19 Comments

  1. In all seriousness, I’m not sure who is more pompous … Falwell or Hitchens.

    Hitchens settles on name-calling and invective to make his point. He even lowers himself so far as to presume that Falwell woke up every morning patting himself on the back for what he got away with.

    The lefties will have to do better than Hitchens to make their point.

  2. I dunno, TS. The lefties have already wasted enough time trying to find someone with broad palatability to make their point. A non-respectful tone is appropriate in the face of the interminable fawning over Falwell, an evil human being who does not deserve to be lauded upon his death. If a condescending blowhard can make that point artfully and effectively, so be it.

    Then again, maybe I’m just enjoying this no-more-Mr.-Nice-atheist sentiment being heard more often in public discourse nowadays. It’s goddamn refreshing.

  3. I appreciate the valid points of criticism, and agree that in some ways Pat Robertson fits the Falwell mold. But Hitchens also includes “Graham”…could he possibly mean Billy Graham, who preaches a message of love, tolerance, and forgiveness?

  4. Hitchens is now a self described neo-con I believe. Not sure one should characterize him as a Leftie anymore.

  5. that’s hilarious you guys think hitchens is a lefty! he fully supports bush’s endless war on terror and unilateral military action.

    just because he has personal differences with falwell doesn’t mean it assigns him into some neat ideological category.

  6. Brilliant — and refreshing, refreshing, refreshing…

    In all seriousness, I’m not sure who is more pompous … Falwell or Hitchens.

    — TS

    In all seriousness, I’m pretty fucking sure you have little or no comprehension of what the word “pompous” actually entails. Falwell claimed to communicate with God; to know what God wanted. Hitchens merely claimed that he was wrong to think so. Falwell styled himself a prophet and televised himself preaching from a great big stage, all over the world. Hitchens gives interviews with rolled-up sleeves, drinking Scotch and smoking cigarettes. Pompous? I think not.

    This reminds me of a scene from “Idiocracy,” where Luke Wilson finds himself in the future, and he’s the only person intelligent enough to string more than three words together, to form a sentence — everyone kept telling him he sounded like a fag. That’s it, isn’t it? Hitchens throws around references that fly over your head, and you can feel it — so that makes him “pompous?” Fuck off.

    “…could he possibly mean Billy Graham, who preaches a message of love, tolerance, and forgiveness?

    — JG

    Nope, he meant Billy Graham, who occasionally did preach antisemitism — unapologetically. That is, until some tapes came to light where he and Nixon had a go at them mean ol’ Red Sea pedestrians — he did apologize then. That’s the Billy Graham he spoke of.

  7. As an athiest I am a little bummed that Hitchens is attaching his face to athiesm simply because he is a dickhead. He is right about Falwell, but he is still a dickhead.

  8. Oooooooooooh, sweet, fabulous, tap-dancing, ass-raping Jeeeeebus — have you seen Hitchens’ latest Slate column?!

    The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell on the floor of an obscure office in Virginia has almost zero significance, except perhaps for two categories of the species labeled “credulous idiot.” The first such category consists of those who expected Falwell (and themselves) to be bodily raptured out of the biosphere and assumed into the heavens, leaving pilotless planes and driverless trucks and taxis to crash with their innocent victims as collateral damage. This group is so stupid and uncultured that it may perhaps be forgiven. It is so far “left behind” that almost its only pleasure is to gloat at the idea of others being abandoned in the same condition.

    This is Hitchens in rare form. Check it out

  9. Eel: What do you think of Idiocracy? I’ve got hold of it based on the synopsis alone (it’s not known over here), and haven’t got around to watching it yet. Top of my list, but that could still be a while…

  10. While we’re here, have either of you two read Rob Grant’s Incompetence? A fairly wacky detective comedy set in the not-too-distant future where it’s illegal to discriminate on grounds of age, race, sex… or competence. A bit too wacky for me, but those bits were easy enough to skip past, and the rest was right up my street.

  11. I hadn’t heard of it. Was it first released in the 80s and is just being rereleased (Amazon has one listing for a 1980 edition which is unavailable but plenty of editions from 2004)

  12. Schmoo, Chris — Idiocracy is a pretty good flick. I think the concept is great, and damn funny, but there just doesn’t seem as if there’s quite enough material to make it into a full feature film. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure we’ve all seen plenty of flicks with less material — it’s just what makes it good, rather than great.

    However, there’s also the additional factor of how much satisfaction (or frustration, as it may be), that you get from seeing a fictional representation of what our truly is, today — an Idiocracy…

    What’s that Bill Maher said — unless you’re a mouth-breading shitkicker from Kansas, you’re with the terrorists.; that sorta stuff.

    There are lots of parallels between the movie and life today — just taken one step further. We don’t have news anymore, just infotainment and propaganda. Soon, we’ll have 24-hour channels with “Junior hitting daddy in the nuts with a baseball” programming. That kinda stuff.

  13. Cheers, I’m looking forward to it. As for satisfaction vs frustration, for me it’s usually both: satisfaction at having it scorned, frustration knowing that it’s only ever preaching to the choir (awful irony using that particular turn of phrase, but hey, you know what I mean).

Comments are closed.