I love Hitch. Finally some logic. I'd like to believe that Russert would be a bit embarrassed by all of this. I do disagree with Hitchens on one thing--I think Tim was more superstitious than Hitch thinks. For example, I read that Russert made a bargain with God that if Luke was born healthy, Tim would go to church every week; and that Tim actually believed that the Catholic gibberish about not eating meat on Fridays was some sort of biblical pronouncement rather than a tip to the fishermen of the day. Thanks Hitch.

Actually, he believed Friday abstinence was necessary for all Catholics, until Vatican II came along. I understand he was disappointed in the decision, but not likely under the impression that the tradition was Biblical. After all, he was known for his research.

What a dreary, pointless, and, as usual, poorly constructed piece. How this Hitchens finds an audience is a mystery.

swimmer_sf:

What a dreary, pointless, and, as usual, poorly constructed piece. How this Hitchens finds an audience is a mystery.

I myself have never forgiven Hitchens for endorsing the 2nd Iraq War. However, I must confess that I find that the Mainstream Media's lovefest with Russert to be sticking in my craw. Doesn't anybody remember Russert defending his pathetic coverage of the lead-up to the war on Bill Moyer's show? His excuse, if you may recall, was that "opposition parties matter," implying that he couldn't possibly be expected to find an expert (or -- god forbid -- experts!) who could weigh in on Shrub's rationales for war. Rusert -- along with the rest of the mainstream media -- is both culpable and complicit for lying and misleading the public in regards to Shrubs rationals. Therefore, I have nothing but contempt for Russert as a journalist (I'm sure that personally, he was quite personable.).

swimmer, Hitch has been considered a iconic figure since he went from being a lefty radical to a conservative contrarian. Outside of that, he displays a perspective akin to an old man yelling for the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn.

I'm a fan of Hitchens' and if I didn't occasionally disagree with him I probably wouldn't be. He writes clearly, is well-read and dedicated to his craft. One can criticize him for being just another effete, contrarian stinker but what, specifically, is wrong with the column he wrote this week?

Atheism as a religion? Come on -- it takes someone with an operating philosphy predicated on blind faith and moral absolutes to see the entire world in these terms. Atheism is simply the lack of a specific belief. What a tired discussion.

I must disagree. Yes, there are many people who simply do not believe in the idea of a god or a higher being. Many are agnostic, who have no strong feelings either way. But there is a certain cult like athieism in America, where people go on hateful, bigoted rants about people with different beliefs then themselves. Hitchens and his brown shirted followers fall into this category.

Hiel Hitchens