Hitchens was an atheist who believed
By James Ledbetter The opinions expressed are his own.
It seems entirely possible that Christopher Hitchens will be primarily remembered in America for his public atheism. I suspect Hitchens himself was surprised at how wildly popular God Is Not Great became, giving much-needed voice and ammunition to thousands of godless heathens in the land of the drive-through church.
Yet it’s an inadequate way to remember the man, and not because Hitchens did little more in that book than to lay some tracing paper on the Enlightenment’s best thinkers and draw giddily (though with acidic and often very funny ink), or because—this is not an exaggeration—the American public regards atheists on about the same level as rapists.
The problem is that splitting the atheism away from the body of Hitchens’s work debases it into a kind of rascally parlor trick—“Uncle Christopher, say the mean thing about Mother Teresa again!”—and distracts from the thorny paradox at the heart of Hitchens’s thinking. Which is: While certainly an enemy of superstition and an eager chronicler of the sins and idiocies of the world’s religions, Hitchens was actually a lifelong believer, if strictly in man-made gods. It is impossible to contemplate his prodigious and passionate writing without recognizing that it was always animated by crusades, holy men, and devils.
Indeed, the Hitchens universe was long populated by notions of absolute good and evil, stretching back to his days as a student Trotskyite. This tendency was tempered by a love of literature and the cocoon of irony that writers wrap around themselves. But Hitchens himself spoke of the struggle between the literal and ironic minds, and it is an aptly Hitchensian contradiction that the episode, I think, that created his own brand of fundamentalist was in defense of the ironic mind—in 1989, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on Salman Rushdie for the supposed blasphemy of The Satanic Verses.
The importance of the Rushdie saga on Hitchens’s thinking cannot be overstated. “I felt at once that here was something that completely committed me,” he wrote in his splendid memoir, Hitch-22. “It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved.” This is of course a functional definition of evil and good. And there were obviously implications for the future, once Hitchens learned that among the Western left, it is entirely possible for well-meaning people, in the name of multicultural “understanding” or “tolerance” of non-Western societies, to overlook and even excuse atrocities and barbarism that would never be acceptable if perpetrated, say, by the Republican Party and its allies.
Few today would find fault with Hitchens’s stance or actions on behalf of Rushdie. But he began to apply the moral purity he derived from it to situations where the good-versus-evil ledger was not so neatly visible. From the mid- to late-’90s on, when the books on Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton, and Henry Kissinger were published, the absolutism had pretty much taken over his work.
from Paul Smalera:
How Obama wins the election: the economy, stupid, and everything else
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and the entire Republican presidential field before them, have enjoyed painting Barack Obama as a European-style socialist, an apologizer, an appeaser, a president who is ceding America’s place in the world. Their stump speeches and debate soundbites seem to always end with some variety of the phrase, “when I’m your president, I’ll make America great again.” It would seem the nation is hungry for that kind of leadership; after all, polls now say that Obama’s job approval ratings are worse than Carter’s at the same point in his term. The game clock would seem to be running down on his re-election hopes. But what if it turns out we’ve been reading the scoreboard wrong, and Team Obama already has the lead? What if, by the time Americans get to vote, less than a year from now, America is already great again?
Coming off the heels of a nasty recession and horrible intertwined crises in banking, housing and economic confidence, every decision President Obama and his team made on the country’s way forward has come under intense scrutiny. Inevitably, the left has called some decisions, like the smaller-than-hoped-for size of his stimulus bill, weak sauce. The right has decried everything this administration did, as with health care reform, as lurching us towards socialism. Even Rockefeller Republicans have changed their spots in order to make libertarian arguments, as when Mitt Romney argued in the New York Times that the auto-industry bailout was wrong and Detroit should have been allowed to go broke.
One shouldn’t feel bad for Obama -- this kind of scrutiny comes with the job, after all. But the criticism his administration has endured from all sides has seemed particularly craven, perhaps because the stakes have been so very high these past few years. And yet, the political capital invested in his centrist, negotiated policies are now paying dividends. Perhaps Bill Clinton was a smoother operator, but it’s beginning to look a lot like Obama’s triangulation of policy, politics and the press is working, and that may deliver him to a political comeback and a 1996-style election victory.
Take the economy: Unemployment numbers are still bad, but they are improving, reaching levels not seen since the very start of the crisis. GDP growth has been anemic but it long ago stopped contracting, as it was when Obama first took office, thanks to effects of the global financial crisis and US credit crunch. Asset management firm BlackRock, meanwhile, predicts that GDP growth will increase in the last quarter, hitting the 3% mark that puts the economy beyond “treading water” territory into real growth that companies large and small will invest in, both in terms of equipment and real estate upgrades, and new hiring. Macroeconomic Advisors puts the figure at 3.7%.
The GOP would love to challenge Obama on foreign policy, but here he is nearly unimpeachable. He’s steadfastly refused to commit U.S. resources to overseas adventures, resisting the “nation-building” that candidate George W. Bush had promised to not engage in. He corrected the Bush-era excesses by pulling out of Iraq and announcing a timetable to withdraw from Afghanistan. If a president John McCain had used drone strikes as much as Obama did, Republicans everywhere would be crowing about the president’s use of “smart power” in the War on Terror.
As Todd Purdum recently explained in Vanity Fair, in an article about George Kennan and his disillusionment with our country’s military-driven growth and global-policeman interventionist foreign policy stance, there should never have been anything inevitable about the U.S. jumping into global hot spots just because it could. Obama is perhaps the only president in the last fifty years to successfully resist committing huge numbers of American lives and treasure to an overseas engagement. With that accomplishment, he joins only Dwight Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War, if we go back a little further. And yet, when asked Thursday at a press conference if he was engaging in a policy of appeasement with Iran, he smartly suggested that the reporter “ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that.” The GOP may try to pin Obama on foreign policy, but when he starts defending his record in such stark terms, it’s pretty easy to see how this is a losing fight.
If the economy rebounds even partly, and his foreign policy continues to be effective, what can the Republicans pin on Obama? The birth certificate is public and the country has grown comfortable, or at least used to, seeing him on the world stage. The “otherness” that plagued him during the early days of his presidency has been all but eradicated. The incumbent advantage will begin to manifest itself as the GOP nominee struggles to present a vision for America that differs significantly from where we already are. With social issues always being marginalized in general elections (and with Rick Perry proving even the GOP primary season is barely hospitable to his anti-gay TV spots), it’s becoming clear that no credible alternative narrative to the Obama era is going to emerge from this Republican party or its Tea Party wing.
The only reason Obama will win in 2012 is because unlike when Jimmy Carter’s Presidency was tanking, Obama doesn’t have a well-spoken, charismatic opponent running against him. Our out-of-touch President will win because his opponents are even more out-of-touch. A lose-lose for all Americans.
What Tiger Woods can learn from John Gotti
– Charles S. Feldman is a journalist, media consultant and co-author of the book, “No Time To Think-The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle.” The views expressed are his own. –
Tiger Woods is taking a beating.
No, I’m not referring to the tabloid suggestions that the golf superstar’s facial injuries were the result of spousal retribution rather than bad driving technique; I’m talking about the pummeling he is getting from the media following the tortuously slow revelations about his reportedly supercharged libido. By some media counts, Tiger may have had as many as ten—count them, ten—mistresses. More of a harem, if you ask me.
Which brings me to John Gotti. Yes, that John Gotti, the now dead former godfather of what is almost cozily referred to as the Gambino organized crime family in New York City.
It occurs to me there is much Woods can learn about how to win back the hearts, if not the minds, of the media from the deceased don.
Gotti, of course, was a cold-blooded killer who died in a federal prison. But before he was finally convicted, the “Teflon Don” — Gotti earned the nickname by repeatedly walking away from criminal trials a free man — enjoyed almost fawning press coverage. In large measure this was because Gotti, or his “advisers”, knew how to play the media — some might argue for fools, but play them he most certainly did.
As a young reporter covering one of Gotti’s several trials, a particular incident stands out. The Queens-based mafia chieftain, clad in camel-colored cashmere, walked past several half-awakened homeless people camped outside the courthouse on a frigid Manhattan morning. With a multitude of television camera crews in tow, he flipped them crisp one hundred dollar bills. Now that is a great publicity stunt.
What you’re saying is, he was too defensive. With this, on the face of it, I would tend to agree.
But not when you compare his “sins” to those of gangsters like John Gotti and definitely not if the whole flim-flam surrounding Tiger Woods is intended, as it may have been, to bury some even deeper-seated, possibly sexual scandal.
Think about that.
Pedro’s story still relevant today
- Bill Clinton is founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the 42nd President of the United States. The opinions expressed are his own - Fifteen years ago, when Pedro Zamora appeared on MTV’s The Real World, he changed the face of HIV/AIDS in America.
For the first time, viewers saw an openly gay, HIV-positive young person on national television. As we followed his story each week, Pedro humanized the growing epidemic, reducing our ignorance and fears and increasing our determination to act. By living bravely and allowing MTV to show his story, Pedro set an extraordinary example of what a tremendous impact a single person can make in our world.
Pedro’s story and his message remain powerful and relevant. Today, more than 1 million Americans are living with HIV, and 20 percent of them don’t know they are infected. Infection rates are increasing among certain groups, including women of color. The HIV infection rate in Washington, D.C. – at 3 percent – is comparable to some African countries where AIDS is the number one cause of death.
It’s critical for our nation to intensify the fight against HIV/AIDS here at home, starting with testing. Lack of information, misconceptions, and social stigma keep too many people from getting tested. Others mistakenly believe they have been tested as part of routine health care visits. Rapid result tests, including basic oral swabs, make it easy for anyone, anywhere in the country to be tested for HIV. Non-invasive testing is also available for other, more prevalent STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea.
Today marks the start of National STD Awareness Month. Several organizations on the frontlines of the HIV/AIDS and broader STD efforts are beginning a concentrated push to get as many people tested as possible this April. This is an opportunity especially for younger people who have never lived in a world without the threat of HIV/AIDS to confront these challenges head on. I urge all Americans, particularly those under age 25 who are sexually active, to get tested for STDs and make responsible decisions about their sexual health. Our actions now will shape the future of the AIDS epidemic and our country’s health.
Abroad, we’re fighting a different challenge: worldwide, there are 33 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Millions now have access to treatment, thanks to The Global Fund, the U.S. PEPFAR program, the Gates Foundation, UNITAID, and many others, including my foundation’s HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI). More than 1.4 million people are now accessing more affordable, lifesaving antiretroviral treatment under CHAI’s pricing agreements. But severe challenges remain in expanding access to everyone who needs it, in stopping mother-to-child transmission, and in preventing new infections.
This requires thinking big – building health systems that bring services to rural communities and increasing the number of frontline health care workers who can educate people on prevention, test those who need it, and supplying medicines for treatment. Without these basic, high-impact health services, too many people are dying and more are being infected than we can treat.
Would encourage youngster to enter into politics.Make a new party put front new ideas and implement it. increase literacy level.
from For the Record:
After the warm glow, telling the cold, hard truths
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
The president was inaugurated in front of adoring crowds and positive reviews in the media. As the unpopular incumbent sat on the platform with him, the new Democratic chief executive took office as the nation faced a crippling economic crisis. The incoming president was a charismatic figure who had run a brilliant campaign and had handled the press with aplomb. The media were ready to give him a break.
That was 1933, and in Franklin Roosevelt’s case, the media gave him a break.
For Barack Obama, the honeymoon was shorter.
Less than 36 hours after Obama took the oath of office, the White House denied news photographers access to the new president’s do-over swearing in, instead releasing official White House photos of the event. Reuters, The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse protested and refused to distribute the official photos (which nevertheless showed up on the websites of a number of large U.S. newspapers).
This is an important issue for news organisations, the public and for an administration that has promised a new era of transparency in doing the people’s business. How are people to know, for example, that the official photos haven’t been staged?
All U.S. administrations seek to manage the flow of information and the White House and the news media have a complex, interdependent relationship. Each needs the other. But it’s important that media organisations remember who’s most important.
Are you really making a comment on ‘transparency’ just due to the white house not letting the media in to the second swearing in of Obama?
Is there really nothing more important to talk about? Im angered that made that much of a hubbub about the first go around that the man felt that he had to do it again and waste more time appeasing and delaying his work as president.
Do people feel empowered when they point out the mistakes of others (be they mistakes or not) when they themselves don’t have to be in the line of fire, or have as heavy of responsibilities?
Come on now.
” Hitchens was actually a lifelong believer, if strictly in man-made gods.”
Of course he was. Humans are hardwired to adore.If it isn’t the real thing they will adore a fake.