Someone already beat me to this comment on the Dawkins site so I'll just repost it here:

Carl Champagne: He seemed awfully afraid to let his kids see Hitch's book. How can you take someone seriously when they not only admit to denying their children access to knowledge, but are proud of it?

It pissed me off when joe kept on agreeing with hitchens' over and over, saying he had good points (and how could you argue with them) but then as soon as hitchens' mic is cut, joe has to throw a cheap last word in saying that he would never show this to his kids.

Why wouldn't he want to show it to his kids in the first place? Are the facts that persuasive? If he was a confident believer he wouldn't be afraid to read anything against his religion. Religion never fails to suppress people and keep them ignorant . . no wonder Bush has promoted it so much.

A "trend" in publishing? I don't think the literate community feels that way but I guess to those who never actually read about philosophy or concern themselves with such blasphemous ideas as knowledge might feel that way.

Also loved the subtle addition of "Sympathy for the Devil" as the lead out music of the segment. A nice inside condemnation of Atheism as evil.

Good interview, in my opinion, especially for Fox. Scarborough didn't cut off Hitchens, didn't talk over him, but let him make his points after asking him decent questions. I have no problem with JS letting his own views be known in the jocular manner he did. I think it speaks well of him that he holds different views and yet let Hitchens have his say. He also showed restraint in not picking up on Hitchens' mention of Ms. Clinton's newly acquired faith.

As for atheism being a trend in publishing, I don't know how someone could say it is not. There have been a half dozen bestsellers in this genre in the last 18 months or two years - more if you include books like Chris Hedges' wonderful American Fascists. No one is saying that this is a new philosophy, but I think Scarborough is right in saying that it is more mainstream, or at least more high-profile. I may be wrong, but prima facie, Scarborough seems right in this minor assertion.

As for not giving access to the book to his mother and kids . . . my knickers need more to get knotted up over. Hitchens has a new book, and still does a great patter for his subject. Thanks for posting, Norm.

For what reason was the cackling woman in the background involved in this show?

The "Sympathy for the Devil" clip was rather funny. I wonder how many of JS's xian viewers recognized it. I didn't take it badly.

I wonder how much of Joe's protests that he wouldn't show the book to his kids was just pandering to his audience. He was much more polite and respectful this time than he usually is with invitees he disagrees with.

Fundy evolution-refuser Huckabee would even agree with Hitchen's on one thing.

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=150

"I've also gone on national television and said that it doesn't bother me so much if a person says he's an atheist, it bothers me when a person says he's a Christian but refuses to live like one. That bothers me a great deal more because I was asked about – I think it was, which congressman in California that –

DIONNE: Pete Stark?

HUCKABEE: Yes, Pete Stark said, "Yes, I'm an atheist," and I was asked, "How does it make you feel? Do you think he ought to be out of Congress?" I think they thought I was going to jump all over it, but I said, "He's honest; I can handle his honesty. It's the dishonesty of a person who says he's a Christian but hates people and is filled with bigotry and prejudice that bothers me a whole lot more than a person who says, he's an atheist."" . . .

"So it'd be better to say, I really don't have a faith, so therefore, I'm not judged by it and faith doesn't influence me. That, to me, makes perfect sense. I'm a logical person, basically. I spent years debating in high school and college, and one of the things I always think to do is always follow something to its logical conclusion. So if a person says, "My faith doesn't impact me," I have to logically conclude that the person's faith isn't very real. And that's why I say about the Pete Stark question – Pete Stark says faith doesn't influence him because he doesn't have one. I can understand that; that makes logical sense."

If Huckabee continues his logical sense, he may soon have to take the next logical step.

why does it matter that joe wouldnt want his kids to read it, should he also tell his kids santa clause and the easter bunny are fake too? there is a certain age where living in a fantasy world might be ok.

This piling on after the mic is cut is so bad form. Who cares about some "closing remarks" by the pundits? Everyone on Fox does it, now Scarborough does it, too. Why aren't they able to leave the last word to the guest, for crying out loud?!

Liberal/secular/decent person: "Thank you for having me." Right wing pundit: "Thank you, but we are out of time (cuts mic). Though, I have to say, this is a disturbing trend, bla bla, won't show it to my children, bla bla, offensive, bla bla, the troops, bla bla bla (and so on)." Right wing pundit sidekick: "Yeah right, keckle, keckle, offensive, keckle, my kids, either, keckle, the troops (and so on)."

And one minute after being "out of time", they're still on the air. But their guest isn't able to rebut them anymore.

I hate it.

I meant "cackle", of course. Got my mind too much into german, these days. But I guess, you get the sense.

I enjoy hearing Christopher for the most time on religion but somehow he still manages to falsily believe that Iran is working towards nuclear weapons.

Why the nervous giggling? Why must such a book be kept away from Grandma and the wee Scarboroughs?

The answer is as it always was. Once the priestly class (i.e., the educated people who tell the people what to do, how to act, etc., today it's the governing class, corporations, the media) start telling the people the truth, the whole house of cards might collapse.

Truth about God... Truth about Faith... Truth about that money you drop in the collection plate... Truth in government... Truth in the media news... Truth in advertising...

Where does it all lead?

My guess is that the interview was taped before the government's new "revelation" that Iran isn't, in fact, engaged in an active nuclear program. But Hitch is still wrong about Iraq and the so-called war on terror.

I enjoy hearing Christopher for the most time on religion but somehow he still manages to falsily believe that Iran is working towards nuclear weapons.

Yes, Hitchens constant war drumming is becoming tiresome. I noticed the same thing, especially since the NIE was released talking about how Iran stopped any sort of nuclear activity in 2003. Perhaps this interview was done before the NIE was released. My respect for him would double if the next interview he admitted he was wrong about Iran and their nukes, but I don't really see him doing that.

Oh, and the cackling woman is a horrible morning show staple, where she giggles and doesn't think too much, ya know, like all republican/christian women are supposed to act when around men of Joe Scarboro's age.

Hitch is right though, Hillary all of the sudden talking about christianity is the most offensive thing i've heard about religion next to mitt romney.

Oh, and on the previous comment about huckabee, just because he's ok with Pete Stark being a congressman, it doesn't mean he's all about "human rights" over "Christian rights". Maybe between his phone calls with god or fighting a religious war or nuking the islamofacists, he'll find some time to do the christian thing, ya know, like pardon a few more rapists or oppose evolution.

Huckabee seems like a nice enough guy, but I can't get past his interview with Bill Maher, where he essentially said he doesn't know if the world is thousands or millions or billions of years old and it doesn't matter to him. It's unbelievable to me that someone can run for President, appear reasonable, and then make it sound like there's no logical consequences that must follow from saying the world is only thousands of years old.

Yeah, that woman in the background was irritating, though it was pretty funny: she was clearly confused and threatened by Hitchens' book (and of course atheism more generally), yet at the same time "that voice" of his obviously made her wet. Well, nothing like a little danger and sexual appeal to get those repressed idiotic ladies going, eh?

(Works for the men, too, of course--it's just that the sexist stereotype was unfortunately in full bloom there.)

This is a must see movie! The first part deals with how christanity came to be. Part II deals with 9/11 and part III deals with money and future. It is 2 hours in length. Well worth the time.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Enjoy

Yes, Hitchens constant war drumming is becoming tiresome. I noticed the same thing, especially since the NIE was released talking about how Iran stopped any sort of nuclear activity in 2003

It's interesting that this is how the NIE report is being framed, when that's not actually what it says. The report is available online; here is the excerpt people are widely paraphrasing:

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

More importantly, the report then immediately concludes:

We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work

And later on:

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.

(Emphasis in all cases is mine). I could go on quoting, but I highly suggest everyone read the report - it's not as rosy as it is being portrayed by liberal media ... oops, is that redundant?

The point is that finding that Iran is probably not actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time does not defuse the Iranian situation. The further point is that all evidence seems to suggest that Iran's change of course is at least partly due to a more aggressive attitude towards them.

And it's not as if nuclear capability is the only reason we have issues with Iran. That's why we have issues, not 'an issue'.

While I have no desire to defend Bush's exact position on Iran, nor do I (or any rational person) believe an attack on Iran would be a good thing, it is mistaken to claim that Iran is not a threat or that our attitude as a nation towards them is somehow misguided or ill-advised.

I'm listening to the NPR Democratic debate right now, and this question was just softballed to the candidates, all of whom responded exactly the same: "If I am president, I will explore diplomatic options with Iran". That's about as informative as saying "If I'm president, I will fix this with my magic wand". As usual, the answer lies in a sensible mix of diplomacy and aggressive posture - it's dismaying that, again as usual, everybody seems only capable of advocating for one absolute or the other.

I'm listening to the NPR Democratic debate right now, and this question was just softballed to the candidates, all of whom responded exactly the same:

My memory is fuzzy, but I recall Hillary (horror of horrors!) saying that you have to have "carrots and sticks", blah blah blah, "a stick was calling the Iranian gaurd a terrorist organization" blah blah...

Sounds like she's your candidate :P

This may be trivial, but the comments on the woman talking head are way off.

First, listen to what she says (instead of these stupid missreadings of her 'cackling')

She said, it would be a great stocking stuffer!

Implying some sort of approval, a statement that implies she would buy it to give to people for Xmas.

Maybe the nervous laugh was caused by her lighthearted attempt to oppose JS view that he was not going to even let his kids have the book.

Content, please.

The reason why Joe Scarborough said that he would not show his mother nor sons this book is because it nullifies the interview for about half of the viewership, maybe even the majority. The chances are good that the majority of viewers of Morning Joe support the program and/or subscribe to Scarborough's beliefs and positions, so when he says something like, "Well, I wouldn't bother with this," then neither will a large portion of his viewership.

This is also why he didn't bother to argue against Hitchens when Hitchens brought up Clinton and whatever else -- Scarborough already killed the interview and, effectually, any arguments thereafter before (and after) it even began.

As an aside, when books are called "best-sellers," this isn't exactly a great accomplishment. Americans seem to read so seldom that the relative "best-sellers" are only about 2% of the population (I'm guessing). I mean, Oprah's book club pretty much controls the best-seller list. That should tell people something.

"FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY!", BRILLIANT!!

"Good interview, in my opinion, especially for Fox. "

It was an unbelievable interview for FOX. Which is why it was on MSNBC instead.

:-)

fp

Christopher contributes to the war on xmas -- er hannakuh.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179045/fr/rss/

More on the subject.

http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/my-real-holiday/

"I'm listening to the NPR Democratic debate right now"

Is Hillary more phony than Mitt? Or does she just seem less sincere than Joe Isuzu to me and me alone?

Pakistan is more of a threat than Iran, even without nukes in the hands of tribals. USA-ma bin Lion can use poison, or... what we would never think of yet except in 20/20 golden hindsight. And he ain't in Iran.

No Shi(i)t(e)!

About the clip:

Sympathy For The Devil is a great song, but maybe--just maybe--playing it in the background as we finish talking with an atheist shows the slightest hint of bias?

For those of you unfamiliar with Mormon teaching, here's a video you might find of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo