This is fantastic

[eumaas]

What I find kind of ironic about eumaas' hostility to Hitchens is that the main thing I like about Hitch is what I like in eumaas: he doesn't pussyfoot around with his opinions and has use of language can be devastatingly effective. Just one example: It was either in an article or an interview where he spoke of Jerry Falwell's death, describing his secretary as finding his "carcass." What an absolutely perfect word to capture Hitchens' contempt for Falwell. Just perfect. No feigning pleasantries for the dearly departed. This by no means indicates that I agree with all or even most of Hitchens' positions, especially regarding foreign policy. But, Christ, he's a fine writer, makes his points clearly, and does it in an entertaining manner. Compare him to a semi-literate thug like Hannity or a faux intellectual like William Kristol. They are boring and they are stupid. That I disagree with them on pretty much everything is pretty low on my list of why I rarely read or watch them.

My hostility is almost a personal thing and goes back to the buildup towards the war. I agree that he is a good writer. But he was an enemy during a time where people like me had to endure a lot of abuse for our position, a position proven correct, contra Hitchens.

[Dr. Medulla]

What I find kind of ironic about eumaas' hostility to Hitchens is that the main thing I like about Hitch is what I like in eumaas: he doesn't pussyfoot around with his opinions and has use of language can be devastatingly effective. Just one example: It was either in an article or an interview where he spoke of Jerry Falwell's death, describing his secretary as finding his "carcass." What an absolutely perfect word to capture Hitchens' contempt for Falwell. Just perfect. No feigning pleasantries for the dearly departed. This by no means indicates that I agree with all or even most of Hitchens' positions, especially regarding foreign policy. But, Christ, he's a fine writer, makes his points clearly, and does it in an entertaining manner. Compare him to a semi-literate thug like Hannity or a faux intellectual like William Kristol. They are boring and they are stupid. That I disagree with them on pretty much everything is pretty low on my list of why I rarely read or watch them.

My hostility is almost a personal thing and goes back to the buildup towards the war. I agree that he is a good writer. But he was an enemy during a time where people like me had to endure a lot of abuse for our position, a position proven correct, contra Hitchens.

Okay, I understand that. And I can understand why he encourages hostility—he's assertive and he doesn't allow much middle-ground when he makes his points. Plus he normally sounds like a boozy swine. Still better than listening to O'Reilly.

[Wolter]

What I find kind of ironic about eumaas' hostility to Hitchens is that the main thing I like about Hitch is what I like in eumaas: he doesn't pussyfoot around with his opinions and has use of language can be devastatingly effective. Just one example: It was either in an article or an interview where he spoke of Jerry Falwell's death, describing his secretary as finding his "carcass." What an absolutely perfect word to capture Hitchens' contempt for Falwell. Just perfect. No feigning pleasantries for the dearly departed. This by no means indicates that I agree with all or even most of Hitchens' positions, especially regarding foreign policy. But, Christ, he's a fine writer, makes his points clearly, and does it in an entertaining manner. Compare him to a semi-literate thug like Hannity or a faux intellectual like William Kristol. They are boring and they are stupid. That I disagree with them on pretty much everything is pretty low on my list of why I rarely read or watch them.

My hostility is almost a personal thing and goes back to the buildup towards the war. I agree that he is a good writer. But he was an enemy during a time where people like me had to endure a lot of abuse for our position, a position proven correct, contra Hitchens.

Same here.

[eumaas]

What I find kind of ironic about eumaas' hostility to Hitchens is that the main thing I like about Hitch is what I like in eumaas: he doesn't pussyfoot around with his opinions and has use of language can be devastatingly effective. Just one example: It was either in an article or an interview where he spoke of Jerry Falwell's death, describing his secretary as finding his "carcass." What an absolutely perfect word to capture Hitchens' contempt for Falwell. Just perfect. No feigning pleasantries for the dearly departed. This by no means indicates that I agree with all or even most of Hitchens' positions, especially regarding foreign policy. But, Christ, he's a fine writer, makes his points clearly, and does it in an entertaining manner. Compare him to a semi-literate thug like Hannity or a faux intellectual like William Kristol. They are boring and they are stupid. That I disagree with them on pretty much everything is pretty low on my list of why I rarely read or watch them.

My hostility is almost a personal thing and goes back to the buildup towards the war. I agree that he is a good writer. But he was an enemy during a time where people like me had to endure a lot of abuse for our position, a position proven correct, contra Hitchens.

Same here.

It might be hard for foreigners to gauge, but the mood in the buildup to the Iraq war was very dark. Those were not easy times.

[Wolter]

What I find kind of ironic about eumaas' hostility to Hitchens is that the main thing I like about Hitch is what I like in eumaas: he doesn't pussyfoot around with his opinions and has use of language can be devastatingly effective. Just one example: It was either in an article or an interview where he spoke of Jerry Falwell's death, describing his secretary as finding his "carcass." What an absolutely perfect word to capture Hitchens' contempt for Falwell. Just perfect. No feigning pleasantries for the dearly departed. This by no means indicates that I agree with all or even most of Hitchens' positions, especially regarding foreign policy. But, Christ, he's a fine writer, makes his points clearly, and does it in an entertaining manner. Compare him to a semi-literate thug like Hannity or a faux intellectual like William Kristol. They are boring and they are stupid. That I disagree with them on pretty much everything is pretty low on my list of why I rarely read or watch them.

My hostility is almost a personal thing and goes back to the buildup towards the war. I agree that he is a good writer. But he was an enemy during a time where people like me had to endure a lot of abuse for our position, a position proven correct, contra Hitchens.

Same here.

It might be hard for foreigners to gauge, but the mood in the buildup to the Iraq war was very dark. Those were not easy times.

Yeah. I was cynical before that happened, but it was still amazing how little hope I felt over time.

[KokaKola]

But the crudeness with which military force has been deployed, the absence of strategy or even due diligence in the execution of the long war, and the massive public relations blunders which have led the United States to lose a propaganda war against a bunch of murderous, medieval loons are unforgivable.

All of this.

But ESPECIALLY the bold.

Honestly, it's the primary reason why I was so fervently for Obama --- we need some PR BADLY if we're to have any chance going forward. And not just re: the war, but international relations, period. We were on our way to becoming (or had already become?) a punch-line; the Enron of nations.

[eumaas]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... l.asp?pg=1

O'Rourke on the collapse of the GOP.

Typical response:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/11/wh ... osabe.html

[eumaas]

http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/17/f ... r-the-gop/

Comments section is beautiful...

first, a false dichotomy:

I think what you are seeing is a rigidization against the Anti-Palin orgy - compliments of our Obama worshiping media. I know I’m guilty of anger towards the media for their unfair practices. They savaged Palin relentlessly, while all the time ignoring a lot of things Biden did, and quite a few things about Obama that should have received a heck of a lot more attention. Why would I keep listening to their drek when it’s an obvious hatchet job on Palin?

If these folks want to criticize something, why don’t they criticize the media’s unbalanced reporting? If they want to criticize something, then go out and investigate those poorly researched things about Obama. They should get off their hind ends and research Obama and Biden as relentlessly as they researched Palin. If they want intellectualism to make a comeback, then maybe they should display a little…

Then maybe I’ll listen to their critique of Palin….

Rabble:

This is an uncomfortable conversation for me to watch. I don’t give 2 cents for the Republican Party, but I will vote for them as long as they offer a conservative alternative to the Democrats. If, as many people have been suggesting, the Republicans start discarding their social conservative commitments, I won’t vote for them any longer. If they want to alienate religious conservatives, they will lose a huge percentage of votes and remain out of power for decades. If that happens, should I care?

A blog like this should be able to make it clear that the problem with this nation’s political landscape is not simply that the Democrats are attracting all the voters. It’s that churches and pastors have, on a huge scale, failed their congregations by leaving behind Biblical truth in favor of being hip, cool and popular. Worldly churches will not produce godly citizens.

More rabble:

You see the response of the Republican party to the 28 year attack on social conservatives and their ideals in the media. They are never presented in a positive light, only in negativity. Republicans, whether consciously or subconsciously, have responded to this pattern by consistently pushing aside social conservatives from the local level to the federal level.

The conservatives battle no longer seems to be at the election but one step earlier within their own party to win nominations to represent their party as the liberals try to ouster them before they can even run for a public office.

The only way this will change is when conservatives get re-involved in their local meetings and caucuses of their respective parties. As long as they continue to let the liberally minded have the biggest say in both parties decision making, our nation will continue to grow in it’s antichrist direction.

Which, on the good side, means Christ’s return is that much closer. But we should not go down without a fight.

So which party is more friendly to someone who believes that legislating morality is a contradiction to limited gov't?

[Silent Majority]

I'm always surprised when these people can form sentences.

[eumaas]

I'm always surprised when these people can form sentences.

I used to cut them some slack, but fuck it, I won't anymore. They're totalitarians, simple as that. They can talk all kinds of shit about limited gov't, but so long as you're in the business of legislating morality and keeping the state "christ-centric," you're a cousin of Soviet Communism.

[matedog]

But the crudeness with which military force has been deployed, the absence of strategy or even due diligence in the execution of the long war, and the massive public relations blunders which have led the United States to lose a propaganda war against a bunch of murderous, medieval loons are unforgivable.

All of this.

But ESPECIALLY the bold.

Honestly, it's the primary reason why I was so fervently for Obama --- we need some PR BADLY if we're to have any chance going forward. And not just re: the war, but international relations, period. We were on our way to becoming (or had already become?) a punch-line; the Enron of nations.

Very true.

When I was in Korea in April, this dude who said he was from "the stars" told me he really dug Obama. I think people can generally appreciate him as an (at least ethnic) outsider.