I generally agree with Hitchens. Not to say that, in general, I agree with him, but if you were to condense each article into a single sum-up thesis, as we were all taught to do when learning to write an essay, I would likely agree with that general statement. To wit: the media should not take such joy in making Paris Hilton cry. Scooter Libby isn't the man we should be going after in terms of political crimes. And today's topic - let's stop helping the extremists broadcast - seems like such a good one.

But oh, the way he elucidates.

The Sunni insurgents are claiming bigotry? Really? Is Al Sharpton involved? He wants to know what 'Rage Boy' thinks of Rushdie's work? He wants a reaction from Rage Boy on destruction on the holy shrine in Samarra? Once you've dismissed Rage Boy and his ilk as showboaters, do you really want them to speak further on any other subject?

He makes an interesting (and illuminating, as I was unaware) point that the same extremists show up at all these protests. It's like someone followed, I don't know, extreme pro-choice activists around and broadcast every protest during the debates on Roe v. Wade. So it's wrong to characterize the majority of the population as protesters? Probably true, but I can't say it's a shock to find out. If you had asked me if most Iraqis were involved in these protests, I'd have said no. I imagine most of them are busy fighting. Or surviving. Hard to get a good rally together when your house is coming down.

I wish he'd focused on the irresponsibility of the media in broadcasting these protests as though they were the only events of note in Iraq at this time. (Good television, they say. Always fun to watch a good flag-burning.) Once you start asking Rage Boy questions, though, you're going to have to find out what his name is. And I'm pretty sure Hitchens just doesn't care.

While I do think the attention the media places on extream behavior (sensationalism=money, after all) helps to fuel it a little, I think that's a lesser evil than coerced silence. In my own case, these images certainly don't help "rage boy" and his pals. If anything, i discount them more for their lack of subtlety...I respect them less in other words.

I know Hitch isn't worried about folks like me as much as others who actually do sympathize when they see people demonstrate with what is clearly outrage on their faces. I don't think this is what most people are outraged about though. "Rage boy" may be the poster child for overly-emotional, inarticulate non-reason, but he's not the reason anyone I know is unhappy about this war. I've spent a bit of time in Asia these past few years and it's more about the manner of disrespect and the brash self-righteousness which seemed to predicate every instance of foreign policy in action.

As for "encourgaing" folks like "Rage boy" by giving them a voice, aside from the "lesser-evil" mentioned above, I think driving them underground would only give them more fuel to fire. Besides, in this age, finding ways to express yourself publically is not quite the issue it once was. "Rage boy" would find a website (or louder behaviour) to post his emotive rhetoric.

The interesting part is that "Rage Boy" has (as far as we know) never been to Iraq. Every SINGLE photo in the "Snapped Shots" archive Hitchens points to was bylined from Srinagar, India. Not that it matters to Hitchens, but this is not an Iraq War piece in any meaningful way.