September 18, 2012

Christopher Hitchens on shouting fire in a crowded theater.

I arrived at this video, via Wikipedia, after writing this post (and participating in the comments):



Text here.

(What if everyone had 5 "keep alive" cards, that could be played over the course of a lifetime to save human beings — only those you don't personally know? Millions would have played a card to keep Hitchens with us. I would have.)

135 comments:

Dave said...

Yawn - smug, self-serving, signifying nothing.... "Falsely crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" would only be demonstrated to be false if the person crying "fire" were an accomplished enough trickster to make people believe what he wanted them to believe. Hitchens doesn't even seem to try to accomplish that.

Nokoula B. Nokoula however did convince an untold number of people that America produced and allowed a film to be released denigrating Mohammed.....

Synova said...

"Nokoula B. Nokoula however did convince an untold number of people that America produced and allowed a film to be released denigrating Mohammed....."

That convincing was aided and abetted whole-sale by Obama and his administration. Nothing he has done would convince anyone otherwise, and everything he's done implies that "America" can, does, and will enforce speech it wants to enforce.

As for Hitchens... he's entirely right that allowing and even giving particular protection to those with outrageous claims requires that everyone else know why they have the opinions they have.

And yelling "fire" when there is "fire" is never a crime.

Peter said...

What if everyone had 5 "keep alive" cards, that could be played over the course of a lifetime to save human beings — only those you don't personally know?

I would be much more interested in "make dead" cards.

shiloh said...

The ad nauseam, self-righteousness of Hitchens aside, he mentioned that it's especially important to hear one voice of dissent, if in fact there is only that one dissenter.

2010 mid-term election, Reps nationwide won 22% of all eligible American voters. The Reps regained control of the House w/that 22%.

When you find yourself in the 22% majority, it's time to pause and reflect!

Apologies to Mark Twain ...

Imagine, if you will, that I am an idiot. Then, imagine that I am also a Congressman. But, alas, I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain

Dave said...

In America entertainment is a commodity produced by business and religion is an independent non-profit enterprise.

In much if not most of the world entertainment, art and religion are entwined with government. Religious institutions receive government funding; the arts including films are underwritten by and beholden to government bureaucracies. Also, most countries have stricter limits on free speech than we enjoy.

So, when an "American" movie trailer is shown on Egyptian TV - those watching assume incorrectly a connection between our government and the film. It plays into the ambition of the most extreme elements - Islamic radicals - whose political relevance is threatened by peace and strengthened by upheaval.

While I would defend everyone's right to say whatever they want in these sort of forums; hateful, ignorant blanket condemnation of others especially people of faith only helps the bad guys. Or as they used to say -

"Loose lips sink ships!" Be a patriot - stop sharing your stupidity!

Bob Ellison said...

Too long; didn't listen to.

I don't understand Hitchens-worship. He was a lyrical writer.

Palladian said...

I never thought I would see the day when my fellow liberals would allow a grifter politician and his filthy party to con them into flippantly denouncing the inalienable right of freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, as if it were some small and disagreeable thing that only political enemies worried about.

Absolutely shameful and disgusting.

Methadras said...

Dave said...

Nokoula B. Nokoula however did convince an untold number of people that America produced and allowed a film to be released denigrating Mohammed.....


So what? If even that were true and those people believed that America was the producer of such nonsensical garbage, then it would still be protected speech. It doesn't matter that content or context of the film, it is speech, it is was made by an American Democrat of Egyptian descent and he has the right to make it. Why is this a problem? The real problem you should be addressing is the absolutely chilling methodology by which Urkel set out his agents to bring this guy in for questioning. The fact that it happened in the middle of the night or that it occurred in front of camera for all of us to see doesn't bother you at all?

Dave said...

"Synova said...That convincing was aided and abetted whole-sale by Obama and his administration. Nothing he has done would convince anyone otherwise, and everything he's done implies that "America" can, does, and will enforce speech it wants to enforce."

Exactly what is the meaning of "America will enforce speech."?

Also, as Ann has noted, the quote is "FALSELY crying 'fire' ..."

Palladian said...

It would be better if our country went up in flames than for us to cede our responsibility of protecting the natural right of humans to speak and create freely. The responsibility for the effects of speech is borne by the speaker, but the responsibility of protecting the rights of that speaker is borne by all of us.

We deny this at our mortal peril.

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

I never thought I would see the day when my fellow liberals would allow a grifter politician and his filthy party to con them into flippantly denouncing the inalienable right of freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, as if it were some small and disagreeable thing that only political enemies worried about.

Absolutely shameful and disgusting.


That's because 'your' fellow liberals are really the underhanded tyrannical fascists they have always secretly been. The fact that it came out this way to you may have surprised you, but Urkel and his gang have been dropping hints since FDR. They now have the means, vehicle, and opportunity to exercise it.

The difference is, what are you going to do about it. Just say its shameful and disgusting as you watch Urkel burn the Constitution or step on it right before your very eyes like Jon McNaughton painted as an example of what this individual thinks of it and has for a long long time? Democrats who support this scumbag are as unamerican and anti-american as he is. They've proved this, they've shown it. What more evidence do you need?

Expat(ish) said...

Man, he would be super excellent to have over a dinner party. even if you don't have insufferable guests.

Thanks for the clip Ann!

-XC

Palladian said...

Please note, my use of "fellow liberals" was melancholic sarcasm. No one who ever properly understood and accepted Enlightenment-rooted liberalism would put themselves in the shameful company of the false-flag operation known as contemporary "liberalism". True liberals understand the gravity of this no matter what their political predilections.

Dave said...

"Methadras said...Why is this a problem? The real problem you should be addressing is the absolutely chilling methodology by which ....set out his agents to bring this guy in for questioning. The fact that it happened in the middle of the night or that it occurred in front of camera for all of us to see doesn't bother you at all?"

Now - what happened in the real world-

1. Noukula is on federal probation for bank fraud.
2. His probation is reported to have strict prohibitions against using the internet or having anyone access it for him unless approved by his probation officer.
3. The neighborhood was overrun by media once he was identified causing difficulty for everyone living there.
4. Los Angeles County Sheriff's police waited until late at night so that the media would be gone to bring him in for questioning by probation officers at the local sheriff's station.
5 Only one or two media outlets we still in the area when the police arrived.
6. After he was interviewed he was reportedly released and has since gone to another location.

Where the hell did you get that nonsense? Did you just look at the pictures and make up your own story?

Bob said...

I'd definitely use up a card to save Hitchens.

That would make a good thread all by itself: name the 5 people you'd give "keep alive" cards for.

Alex said...

Palladian - I would have a drink with you, a fellow true liberal.

chickelit said...

Dave said (echoing Allie yesterday): 'Loose lips sink ships!' Be a patriot - stop sharing your stupidity!

We disagree even on the meaning of that WW II slogan. I grew up understanding that it meant in times of war, get mum about information which might be useful for the enemy: information like "My husband wrote me that they are shipping out to France this June for the big invasion." or a plant worker at Badger Ordnance boasting about what types of rounds he made that week or what type--military type stuff--information that could sink ships.

On the contrary, inflammatory stuff directed at the enemy was not discouraged: My mother recalls playing with bobble-headed ToJo dolls; Halsey decorated his carrier with slogans like "Kill More Japs"; Disney and Tex Avery ridiculed Hitler and Germans in general.

Now the counter argument is that the film in question today is not very discriminatory in targeting the enemy--it hits all Muslims--not just the enemy. That's the problem if there is one. Otherwise, spare me the hurt feelings of militant murders. Pander once, pander for ever.

Lyle said...

Yeah, I miss Christopher Hitchens too. He'd be so very useful this month.

Methadras said...

Dave said...

"Methadras said...Why is this a problem? The real problem you should be addressing is the absolutely chilling methodology by which ....set out his agents to bring this guy in for questioning. The fact that it happened in the middle of the night or that it occurred in front of camera for all of us to see doesn't bother you at all?"

Now - what happened in the real world-

1. Noukula is on federal probation for bank fraud.
2. His probation is reported to have strict prohibitions against using the internet or having anyone access it for him unless approved by his probation officer.
3. The neighborhood was overrun by media once he was identified causing difficulty for everyone living there.
4. Los Angeles County Sheriff's police waited until late at night so that the media would be gone to bring him in for questioning by probation officers at the local sheriff's station.
5 Only one or two media outlets we still in the area when the police arrived.
6. After he was interviewed he was reportedly released and has since gone to another location.

Where the hell did you get that nonsense? Did you just look at the pictures and make up your own story?


Nope, that is exactly what happened as you described it. I've already said as much in other posts. It's the pretext by which this occurred. The fact that he 'violated' his probation as a pretext for being picked up by sheriffs deputies to be 'interviewed' by federal authorities since he committed a federal crime and then released with being re-incarcerated for this probation 'violation' is exactly at the heart of the issue. Do you honestly believe that it was a just a routine probation violation inquiry?

Pastafarian said...

Palladian said: "...my fellow liberals..."

I don't know how or when this happened, but the left is no longer liberal. They haven't been for quite some time.

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

Please note, my use of "fellow liberals" was melancholic sarcasm. No one who ever properly understood and accepted Enlightenment-rooted liberalism would put themselves in the shameful company of the false-flag operation known as contemporary "liberalism". True liberals understand the gravity of this no matter what their political predilections.


I know exactly how you meant liberals in your sarcastic way otherwise you would have called them progressives. :D

Methadras said...

Alex said...

Palladian - I would have a drink with you, a fellow true liberal.


As a classical liberal, I'd share a drink with you, Alex.

AllieOop said...

No one is concerned about the feelings of militant murderers, well not me anyway. The concern is for the victims of the militant murderers, who are not in the military and do not have weapons to defend themselves, or live in a fortified military base. They are the ones at the mercy of hordes of angry Muslims.

Again, if we remove our presence and our money from the region, have at it, engage in free speech any kind of way your little heart desires. In the meantime is it too much to ask people to act responsibly?

And yes it wasn't solely the film, it was fuel for the fire though, there is no denying it.

The Crack Emcee said...

What if everyone had 5 "keep alive" cards, that could be played over the course of a lifetime to save human beings — only those you don't personally know? Millions would have played a card to keep Hitchens with us. I would have.

Then he would still be alive to once again say Mormonism is a cult, to say Mitt Romney should have to answer for his participation in this cult - partially because it's a cult that's long held political ambitions - and to repeat that it's those who cry "bigotry," such as you Ann, who are the true bigots when it comes to this cult.

No, I think if you understood the personal ramifications of that card - how it would reveal the dastardly game you've engaged in - you most definitely would not desire to play it,...

Dave said...

Chickelit - you're absolutely right - that wasn't the meaning in WWII. I thought about not using it - but reconsidered since it was really a call to be responsibly patriotic. My point - which I may not have articulated perfectly is that virulent anti-Muslim speech by Americans reinforces claims by Islamic extremists that America is waging a war against Islam. Videos of American clergy burning their scripture and an "American" video defaming their prophet along with endless rantings calling Islam a "religion of hate" only strengthens their political power.

The Crack Emcee said...

So far, Mitt Romney,...has evaded most questions by acting as if he was being subjected to some kind of religious test for public office. He’s been supported in this by some soft-centered types who think that any dislike for any “faith group” is ipso facto proof of some sort of prejudice. Sorry, but this will not wash. I don’t think I would want to vote for a Scientologist or a Moonie for high office, or indeed any other kind, and I think attempts to silence criticism of such outfits are the real evidence of prejudice...

The Mormons apparently believe that Jesus will return in Missouri rather than Armageddon: I wouldn’t care to bet on the likelihood of either. In the meanwhile, though, we are fully entitled to ask Mitt Romney about the forces that influenced his political formation and—since he comes from a dynasty of his church, and spent much of his boyhood and manhood first as a missionary and then as a senior lay official—it is safe to assume that the influence is not small. Unless he is to succeed in his dreary plan to borrow from the playbook of his pain-in-the-ass predecessor Michael Dukakis, and make this an election about "competence not ideology," he should be asked to defend and explain himself, and his voluntary membership in one of the most egregious groups operating on American soil.


- Christopher Hitchens

Alex said...

Allie - you are completely free to ask people not to say things that inflame the savages, but you are not free to ask the government to get involved.

Alex said...

Dave - there is always the temptation to suspend the 1st Amendment out of expediency.

AllieOop said...

Alex, the FBI is investigating, I don't think that violates Nakoula's rights. I don't agree with the request of the government to remove the movie from YouTube, I never said I did.

edutcher said...

What the Lefties can't face is the First Amendment is not what caused this mess, although any excuse to get rid of it is apparently better than none.

This is the result of Commandante Zero's 18-month victory lap. He was going to the intel briefings, so he hadn't heard AQ was reconstituting itself.

shiloh said...

blah, blah, blah, blah.

Funny I thought you needed a majority to win an election. Well, that's before ACORN and SEIU get to it.

Alex said...

Allie - the FBI is investigating based on the fact that the filmmaker is anti-Islam.

ricpic said...

So shouting fire in a crowded theater is okay if Hitchens lifelong beloved anti-capitalist revolutionary anarchists do it?

Dave said...

"Methadras said...Do you honestly believe that it was a just a routine probation violation inquiry?"

Yes

But thanks for the alternate reality explanation. I'm apparently less inclined than you to suggest that someone convicted of bank fraud and identity theft is the "victim." I think the victims here are the people he stole from, the ones who have died as a result of his deception and the communities torn apart by violence.

john said...

Thanks for that link, Ann. There are a number of Hitchens clips there.

I would give all 5 of my keep alive cards to Hitchens, if I could.

john said...

I always thought this was wierd, considering the source:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper, who I previously thought was a most tolerant fellow.

bagoh20 said...

While I agree with the supremacy of the right of free speech, the commonly used challenges are too easy, and talk is cheap.

English law is gonna protect you from the devil? Evil can use rights as well as restriction if needed to get it's work done.

Let's say we knew for sure that an American city of 100,000 people would be leveled by a nuclear device if another anti-Islam movie is made. Maybe your city.

AllieOop said...

Alex, how could you possibly know such a thing?

ricpic said...

The Popper quote, quite insightful, goes right over john's head.

Lyle said...

bagoh,

We would just preemptively attack the country threatening to nuke our city.

Geoff said...

"While I agree with the supremacy of the right of free speech, the commonly used challenges are too easy, and talk is cheap.

English law is gonna protect you from the devil? Evil can use rights as well as restriction if needed to get it's work done.

Let's say we knew for sure that an American city of 100,000 people would be leveled by a nuclear device if another anti-Islam movie is made. Maybe your city."


"Give me liberty or give me death." was the answer given in olden times...

Does America (collectively) still think it can lay claim to those words with a straight face, is the question.

Maguro said...

Alex, how could you possibly know such a thing?

Heh, naive much? Do you suppose the FBI routinely involves itself in minor parole violations?

Alex said...

I know things.

Alex said...

I see dead people.

bagoh20 said...

"We would just preemptively attack the country threatening to nuke our city."

I doubt it. Besides Zombie Bin Laden has no country. He only needs YouTube,... "And this paddle game. - The ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need... And this remote control. - The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need... And these matches...."

Dave said...

"Alex said...Dave - there is always the temptation to suspend the 1st Amendment out of expediency."

There's probably a equal if not greater temptation to redefine rights as absolute and unlimited. "Falsely crying 'fire'.." is an attempt to define the reasonable outer limits of free speech which must necessarily be done, because speech can be a potent weapon.

When the ACLU defended Nazis marching in Skokie, I understood the rationale - at some level agreed with it - but it angered me because callous absolutists (white supremacists and the ACLU) inflicted suffering on others in the name of our "rights." The Westboro bunch does the same thing and courts and lawyers pay lip-service to the suffering of others as the "price we pay." But somehow it's always the other guy we let pay that price - the Holocaust survivors trembling and weeping in Skokie, the family mourning the soldier lost in battle, the same-sex couple hoping to celebrate their wedding in their church. Our head might say it's right, but in our gut we know that something's terribly wrong.

AllieOop said...

Maguro, unless you are an FBI agent, you too are conjecturing. You have NO idea, nor so I what has or hasn't already been discovered.

People are DEAD, do we not have a right to investigate the circumstances that surround their deaths? Auto accidents are investigated, all manner of deaths are investigated. This is worth investigating, if it were your loved one who was murdered, would you not demand an investigation?

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

ricpic -

He could have also seen that by criminalizing "intolerance" results in a downward spiral into totalitarianism. But it's not clear he saw that part at all.

So no, I don't like his insightfulness.

AllieOop said...

So=do

The Crack Emcee said...

I like that this is a post about Hitchens but you guys totally ignore what he said:

Ann, and many of her readers, are prejudiced.

I'd say that's pretty accurate from what I've seen,..

bagoh20 said...

How about the right to publish the names and addresses of soldiers accused of atrocities in Iraq or Afghanistan? Maybe just the Jewish ones?

EMD said...

Let's say we knew for sure that an American city of 100,000 people would be leveled by a nuclear device if another anti-Islam movie is made. Maybe your city."

Stop creating bullshit hypotheticals.

EMD said...

People are DEAD, do we not have a right to investigate the circumstances that surround their deaths?

The only man 'perp-walked' into a police station so far was in this country.

AllieOop said...

Bagoh, don't know if you are asking me but,

Of course such a thing isn't right, and if it was some leftist group who did it, they were WRONG.

MadisonMan said...

Alex wrote:

Palladian - I would have a drink with you, a fellow true liberal.

I'd have a drink with Alex. The question is: Which Alex would show up? That would be half the fun.

I'll drink with anyone. Unless they're drinking PBR or the Green Death. (I'm not sure the Green Death is still made).

Ignorance is Bliss said...

What if everyone had 5 "keep alive" cards, that could be played over the course of a lifetime to save human beings — only those you don't personally know?

I'd have used one on Jesus. Just to screw over the Christians. You'd all be stuck with your own sins. Ha-ha.

AllieOop said...

Why do you ask about Jewish soldiers specifically Bagoh? Why would it matter if they were or weren't Jewish?

D.E. Cloutier said...

Two things:

1. NEWS

Jean-Nicholas Fievet at ABC News (United States): "A French satirical magazine is set to publish several cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed on Wednesday, a move that is likely to inflame the Islamic faithful and militants who have already rioted in more than 20 countries over a movie mocking the prophet."

2. OPINION

Americans must defend free speech!

Remember the words of U.S. President John F. Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

bagoh20 said...

"Stop creating bullshit hypotheticals.

Famous last words. What are you scared of?

It's the very reason why it so dangerous for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Do you really think something like that scenario will never come up. That Islmaists will never get the 70 year old technology, and when they do they won't test our commitment to our values with the first chance? Vote carefully.

Synova said...

"So, when an "American" movie trailer is shown on Egyptian TV - those watching assume incorrectly a connection between our government and the film. It plays into the ambition of the most extreme elements - Islamic radicals - whose political relevance is threatened by peace and strengthened by upheaval."

Exactly, Dave.

And instead of representing US to the world, our Embassy and then our President have essentially told them, "you're right."

Those *watching* see the police pick up the film maker. And they are shown that their assumption about the connection between government and religion is just what they thought it was. And if they believe he was released again, they believe it was because our government wanted him released.

The entity doing the most convincing that this wrong idea about how the US functions is *correct* is our President and our State Department. Also, a whole lot of "helpful" American citizens who agree and write newspaper articles saying that this fellow actually does NOT have the right to make this film.

Media, celebrity bloviators, Obama, and State... all working together to insist that the radical rioters demanding that we be held responsible for offensive speech are RIGHT.

Lem said...

... Millions would have played a card to keep Hitchens with us. I would have.)

Me too.

My first introduction to his work, I remember being shocked by his treatment of Mother Theresa in the book The Missionary Position... but then I became curious and began to understand... first that I didn't know what I thought I knew and second that if I wanted to think for myself I would have to be a better listener.

bagoh20 said...

Allie, Of course it's wrong, but my question is: would we maintain our values of protecting such irresponsible speech when the thing at stake is a lot of human lives, and not just hurt feeling in Skokie?

The reason I chose Jewish soldiers was because I was remembering that movie (can't remember the name) where Islamic terrorist hijacked a plane and demanded a stewardess identify the Jews on board from their passports. She refused, because she was German and felt deeply guilty. I think she ended up doing it anyway after they threatened to execute someone else. Values tested.

Lem said...

..I never said I did..

I get a kick out of how Allie never says anything.

jdniner said...

CrackEmcee, It's probably flip to call Mormonism a cult these days. It would depend on the definition of a cult. I don't think mormons meets the reqs. Small splinter groups might. Scientology might. I don't see the charismatic leader manipulating people and their opinions. I don't see a draining of the bank accounts of members. I don't see members being asked to leave their blood relatives for a religious state. and on and on. Sure all that happened in the past. But the press of a large number of people as members dilutes that stuff out over time.

AllieOop said...

D.E Cloutier,

Now? At this time? Insanity. I hope the murderous hordes of Muslims don't blame Americans this time. I hope Americans have, plenty of security, weapons with bullets, maybe some RPGs.

Is there no voice of reason anymore? The world is insane.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

5 off the top of my head ( and only over my lifetime )

1. Breitbart
2. Hitchens
3. MLK
4. John Lennon
5. Carl Sagan

bagoh20 said...

"I get a kick out of how Allie never says anything"

This proves that she can't possibly be the sockpuppet of any male commenter.

The Crack Emcee said...

jdniner,

CrackEmcee, It's probably flip to call Mormonism a cult these days.

As long as they're still baptizing the dead against the will of their families and using that as the basis for the lie they're the world's "fastest growing religion" - and it is a lie (though everyone wants to maintain the fiction it's a good and honest cult) - they meet the definition exactly.

Eric said...

What if everyone had 5 "keep alive" cards, that could be played over the course of a lifetime to save human beings — only those you don't personally know? Millions would have played a card to keep Hitchens with us. I would have

I would have played mine for Mother Theresa instead. Atheist evangelists are tiresome.

Melissa said...

@John re Popper, Thomas Mann said it a little more succinctly:

“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.”

The Crack Emcee said...

Lem,

I get a kick out of how Allie never says anything.

I'm glad I'm not alone on THAT one.

Endless evasions, distractions, changes of subject - ANYTHING but being nailed down after opening her mouth and being understood - because what she says is,...well, you know.

Is there a man who can say, "No more!"?
Is there a woman I can sock on the jaw?


David Bowie, Young Americans"

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

6. George Carlin

AllieOop said...

Yes Lem and Crack always make soooo much sense. I stuck up for you the other day Crack, some gratitude.

Synova said...

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

Intolerance applied to evil becomes tyranny.

Honestly people! Are we really going to accept that being *right* is the measure of what we may tolerate or not? God is True, any who oppose him are evil. I am not required to tolerate evil. Any who cause a child to stumble are evil.

Tearing our society apart isn't a silly matter of people *speaking* it's crying fire and causing real, human, measurable harm. So on what basis do I not have the right... the OBLIGATION to refuse to tolerate anyone who threatens what is right and good? The music that rots our children's brains and teaches them to disrespect authority; slovenly habits of thought and action and dangerous notions about being "true" to themselves? Society rots because people are allowed to tell lies about how people are *happy* when they live without morals or direction. Promiscuity caused and causes far more DEATH than rioting Islamists.

What am I not supposed to tolerate?

Who gets to define evil?

Because if that's the test and tolerance is a CRIME, then someone is going to have to define evil.

And I'm going to be sure that it's me.

bagoh20 said...

My #1 life card would go to Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Another selfish one would go to the woman who gave me her liver. I owe her the last 6 years at the very least.

I would choose people who's death happened before they could do what we needed done, even if. like my first one, that was just staying alive.

I'd have to research it, but I think a number of diseases would have been cured earlier if certain doctors didn't die treating people who had them.

The Crack Emcee said...

Evil is anything that contradicts with my values.

Carack Obama

Synova said...

And need I say that intolerance is not dislike?

Tolerance can only be applied to something a person disagrees with or finds "bad".

Like Free Speech, it doesn't exist in cases of agreement.

Indigo Red said...

"Stop creating bullshit hypotheticals."

What if everyone in a crowded theater that was demonstrably not on fire all stood and shouted FIRE?

bagoh20 said...

"Who gets to define evil"

That's the crux of it, isn't it?

In a free society, we say everyone does. just let them hear all sides. It may be the best, but it ain't comfortable, because we know how we are.

Jo said...

More on that French magazine:

"The magazine has defended the move [to publish some Mohammed cartoons] by invoking the right to free speech. Speaking on French radio, the magazine’s director explained that a decision not to publish would 'hand victory to a handful of extremists that are causing a commotion in the world and in France.'

It’s not the first time the anti-establishment, left-wing magazine has courted controversy. In 2011 the offices of 'Charlie Hedbo' were bombed after it published an Arab Spring edition with the Prophet Muhammad as 'guest editor' on the cover."

Can't believe I'm saying this about some left-wing French guys, but good for them.

Coketown said...

Interesting video. When I was a philosopher in college I reached a similar conclusion: both the speaker and listener share the burden inherent in free speech and expression. I never found the Holmes argument persuasive since it rested on an assumed stupidity of the hypothetical audience. It's our duty as free-thinking and free-speaking people to consider everything we hear--not just react to it. If a group of retards' first impulse when hearing "fire!" is to hyperventilate and scramble for the exits while trampling scores of people as they go, then that's no fault of the speaker.

But nobody does that. The left's immediately impulse when hearing something with which they disagree is to silence the speaker--boycott, withdrawing broadcasting licenses, firings, whatever. The right's impulse is to ignore. The left does a disservice to the speaker, themselves, and audience--the right, only to themselves.

Coketown said...

And really? Five life cards? How stupid. So there would be, what? 30 billions life cards on the planet? Everyone could potentially be saved five times over? (Interesting thought: would the government confiscate these finite resources to more efficiently disburse them? No life cards to the premature babies, but many life cards to the curvaceous 20-something whose just reaching their full earnings potential!)

Was this supposed to be a fierce moral declaration that Hitchens would get one of Althouse's? It's easy to save lives when it doesn't cost anything. How about a hypothetical with consequences? Like, "If you could give your own life to save Hitchens, would you?" The answer is no.

Synova said...

"In a free society, we say everyone does. just let them hear all sides. It may be the best, but it ain't comfortable, because we know how we are."

Yes but... paradox!

How can a free society determine which speech it is a crime to tolerate if everyone must hear it first?

PatCA said...

I miss his voice terribly, the world still needs him terribly.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"Left-leaning columnist Christopher
Hitchens is given to wayward excesses,
but he devotes sharp attention to the
Moore crowd pleaser in Slate, in an
article titled, "Unfairenheit 9/1l." It
makes pretty good reading, and it's
unfair to go to the last chapter, but life is short, and therefore I disclose it. "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery."
You got that?
But the article isn't mere obloquy. It is analytical."

WFB "Long Live the Public"
NEW YORK, JUNE 25
https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/

DADvocate said...

stop sharing your stupidity!

Heal thyself.

Chip Ahoy said...

knock it off with the bullshit hypotheticals inexact quote.

So what if someone yelled, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and several movie goers with conceal carry permits opened fire and shot him?

Sloanasaurus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sloanasaurus said...

Hitchens would have had a field day with the Los Angeles Times article finding that the anti-Islam film maker does not deserve free speech. The extent to which the MSM will go to defend Obama is incredible.

Lem said...

"Who gets to define evil"

That's the crux of it, isn't it?


Crux you say...

Its even harder if you believe 90% is crud.

scroll down.

Synova said...

Vladimir Kamarov gave his life for Yuri Gagarin.

phx said...

Absolutely shameful and disgusting.

Look out when they trot out the "shameful and disgusting" language, esp. if it's "absolutely".

We never hear that very often.

Synova said...

Martin Luther is supposed to have demanded that God save the life of Philipp Melanchthon, which He did. I don't know that Luther was *sorry* but the man he'd seen as someone he couldn't continue without the support of, ended up not being all that supportive, after.

DADvocate said...

unless you are an FBI agent, you too are conjecturing.

It's pretty simple deductive logic for anyone with half a brain, or even a quarter of a brain, like me.

DADvocate said...

Although he was an atheist, Hitchens new what was sacred.

Lem said...

You know we are in trouble when the best voices we can summon are already dead.

phx said...

Although he was an atheist, Hitchens new what was sacred.

Well sure. If you're an atheist, too.

Eric said...

Another selfish one would go to the woman who gave me her liver. I owe her the last 6 years at the very least.

Yeah, but if she was living you would've died, which means you couldn't give her the card, which means she would've died, meaning you would live, but...

Somehow this ends with a tear in the fabric of the universe which releases a trapped Romulan warship.

garage mahal said...

Can you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater if the scene in the movie is of a fire?

wef said...

I would contribute to a specific Hitchens Foundation, or something like that. Something that would promote his particularly old-liberal version of first-amendment absolutism.

The motto would be, as Hitchens once said, I claim the right not to be a censor.

Eric said...

Vladimir Kamarov gave his life for Yuri Gagarin.

Which was a mistake, really, since Gagarin didn't live that much longer anyway.

Eric said...

Can you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater if the scene in the movie is of a fire?

Can you find a crowded theater any more? I don't know anyone who leaves the house to see a movie these days.

bagoh20 said...

I bet if you yell "fire" in an empty theater it would fill up, unless they know Dick Cheney is in there.

phx said...

Can you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater if the scene in the movie is of a fire?

You have to whisper it.

39924c7e-f324-11e1-aaf6-000bcdcb8a73 said...

As of 11:06 Eastern Time, youtube is still showing 313 views of Obama's redistribution remarks.

I guess Sergei et al are doing their part for The Redeemer.

wef said...

by the way, this is a good debate between Hitchens and Shashi Tharoor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw3dDbc1BHE

C R Krieger said...

Thanks much for the post and the link.

Regards  —  Cliff

garage mahal said...

If you think about it, yelling fire in a crowded theater is a highly effective way to get some much needed peace and quiet away from the chatting, kicking of seats, AXE body spray, candy wrapper rustling....

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric said...

If you think about it, yelling fire in a crowded theater is a highly effective way to get some much needed peace and quiet away from the chatting, kicking of seats, AXE body spray, candy wrapper rustling....

Probably, but you'll miss the last half of the show when the cops come and drag you away.

The Crack Emcee said...

Eric,

Can you find a crowded theater any more? I don't know anyone who leaves the house to see a movie these days.

No shit - my buds recently sat completely alone, in an empty theatre, and watched '2016: Obama's America' in it's entirety.

Now he won't shut up about it.

Dinesh D'Souza is his hero,....

The Crack Emcee said...

I will be seeing The Master this weekend, though,...

chickelit said...

The Crack Emcee said...
I will be seeing The Master this weekend, though,...

I stayed near Dupont Circle in DC last week. On Wednesday there was a huge street fete outside the Scientology HQ--some kind of grand reopening after renovations or some such.

Cedarford said...

D.E. Cloutier - Remember the words of U.S. President John F. Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Pure rhetorical bullshit that has been regurgitated by some pol or other for just about every ill-advised intervention the US made on behalf of our side of Freedom and Liberty Lovers against the other sides version of Freedom and Liberty Lovers since JFK's writers came up with that drivel..

JFK supported liberty at home, but not one groups "precious freedom" that came at the expense of others.
And abroad, JFK was smart enough to cut his losses in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and did not believe it was smart to invade E Europe, China, or replace some 46 dictators that were thriving in the early 60s. He would not pay "any price" in blood and treasure. The price had to be acceptable.



pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I have relatives who are completely thrilled w/ that movie.

Just yesterday one of them called me up as they driving home from the theater.

If Crack really wants to mess w/ his friend he could do what I did. Tell your friend that BHO is actually controlled by bankers. His grandmother raised him to be a JP Monchurian Chandidate. From palling around w/ Jamie D to giving hundreds of billions to the banks, the evidence is undeniable.

The Crack Emcee said...

chickelit,

I stayed near Dupont Circle in DC last week. On Wednesday there was a huge street fete outside the Scientology HQ--some kind of grand reopening after renovations or some such.

No, see, if you'd read my blog, you would've known that was the opening of their (ahem) National Affairs office. It was quite the gala event, with several prominent politicians making damned fools of themselves.

Xenu Forever!

jr565 said...

Crack mentioned Mormons and their baptizing the dead.
According to Mormonism:
For believing Mormons, the only question is "when" Holocaust survivors and everyone else in the world will be given the chance to be baptized. Mormons believe that people who have died can still have the ordinances done for them by proxy in a Mormon temple, allowing them to leave "Spirit Prison" (sort of like Limbo in Catholic theology) and go to heaven after the final judgment.
Mormons believe that the people for whom these ordinances are done posthumously have the chance to accept or reject them -- that Anne Frank wasn't made into a Mormon unless she wanted to be one, in other words. Holocaust survivors, however, consider the ordinance objectionable.

crack, on a practical level, how is this different than say blessing someone even an atheist in a general sense. It's not as if those baptized are dug up and so ething done to them.
You don't believe that mormonism is in fact real, so what harm do you think comes from baptizing dead people? Are dead people actually feeling its. If Mormons are right, it allows non Mormons to come to salvation. Of they're wrong, then it's simply words spoken about dead people just as we're speaking about Chris Hitchens here.

Hitchens might have been baptized by proxy even. Do you think Hitchens noticed while buried in his grave?

John Lynch said...

No offense to Hitchens (whom I can't offend if he was right) but I don't think I'd save him. I'd want to save someone who hadn't yet done their best work. Hitchens already made his mark. Sure, he was still doing a great job as the reincarnation of George Orwell (I loved "Why Orwell Matters) but in the last few years there was nothing really new that can't be found in his work.

I'd have saved people like Mozart, or Lincoln, or Vermeer. They would have done something with the time that might have surpassed what they'd already accomplished.

LoafingOaf said...

What if everyone had 5 "keep alive" cards, that could be played over the course of a lifetime to save human beings — only those you don't personally know? Millions would have played a card to keep Hitchens with us. I would have.

I miss Hitchens too, but I don't think I'd have used 1 of just 5 "keep alive" cards on him. He lived long enough to publish his masterpiece (God is Not Great) and his memoirs. When a good writer dies young there's a feeling of being robbed of what else he or she would have written in the future, but Hitch had enough time to make his mark on the world.

Houston Texans said...

Ugg Boots Outlet Are Sale With The High Quality and On Discount Saves You Money. Buy Your Favorite in Ugg Boots Outlet! at http://www.uggbootsoutletwebsite.com/.

kentuckyliz said...

I was all Crushy Crusherson on Hitch.

Who has stepped up to take his place? Preferably with a British accent, which makes it all so sharp and witty.

Is there a registry to tell Mormons not to baptize me after I die?

You know the Mormons run the genealogy sites--to get people to provide information about dead people so they can baptize them.

AllenS said...

The Crack Emcee said...
Ann, and many of her readers, are prejudiced.

I'd say that's pretty accurate from what I've seen,..


And this from someone who once called me: "a shit eating white person."

Rusty said...

shiloh said...
The ad nauseam, self-righteousness of Hitchens aside, he mentioned that it's especially important to hear one voice of dissent, if in fact there is only that one dissenter.



He didn't mean you, kid.

Erika said...

Liz--and I'm asking you because if memory serves you are Catholic--does it bother you if the Mormons "baptize" your name after you die? Personally, I don't care; it's not like it has an effect. Does the Church address this? I've never looked it up.

Rusty said...

AllenS said...
The Crack Emcee said...
Ann, and many of her readers, are prejudiced.

I'd say that's pretty accurate from what I've seen,..

Of course. To be otherwise is to accept mediocrity. The philosophy of the left is to embrace mediocrity. Personally. I try to avoid it.
But you meant racial prejudice, didn't you.
You're right.
Filthy fucking Jew cultists.
Happy now?


The Crack Emcee said...
I like that this is a post about Hitchens but you guys totally ignore what he said:

Shit we're here aren't we? Look at what the leading lights of the left post here. Althouse etal are the embodyment of what Hitchens meant. Hitchens said all opinions need to be heard. He didn't say they need to be given equal weight.

EMD said...

It's the very reason why it so dangerous for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Do you really think something like that scenario will never come up. That Islmaists will never get the 70 year old technology, and when they do they won't test our commitment to our values with the first chance? Vote carefully.

I don't disagree, however, I don't think WE WILL KNOW which video or statement or picture or person would be the instigator to set off such a thing.

It could be anything. I would never compromise our values or principles to be held hostage in that way.

We won't have the luxury of foresight.

I think we're on the same page -- I just wasn't buying the "what if we had knowledge" part.

bagoh20 said...

EMD,

You can see the scenario getting close right now as Islamists are currently calling for the U.S. to make Blasphemy of Islam illegal or lose our embassies.

I see it very likely that once one of these groups gets the bomb that they threaten to detonate a bunch of innocent people if we don't do what they want (maybe arrest and extridite a film maker). Of course giving in to that would be foolish, but when those lives are gonna be spent for it, the tough talk will not feel so good.

The Muslim Brotherhood just issued an arrest warrant for the film maker in L.A. and our police executed that for them on video, so they could see that we followed orders.

hombre said...

Oh, big deal, Chris. Does anybody think Holocaust denial is a crime in America?

Bashing Germans and Austrians used to be a national pastime here, but no more. It's still legal though.

Issob Morocco said...

Like Breitbart, a great loss to humanity with Mr. Hitchens early demise.

KT said...

I'd play all 5 of my cards for Hitch.

SunnyJ said...

The irony of not being able to play any number of "keep alive" cards, since the power of that choice is not in our hands. Oh how Hitchens flailed against that idea...an unseen power that is not defined adquately in his brain but withholds the "keep alive" card for him. He'd hate that.

The Crack Emcee said...

AllenS,

And this from someone who once called me: "a shit eating white person."

Find it - link to it - prove it.

I want to see it more than anyone, because "shit eating white person" doesn't even sound like me to me.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

Crack mentioned Mormons and their baptizing the dead.

Can your brain ever get to rolling without a jump-start?

This is supposedly "the world's fastest growing religion" - boy, that's easy to claim when you're joining without actually doing so, isn't it?

And Jews aren't the only ones who "consider the ordinance objectionable" - the president does - but does that stop them? NooooOOOOOOO!!!

Yet, somehow, you guys want to try and sell they have anyone else's interests at heart.

This doesn't exactly speak well of those good, wholesome, and honest folks, does it? That they put their "beliefs" over those of the dead and their families?

They're a fucking cult - and a creepy occult one at that,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Rusty,

But you meant racial prejudice, didn't you.

What are you talking about? Did you read the Hitchens quote? There was nothing about race in there.

The prejudice is against those of us who rightly want Mormonism (and other "spiritual" endeavors) discussed seriously.

I wonder about some of you sometimes,...

bagoh20 said...

"The Crack Emcee said...
AllenS,

And this from someone who once called me: "a shit eating white person."

Find it - link to it - prove it.

I want to see it more than anyone, because "shit eating white person" doesn't even sound like me to me."


~~~~~~~~~

Here it is. It's kind of meta

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/08/conversation-with-imagined-young-black.html?showComment=1313623604706#c7147333979910135931