I wasnt gonna mention Hitchens (sick of it, no pun intended)) (I refuse to call him Hitch since he stole shamelessly from the movie) again. The guy has “metastasized” stage IV esophageal cancer, for crissake (actually is metastatic) and he should be left alone. Maybe. But, semiotics aside he got a mostly rabbinishisk looking beard, hence there is hint of life inside the bottle of black label in his pancreas. Hitch is being called the Collins miracle. Hitch mentioned the word “miracle” in a recent CBS interview and Jewish network ‘debate”. I think Hitch is flaking. What an irony, being saved by a total christian scientist; as good as it gets. By the way Coyne, who is secretly in love with Hitch, adoringly claims the Jewish network “debate” (what a macrobore) was a smackdown for Hitch and Sam. Coyne lies. Watch the video. If it wasnt for Harris hallucinatory incursion in afterlife consciousness the “debate” would have been a total loss. Instead was a near total loss.
In any case I wanted to draw attention to Hitchs’ call for Libya’s invasion at Slate. Piggybacking in Alito’s use of “brutal’ in the minority ruling on the infamous church of crazy (8 to 1!!!), Hitch delivers a passionate call for arms and invasion of Libya. Is he for real? I wont elaborate; many readers at Slate have counterargued Hitch to the fine print. I am still puzzled by his churriguresque detour from Alitos’ dissent. Really.
By the way, Fish has a rather interesting review of this ruling at the NYT; Fish of all: “Alito knows the answer. He begins his dissent by declaring, “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for . . . vicious verbal assault” and he ends by insisting that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.”.Fish writes :” In short, you shouldn’t be able to produce speech with the intention of causing harm to a specific person and get it away with it because you slipped in a word or phrase that has or could have a more general application”. I kinda agree with him.
Not that I follow G. Will at the WP, but he asks cogent questions regarding consequences of “intervention” as he calls it. Intervention? Funny. Its sounds psychiatric.