Some Summer Reading

I’m on semi-vacation for the next handful of days so I’m inclined to do more linking than writing. Below find a couple of items that caught my attention this morning.

First up is another episode in the Great Ward Churchill soap-opera. I’ve been chided by some for spending too much time on this “issue.” So sue me why don't you? I find it just too much fun to ponder this chap’s psychopathology. I’m also amazed by the inability of some to just outright disown this fellow. It’s one thing to defend the concept of tenure. It’s quite another not to denounce an obvious wing-nut. 

In the latest chapter, Churchill is now trying to explain his way out of remarks in Portland this week in which it sure seemed he was suggesting “fragging” of U.S. military officers might be an effective form of anti-war protest. Here’s the phrase now in question spoken by Churchill as reported by the Denver Post:

 "Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

When one of the forum's attendees said that the impact such a fragging might have on the officer's family should be considered, Churchill replied, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

Poor bastard. It’s too bad he’s going to walk away from the tenure fight with Colorado University with some sort of six figure settlement. That money could be spent so much more wisely – like a couple of scholarships for Native Americans upon whose backs Churchill has constructed his “academic” career.

In a half-hearted gesture of fairness toward you, the reader, I’m offering up a compromise. Now that I’ve made you read something about a guy I love to despise, I’ll return the favor. Danny Postel has a new interview published with Satan Figure Christopher Hitchens. Whatever your jaundiced view, it’s worth a read. Here’s the Hitch describing in piquant terms the turning point he had on the post 9-11 response to the Taliban:

I can tell you exactly when the breaking point came, actually. I was invited by Michael Moore to be his interviewer at the Telluride Film Festival for his awful, baggy, dishonest, boring movie, Bowling for Columbine. In that film, clips about the Kosovo war from Serbian television are used as objective. Moore implies that the bombing of Kosovo might have inspired the murderers in Columbine. You don't know where to start with someone as mentally lazy as this. This was on the anniversary of September 11 terrorist attacks, and he said, "Well, if it's true that bin Laden did this thing in New York . . ." It was early in the morning; just a second, I thought. "Say that again? If they did this?" He said, "Well, if they did this." And he opposed the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan—a reactionary, conservative position couched in radical anti-imperialist language. My Marxist training tells me things don't remain the same. Reactionary-left positions won't hold for long; they will metamorphose into reactionary-right ones. He says he considers the Iraqi resistance—the beheaders and kidnappers and rapists, the people who throw petrol and explosives into the mosques of rival Muslims, among other things—the equivalents of the Minutemen of the American Revolution. This is the statement of a flat-out brown shirt. It has to be described as such. And all the people who thought that was a great movie to rock the vote, they should be fucking ashamed. There is no room for compromising on a thing like this. He's a lying, fascist, thug

Have fun.

Comments

[Joseph Angier]

Dear Christopher H: In my dealings with the anti-war left, I somehow missed the massive amounts of sympathy they have for Bin Laden's 'grievances' and the Iraqi 'insurgency.' Take away Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Moore, and a couple of others, I don't think you're left with much. But it sure makes your argument easier, doesn't it?

[reg]

When someone as allegedly erudite as Hitchens turns what could be valid criticisms of Michael Moore - a person I happen to find obnoxious and prone to half-truths and persistent overreaching - into the kind of garbage he spews above - "lying, fascist thug" - you know he's scraping close to the bottom of his barrel - or anyone's barrel for that matter. I'll pass on the interveiw because Hitchens is truly starting to bore me more often than he forces me to look at another side of the Iraq war issue or "the left" - when someone you don't agree with not only doesn't spark though but hardly even offends you anymore, why bother. Also, one reason I don't take either Hitchens or Moore's political arguments terribly seriously and see them in some sense as evil twins is because of that pesky Nader 2000 thing. Neither one of these guys is in what I would consider my political camp. More than serious social critics, they are ideological egomaniacs without portfolio and are more than welcome to piss on each others shoes.

[reg]

that was "spark thought"

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

I could care less about Ward Churchill, but thanks for the link to the Hitchens interview, Marc. Unlike Ward, I think he's always going to remain an interesting figure.

I don't have the same respect for Hitchens that I used to, but it's still hard for me to "Satanize" him.

His recent Vanity Fair piece on Iran was quite good and, unlike almost all of the other proponents of this war, I don't believe that he wants us either wiped off the face of the earth or made into serfs on the great global plantation. His newfound ideological affinity for Thomas Friedman aside.

"I can tell you exactly when the breaking point came, actually. I was invited by Michael Moore to be his interviewer at the Telluride Film Festival for his awful, baggy, dishonest, boring movie, Bowling for Columbine. In that film, clips about the Kosovo war from Serbian television are used as objective. Moore implies that the bombing of Kosovo might have inspired the murderers in Columbine. You don't know where to start with someone as mentally lazy as this."

Bowling for Columbine was a shit movie and totally dishonest on so many levels. But I actually thought that bringing Kosovo into the picture and showing the effects of state-sanctioned ultraviolence (as well as drawing a cause-and-effect relationsthip with the "senseless tragedy" of Columbine) was perhaps its sole saving grace.

Kelbold and Harris *did* think that the war was really cool and tried to catch as much footage of what was going on (as extremely santizied and censored as it might have been) on CNN.

I know, I know. Where's my sources. I'll try to find something later.

"This is the statement of a flat-out brown shirt...He's a lying, fascist, thug."

It's this kind of hyperbolic, foam-flecked nonsense that made that "Unfahrenheit 9-11" thing so unreadable.

In any case I'll "read the whole thing" first chance I get.

[reg]

Incidentally Marc, while I think he may well have done this somewhere else, the bit of Moore-bashing you printed above hardly qualifies as "Hitch describing in piquant terms the turning point he had on the post 9-11 response to the Taliban". Unless you think the man is a complete idiot. Maybe you're right. Also when anybody refers to "my Marxist training" to make a point, and most especially a completely banal point - "things don't stay the same" - one wonders what planet they reside on. The better, ironic statement would been "I don't have to rely on my Marxist training to know things don't stay the same." That could have stated the obvious with a bit of humorous flair. The statement "my Marxist training tells me" should be an embarrassment, assuming Hitchens still has the capacity for it.

[reg]

God, you're right. I'm wrong. He introduced that thing with "I can tell you exactly when the breaking point came."

Poor fellow...

[Scott Vincent]

Over on Leo Casey's red-baiter listserv, where this latest hysteria about Ward Churchill cropped up, Michael Hirsch made some good points that probably sailed over the head of Marc Cooper, who hangs out there:

Churchill is no friend. Need I lay out the reasons on this list? Saying that, what do you see is wrong with what he's quoted saying this time? He wasn't advocating fragging; he wasn't saying stepped up fragging is a tactic that can end the war quicker. He was asking the audience what their attitude would be toward troops who engage in it, and why would they distinguish between conscientious objection and desperation? It's a fair question, along the lines of what is their attitude toward troops who follow orders and kill Iraqis. The Vietnam War ended in part because the US couldn't trust its own frontline troops. So, if mutinous conditions are indications that wars can''t be sustained, what Churchill said this time was not so eggregious.

That's unlike his Eichmann remark re:9-11, which was ignorant and lazy at best (and morally bankrupt at worst). There, Churchill blamed an entire class of people for the sins he wouldn't enumerate and ascribe to specific guilty individuals, if indeed any such existed at the WTC. He also suggested that the terrorists were deliverers of some rough justice, which is nonsense. In this case, he's not calling for "capping the captain" or praising chickens for coming home to roost. I read him as saying that an outcome and an indicator of a failed war strategy is that the troops start to mutiny, that it takes ugly forms, and we should have some small degree of sympathy for the desperation of the mutineers.

So, what do you say to the families of slain officers? I'd say "We're pained by your loss. Such a tragedy is irreparable. The culprit is the Bush administration, not some deranged kid thrown into harm's way. Let's be sure it never happens to anyone's else's child and destroys anyone else's family by ending US interventionism now."

A stopped watch is correct twice a day. Even Churchill gets it right sometime,

Mike H

[Tommy Kelly]

Ward Churchill, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore... Zzzzzz

Who really cares about their hyperbolic, self-opinionated rubbish?

[reg]

Excuse me Scott V, but I think that Churchill's followup response regarding compassion for hypothetically fragged officers' families, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichman's family?" clears up any doubt as to his intent or that it was simply a question posed as some "thought experiment". The guy's toxic...

[reg]

I want to apologize to the readers of this blog for posting 12 times a day recently. I have gone off my meds and am out of control.

[reg]

On second thought, screw that. Check out this zogby poll:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

[Randy Paul]

Gee, I'm a member of the liberal left and I haven't even seen Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 911.

Do you think Hitchens could tell me where they have these meetings of the liberal left so that I can finally go to one and learn how every single one us moves in lockstep?

Lord knows, I've tried to get into them before. I've offered to bring the vegetable crudites, some of Mércia's excellent salgados and even some Gauloises (although I don't smoke). Mércia and I are even willing to silk screen some "Che" tee shirts and I think we can probably sew some berets, too.

Please tell me where these secret meetings are, Hitch. Pleeeeeeaaaaaaassssssseeeeee!

[Randy Paul]

By the way, Hitchens makes the following comment: "I mean, I don't think you'll get a snake-handler in Oklahoma to say he feels sorry for bin Laden and his grievances."

If he's referring to those who handle snakes in some of the, shall we say, unusual Christian sects, he should know that they are primarily located in Appalachia, principally parts of Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina. One of the congregations that has been doing it the longest is in Sand Mountain, Alabama, not far from where I used to live and where much of my family still lives.

One would think a writer such as Hitchens would get his stereotypes right.

BTW, I didn't get the proverbial rat's ass for bin Ladens' grievances, either.

[Mike Jenkins]

Marc,
I'm going to start this post with something I generally think is irrelevant; auto-biograghical information. (In general I think posts should stand or fall on their own; who cares who you are? Sometimes, however, when you say things that are beyond the pale, it makes sense to let the world know that you are not normally a bomb thrower.) I spent four years in the navy; I consider myself a patriot; I voted for the President; I support the war. Nevertheless, I think that Churchill's point makes logical sense. If you think that we are the bad guys in Iraq, if you believe that we are the equivalent of Nazi storm troopers, then you should believe that troops should kill their officers. I'm not saying that anti-war liberals like you, Marc, should believe this; I'm pretty sure that you are against the war without believing that the Wahabists are the good guys. But if I believed what Churchill believes, I would counsel American soldiers to kill their officers.

[jim hitchcock]

Randy, the next secret meeting is scheduled to be held during the Burning Man Festival...just head toward the large cluster of motor homes andlook for the latte drinkers.

The only two provisos are you must be prepared to view Reg dance nekkid and...no singing!

[Randy Paul]

Christ, some prices are too high to pay :-) I wanted to sing a few choruses of Kumbaya, followed by liberal (pun intended) verses of the Internationale.

[green dem]

Perhaps being a well-compensated celebrity journalist allows one to live in a universe where moral judgments reside to the detriment of all else, and one is able to wholly forego practical and indeed even human considerations, but it would be good to know how many young millenial lives should be lost in Iraq before the human toll becomes too great for Mr. Hitchens. It would also be good to know how many generation x individuals and businesses should be driven into economic ruin by the monstrous levels of taxation that will be required to pay for this war (and all our other commitments) in the coming years before the economic toll becomes too great for Mr. Hitchens. Lastly, it would be good to know how much of their basic needs the baby boomers should have to sacrifice in their golden years before the cost becomes too high for Mr. Hitchens.

[reg]

Randy...I've worked out a nice, interpretive thing to the strains of The Internationale...and I've decided, since recruiting has been off, that this year I'll have a couple of strategically placed pages torn from The Manifesto pasted to my torso. Enjoy...

(Also, I've cajoled Woody to show up by convincing him that it's the site of the Falcons' training camp. Should be interesting.)

[Virgil Johnson]

Just two terse comments: Ward Churchill got it wrong, fragging should begin at home and than it would become much more effective.

As for Mr. Hitchens, in order to be more effective, and put to silence all opposition he needs to immolate himself with fire at the next DNC! Thereby silencing all. Gee, are those comments over the top? Now think! hehe

[Randy Paul]

Virgil,

If he keeps spouting flatulent commentary AND smoking, he probably will self-immolate.

[Jim Rockford]

The biggest problem with the Left is that it refuses, for ideological reasons, to acknowledge evil where it exists.

When Robert Mugabe bulldozes shanties to starve to death political opponents in a Pol Pot re-run, Leftists make excuses for him because he was a marxist once, an anti-American billionaire thug now, and African (read: non-WASP which as we know is the sole source of all evil). Add Castro, or Chavez, or any loathesome Islamist and you get the same reaction.

I know I don't agree with Hitchens on a lot of things, but one thing 9/11 showed for me was that yeah, Donne WAS right, and people suffering even in remote places like Afghanistan leads to people suffering here, in a small world made smaller by technology and transportation.

The other thing that Hitchens says, that I love, is that the Islamic world is profoundly broken. Searching for scapegoats and enemies instead of reforming itself so that women are not enslaved as property, education consists of more than rote memorization of the Koran, and free and open discussion and rationalism, along with freedom from religion and toleration, are the hallmarks of their society. Leftists just can't admit that yes, Islam is broken and needs reform (which can only happen from within, btw). But we Westerners can help by refusing to make excuses or go along with Islam's search for scapegoats (Israel, the United States) instead of their own massive failures as a culture and society.

As far as the lunatic Churchill, I've seen folks echoing his comments in signs "We love our troops when they kill their officers."

Earth to lunatics: this isn't 1969, when the military is out hunting jihadis and bin Ladenists in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking the side of bin Laden (there is no other way to say it) is a recipe for total electoral collapse, no matter how incompetent and unfocused Bush has become. Gas can go to $5 a gallon, and as long as Dems and Leftists (same thing really these days) recycle anti-American and anti-Patriotic slogans calling for Fragging Bush will still lurch along successfully.

The Media doesn't help. Anyone see the incompetent reporting by Peter H. King on the "LA 8" i.e. the Palestinian resident aliens facing deportation for raising money for the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Not a mention of the famous (or any) terrorist incidents these guys are known for: Entebbe, Lod Airport Massacre, murder of Israeli Tourist Minister, and numerous suicide bombings in the last three years. These guys killed more than 165 people in 103 separate terrorist attacks.

Just like various blogs have photos of new Iranian President as a student marching US Embassy hostages out blindfolded, pointing a gun at their head, and threatening to kill them (via AP) but not a word from the LA Times.

Conclusion? Media is abetting the Dems and Leftists running off the cliff into outright anti-Americanism by pretending terrorism and broken societies don't exist. People see this floating in (and the Dems are unable to suppress their Ward Churchill crazies) and the Party falls over the cliff, like Republicans did after Pitchfork Pat Buchanon led a jihad against Murphy Brown (a TV character) in their 92 Convention.

When we have a real terror war on our hands (Sam Nunn says a nuking of a major Western City is a 80% certainty within the next seven years) it's not a good idea to engage in an anti-American culture war. Like I said this isn't 1969, Ho Chi Minh never wanted to nuke us.

[GM]

reg dance nekid? Film at 11!

[green dem]

"The biggest problem with the Left is that it refuses, for ideological reasons, to acknowledge evil where it exists."

I hereby acknowledge all the evil everywhere it exists, and even most of the places it doesn't.

Can we go home now?

[Robert Fiore]

Rockford, go to hell. You're an ideological thug who engages in blatant misrepresentation. You're beneath contempt.

[Robert Fiore]

And to actually quote Sam Nunn:

"Reducing the risk posed by weapons of mass destruction is not the agenda of one political party. It is a deeply held desire by leaders of vision and courage of every political stripe. We hope that others who are concerned about these issues will work with us on the large area of common ground that exists to find ways to reduce risks associated with these weapons."