…and this is a 
Whoa. Hitchens endorses Obama!
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 13, 2008 5:51 PM, by PZ Myers
On politics, Hitchens and I rarely agree…but this time he and I are singing in harmony. Obama is not a perfect candidate by any means, but McCain/Palin are a national disgrace, and there's only one way rational people can vote.
It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.
Throw all the rascals out, but be prepared to have to work hard to prod the Democrats into doing anything constructive with a majority.
Comments
Posted by: TW | October 13, 2008 6:50 PM
I have been convinced for some time now that the Republicans are convinced they are going to lose and have put these two dullards up as a comedy act.
Posted by: gsb | October 13, 2008 6:56 PM
Christopher Buckley (son of William F.) and Wick Allison (former publisher of National Review) have also endorsed Obama for much the same reasons.
It's getting interesting!
Posted by: Mozglubov | October 13, 2008 6:59 PM
They certainly have helped SNL win back some popularity...
Posted by: Walton | October 13, 2008 6:59 PM
It's not been a good week... a friend of mine (a staunch libertarian) has declared his support for Obama, as has well-known British conservative blogger Iain Dale, and about half the Conservative parliamentary party over here. And now bloody Hitchens too (not that I've ever liked him, I hasten to add). I'm starting to think that come November I'm going to be the last McCain-Palin supporter left in Britain. :-(
Posted by: tcb | October 13, 2008 7:04 PM
The next Presidency is going to be very difficult for the President. My fear is that Obama, if he wins, will be a one-termer. There is an argument to be made (though I don't actually agree with it) that the Rethug leadership wouldn't mind losing this one.
Now, I'll be extraordinarily dysphoric: I don't believe that Obama has a chance against the redneck racist vote. (Everybody please prove me wrong!)
Posted by: Pyroclasm | October 13, 2008 7:14 PM
Woah, there are actually McCain/Palin supporters on the other side of the pond? I thought you lot were supposed to be smarter than that.
Posted by: DaveL | October 13, 2008 7:14 PM
In Canada back in the eighties to early nineties, had a Conservative government that by the end of its second term was tremendously unpopular. There was a recession going on, and the national debt was soaring.
In the 1993 election, the Conservatives went from 151 seats out of the 295 in parliament... to 2. There was a running joke that Jean Charest's wife was sleeping with half the Conservative caucus.
This is what needs to happen to the Republicans. They don't need to lose. They need to get S P A N K E D.
Hard.
Hard enough not only to express America's outrage at the pointless Iraq War, the trampling of the constitution, partisan muzzling of government scientists, etc., but also to let the next government know that we won't hesitate to do the same thing to them, should they step out of line.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 13, 2008 7:16 PM
I saw that this morning and, MAN, the way he cut open McCain's chest and tore his heart out ... Wow!!!!
Posted by: karen marie | October 13, 2008 7:17 PM
"be prepared to have to work hard to prod the Democrats into doing anything constructive with a majority"
from your mouth to the populace's ear.
Posted by: Ty | October 13, 2008 7:18 PM
"I'm starting to think that come November I'm going to be the last McCain-Palin supporter left in Britain. :-("
Thank Cthulu that your support doesn't actually matter in any way.
Posted by: Joel | October 13, 2008 7:21 PM
Personally, I think McCain is the Republican party's sacrificial lamb. They knew George W. Bush had screwed up so badly that there was no chance in hell for another Republican President.
Romney sure as hell wasn't going to taint his record with a loss when he could sit this one through and no V.P. candidate wanted to jump into this disaster either, that's why they had to settle for Palin.
Posted by: Karley | October 13, 2008 7:26 PM
Hooray. The misogynist war-mongering drunkard is on our side. Woo. Hoo.
Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 7:31 PM
Given what Hitchens said a few months ago, this really does come as something of a surprise. Though I guess when you pick a Creatard like Palin, Hitchens would definitely lose interest.
Posted by: Brian X | October 13, 2008 7:31 PM
Hitchens may be a neocon, but he is neither stupid nor insincere. This really doesn't surprise me much.
Posted by: Levi | October 13, 2008 7:33 PM
Woohoo, go Chris!
Let's Barack the vote this November (or right now if your state permits)!
Posted by: leeobee | October 13, 2008 7:37 PM
Not that I claim to speak for Britain, but as a Brit resident in Britain, I can say that most Brits not only expect but actively want Obama to win. This does not mean we have any great belief in the man. The first thing you need to suspect about him is that he is running for the presidency of the USA. This alone is enough to distrust anyone's motives. However, that being the case, and considering the alternative, I'm backing Barack.
Posted by: Jams | October 13, 2008 7:44 PM
I reiterate my previous observance that Hitchens is not a Republican (or Neocon - whatever that even means anymore) shill. Love it or hate it, he really does march to his own drum.
Ah, "war-mongering". To be so young again. It's the simplistic passions I miss the most. So invigorating.
Posted by: Colin | October 13, 2008 7:47 PM
Crap, now I have to vote for McCain.
Posted by: jls | October 13, 2008 7:52 PM
In light of Hitchens political views, I often wonder if his atheism is sincere or just in spite of his wackaloon religious kook of a brother.
Posted by: leeobee | October 13, 2008 7:55 PM
or vice-versa
Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2008 8:06 PM
In terms of sincerity, it's hard to find someone who is more sincere in his atheism. Maybe Penn Jilette. He's one to just say what he thinks, I don't think Hitchens can even possibly begin to be insincere because right or wrong he launches in with full conviction.Posted by: Maria | October 13, 2008 8:09 PM
Walton,
You still have time to change your mind :)
Posted by: Aquaria | October 13, 2008 8:14 PM
Hitchens' atheism is sincere. He's been very out about it, for a very long time. You can imagine how it was used to try to dampen sales of his book about Mother Teresa. Oh, the gnashing of teeth that was to be had!
So Walton, that supporter of every loony conservatard delusion because he's been living too long in some kind of warped 15th century time warp, supports McCain/Palin?
Color me amazed.
Not.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | October 13, 2008 8:16 PM
I'm glad to see someone else saying this. Over the past weeks, I've felt very little other than real pity for McCain. I used to like him, precisely for all the reasons he was hated by the GOP during the 2000 election.
My personal pet conspiracy theory is that he's being cynically used as a puppet by the far-right wing of the GOP. Nothing else (according to my irrational idea) would explain the shockingly obvious, patronizing choice of Sarah Palin to fire up the looniest "base" of the GOP.
Of course, there's no evidence for any of this.
Posted by: aporeticus | October 13, 2008 8:18 PM
Wasn't it his brother Peter Hitchens that started the William Ayers connection, which led to McCain/Palin supporters shouting "terrorist, kill him?" Congrats Christopher, your brother may have haplessly helped get your preferred candidate elected!
Posted by: leeobee | October 13, 2008 8:21 PM
The thing I get from Hitchens is that he sincerely cherishes the basic secularism of the American constitution and the ideals that arise from it: that he wants to remind that country of the powerful humanistic thrust it can still represent. I fancy, at least, that his adoption of US citizenship, notwithstanding his long residence, is akin to Tom Paine's emigration to the colonies. Perhaps as a means to promote the ideal in a receptive land. And now, I am throughly ashamed of my romanticism :O)
Posted by: leeobee | October 13, 2008 8:26 PM
and my misspelling of 'thoroughly'
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 13, 2008 8:35 PM
Well, We will see what we will see with the results of the 2008 pres. election.
Will "We" step past the race issue and the fear issue and change direction and vote for Barack Obama or will the neocons and the social conservatives continue to be in control?
I'm am some what perverse and will vote for the democratic ticket but hope that the republican wins so therefore leave no doubt what so ever the hopeless of their policies are and finally bring the country to its knees, though that may have already occurred.
What is happening in the political sphere in this election?
It has been said by those already mentioned that they can not support the current candidate of the republican
ticket. It seems to me that the republican party has been taken over by the neocons and the social conservatives. The democratic party has shifted to the right of center and is increasingly conservative. Will the so called "main street conservatives" migrate to the democratic party and will the more left of center liberals the greens, labor, peace advocates and the "radical left" split off toward one of the other fringe parties. Or is it going to be just another swing to the left to be followed in do course by a swing back to the right.
are we going through a realignment or just the same old pattern? It does seem to me that we can thank shrub for that fact that our world wide dominance altered has been altered.
What does it look like you?
Posted by: SteveC | October 13, 2008 8:39 PM
@#26: "I fancy, at least, that his adoption of US citizenship, notwithstanding his long residence, is akin to Tom Paine's emigration to the colonies."
Hitchens has actually written a book about Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, so I don't think your far off. He also wrote a biography of Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: not hitchens | October 13, 2008 8:41 PM
I noticed this on another blog, and thought I would post it here. It's a pro-life, conservative Christian who's voting for Obama, and explaining why. Some of the other comments on that thread are worth reading too.
blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/10/in_praise_of_not_voting_comments.html
For the record, I consider myself "pro-life" when it comes to abortion. But after eight years of Bush, I think it's time to redefine what it means to be pro-life. Among other things, it should at the very least mean the following: To be pro-life is to be against unnecessary wars, and to be pro-life is to be against torture.
I look at Obama, and while I reject his more left-wing views, I see an intelligent, capable, and reasonable man. I believe Obama would never condone torture, would never take us into an unnecessary war, and will endeavor to make health care more affordable to those of lesser means (which will reduce the number of abortions).
With all due respect, Rod, abortion isn't everything. Why not just recognize that this is one issue in which you vehemently disagree with Obama, and yet vote for the better man anyway? There are hundreds of issues that matter, and abortion is just one of them. Frankly, if the financial system falls apart, the issue of abortion is going to be very low priority (and meanwhile you can be certain the number of abortions will go up). Based on the way that Obama and McCain have behaved themselves, and have run their campaigns, who would you want to be in a position of leadership at this moment in history? "None of the above" really isn't a very mature option.
It would be wonderful, truly wonderful, if we had a society where abortions never happened. In the real world that's not going to occur. But it would also be wonderful if we never get manipulated into another war as foolish and destructive as Iraq. That is something a president has far more control over.
Which is the greater number: The number of Iraqi children who have died as a direct result of our misbegotten adventures there, or the number of American abortions in the past few years? Sorry to ask something so terrible, but being pro-life should mean more than being against a pro-choice candidate who has proven himself a reasonable man in other ways. The president can do far more about taking us into war, or refusing to do so, than he can about the laws, policies, and attitudes concerning abortion in this country. The president is the commander in chief, in regards to the armed services. He has very little command over the culture.
Roe v. Wade is probably never going to be overturned, and even if it is, the vast majority of the states will keep abortion legal. That's a lost fight, Rod, and Obama's views on the issue and his past voting record are just not that relevant to choosing a president right now.
One candidate, McCain, has proven himself to be an angry, belligerent, unpredictable jackass. He may actually have a worse foreign policy than Bush once he becomes president. It is entirely conceivable that with a president McCain we will go to war with Iran, or with Russia, or with North Korea, or with some other country. The other candidate, Obama, has proven himself to be an intelligent, restrained, inspiring and virtuous leader. He has opposed Bush from the start. He would never sing about bombing Iran. He would never start a war and then joke in public, "Now where are those weapons of mass destruction?"
Bush was (and is) pro-life. Look at where that got us. Being pro-life should mean so much more than being against abortion. At the very least, it should mean that you don't play deceitful games with other people's lives. You don't start a war under false pretenses. You don't pursue a war as if it's going to be cheap and easy, and then let chaos reign. Also, you don't keep people captive for years (apart from their families) without bringing charges. You don't undo the Geneva Conventions so that you can be free to violate people's human rights. You don't condone torture by playing word games while winking at its practice. Why? Because human life is sacred. Human beings should be treated with dignity, and all human life should be protected. What else does "pro-life" mean?
Rod, you still have a few days. If I were you, I'd reconsider your decision not to vote. I love your blog, but I notice that you sometimes have a tendency to dance around in a wishy-washy fashion. Please be an adult. You must vote, and encourage everyone you know (including people who read your column) to vote. There are two possible choices in this election: Obama and McCain. To me, the choice is obvious. Frankly, I don't see how a Christian can do anything other than vote in a way that utterly repudiates Bush's policies. Abortion is just not the most important issue right now. Maybe in a few years, when the economy has recovered, America's reputation has been restored, and the country is at peace abroad. Then you can vote your conscience on abortion, including sitting an election out. But not this time.
You supported Bush for many years. You supported the Iraq war. Consider voting for Obama as an act of penance. That's one reason I'm voting for him. But there are many better reasons than that one. There is no good reason to stay at home this time. I honestly think that if McCain somehow wins, and you didn't vote at all, you will regret that decision for the rest of your life.
Bush and McCain are the ones who don't value and treasure human life. Obama may be wrong about abortion, but he is right about war and peace, and so many other things. From one Christian conservative to another, I suggest that you reject your uptightness about one single issue, and vote for the person who will make the best president in these dark times.
Sorry for the lecture.
- Treebeard
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 13, 2008 8:45 PM
sorry for all the mistakes I type too slow and post too fast
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 13, 2008 8:46 PM
<faux shameless quotemining>
Glad to hear it.
</faux shameless quotemining>
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | October 13, 2008 8:48 PM
This is a big fat fucking surprise.
I need a Molly for this comment.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 8:52 PM
A large number of lifetime Republicans want nothing to do with John McCain. A lot of the other members of congress who voted for the bailout are also going to find that their support is sharply reduced.
-jcr
Posted by: scooter | October 13, 2008 8:54 PM
Jams @ 17: Ah, "war-mongering". To be so young again. It's the simplistic passions I miss the most.
actually, if you look up the word monger, it's a reasonable descriptor for the most recent Hitchens V5.6, even with the Obama upgrade.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 9:00 PM
@walton:
I'm starting to think that come November I'm going to be the last McCain-Palin supporter left in Britain.
Who.
Cares.
Posted by: aratina | October 13, 2008 9:03 PM
Finally! Why he took his sweet time to finally make the endorsement is beyond me, maybe it has to do with the fact that Iraq is about to kick out foreign combat troops. With all the domestic issues we face, I don't see how a credible atheist could possibly vote for the modern Republican (Falwell) party.
As for McCain, yes it is pathetically sad to see him doddering around from position to position, but this is no Republican regrouping conspiracy--this is the real McCain. He has finally been exposed under the harsh glare of the national spotlight. There are a number of articles on the Web that document his constant pandering to whatever seems to work for the moment. He carried the label 'maverick' because he kept things light and hastily skipped off to the next interview or he would sign on to the flashiest legislation he could find. Now that he has been forced to take a stand on a range of issues, he has no idea what to call home, which is truer to what a real maverick is anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 9:03 PM
A large number of lifetime Republicans want nothing to do with John McCain. A lot of the other members of congress who voted for the bailout are also going to find that their support is sharply reduced.
you might want to look at how the UK bailout is helping (and how fast their representatives both voted and acted on it - money is already going into the system) before you decide you won't vote for people who tried to repair the economy in the same way here.
or, hell, be a fool for all I care. Ignore the effect the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers had.
Posted by: chgo_liz | October 13, 2008 9:39 PM
Ichy, the "bailout" in the UK is structured very differently than the US bailout was originally. As a result of the UK's leadership in this, we are (finally) restructuring the original bailout idea to contain more of the UK-type provisions.
Here are some links for a quick, readable explanation:
To Do, Not To Do: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/to-do-not-to-do/
Gordon Does Good: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Posted by: Karley | October 13, 2008 9:40 PM
#17- If you like that one, I have some more "simplistic passions" I can whip out for you:
Go DIAF.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 9:51 PM
thanks for the links, liz.
I was just listening to an overview of the UK bailout from the guy who won the Nobel in economics this year, and the followup will be helpful in understanding all of this, I'm sure.
I'd note that that aforementioned laureate (whose name escapes me at the moment), also flatly stated that even he didn't see how far the effects of letting these institutions fail would go; he was very surprised at the scale of the domino effect (in the US). However, he did make it very clear how much faster the UK had acted to stem the problems than the US has.
Posted by: chgo_liz | October 13, 2008 10:00 PM
Same guy, Ichy: Paul Krugman
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | October 13, 2008 10:24 PM
I said this in another thread where this was brought up, but I'll repeat it here. That overly-hawkish sexist wine-sotted windbag has, for the second time, earned back a small degree of my respect. Too bad he didn't get tortured this time, too.
(I kid, I kid! ...mostly... no, really, I don't actually want *any*body tortured, but, man, Hitchens gets on my bloody nerves!)
And Krugman rocks. I'm glad he got it! ^_^
Posted by: Jams | October 13, 2008 10:40 PM
"actually, if you look up the word monger, it's a reasonable descriptor for the most recent Hitchens V5.6, even with the Obama upgrade." - scooter
If you look up the word monger you'll find it has multiple definitions. If you're going to evoke a definition, you know, you should probably actually evoke a definition.
Here, I'll help:
Monger - Dictionary.com
1) a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way.
2) a dealer in or trader of a commodity
3) to sell; hawk
I would say three could be applied to Hitchens in terms of "warmongering" - as it does with Obama in terms of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Darfur, and... as it does to America in general. That is America's primary export after all.
Sort-of beside the point though. The naivete is the knee-jerk assumption that selling a war is by default a bad thing. It belongs in the same bin as "all taxes are bad", "all cops are pigs", "we can save the world with guitars", "in god we trust", and other assorted shallow political cliches born out of an eagerness to over-simplify the complexities of human relations.
@Karley
Please, I only ask that you bring some artistry to your petty hostility. Hint: if there's an acronym for it, it's neither original nor clever. Come out of your shell. Don't be afraid. This is a safe space.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 10:47 PM
That is America's primary export after all.
YEEE-HAWWW!
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 10:49 PM
Same guy, Ichy: Paul Krugman
shows you how well my short-term memory is working these days.
:p
i swear, i just listened to him on the radio less than two hours before I posted that.
Posted by: Jams | October 13, 2008 10:50 PM
"YEEE-HAWWW!" - Ichthyic
Exactly.
Posted by: Realist Golfer | October 13, 2008 10:57 PM
Former McCain Supporter Accuses the Senator of "Deliberately Feeding the Most Unhinged Elements of Our Society the Red Meat of Hate"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/13/former_mccain_supporter_accuses_the_senator
Finally an evangelical that actually makes sense!
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:07 PM
you might want to look at how the UK bailout is helping
It's not. You can't cure the effects of inflation with further inflation. If that were possible, then Zimbabwe would be the richest country on earth.
-jcr
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:08 PM
It's not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:09 PM
sincere in his atheism.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by sincerity in this context. Either you buy the mythology or you don't.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:12 PM
This is what needs to happen to the Republicans. They don't need to lose. They need to get S P A N K E D.
Will you also punish the Democrats for their complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties, going to war without a declaration of war, and the economic collapse in progress?
As far as I can tell, the only real Democrat left in the congress is Dennis Kucinich.
-jcr
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 13, 2008 11:15 PM
I think McCain's a fallguy. The Republicans are sacrificing this election to the Democrats 'cause they know something of the direction the world economy is going over the next few-several years and they want people to link the economic pain with the (black) Democrat president. I think the hate/fear mongering they are indulging in is an attempt to generate violence and unrest they can point to and blame on Democrat policy and/or leadership qualities.
They'll probably fight much harder and more genuinely for the next term, by then there should be some signs of economic recovery. They'll be blaming the Democrats for the pain and very few people will remember the real sequence of events. Public opinion is so short-sighted and has a very selective memory.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:17 PM
Will you also punish the Democrats for their complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties, going to war without a declaration of war, and the economic collapse in progress?
complicity?
hardly.
spinelessness?
sure thing.
be happy to whip them bloody if they don't take advantage of the supermajority they likely will have coming out of the elections on the 4th.
as far as YOUR concerns go?
I quote another pharyngulite:
//Indecipherable Rhetoric//
If you actually HAVE money, suggest you get back to nurturing it rather than wasting your time here trying to convince us you know what you're talking about.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:20 PM
Cute video there Itchy, but it does nothing to support your contention that the UK's version of the bailout will be any more successful than the US government's own attempt to follow the 1929 playbook.
This mess was caused by massive interventions in the market (the biggest one being artificially low interest rates from central banks for many decades, causing malinvestment), and all that the governments here and in Europe are doing is to try to prevent the repricing of overvalued assets like real estate, mortgage-based securities, and shares in the banks that made these mistakes.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:22 PM
complicity?
Go look up the votes for the Patriot act, and the Iraq war funding resolutions. The Republicans didn't pass those all by themselves.
-jcr
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:22 PM
, but it does nothing to support your contention that the UK's version of the bailout will be any more successful than the US government's own attempt to follow the 1929 playbook.
that's why I was referring to what Krugman had to say about it.
or would you like to argue with the current laureate on the subject, too?
you're delusional.
seek help.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 13, 2008 11:23 PM
While this is very possible I think violating the "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" rule is a little premature.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:27 PM
Go look up the votes for the Patriot act, and the Iraq war funding resolutions. The Republicans didn't pass those all by themselves
you must not have read any of the MANY books being published by various congresscritters that detail how those votes came about, why many felt pressured to vote the way they did, and also explaining why they now regret having voted under duress.
you must also not understand the difference between fear and complicity.
in fact, it's been my experience of your posts on Pharyngula that you actually understand very little of what you rant on about.
hence:
//Indecipherable Rhetoric//
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:29 PM
Krugman's award came from a panel of bankers. Of course they're fans of his.
you're delusional.
Hey, I know you want to believe that your favorite wing of the Ruling Party is better, but wishing doesn't make it so.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 13, 2008 11:36 PM
why many felt pressured
Oh, cry me a river! I notice that they had no trouble at all ignoring the outcry from the public, over 90 percent against the bailout, and you want to excuse them for voting against the bill of rights?
Most members of congress, with only a handful of exceptions, will happily shirk their duty to defend the constitution if they find it convenient to do so. If you think that you're going to get any meaningful change by picking one side or the other of the ruling party, then you're the delusional one.
-jcr
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 13, 2008 11:40 PM
"you must not have read any of the MANY books being published by various congresscritters that detail how those votes came about, why many felt pressured to vote the way they did, and also explaining why they now regret having voted under duress."
OMG!
I gotta go pee that's so funny!!
There are books explaining why Democrats are intellectual and moral cowards who would throw away the Bill of Rights because they were skeered?
...and this Ichthyic stick thinks that's a reasonable excuse to forego the personal privacy of a nation and follow sheepishly behind an obviously idiotic administration?
And to top it all off, this moron thinks that giving these idiots who he grants such idiocy to MORE power to fuck up?
Giving banks more money from the taxpayers coffers to banks so they can loan out more money to a society that is in hock up to its earballs IS NOT the brightest move in the playbook.
Neither will it be wise to bail out underwater homeowners, as it will just precipitate a massive mortgage-dumping all over the US.
Spring time will bring some pretty big oh mys! to the eyes of those thinking this bailout was a good idea...
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:43 PM
Krugman's award came from a panel of bankers. Of course they're fans of his.
and yours came from?
*crickets chirping*
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 13, 2008 11:44 PM
...is a good idea.
(bad form to whiff on a bitch slap, my bad)...
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:45 PM
And to top it all off, this moron thinks that giving these idiots who he grants such idiocy to MORE power to fuck up?
I told you to go and hide in your log cabin, chicken little.
Posted by: DagoRed | October 13, 2008 11:48 PM
I am amazed at the amazement to this news. With Sister Palin's VP nomination (given the life expectancy for a 72-76 year old whose *not* the POTUS), who else would you expect Hitch to back? Has the world of liberalism become so blinded by Hitchens support of the Iraqi War it can no longer see this guy is far more liberal than any shade of conservative, and far more skeptical atheist than anything? Such surprise seems wildly misplaced IMHO!
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 13, 2008 11:49 PM
Neither will it be wise to bail out underwater homeowners, as it will just precipitate a massive mortgage-dumping all over the US.
I told you before where to look to find the answers to that.
that you chose to remain entirely ignorant is quite telling.
Posted by: debaser71 | October 13, 2008 11:55 PM
Gonna just say that even though I am a liberal democrat I am pretty hawkish in regards to war in the middle east. I obviously think Bush is an idiot and his policies regarding the M.E. have been terrible but I am not against the idea of the US using it's military. And before anyone wishes to challenge me it matters that 9/11 was my home turf. So IMO instead of automatically being against the war in Iraq consider your position on Afganistan or old Yugoslavia. Unless you are a pacifist there are always situations that warrant the use of force. And again, I not really talking about specifics but I favor the use of force when confronted with militant extremists who have already attacked me personally. Twice now. I am thankful for Hitchens for speaking out in favor of military action without using the bullshit pro-american yahoo cowboy rhetoric that usually comes from the supporters of the war.
Anyway with that said I don't think the Bush adminisrtation cares for much more than simply stealing. And I sort of reached a point where I loath republicans. I've had enough.
/rant off
Posted by: windy | October 14, 2008 12:14 AM
When did Iraqis attack you personally?
Posted by: Graculus | October 14, 2008 12:20 AM
*sniff*
Burning Paulite. It must be autumn.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 14, 2008 12:25 AM
Burning Paulite. It must be autumn.
please tell me they will go back into hibernation come November?
Posted by: Kel | October 14, 2008 12:26 AM
Rudi Giuliani, is that you?Posted by: Katkinkate | October 14, 2008 12:52 AM
Very true, Azkyroth. I could be crediting them with more smarts than they really have. I do sometimes tend to overestimate the intelligence of the worlds leaders. I keep thinking they must be considerably smarter than me to get to their positions, although many eventually prove themselves otherwise.
Posted by: scooter | October 14, 2008 12:54 AM
JAMS @ 44: I would say three could be applied to Hitchens in terms of "warmongering" - as it does with Obama in terms of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Darfur, and... as it does to America in general. That is America's primary export after all.
I have to agree with you on that. However, Hitchens' disconnects and his parroting of the Bush administration's Iraq invasion absurdities are a matter of record.
As a person who is involved in media, on a network that debunked the yellowcake rumor, MONTHS before the State of the Union address, long before Plame got involved, we aired Scott Ritter's consistent repudiations of the weapons of mass destruction lie at the first hint of Iraq intentions, all of which is now common knowledge even on Faux News forgive me if I get a little impatient.
When it takes the heroes of the left, like Jon Stewart, or a centrist dipshit like Bill Maher over a YEAR to get a clue, after it's too late, I get a little impatient.
Hitchens bought into Curveball, and every con artist bullshitter that came down the Bush League Rove machine, all fucking lies, it's documented, the only question is, is Hitchens a moron, who actually believed this nonsense, because his access to information was WORSE than a two -bit community radio volunteer like myself, or was he lying.
Idiot or liar
I'm sure Hitchens reads Fisk, Hedges, and Haaretz, who are now 100% correct in their facts and predictions, yet Hitchens ran with talking points from a Dry Drunk Christian fucktard, and a third rate failed Halliburton CEO.
He got citizenship out of deal.
Anyway, I can see from your responses that you and I are of like minds, I just get a little edgy around former iconoclast, Christopher Hitchens, and accusations of knee jerk or youthful vigor.
I'm 53 years old, and I hope this Obama character is just saber rattling with Pakistan, or we may indeed be pining for the good old days of GWB
_PEACE!!
Posted by: nanu nanu | October 14, 2008 12:56 AM
Get the hell out of my state, Scott.
Or at least stop advertising the fact that you're from here. I swear guys, most of us aren't like that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 14, 2008 1:02 AM
yet Hitchens ran with talking points from a Dry Drunk Christian fucktard, and a third rate failed Halliburton CEO.
the only thing I've ever thought about that that made any sense to me was that Hitch has some rather scary stuff compartmentalized away in that big brain o his.
If you've ever watched him shred the people he debates, you know he's no dummy, and the motivations for lying about it on his own seem trivial to me (citizenship? really?); unless somewhere, somebody had some real dirt on him (but what on earth could possibly hang someone like hitch?)
I think somehow he really did conclude it to be the "best" course of action.
I don't recall anyone here agreeing with him on that point. In fact, I seem to recall even PZ making a post or two denouncing Hitch's support for Iraq.
as to the drinking, you'd expect that to have a more inconsistent effect on his position on the matter.
*shrug*
far be it that everyone is entirely predictable.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 14, 2008 1:06 AM
Or at least stop advertising the fact that you're from here. I swear guys, most of us aren't like that.
no worries, we know.
I'm from california, a state that multiple times has considered splitting itself into 3 or more pieces because of the huge disparity in economics and politics as you go from north to south, and west to east.
even then, there was one Larry Farfarman (look him up, he's gotta be infamous by now), who all other californians often felt the need to apologize for.
Posted by: Karley | October 14, 2008 1:23 AM
#44- Fine then. Go fall off the Empire State Building, get torn to shreds by a hyper aggressive flock of harpy eagles on the way down, and land in a pile of salt-encrusted barbed wire.
Howzat?
Posted by: E.S. | October 14, 2008 1:34 AM
@debaser71 - The problem with that argument is that starting a war with Iraq was never going to quell extremism - it's had entirely the opposite effect, and I think that was pretty predictable from the beginning. Not to mention that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept 11 attacks.
Posted by: Ragutis | October 14, 2008 1:51 AM
debaser71:
IIRC: 15 Saudis, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese
Saddam didn't have Jack Shit to do with 9/11. Military action was certainly warranted in response to Al-Qaeda's attacks, but Bin Laden's the murderous fucker we want, and he wasn't, isn't, and never will be in Iraq.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 14, 2008 2:24 AM
"I told you before where to look to find the answers to that.
that you chose to remain entirely ignorant is quite telling."
You say much not worth listening to. Doesn't matter if anybody here listens to what I am saying. It'll happen anyway. Too many people underwater with homes worth less than their mortgages, especially in California, where the party was the loudest. Industry upon industry that was dependent on building, including the builders, are gonna see some sad days ahead. Home Depots closing. Anderson Windows laying off people. All those real estate agents who were wheeling houses for that nifty 15%... Marble countertop folks...
Circuit City, where much of that "equity" was spent the last six years on plasma and the internet... Car dealers...
These people all have mortgages too. Whole lotta "fuckits" coming after the cold simmers down... My guess is March Madness won't be what people think this year...
And wait till it runs right into the credit card debt of a country mired in debt...
And some of y'all think it a good idea to piss away 850 billion shoring up a few someone's golf game?
My my my...
Posted by: debaser71 | October 14, 2008 2:52 AM
Umm not once did I say we should have invaded Iraq. Way to jump on some sort of liberal bandwagon though...
Ultra lame.
Posted by: scooter | October 14, 2008 3:06 AM
MAJOR CORRECTION
I meant National Review, not New Republic, and Chris Buckley is not an editor.
Sorry, very sloppy
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 14, 2008 3:16 AM
...I assume the assumption that you endorsed Iraq was in connection with this:
What WAS the second time, then?
Posted by: scooter | October 14, 2008 4:03 AM
Ichthyic @ 78: I don't recall anyone here agreeing with him on that point. In fact, I seem to recall even PZ making a post or two denouncing Hitch's support for Iraq.
I think you have misconstrued my message.
The window of time available to educate people with facts closed in 2002, long before there was a Pharyngula.
The asshattery from ALL media was get revenge, just bomb SOMETHING!!
Americans are fucking idiots who are easier to scare than Boo from Monster Inc.
If you can sell bullshit like the Vietnamese are threatening the American way of life, and kill two million of them before losing a war, these sheep will buy ANYTHING!!!!
All of the information to derail the Bush/Cheny/Rove con job for invading Iraq was readily available, all over the internet, and broadcast daily on Pacifica Radio in NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and Houston on 100,000 watt FM radio stations, and was available online from every English