“I Wish I’d Had a Screwdriver”
As far as I can tell, this is the best story going on the web right now. My fiancee and I were nearly assaulted in the parking lot of our local organic food market by some road raged dude who snapped because I was going to “steal his spot”. But the cajones on Hitchens, seriously, I have a new found respect for the man, arrogant though he often is. It’s like he shows Arnold Schwarzenegger how to be the Schwarzenegger of politics.
I spend a lot of time on this site talking about how we need to respect one another and that we ought to develop an ability for cross-ideological communication, all of which I do sincerely believe and will continue to argue. But there are times… there are times that call for the confidence, gusto, and stupidity to get yourself into situations like the one described in this story. Perhaps not against armed militants in Beruit, but there are times when in your face denouncement is the only acceptable response to some sets of beliefs.
In that regard, I still have a lot to learn from my more rhetorically pugilistic friends at the League.
(h/t: Sullivan)
Update: James Joyner is disapproving of my admiration for Hitchens’ actions,
Totten, choosing to jump in to defend his friend at the risk of his own life, was decidedly on the good side of that line. Hitchens, provoking a gang of thugs by an action that merely made him feel good but was likely to have no consequence in advancing liberty, was well on the wrong side.
As I made clear in the comments, it’s not that I think Hitchens’ actions were smart, per say. That’s why I suggested that actions of the like are often born of, “confidence, gusto, and stupidity“. But I do think that it’s a bit unfair to characterize Hitchens’ actions as merely a “childish stunt” designed to make him “feel good” and demonstrate how “badass” he is. Firstly, as Totten makes clear, Hitchens didn’t understand the gravity of what he was doing, it was only after the incident when Totten explained everything to Hitchens did he express any kind of badass attitude saying he would have done it anyhow. Neither did Hitchens know that his actions were being observed, it’s not as though a group of SSNP thugs were carrying a flag with a swastika down the street and Hitchens decided go get in their face about it.
Regardless, were I in Hitch’s shoes I probably wouldn’t have done what he did. But that partly informs my expressed admiration for Hicth’s decision. Most of us talk a good talk about our beliefs, but rarely are we forced to walk the walk in a demonstrable way. And when we are faced with that decision we often shy away, particularly where that decision involves confrontation. Hitchens is the exception and it shows that he’s thought his beliefs all the way through and beliefs them in a deep and abiding manner, I would argue. Aagin, as mention in the comments, I think it would do more of us some good to think our beliefs through in that fashion and be prepared to defend gross violations of those beliefs that would offend even the casual observer in such a steadfast manner.
Which is not, I should note, a call to arms, or even necessarily a call to confrontation. It is merely a call to rigorous intellectual honesty and thoughtfulness.
Update Redux: let us also bear in mind in regards to Hitchens being drunk, that Totten, who was there, wrote (emphasis mine),
Two days after the punch up, various factually inaccurate versions of the story made their way into the blogosphere. Everyone seemed to think we had been drinking or were in a bar fight. I was annoyed. Christopher was amused.
Granted, Totten doesn’t say, “People claim that Hitchens had been drinking, which he had not.” But the paragraph seems intended to clear up notions that this was merely the result of drunken shenanigans gone awry.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- All this makes sense to m...
- If my government is going...
- Pardon. In the Sarah Pali...
- The emphasis is on "claim...
- I don't have any particul...
- Sarah Palin!Seriously. On...
- "When in actual fact, we ...
- Sorry, CA has proven time...
- That "not repudiating the...
- If we're going to run wit...
-
13 comments
Whatever differences I may have with Hitchens, the man is the Bill Brasky of journalism.
You know, I’m conflicted on this one Scott. My initial feelings were very much “Good for Hitch” but then I thought about it a bit. Likely, (very likely) he was drunk. Reading Totten’s piece, I’m not really sure. Even if he wasn’t, I think the man is always a bit drunk. He has a sort of drunken brilliance that I don’t think ever wears off.
So then he defaces a SSNP sign, whilst with his two companions, instantly putting all of them at serious risk. So, there we have a stupid, selfish act of bravado in my opinion. He wasn’t just making a statement, he was actively placing two other people in danger. This whole notion of having to stand up for what’s right just seems a tad infantile to me, upon reflection. I mean, where does Christopher’s real power lie? In his pen! In his ability to publish and be read! Is this act of outrage and defiance really worth the risk?
Now, admittedly, it did draw attention. Because of his celebrity, now a great deal more people are aware of the SSNP and another of Lebanon’s many problems. But really, his balls could have had the three of them killed…
Scott:
Hitchens has been denouncing Islamic totalitarianism for many years–and has been villified for it on the left. This incident was only one example. In other words, if you are looking for “some sets of beliefs” to denounce, they’ve been staring you in the face for decades.
In that regard, as you put it, I don’t thing you have anything to learn from your “friends at the League.” They are usually ready to appease Islamic totalitarianism by labeling it “nationalistic” against all evidence and reasoning (i.e., “freedom fighters”) like Chris Dierkes. And so forth.
So ED Kain thinks Hitchens was drunk. Shame! Along with his politically incorrect denunciations of Islamic totalitarianism, he sins by not being sober 24/7, like, one assumes, ED Kain is. Well, ED Kain, not everyone accepts your puritan virtues as god’s law. Drunk or not, I can imagine how Hitchens felt seeing swastikas displayed openly on the street. I can imagine how Chris Dierkes and ED Kain would have felt, too: they’d be saying “those aren’t swastikas! The SSNP is a nationalist group, which has been generated by US meddling in the area. Etc Etc.
Roque: Totten’s article makes clear that the SSNP is primarily comprised of Orthodox Christians.
Roque, give me a break. Do you bother to read or do you just find the word “Islam” or “Extremist” and then find ways to make everything about that? I said Hitchens was an idiot for putting others in danger. What the hell are you talking about? And is it really moralizing to say that getting drunk and doing stupid shit is…well…stupid? I make no judgments about the drunk part. Just the combination. Oy freakin’ vey.
ED Kain,
Did you notice that the Hitchens incident was about Islam and Islamic extremism? How in the world was I twisting this thing into a denunciation of Islamic extremism if that was what it was about in the first place.
Roque: Again – the article makes abundantly clear that the SSNP is primarily made up of Orthodox Christians. It had nothing to do with radical Islam.
Roque is so busy conflating Arabs with Islam and spewing this vitriolic bullshit that he’s stopped actually reading the posts in question. Seriously, Roque, if anything this was about Fascism, about a weird Arab manifestation of Nazism – NOT about Islam. Or, in other words, what Mark said twice already…
Mark Thompons is correct. The SSNP is not an Islamic group, not even a secular Islamic group. It’s made up mostly of Orthodox Christians, although they are aligned with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Thanks for the link, Scott.
Roque: I think you’re overreacting here.
Michael: you’re quite welcome, thanks for the fascinating piece!
E.D.: I see where you’re coming from, which I was I threw in the “perhaps not against armed militants in Beruit” quip. But you do have to admire Hitchen’s chutzpah, he’s a man who really lives by his principles and that is sadly rare in this day and age. What I think I most took away from the story was to wonder about where the logical conclusions of my beliefs are and how far I’m willing to go in upholding them. Would be an interesting experiment for more of us to engage in.
Also, it brings up the question about whether in some cases force must be met with force. But I don’t have a dog in that race… no not at all ;)
Michael: if I can tempt you back, as someone who was present, how did you feel about Hitch’s actions?
Scott, I agree. He’s got chutzpah to spare, and I admire him a great deal for it. The bone I have to pick is that I find this sort of bravado selfish, not that I doubt his very real conviction in the matter. How far would I go to stand up for what I believe? Tough question. But I can assure you I wouldn’t deface neo-Nazi signs in a foreign land. I’m not that ballsy or that stupid. (And Hitchens isn’t stupid, which is why I suggested that he may have been drunk at the time….)
I did not write that the SSNP was Muslim. I did imply it, though, by writing, “Hitchens has been denouncing Islamic totalitarianism for many years–and has been villified for it on the left. This incident was only one example.” It’s not an example of his denouncing Islamic totalitarianism, but Arab Christian totalitarianism. It’s worth noting that the Ba’ath party was founded in part by Arab Christians who were heavily influenced by the Nazis. S0 much for Chris Dierkes’s appeal to the “nationalistic” freedom fighers of Hamas and Hizbollah. So much for the “weird” modifier on ED Kain’s “weird Arab manifistation of Nazism.” It’s anything but weird since it only follows in the tradition of the Ba’ath and of Nasserism itself.
My “vitrolic” comment was directed at Scott’s, “there are times when in your face denouncement is the only acceptable response to some sets of beliefs.” I think I was clear about that. Islamic totalitarianism, or Islamism, or jihadism, or whatever you want to call it upholds values that Scott (I assume) finds revolting. This is why I said that he has nothing to learn from his fellow “League” members who go out of their way not to denounce it, for example, trying to get us to believe that Islamists are nationalist freedom-fighters–against all evidence to the contrary.
I hope that ED Kain doesn’t find this too “vitriolic” for his tastes. Although I question his standards for saying so since he just called Hitchens a stupid drunk for no reason at all. Oh, wait. That must be some kind of sober analysis of the situation, not “spewing vitriol,” which is only done by those who disagree with ED Kain.