On Tim Russert, Hitchens said to Sullivan: "Oh, well don't be such a lesbian. Get on with it"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Tim Russert, responding to Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan said, "And now you've made me forget my second point," to which Hitchens replied, "Oh, well, don't be such a lesbian. Get on with it."
On the April 5 edition of MSNBC's Tim Russert, Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens debated the significance for Sen. Barack Obama of comments made by his former pastor Jeremiah Wright about a trip Wright took with Louis Farrakhan to Libya in 1984. When Sullivan said, "And now you've made me forget my second point," Hitchens interjected: "Oh, well, don't be such a lesbian. Get on with it."
As Media Matters for America noted, during a subsequent segment on the same show, Hitchens asserted of certain of Sen. Hillary Clinton's actions: "I just think that if she knew how it made her look, sort of alternately soppy and bitchy, she'd stop it. But she can't help herself, can she? She just can't."
From the April 5 edition of MSNBC's Tim Russert:
SULLIVAN: Two things. One, it's important to clear up that he [Wright] did not say "The Jews are going to get you" in some conspiratorial, classic anti-Semitic fashion. I think that's just --
HITCHENS: He [Wright] thinks only Jews are going to object to [Rev. Louis] Farrakhan and [Libyan leader Moammar] Gadhafi. Excuse me?
SULLIVAN: No, he didn't say "only."
HITCHENS: No, but --
SULLIVAN: Again, you keep playing with that quote. We're happy to have it on the record. And now you've made me forget my second point, which is --
HITCHENS: Oh, well, don't be such a lesbian. Get on with it.
SULLIVAN: I'm sorry, I've forgotten my second point. But I do think that's important. And I don't think Wright is Farrakhan. And I don't think Obama, in any conceivable way, represents anything but racial inclusion and integration. And anybody that looks at any part of his career and can be in any doubt about that is beyond me.
The reason he went to that church, clearly, if you read his biography, is he wanted to understand what it was to be black in America. He didn't understand. He's a very polyglot person. He grew up in Hawaii, he had some time in Indonesia.
I KNOW! I first read about this guy on a humainst~aetheist website. I thought he was one of the sharpest, wittiest, and wisest men I'd read in a LOOONG time. And I basically hold with ALL of his views on Religion. Very elightened on THAT subject he is. But POLITICS?! Oh man. Now everytime he opens his mouth I'm thinking "SHUT UP YOU DRUNKEN SOT!"
Yeah... he's a lot like Penn Gillete: I dig the secular humanist, social libertarian, speration-of-church-and-state part of their act, but very little else. I guess once you make enough money you start voting republican, even if you have less repsect for the evangelical, funny-mentalists than the average progressive does.
Shrug
I don't get it. Inside joke?
No my sweet Lady Julia, that one I get ;-)
Popinjay...did you get that from O'Reilly? Ha!
GEORGE GALLOWAY: . . . this is just what I would expect from a drink-sodden, ex-Trotskyist popinjay . . .
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS [interrupting]: Only some of which is true.
Just as Federal Law Enforcement authorities have some kind of "watchlist", so shouldn't the FCC have sort of an "idiot watchlist"... it'd be a list of idiots to watch out for, to keep them off our PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
This guy hitchens would be on it... so wouldn't bill o'reilly.
Dem,
What about the concept of "Free Speech"?
I'll admit Hitchin's is very coarse, insulting, and rude but even though I disagree with much of his writings, he does make for entertaining TV. He must be taking his cues from Ann Coulter.
It's funny to me that I do much prefer civil discourse here but do not find it objectionable when Hitchens or Coulter or Rhodes or Savage are uncivil over the airwaves. Hmmm?
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
You keep conflating "free speech" with everything you HEAR. YES, Americans DO have free speech, but it is limited when it comes to PUBLIC ELECTRONIC speech, I.E. the "RIGHT" to be on the radio (or TV).
I'll put it simply: UNTIL I have a forum as widely heard as O'Reilly or Hannity, THEIR "free speech" is not the same as MY "free speech". THEIR "free speech" is subsidized and promoted by people with an agenda (rightwing, corporate), and the huge disparity in IMPACT of their words versus mine is backed up with millions of dollars.
Because of the potential for corruption and mischief using OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES, we the public place SOME restrictions on what can be said there.
Another consideration is the financial WISDOM of putting Hitchens or Coulter as opposed to anyone else on the air: That is a decision NOT made by any "free speech" considerations, but for other reasons.
You really need to get over your knee-jerk "FREE SPEECH" keening whine whenever a favorite conservative of yours is criticized for the words he or she speaks on public airwaves. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. That argument is stupid.
Tex,
I disagree to your assertion that the argument of "Free Speech" is stupid.
With regards to your note, can you show me where one's right to free speech (with regards to political opinion,) on TV is limited by regulation. If you cannot, your argument is unsupportable.
I agree that there is a disparity between you and the talking heads shows but that doesn't limit their right or yours. You also don't publish an opinion column in the NYT. So what? Their agenda has nothing to do with the right of free speech.
You said, "Because of the potential for corruption and mischief using OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES, we the public place SOME restrictions on what can be said there." I agree with the restrictions regarding profanity, pornography, and truth in advertising. Can you show me the political restrictions?
Just because a program director decides to put a Coulter or a Hitchens on their program does not mean you cannot also be on their program. Yes, they put them on because they draw viewers. I don't have a problem with that even if I don't watch.
As an aside, I do believe Fox and MSNBC are not broadcast over the public airwaves, but through private cable companies. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe there is even less government control because of this.
I disagree that my reference to "Free Speech" is a knee-jerk whine. I am simply arguing that people, no matter how offensive, (exceptions noted above) have the right, under the Constitution, to express their political points of view.
Frankly, all I saw by your 'free speech' is your opinion. I appreciate you exercising your rights even though I see nowhere you actually backed up any of your contentions.
Time for a constitutional amendment then?
Something along the lines of: The power of the conservative media to push ignorant memes and pander to neocon public figures, shall not be infringed upon.
E Pluribus poopy.
IfI get drunk, I get in trouble.
If Christopher Hitchens gets drunk he gets another invitation to appear with Tim Russert on MSNBC.
Hitchens is always entertaining. I've never seen in lose a debate.
Likewise, you're a Hitch-hater. We get it.
I think this whole "lesbian" issue is a bit silly. These guys are obviously friends and have some weird inside-jokes like most people have with their friends. Hitchens invited scrutiny for getting too comfortable on air and by not letting the viewer in on the joke, such as it was.
thom.steve wrote:
>> And since then I've seen him make an a$$ out of all the pompous religious individuals he's debated as well,
I think Hitchens is an ass, and a big ass at that. If your definition of winning a debate is throwing out stupid insults, then yes, Hitchens might win debates. Otherwise, I have always detested his pompousness, which people confuse with intellect--and I hated it when he was supposed to be on my side, representing the progressives.
As far as winning the debates against the religios, that was not my impression. I have not seen the debates, but other atheists were disappointed when he debated D'Sousza, thinking Hitchens slow and not effective. Believe me, I am no fan of the blowhard D'Souza, either.
Hitchens is not an artful orater, and is sometimes inarticulate, but he always holds his own in terms of substance. Often I think people want him to lose so bad because they despise him and the insulting way he expresses his opinion, and they're therefore willing to overlook his knowledge. His debate with D'souza also was replayed on TV, and I thought Hitchens more than held his own. But then again, he and I already shared similar views on religion
There's no doubt that Hitchens is quite insulting, and I happen to like his books more than him. But getting past his insults, leveled at everybody he disagrees with, he still brings with his arguments an impressive knowledge of history that puts his ideas in context. I've probably read nearly everything he's written, and his last "god is not great" was Great.
I'd have to be deaf and blind not to see that his insults often overshadow everything else for a lot of people, but in the end I guess that I don't find him as offensive as most . . .
Thomp.Steven wrote:
>>Hitchens is not an artful orater, and is sometimes inarticulate, but he always holds his own in terms of substance.
Sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree here. Hitchens hardly has any substance (though I understand he did write a good book on Kissinger). Not only does he use insult as a substitute for an argument, but he relies on innuendo and bombast as well.
I think it was Finkelstein who wrote a devastating critque on Hitchen's book on 9/11, pointing out how many times Hitchens contradicted himself. Hitchens responded by saying something like "He was flattered that Finkelstein took the time to read his book so closely." That is the response of a dishonest hack, which Hitechens is and alway was.
What about Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, whose recent homophobic remarks may have set her up for preening by the Religiopolitical Right as a "hero" and "role model***for right-thinking American Youth" to study and emulate?
I'm usually not one to engage in conspiracy theories, by has anyone else hear heard of the Fellowship? You know, the people who organize the National Prayer Breakfast. The leader also invokes Mao, Hitler and Lenin in his teachings...not for their atrocities, but for their strengths as leaders.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/NBC_Secretive_DC_prayer_group_has_0405.html
That's some scary, scary stuff. And if you watch the video, David Kuo almost says "Jesus even invoked Hitler" but he changed his framing at the last second.
oh man....*but* and *here*
It's getting late in the day...
TDP,
I have no idea why you brought this State Representative into the conversation. She has nothing to do with what Hitchens said or even any association with Hitchens.
Reading your link, it looks like this woman and her husband, (he, a Baptist Minister,) are getting death threats because of her remarks. I hope you object to the overt religious intolerance, and physical threats against these two people are getting with as much vigor as you do any comment you consider to be homophobic.
"I hope you object to the overt religious intolerance,"
I'm not sure I see overt religious intolerance. I see intolerance, but it's not religious. However, the death threats I completely object to.
Some Googling, though, revealed that while Kern and hubby *claimed* to have received death threats, the Oklahoma investigator handling the case thought that "death threat" was an overstatement. I'm sure her homophobic idiocies brought her some blowback, but there are degrees.
"Well would you go on a cable news show sober?"
LOL. I'd probably be so nervous I would have at least one can of beer, if not two.
But I might not be able to get away with it like Christopher did, because I wouldn't praise the Republicans.
Why this is here:
I think this is here because Andrew Sullivan is gay, so Hitchens was making some type of gay slur, or joke. That is my take on it, anyway.
Chris Hitch is always in his cups and reminds me of a line from another great Brit author, also a dipsomaniac: Malcolm Lowry. At one point in Under the Volcano, he has his sloshed protagonist, an ex-diplomat, comment on a horrendous act by a fellow human, saying, "There are some things you just can't apologize for." If you watch the video of the Sullivan-Hitchens exchange, you sense that Hitchens apologized after a fashion, as he looks properly embarrassed and contrite immediately after making the cloddish, insensitive (dare I say, homophobic) remark.
I know from experience that when and if he manages to get off the hooch and become truly human, Hitchens will prove a fine fellow. He'll be the sort of person who would never, ever say anything like that. And before you protest that he doesn't "look drunk" in the clip, I hasten to add that once alcohol becomes a 24-hour obsession (as it has for him, if you've read anything about him, including his own wife's observations), you're in your cups 24/7. As it is, Hitchens has such a superb mind and writing talent, he's pissed away half of his potential (literally: booze kills brain cells).
Imagine the sort of genius we have waiting for us when he sobers up for good!
Andrew Sullivan just commented on this article with a simple sentense:
Some people really need to get a sense of humor.
Indeed. This doesn't belong here.
You're correct, it doesn't belong here, but alas, Hitchens is a clinton hater so any chance to smear or make light of his alcohol abuse is fair game for this site.
I'd love to see the debate between Brock and Hitchens...
"HITCHENS: Oh, well, don't be such a lesbian. Get on with it. "
Idiot.
Brendan wrote:
>> God, I love how someone as brilliant and witty as Hitchens exposes the uttery density of the moderators
Yes, Hitchens is indeed brilliant:
On one page Hitchens states that the world fundamentally changed after September 11 because "civilians are in the front line as never before," but on another page he states that during the 1970s, "I was more than once within blast or shot range of the IRA and came to understand that the word 'indiscriminate' meant that I was as likely to be killed as any other bystander." On one page he states that, even if the U.S. doesn't attack or threaten to attack, "Saddam Hussein is not going to survive. His regime is on the verge of implosion" (emphasis in original), but on another page he states that "only the force of American arms, or the extremely credible threat of that force, can bring a fresh face to power." On one page he states that the U.S. seems committed to completely overhauling Iraq's political system, but on another page he states that replacing Saddam with "another friendly generalmight be ideal from Washington's point of view." On one page he states that "Of course it's about oil, stupid" (emphasis in original), but on another page he states that "it was not for the sake of oil" that the U.S. went to war. In one paragraph he states that the U.S. must attack Iraq even if it swells the ranks of al-Qaida, but in the next paragraph he states that "the task of statecraft" is not to swell its ranks. In one sentence he claims to be persuaded by the "materialist conception of history," but in the next sentence he states that "a theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing." In the first half of one sentence he argues that, since "one cannot know the future," policy can't be based on likely consequences, but in the second half he concludes that policy should be based on "a reasoned judgment about the evident danger."
Speaking of shame you'd do well to acquire some. Since most of you glut yourselves on animosity to sensitivity, I know it's a tall order for the conservative thinker to consider the feelings of another human being.
lol.
obviously hitchens never went on equality and diversity training. he needs to. NOW.