University of California Television: An Evening with Christopher Buckley 2009: Interviewed by Dean Nelson

Great Political Humorist
Great Political Humorist

Source: University of California Television: An Evening with Christopher Buckley 2009: Interviewed by Dean Nelson

I like Chris Buckley’s line saying that it is unfair for satirists, because they are now in competition with USA Today. Applying that a lot of jokes come true, or as I would put it, get elected. We do now have a Congress that represents America. Not exactly the best of America, I hope now anyway. Or maybe I’ll join Alec Baldwin the next time he threatens, or is generous enough to leave America. USA Today, in the business of news and report serious issues. Satirists, are in the business to make fun of what’s going on and life in general. The problem for satirists is that USA Today and other news organizations now report on a lot of things that look like comedy. Like the government shutting down, because the House of Representatives can’t get the President to repeal his own signature legislation.

Sarah Palin, who I actually have a lot of respect for as a satirist, comedian and a beautiful women, even if someone who has just graduated from high school is more qualified to be either President, or Vice President of the United States, is the perfect example of satire, or a real-life comedy story. In Supreme Courtship, Chris Buckley, writes about a fictional character from Texas, a very attractive female judge who loves firearms and the Southwestern Texas lifestyle. Sarah Palin, who other than being from Alaska instead of Texas, has a lot in common with the fictional Texas judge. A very attractive women with a keen sense of humor, from rural Alaska, who loves the country lifestyle and is a big fan of guns, who has a great personality. But who is more qualified to be a fictional TV character than Vice President of the United States. And yet she’s nominated for Vice President by the candidate who comes within a few large states of winning the presidency.

As I’ve blogged before you can’t follow Washington politics and that is national politics and I’m sure Washington city politics as well, without a sense of humor. Unless you have a lot of money that you don’t know what to do with and decide to spend all that money on shrinks and vacations at mental institutions as a patient. Because you’re suffering from a severe case of depression. Because there’s so much nonsense (to be nice, bullshit to be accurate) that happens here that we all pay for.

U.S. Senators, who rather be president to the point that they their main job becomes running for president, instead of serving their people in Congress that the taxpayers have to pay for. A taxpayer-funded Defense Department that is so big that it can’t be audited. One f the funniest true stories of all-time. Taxpayer Congressional investigations that purely designed to hurt the leading presidential candidate from the other party. The largest entitlement programs in the world that are going broke if they’re not fixed. That no one in Congress has the balls to actually fixed, because that might mean that they have to go home and find a real job. That they’re a lot less qualified for.

But again the problem with satirists and people who write satiric books for a living about current affairs, is that it becomes harder to find new stories to write about even if you think you have something that is really funny. Because chances are that story is actually true, or something very similar to that has already happened. Tobacco companies have said under oath that tobacco is not addicted. Which was the story in Chris Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking.

We actually do have a Congress that makes con man, used car salesman, personal injury attorney’s, gold diggers, look popular. As well as the nerd in class whose hand is always up to not only answer every question, but answers the questions that the teacher puts to other students and then wonders why they never have any money for lunch, or are always getting kicked in the butt, because their lunch money is always stolen and they’re wearing a kick men sign on their butt.

The thing about Washington and American government is that jokes are not just funny, but they get elected and a lot funny made for Hollywood stories actually come true. You would go nuts and became Michelle Bachmann’s roommate at a mental institution if you couldn’t laugh about it. But that is democracy for you and as the great political satirist George Carlin said, “politicians are a reflection of the people.” They’re not God, or aliens from another planet, or even robots. (Even if they look and act like them for their lobbyists) And they represent the best and worst of us.

Star Celebrities: Marilyn Monroe in The Kennedys

Robert F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kennedy

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

John F. Kennedy, is my number one political hero, but as great as a politician as he was and in many ways a great man, he never becomes President of the United States if the media back then bothered to report on the personal lives of politicians. Only tabloids did that and as most people know tabloids aren’t taken seriously especially when it comes to politicians. At least by intelligent people. Because Jack Kennedy, is simply one of the most irresponsible politicians we’ve ever had at least as far as how he lived his personal life. He had personal and even friendly relationships with gangsters and friends of gangsters. And even had an affair as a married man with the girlfriend of a gangster in Judy Campbell. The girlfriend of Italian gangster Sam Giacana.

Marilyn Monroe, is an example of the recklessness of Jack Kennedy. Not that Marilyn was a bad person, because the opposite is true there, but she was a very immature baby-faced adorable women, whose personality and maturity didn’t seem much older. Who was mentally unstable and had Hollywood fantasies that Jack would divorce his wife Jackie and that Marilyn would become next First Lady of the United States. All Jack wanted from Marilyn was her body, sex and a good time. Which might sound really rude, if not crude, but he never saw Marilyn as long-term romance material and not marriage material. But to be completely honest, I don’t believe he ever saw any women as marriage material. In the sense he would settle down with her and give up all of his affairs.

Jack, officially broke it off with Marilyn in 1962 and of course didn’t have the decency and wasn’t man enough to personally tell her that himself. And had his brother and most trusted aid Bobby do that for him. But that is as far as it goes with how Marilyn was after she got the news and how they effected her. There’s no real evidence if any evidence, of anyone being in the house other than Marilyn and her housekeeper the night that she died at home. The most loyal of Marilyn fans will never except that a women this sexy, beautiful and adorable, with the great personality, sense of humor, talent and everything else, and entertainer who was headed to Hollywood Hall of Fame has she lived in normal live in years, that she killed herself. Accidentally, or otherwise and that is why these conspiracy theories that someone murdered her exist.

Full History Documentary: Unsolved History- Who Killed Marilyn Monroe- The Secret Truth

Marilyn Monroe

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

We know who killed Marilyn Monroe. Well that is everyone familiar with the story and this incredible for good and bad Hollywood Goddess and her life and how she lived, who is not a current resident at a mental hospital, an escaped mental patient whose on the lam, as well as anyone capable of understanding commonsense and real evidence that is right in front of them that even a blind person could see. Marilyn, not intentionally, but again that is the question here whether this was suicide, or an accidental death like someone driving off a cliff after losing control of the car. Because she was both a very irresponsible women, who had real mental issues and not always in complete control of what she was doing. Who for whatever reasons could never understand everything that she had going for her.

“A depressed Marilyn Monroe who committed suicide.” That is the only question here. Did she kill herself intentionally, or accidentally. A depressed women who one hot night in Los Angeles decides that life is hell and she can’t take it anymore and takes enough pills to kill three people. Well, that is more believable than U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy coming by one night and killing her so the affair she had with his brother President Jack Kennedy, doesn’t get out. But again we’re talking about an unstable women who drank too much, who perhaps could have given Jim Morrison a run for his money when it came to drinking alcohol in one night. Who took a lot of pills as well to make herself feel better and numb her reality which she thought was hell. But would have been paradise for perhaps 9-10 other Americans. Which again goes to her mental unbalance.

I believe the only solid theory to how Marilyn Monroe died was that she accidentally killed herself from a drug overdose. A bad combination of alcohol and sleeping pills. Remember, a mentally unbalanced women who drank a lot and probably drank herself to sleep on a regular basis, especially since her career was basically on hold now, because he was becoming even more unprofessional at work and getting fired from movie roles. Who also took sleeping pills every night to numb herself along with the alcohol. That is the only believable theory here, because no one has offered any evidence that someone else killed her. And has no evidence of anyone else being there and who that person could have possibly be. She wasn’t alone that night, because her housekeeper was asleep down the hall. Had someone broke in to kill Marilyn, the housekeeper would have known about it. Which is why the second killer theory simply doesn’t hold. Along with no evidence of anyone else being there.

Salon: Steve Almond & Diane Roberts- ‘I’m a Feminist With a Football Obsession’: Still Hope For The New-Left

Tallahassee's Doak Campbell Stadium
Tallahassee’s Doak Campbell Stadium

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I think its clear why so-called feminists and the broader New-Left in America hate American football. It masculine, its tough, it’s a sport for men, designed for TV, like in the real-world there are winners and losers. They probably even see the sport as sexist, because its such a manly straight-man’s game. (If you will) And yet there’s a quality about American football that the New-Left and Socialists tend to be fans of. Football is about as collectivist of a sport as you can imagine. Maybe only soccer is more collectivist, because football is all about teamwork.

To run the ball, the center has to correctly snap the ball to the quarterback. The quarterback has to correctly take the ball from center and then correctly hand the ball off to the tailback, or fullback and perhaps fake the handoff to the fullback and give it to the tailback. The runner, has to take the ball and hit the correct hole and run hard. The offensive line, has to create the hole for the runner. All of these things are basic fundamental procedures. But if you watch American football on a regular basis, these basic steps are screwed up on a regular basis. The QB is not ready for the snap, the center snaps it too soon, or doesn’t snap it at all, because he thinks the snap count is higher. The QB hands off the ball to a runner who is not there. The runner drops the handoff. An offensive lineman, false starts, etc.

Football, is not boxing. You can’t play well if you’re teammates around do also don’t their jobs. Every player in the came is dependent on everyone else to do their job. You can have the greatest QB and receivers in the league. But if your offensive line can’t pass protect, your receivers will never see the ball. At least downfield, because your QB will usually be on the ground before he can get rid of the ball. And that is just the offense, which I’m probably more familiar with as a fan. But good luck to your linebackers making tackles for loss and at the line of scrimmage, if your defensive line is consistently getting blocked downfield, with you left to clean up the mess. You want a pass rush from your DL, your corners and safeties need to cover the receivers for more than a couple of seconds so your DL can get up the field and hit the quarterback.

You want could pass coverage on defense, you need a consistent pass rush so your secondary is not left to cover good speedy receivers 5-6 seconds per pass play. They need to get to the quarterback in 2-3. Don’t have to sack him every play, but get the QB to throw the ball quicker than he wants to. Hit him as he’s throwing the ball, or right after it. Make him try to scramble. And for a pass rusher to be effective like a defensive end, defensive tackle rush linebacker, they need the pass rushers on the other side to do their jobs as well. So they’re not always doubled and triple-teamed. You’re not going to find a more collectivist and perhaps even socialist sport than American football. I bet Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is a football fan. The question is, does he follow the New York Giants, or New England Patriots, because he’s lived in both places. But you would have to ask Senator Sanders that.

American football, is violent, its rugged, its gritty, comes with a lot of risks and people do get hurt from it and comes with a lot of costs. But it’s about as American of an activity as we have. And a reason why Americans love America and being American. But there’s a big reason the Super Bowl is always the highest rated sporting event in the world every year. Because millions of people outside of America watch the game and even come here to see it. People from collectivist social democracies, who tend to claim that they don’t like a lot of what America stands for. And don’t like a lot of the qualities and characteristics about American football. And yet they come to our country, emigrate to our country watch our sports, including football. Because its such an exciting game where you can’t be successful at it without collectivism and teamwork.

Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone 1964: What Happens to a Family When They Lose Their Love

Mike Connors, Joey Heatherton, Susan Hayward
Mike Connors, Joey Heatherton, Susan Hayward

Source: Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone 1964: What Happens to a Family When They Lose Their Love

I haven’t thought about this, until I just read it, but if you’re familiar with the great Lana Turner, (as an actress and goddess) and you’re familiar with Where Love Has Gone from 1964, the story about Valerie Hayden’s daughter Danielle Miller (played by Joey Heatherton) who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend, is very similar to Lana’s daughter Cheryl Krane, who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend Johnny Stompanato. The Stompanato killing, happened in real-life and both killings happened when the killer’s mother is involved in a dispute with their boyfriend. I’m not an expert on Lana Turner, most of what I’ve learned about her has been in the last two years. But she lived a crazy life as if she was always drunk or something and didn’t know what the hell she was doing. Valerie Hayden, (played by the great Susan Hayward) lives a similar life as Lana in this movie.

As far as this movie. Great movie! It is very dramatic, if not traumatic when you’re talking about a family that is led by a very overprotective mother, (played by Bette Davis) who is always making moves regarding her daughter’s life and makes those moves on her behalf and rarely if ever consults her daughter about what she’s doing for her. And as a result her daughter even though she’s this gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, sexy, intelligent, talented women, ends up being somewhat immature and irresponsible. Because her mother has a lot of control over her own life. She meets World War II U.S. Army hero Luke Miller played by Mike Connors and falls in love with and perhaps hoping she can find some independence from her mother. They get married, but now Mrs. Hayden, (played by Bette Davis) wants to control her daughter and her new son-in law. And has him blacklisted so he has no other choice, but to work for her company.

Again, this is a very dramatic if not traumatic movie and yet its pretty funny as well. And maybe that just because of Susan Hayward, who had this Liz Taylor quality of being able to combine drama, with comedy and humor. Who plays a very adorable and immature irresponsible women, who goes too far, because now she’s married to man who has just gotten out of the U.S. Army and fought in World War II. Whose use to giving orders, not taking them. Who doesn’t have any patience for the games and soap opera tactics of her wife and mother in law. This was never a relationship that was designed to work out. The Miller’s, get divorced, Luke is out of the picture and has no input with how his daughter is raised and Valerie (played by Susan Hayward) finds a new man before she dumps her husband and that is how her boyfriend gets killed. Because she has a fight with him with her daughter stepping in to end the fight and kills her mother’s boyfriend.

I think Where Love Has Gone, is also a very entertaining and funny movie, especially if you’re familiar with life of Lana Turner, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Gorgeous, adorable, talented and yet immature and irresponsible women. Whose always involved with the wrong man while having young daughter to take care of. In Lana’s case, Italian gangster Johnny Stompanato. Valerie, gets involved with a man after Luke Miller, who isn’t a good man and he ends up being killed by her daughter. Luke Miller, by most accounts is a good man, but he only gets back in his daughter’s life after she’s charged with her murder of her mother’s boyfriend. This movie looks like a great soap opera. With a lot of great drama, writing, acting and humor, which all great soap operas have and I’m a big fan of it.

Bitcoin Faucets: HBO’s Dennis Miller Live: Christopher Hitchens From 2001

Dennis Miller Live

Source: Bitcoin Faucets: HBO’s Dennis Miller Live: Christopher Hitchens From 2001

Chris Hitchens, seemed to hate Bill Clinton so much that he almost loved the man. His hatred of Billy Jeff, reminds me of the pastor and activist on the Christian-Right who claims how evil and dangerous homosexuality is, it comes out that he’s gay himself. And has had relationships with adolescent boys. The strongest opponents of homosexuality in several cases have been closeted gays. I guess the thinking that if they act all butch and are strongly against homosexuality in public, no one will ever know they actually speak with a high voice and cheat on their third wives with men. Without Bill Clinton, what would Hitchens have to write about in the 1990s? Wait, Tony Blair and New Labour coming to power in Britain? He might hate Tony Blair more than Bill Clinton actually, if that’s possible.

Keep in mind, Chris Hitchens was a Democratic Socialist. Bill Clinton, New Democrat, who moved the Democratic Party from this malaise of Utopians who were never happy about anything except when new news got worst and more people were suffering and they could make a case for more big government. So that I think is the main beef that Hitchens had with Billy Jeff. To the point that he calls the man a rapist without much if any evidence to back up that charge. Billy Jeff, if he wasn’t a busy and important man and had better things to do other than concern himself with Chris Hitchens, could have sued him for libel and probably have a hell of a case. Hitchens reminds me a little of the Republican political strategist/JFK assassination conspiracy theorist Roger Stone. Who officially will never support the Warren Report, even though he’s probably smart enough to. (Jury is still out) And has written books arguing that Vice President Lyndon Johnson had President Kennedy killed.

I’m surprised that Oliver Stone hasn’t picked up on one of Chris Hitchens’s conspiracy theories. And made a movie or documentary about one of them. There certainly enough dumb people and escaped mental patients, or people who should be committed, that would see that film for the movie to make money. Maybe Oliver Stone and Bill Clinton are friends, or Stone at least is an admirer of Clinton. Perhaps a contributor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign or a member of her husband’s Foundation’s board. But that is where Hitchens was at least in the 1990s and early 2000s before he became a Neoconservative who wanted Islam destroyed or something. And jumped into President Bush’s back pocket (no more room in the front pockets) and became a cheerleader for the so-called War on Terror and the Iraq War. When Hitchens was focused on something, he wouldn’t let it ago. Until he found something else to bury himself in.

David Newman: NFL Films: The Story of The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals

St. Louis Cardinals

Source: David Newman: NFL Films: The Story of The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals

I remember the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals pretty well, because I started watching football in the early and mid 1980s and even though the Cardinals are from St. Louis, they played in the NFC East with the Redskins. So I got to see the Cardinals twice a year for about six seasons. And I always remember them playing the Redskins very tough even though the Redskins were always better. The Redskins won two Super Bowls and won three NFC championships and the Cardinals made one playoff appearance, but they had three winning seasons. They were a very talented group that would win 8-9 games and barely miss the except 1982 under head coach Jim Hanifan. And I guess that is why I’m interested in a team that only made one playoff appearance in the 1980s.

The 1980s Cardinals, probably should have won more. They had an All-Pro quarterback in Neil Lomax. Who if his career wasn’t cut short due to injury is probably in the Hall of Fame today. If you look at their backfield they had OJ Anderson, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame today. Definitely one of the best tailbacks of the 1980s. Who had great size and power at 6’2 225 pounds, but was also fast and could run away from you. Very similar to OJ Simpson, Jim Brown, or Eric Dickerson. And they had Stump Mitchell behind OJ. Who was a great runner and receiver, similar to Joe Washington. And Neil Lomax had receivers Roy Green, Mel Gray and later JT Smith and tight end Pat Tilley. And a good offensive line with Hall of Famer Dan Dierdorf, Louis Sharpe and Joe Bostic. This was a team that had a lot of talent on offense and had good players on defense. Like defensive Freddie Joe Nunn and linebacker EJ Junior.

The 1980s St. Louis Cardinals, were very good and contended a lot, but they had a habit of putting scares into good winning teams that won consistently, but not enough to actually win the game. They would upset a very good team and then lose to a bad team. They either gave up on Jim Hanifan too soon, or replaced him with the wrong head coach in Gene Stallings. I think pretender is the best way to describe the Cardinals of this era. Seemed like every season they looked like they were good enough to win and would get back to the NFC Playoffs and maybe even win the NFC East. But they wouldn’t close the door and would lose at the last-minute. Make a key mistake when they couldn’t afford it. But similar to the New Orleans Saints pre-Jim Mora they were a fun team to watch. But only better than the Saints.

The Real Strategy: Opinion- Christopher Kemmett- Real Retards Vote- Why you Don’t Want to Stop Them: The Case For Educated Voters

Uncle Sam

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.

As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.

You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.

We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there.

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

Dave Rubin & Sam Harris
Dave Rubin & Sam Harris

Source: The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem are leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.

Canan Dian: Christopher Buckley Discusses Christopher Hitchens Life and Mortality

Chris Hitchens & Chris Buckley
Chris Hitchens & Chris Buckley

Source: Canan Dian: Christopher Buckley Discusses Christopher Hitchens Life and Mortality

What I like most about Christopher Hitchens is why he never would have made a very successful politician. Because he had this big habit of always saying what he thought and what he knew. And he didn’t give a damn what others thought about it. His consistency for the most part and the on exception to that being how his national security and foreign policy views changed after 9/11, I believe are unparalleled. He wasn’t just an ant-Christian, or anti-Christian-Right radical on the Far-Left, but he was a true Atheist. He didn’t bash the Christian-Right for their positions on homosexuality, women’s place in the world, censorship, while he defended Muslims for believing that women and gays should be second-class citizens. He critiqued and attacked religious extremism wherever he saw it.

Politically, I’m not sure I have ever had much in common with Chris Hitchens. I’ve never been a Democratic Socialist, or a Neoconservative. I don’t know of many other people who’ve gone from one end to the other politically like that. But I’ve always respected his consistency especially with his Atheism. He’s someone who if he was alive today would be treated like a bigot by the New-Left in America, similar to how Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are now treated. As being anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern and so-forth. He was anti-Muslim, but he was also anti-Christian and anti every other religion. He saw religion as a dangerous force in the world and with his new neoconservative leanings and perhaps would have if he could had religion outlawed in America. Not sure about that, but he was a true militant Atheist.

I believe political and current affairs writers should be judged on their ability to learn, grasp and to be consistent. Do they say and write things that add up and where you could at least make a good case for their beliefs. Or do they just write for their team and over hype all the positive things about their side, while underplaying the low points of their side. And are they consistent, or do they contradict themselves. Do they bash religion, while only concentrating on one type of religion, or are they a true Atheist who doesn’t like religion in general. And will critique negative aspects of religion wherever they see it. Do they bash big government on one side, while praising it on another, but without calling it big government. Chris Hitchens, meets at least all of my standards as a great current affairs writer. Because he was someone who learned, who understood facts and made his arguments based on them. And adapted when he was wrong and because of these things and many others he’s still missed today and will be for a long time.