Comments on: No one left to lie to

By: Patricia Michaels

Patricia Michaels — Fri, 21 May 2004 16:57:14 +0000

To Nat re: rationality “Standard economic theory teaches that rationality is defined as self-interested, utility maximizing individuals with access to complete information. The Islamic Jihaddists are attempting to maximize a utility (destruction of western dominance)that is anathma to the west. It makes them rational” I’m not sure I’m happy with your definition (as opposed to the definitions I find in my dictionaries), and I don’t know that you’ve demonstrated that the members of al-Qaeda meet your definition. Certainly they have a goal, and they’re (tautologically) trying to achieve their goal, but the same thing can be said about a lot of people. What are examples of some people that you would consider to be irrational? ————I’m referring to rationality in terms of rational choice theory. see.. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Rational%20Choice%20Theory Economists, political scientists, sociologists etc., who use rational choice theory assume rationality. Of course the basic assumptions underlying rational choice theory are just that, assumptions, and they have been tweaked by practioners of rational choice theory over time. For example, Herbert Simon, noble prize winner, talks of “bounded rationality” to deal with the assumption of “complete knowledge”. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Simon.html To argue “rationality” in any way other than the economics way is to engage in polemics, which Mr. Hitchens does.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 20 May 2004 07:03:09 +0000

Yesterday BBC One aired this. Very, very interesting. Gen. Karpinski was interviewed. With Lynndie England and her mates, you get the impression their insisting they were only following orders from above is also a way to shift the blame from themselves. BUT… when you hear Karpinski tell of how that guy from Guantanamo took over Abu Ghraib to “enhance” interrogation practices, it starts to get a bit scarier… That was a DoD decision, to send over that guy (forgot his name). They showed one of the pictures (a ‘stolen’ one, where people were not posing or looking into the camera, did not even know they were being photographed) where the military intelligence guys could be seen overseeing the naked-body-pile thing. Karpinski made a good point, that unsuprisingly is evaded by the “just a few apples” interpretation – in all those pictures where Lynndie England and friends are posing proudly showing off their “enhanced” interrogation methods, they look perfectly at ease, relaxed, taking their time. If they were so afraid of getting caught, they a) probably wouldn’t have taken pictures in the first place, and b) if they did, they would have done so much more hastily. If you look at those individuals smiling over the piles of bodies, you can only conclude they were so comfortable with what they were doing, and with taking dozens of photos of it all, because they knew that everyone else already knew about it, and that it’d be ok, and in fact, that they took photos precisely to show off to the intelligence guys how good they were at those “enhanced” ways with inmates. That’s the only thing that makes sense. That Guantanamo guy is still overseeing all of the prisons in Iraq. At the end of the documentary they showed a clip from Rumsfeld’s latest visit to Iraq, where he jokes and laughs and says, “I’m a survivor”. It doesn’t even sound as if these people care at all about the damage that’s been done, as long as they remain in power. Very fucking sad. And all that the sycophants like Hitchens can do is point the finger somewhere else and shoot the messenger, indeed. Even if there was no Hersh to tell about this, it would still have happened. But somehow it’s Hersh’s fault for accepting information from sources, information that turned out to be true. And somehow, the only ‘politicising’ that is wrong is simply holding a Secretary of Defense accountable just like he acknowledged he is …, while them getting away with it is ok. That’s such a great lesson in avoiding hypocrisy, for sure. Marvellous spin. Except this kind of spin never takes into account that people may not all be that stupid.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 20 May 2004 06:04:00 +0000

I don’t find what Hitchens is saying about his political opponents any more nasty then what Hersh’s sources (mostly anonymous) are saying about their political opponents. Well, I hope Hitchens isn’t saying anything as nasty about his opponents as the things Hersh’s sources are saying. Thing is, what Hersh’s sources are saying is backed up by a lot of evidence. I’ve never seen what Hitchens says backed by any evidence at all.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Wed, 19 May 2004 18:51:00 +0000

Blogoholic: Your point is a fair one, but you should know something about the history of those your criticize. In late 2001 and early 2002, Ted criticized the anti-Afghanistan-war left constantly. Nat: In my experience with many of these comment boards, right-wingers show up just to start pointless arguments that are rarely on-topic. If this does not apply to you, then I apologize.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Wed, 19 May 2004 17:42:01 +0000

“Trailer porn”? Wasn’t Hitchens a Marxist once? Not only has he become a hawkish apologist, but he’s an elitist too? Crap that’s a terrible article.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 19 May 2004 17:08:16 +0000

And quite frankly, I don’t find what Hitchens is saying about his political opponents any more nasty then what Hersh’s sources (mostly anonymous) are saying about their political opponents. I knew it, it’s the Clintonites! The witch, Hillary, is the master of all conspiracies. She went to Iraq and organised the whole torture thing, it was all staged! all fake! and only to attack her political opponents. Kerry is probably in the plot too. And his wife, oh la la, she’s French, so she must have something to do with this as well…

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 19 May 2004 17:03:26 +0000

“once a communist, always a communist – at least in in terms of absolutist, binary thinking.” That’s a rather absolutist statement itself, isn’t it? Nope. That was sarcasm. As in, not literal. Not meaning “every single person who was a communist always remains a communist”. Maybe I should have written: once a Hitchens, always a Hitchens. His absolutist thinking is probably more to do with his own character and fascination with ideologies, rather than the ideologies themselves. But he’s not the only Hitchens in the world, that’s for sure. When you’re drawn to such all-embracing ideologies in the same way as him, you can switch from one to the other, but you’ll still keep reasoning the same way. Is that clearer now? Just a question – is dislike for some pundit celebrity like Hitchens such an inconceivable thing? like some offense to a royalty or something? If you’re such a fan of his, you might want to keep in mind Hitchens doesn’t like the royals himself. Actually, he is pretty critical. He’s not an apologist for either Bush or Rumsfeld. If you say so… Well-channeled anger has done a lot of good in the world. Right, right. Anger is a positive energy. That’s more Johnny Rotten than Cristopher Hitchens, but ok. So I guess even if rage makes you write a lot of crap and be heavier than a fundamentalist preacher, as long as your heart’s in it, and your cause is good, that’s ok, right? From my p.o.v., it’s not, but you know, tastes.

By: blogoholic

blogoholic — Wed, 19 May 2004 16:53:26 +0000

matt—no one said most lefties opposed the Afghan war. What I said was almost all opponents of that war were lefties and I stand by it. “A big component” does not mean the biggest or the major or the majority. It means big as in able to hold big demos, get plenty of press coverage, etc. that’s it, that’s all. And quite frankly, I don’t find what Hitchens is saying about his political opponents any more nasty then what Hersh’s sources (mostly anonymous) are saying about their political opponents. Now, I think it’s time for me to leave since it’s unlikely that anyone’s mind is going to be changed.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 19 May 2004 16:41:03 +0000

almost all the criticism of the Afghanistan war came from the left: the candlelit vigils, “the world’s richest country attacking the world’s poorest,” the “let’s talk to Mullah Omar” stuff. When you fail to acknowledge that , you are ceasing to be honest. The second bolded statement doesn’t follow from the first. Just because most critics of the war were lefty doesn’t mean most lefties criticized the war. (Cf: Most murderers are men—->Most men are murderers.) You owe us some evidence that we opposed the war in Afghanistan if you want to accuse us of hypocrisy. I don’t think the stats on American opposition to the war in Afghanistan v. American opposition to the war in Iraq will bear your point out. If you mean something different, I’d like to hear what. (And to the commenter who said that Roger Simon’s commenters are comparatively temperate about Hersh—I should fucking hope so. Hitchens is saying a lot of very nasty things about his political opponents. Hersh is exposing facts, which he did not create, about the conduct of the occupation. There’s a big moral difference—see under “messenger, shooting the.”)

By: Sam Dodsworth

Sam Dodsworth — Wed, 19 May 2004 16:32:15 +0000

If I understand you correctly, Bush’s rhetoric had put himself in the position that he could be justly condemned by the Left as immoral if he assassinated al-Zarqawi and he could be justly condemned by the Left as inconsistent if he failed to assassinate al-Zarqawi. Have I got that right? If my position is that I’m in favor of comitting an immoral act then I’m immoral if I do conmmit it and inconsistent if I don’t. How is that difficult to understand?

By: Scott Spiegelberg

Scott Spiegelberg — Wed, 19 May 2004 16:10:44 +0000

Blogoholic wrote: “He’s a Wolfowitz supporter and he bases that, among other things, on Wolfowitz’s record of having been right on the big questions in the past as opposed to Kissinger who was almost always wrong.” Wolfowitz was wrong about the support that Iraqis would give to the troops. Wolfowitz was wrong about the financing of the war and occupation (he said that Iraqi oil production would pay for the whole thing). Wolfowitz was wrong about the number of troops that would be needed, when he publically chastised Shineseki for giving a more accurate number. I am not familiar with Wolfowitz’s track record before2002, but it has been abysmal since then.

By: tr

tr — Wed, 19 May 2004 15:41:57 +0000

Ted- I don’t think you misrepresented Hitchens at all. Good job. “Who, exactly, does Hitchens think he’s fooling?” Maybe he wants to fool himself, because the truth hurts.

By: blogoholic

blogoholic — Wed, 19 May 2004 15:29:13 +0000

In response to pepi” “And he’s just the right person to lecture about self-criticism? Because he is so very critical of the movement he’s part of?” Actually, he is pretty critical. He’s not an apologist for either Bush or Rumsfeld. He’s a Wolfowitz supporter and he bases that, among other things, on Wolfowitz’s record of having been right on the big questions in the past as opposed to Kissinger who was almost always wrong. “And he never exploits a rhetoric trick to shift the whole weight of accountability to this powerful “left”, no matter if there’s a right-wing government in power?” The word “left” isn’t used once in the Hitchens article and he does not attempt to shift the whole weight of accountability. He wrote in an earlier piece on Abu Gharib that the US must adhere to higher standards of human rights due to the nature of this war. “It’s like Patricia said. The guy is just a polemicist, he is more fond of rage than reasoning.” I have a problem with this whole “rage” thing. So what if someone’s angry with just cause. Well-channeled anger has done a lot of good in the world. “There’s no better propagandists for the right-wing than former leftists (far leftists, in this case) turned sour against anything that can be fitted in that big wide “left” world. ” And vice versa- hello David Horowitz, Robert McNamara. It’s interesting isn’t it, how people are always so eager to embrace converts to the cause. ONly problem is that Hitchens isn’t exactly a convert. He’s been speaking out against Islamofascism since the Rushdie fatwah. As for your pedestal comment, well exactly who’s climbed on to a pedestal appears to depend a lot on your perspective,

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 19 May 2004 15:24:48 +0000

Roger wrote: “Hitchens prose has gone South since he joined the Right.” It seems that a lot of people who differ with his current political views feel that way. It would be nice to get an appraisal of his prose from someone without strong political views. Does anyone know of reviews of Hitchens’ work (both before and after his conversion) written by such a person?

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 19 May 2004 15:07:36 +0000

Patricia A. Michaels wrote: “Standard economic theory teaches that rationality is defined as self-interested, utility maximizing individuals with access to complete information. The Islamic Jihaddists are attempting to maximize a utility (destruction of western dominance)that is anathma to the west. It makes them rational” I’m not sure I’m happy with your definition (as opposed to the definitions I find in my dictionaries), and I don’t know that you’ve demonstrated that the members of al-Qaeda meet your definition. Certainly they have a goal, and they’re (tautologically) trying to achieve their goal, but the same thing can be said about a lot of people. What are examples of some people that you would consider to be irrational?