It rewards him.

So, there are a few possibilities here: 1.) We do not consider Hitchens's tireless and ongoing advocacy of the Iraq war to in any way make him complicit in its horrific outcome. 2.) We do not consider the enormous human toll of the Iraq war to be significantly immoral. 3.) We consider his actions regarding Iraq to be immoral, but we consider his actions in speaking out for atheism to be so good as to outweigh them, or at least balance them.

I have a lot of trouble accepting points 1 or 2. Maybe you or Norm disagree with that, and you don't consider Hitchens to have any real moral culpability. If so... well, I guess that's where the conversation ends.

But if you do feel that Hitchens has some blood on his hands, here, then I think you have to go with #3. Maybe there's another option here, but I don't think there is. You can only argue that advocating for atheism is more important than, or at least as important as, advocating for a bloody war.

Hitchens is quite the troll. I agree with him more than I disagree, but when I do disagree with him, it's because he's uttering some ridiculous neo-con racist/sexist garbage.

His positives don't save him from his negatives and it's a sad sight to see a few progressives get fooled by the troll master.

I'm not sure that many are being 'fooled'. Have you ever seen references to hitchens that don't include his delusional political views?

Contrary to the ideas of many believers, atheists come in a large variety of flavours, including right wing libertarians and neo con apologists.

What surprises me is the number of atheists surprised by this mix.

It only demonstrates that atheism is not a religion or a unified political movement. If we were, things would be a lot different.

It's not surprising at all that neo-con apologists can be atheists. What's surprising is that a major proponent of a highly immoral war (and immoral from the get-go, and knowably so) is given a prominent platform from which to air views.

Ah, though I should add that I do not think it is the virulent atheism that 'redeems' (nothing would do so), but the high entertainment level of his quality of rhetoric and discourse that makes Hitchens interesting to keep an eye on. Like it or not, he is a prominent intellectual voice (and an unforgivably immoral one). Boycotting him on this site will do nothing to dampen his influence.

Hitchens stance on the Iraq war is based largely on his animosity towards Islam, not on being deluded by WMD or Bush's supposed love for democracy in foreign countries.

What's surprising is that a major proponent of a highly immoral war (and immoral from the get-go, and knowably so) is given a prominent platform from which to air views.

A lot of people feel the same about Dawkins. Who's 'morality' do we chose?
Yours? Mine? Who ever is currently in power and determined to stay there?

Right now his name is high on the A list talk show and lecture circuits. They want him because he has a controversial book and interesting topic and he is entertaining to watch and listen to. That's why he's prominent in the media.

I suspect because of his acerbic style and nasty wit, he is deemed more entertaining and therefore a bit more desirable by those who run the venues. You got's to fill them seats.

He deserves his shot as much as anyone else. The circuits are full of twisted shits.

I agree with the poster who said his politics may be partly inspired, perhaps largely inspired by his fear and animosity toward Islam. He appears to want to see military action against the religious doctrine by which he feels most threatened.

I've gotten that impression a couple of times when the topic was not the war and a lot when he defends his position on the war and it's continuing.

In the long run, being an atheist doesn't say any thing good or bad about you. What you do says it all.

Once a Trot always a Trot I suppose. Ye old Permanent Class War theory with a religous sauce.

Those that argue that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens views on atheism are giving tacit approval to his views on Iraq are committing the fallacy of Guilt by Association We are not associating with his views on the war at all in fact we are actively opposing them. What we are associating with are his views on atheism. We all associate with people that have views that are different from our own. Should I disassociate myself from my father because he is in favor of continuing the war. He after all voted for George Bush and other candidates that actually made the decision. One could say that there is blood on his hands. Do I give tacit support to $400.00 haircuts if I agree with and even promote John Edwards' views on healthcare. Am I tacitly supporting marital infidelity if I voted for Clinton for president. And the troops who arguably are far more culpable than Mr. Hitchens, it is them after all that loose the bullets and drop the bombs that kill innocent civilians, how should I disassociate from them.

Now those that make the argument might say, well at least refrain from supporting Mr. Hitchens book on atheism for the funds from its sale might be used to write articles in support of the war. But is that not just free speech, something essential to a free society. I think the journalist Charlie Reese put it well when he said:

"People who claim they support free speech but try to destroy people whose speech they disagree with are liars. When confronted with speech we disagree with, we are entitled only to exercise our own free speech and say, "I disagree." But if we attempt to punish the people with whom we disagree, we are revealing ourselves as fascist bullies. Trying to silence someone with whom you disagree is not respecting free speech. It is the act of a totalitarian who fears above all an open and honest debate... There is no free speech when people have to sacrifice their careers in order to utter an honest opinion."

Norm, do you ever get tired from always being right? ;)

But if we attempt to punish the people with whom we disagree, we are revealing ourselves as fascist bullies. Trying to silence someone with whom you disagree is not respecting free speech. It is the act of a totalitarian who fears above all an open and honest debate

I couldn't get the video to open. The .mov files are better because the only way I can view the clips is to download the whole file first. For those like me with less than ADSL speeds the quicktime format is a must.

Remember when you disagreed with me and others on the Darfur video? Sounds to me like you were trying to silence those whom you disagreed with, considering the fact that I took some time and thought to respond, and afterwards you stopped letting us comment altogether.

Of course it's your blog and your choice, but c'mon...

Hey, talking about the video player, is anyone having trouble with firefox 2 (I have tried 2.0.0.3 and 2.0.0.4 with the same results) and the new version of Quicktime? Every time I close a tab or window, the program crashes. This happens since the QT 7.1.6 update.

is he always drunk?

Thanks for the response, Norm.

I am saying that the willingness to enthusiastically and uncritically lend a platform to one of this war's most enthusiastic and unapologetic supporters when they are convenient is indicative of one's values: you either think that promoting this war just isn't that big a deal, or you think that promoting atheism is vastly more important. If that's guilt by association then so be it, but I think that's a fairly straightforward observation. Fallacy or not, it happens to be an accurate observation: by your own admission you don't think that agitating for this war is really that big a deal. Now, I absolutely do not agree with that, but I do appreciate your openness on the matter.

And, for the record, yes, you are tacitly supporting that $400 haircut or that marital infidelity. Or, rather, you're saying that those things aren't particularly important (seriously, who really cares about a haircut?), that they're not your business (the Clintons marriage), or that other things about the individual are equally or more important. I have family and friends who support the war in various ways, and yes, it does cause problems. I believe that there are enough other things that are good about them that it balances out, but it can be very sticky. I've had one or two friendships that were damaged by this. Hitchens is easier than all that, though. All we know of Hitchens, all that is relevant about him to us, is what he says in the public arena. His alcoholism, for example, while simultaneously amusing and truly sad, just isn't my business, so I don't factor that in to my evaluation of him. His arguing for the war is my business, though. If anything he says is worth anything, what he says about the war is worth something. Again, this seems like a practical reality for most people -- if he suddenly rode off the rails and became a raving antisemite and loudly argued for the legalization of pedophilia and date rape, I imagine you would begin to feel progressively more uncomfortable about posting his thoughts on atheism here -- not just because of public outcry, but because the man would (hopefully) become more and more repugnant to you.

(... Ooookay, I might have made one of two cracks about his alcoholism in the past, but that just means I was being kind of snarky at the time, not that it has any public significance.)

Moving although, though, I've got to disagree with you about Reese's quote. I'm not calling for Hitchens to be silenced, I'm saying that he shouldn't be supported by those who significantly object to the Iraq war. There's a difference between those two things. The notion that people are being oppressed because they aren't supported doesn't scale; honestly, where does that line of reasoning end? Do you feel compelled to post -- without criticism -- extensive excerpts from Ann Coulter, Patrick Donahue, and Storm Front? Does your failing to lend them your platform make you a fascist? Of course not. Hitchens has a right to free speech, he absolutely does, but he doesn't have a right to anyone else's platform for it, and he doesn't have a right to any particular career.

Reese was saying that in response to the outcry against the Dixie Chicks. Now, in my mind there were essentially two things going on there. One was that they lost a number of fans. I think that's perfectly okay. If a musician I liked started making statements that I happened to find genuinely offensive -- for whatever reason -- I think it's perfectly fine for me to reject them. Further, I think it's fine for me to tell other people why I've rejected them, and encourage them to do the same. And I do the converse: for example, Green Day's antiwar efforts really got me interested in them again, and I tried to turn my friends on to them. The other thing that happened with the Dixie Chicks, though, was that there was a lot of pressure to ban them altogether. This was partly grassroots, partly about the state of modern, politicized media conglomerates, and I agree that it crossed the line, but that's not what I'm doing here. I'm not writing angry letters to CNN and Slate and organizing committees to destroy Hitchens's career; I'm saying that lending him your platform indicates that you don't really care that much about his advocacy of the Iraq war, and that does indeed seem to be the case.

To imagine that ideas and speech don't or can't have real-world consequences is to strip any meaning from the whole notion of public debate and democracy itself. If your exercise of free speech results in disastrous consequences, it's not unreasonable for practical consequences to manifest in your own life. If I go out into the public arena and loudly agitate for a course that, once followed, proves disastrous for our nation and for countless others, it is not unreasonable for people to stop listening to me, and it is not unreasonable for them to speak out against me. The whole point of free speech isn't that it's some empty intellectual exercise, it's that it's potentially quite powerful, and that, being equal citizens, we all should have access to that potential power. But as with any healthy system there are counterbalances, and one of those is that credibility ought to be earned. It is possible for an individual to go so far, to cause so much damage, that they can lose their credibility. They should never be punished by the law, no, but it is both okay and necessary for individuals to be able to say, "No, I will not stand by this person. What they have said is unacceptable to me." So I agree that organized campaigns to destroy people are wrong, but at the same time, if what Hitchens has said is offensive enough to enough people that he no longer has an audience and can no longer make a living by doing his little act, well, too bad. We have just as much right to ignore him as he does to shoot his mouth off.

Sorry for the length of this; I'll try to be more succinct in the future. And, incidentally, thanks for introducing me to Reese. He's got some good stuff.

I suppose we'll never get past the bit about lending a platform "uncritically" to one of this war's most enthusiastic and unapologetic supporters. First let me insist it is not uncritically, I've criticized Hitchens on a number of occasions about his stance on the war. But that misses the point, it is not his view on the war that I'm providing a platform for, but rather his view on atheism. Your argument is fallacious precisely because you fail to see this distinction, or think it doesn't matter.

I'm not calling for Hitchens to be silenced, I'm saying that he shouldn't be supported by those who significantly object to the Iraq war.

Sure you are, you're calling for him to be silenced by those who object to the war.

If I go out into the public arena and loudly agitate for a course that, once followed, proves disastrous for our nation and for countless others, it is not unreasonable for people to stop listening to me, and it is not unreasonable for them to speak out against me.

You're right it is not unreasonable to stop listening to me, but ON THE TOPIC OF THE WAR, and it not unreasonable for them to speak out against me, on the ON THE TOPIC OF THE WAR.

I'm not writing angry letters to CNN and Slate and organizing committees to destroy Hitchens's career.

And why not? Is it not important enough to you, aren't you tacitly agreeing his view on the war is no big thing if you limit your complaints to a blog.

But that misses the point, it is not his view on the war that I'm providing a platform for, but rather his view on atheism. Your argument is fallacious precisely because you fail to see this distinction, or think it doesn't matter.

Norm, I've already explained why I think this distinction can be blurry. Check paragraphs 2 and 3 in my last comment. If you happen to think that distinction is perfectly clear, then answer me this: is there any stance that Hitchens could take -- any stance that is not directly related to atheism -- that would poison him for you sufficiently that you would no longer give him any platform at all? If he became an outspoken proponent of pedophilia, or antisemitism or whatever... Is there any line that Hitchens could cross where you would find him repulsive enough that you would disassociate from him completely?

Sure you are, you're calling for him to be silenced by those who object to the war.

I think there is a reasonable difference between shunning him personally and encouraging others to shun him, and calling for some form of institutional censorship (firings, etc.) When I think of someone being "silenced," I think of the latter, whereas the former is a reasonable reaction by men and women of conscience. It is for this reason that I might withdraw my support from outlets that carry him, might even complain to them, but would not seriously campaign for them to fire him. I'll admit that this distinction, too, might seem a little blurry, but I think it's a reasonable middle ground between, "I will only allow people to voice opinions I consider correct" and "I have no right to critique anyone."

And why not? Is it not important enough to you, aren't you tacitly agreeing his view on the war is no big thing if you limit your complaints to a blog.

Honestly? Because I pretty much avoid the MSM these days, and what sources I do pay attention to don't carry Hitchens. Beyond that, my main point is that I believe that supporting Hitchens somewhat undermines one's objections to the war, and I most certainly do not consider the MSM to be antiwar in any meaningful sense.

I think we've pretty much exhausted the subject. I understand that you don't consider someone whose position on a different subject is wrong-headed is the best person to cite when supporting a view. Ideally when you choose someone who represents your view you don't want the baggage they bring with them. I gave Hitchens' view on atheism a forum because I think it added something that wasn't there before. I further understand that there are some who would say it's not worth it. That it hurts the cause more than it helps it. It is an emotional view, one not based on reason, but there are many who don't think rationally. The problem with your argument is as I've mentioned before that it commits the fallacy of guilt by association. I'm assuming you don't believe his views on Iraq make his views on atheism less reliable, for then you'd be guilty of an ad hominem attack as well.

Your argument is weak, because it's primarily based on emotion rather than reason.

Let's put it this way: if someone, as a principal that they value highly and adhere to, will lend a platform to any speaker with a good argument within a given domain, regardless of whatever else that speaker may have said elsewhere, then I agree with you. If one is truly committed to consistently placing the idea over the messenger, then yes, I agree with you. In practice, I think that most people fall short of that, and so it's just a matter of figuring out where they draw that line to discern their actual priorities. That was sort of the meat of my initial comment, but upon further reflection I realize that I don't really know which camp you fall into, and it was unfair of me to assume.

... Aaand, that's all I have to say on the subject. Besides, I find it difficult to maintain a state of sanctimonious outrage for more than 24 hours or so. Thank you for the discussion.

If one is truly committed to consistently placing the idea over the messenger, then yes, I agree with you.

I couldn't ask for more. Thanks for your magnanimity.

LOL

To those who are having trouble with the Fora.tv player, I'm sorry to hear it. I love the app and the site. Still in awe of the searchable and clickable transcript.