« German Politics: Muddling Through... | Main | September: Davids Medienkritik Rockets Past 100,000 Mark »

Comments

OK, first a confession: I used to read a lot of Gore Vidal, from Empire to Creation and enjoyed all but "Live from Golgotha", which I couldn't manage to finish. But from this interview the man is clearly insane!

You see, this interview is why we need alternative media here in Germany. I'm lucky because I can get Bill O'Reilly on Fox and all week he's been making clear some of the facts about Bush's spending on the poor and minorities. (That link will be invalid in a few days - see his column of September 15 2005). Look over the link for some perspective.

From the link, one example:

"As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. "


Did Vidal get even one fact correct in that interview?

He would make Michael Moore blush.

Next on Aspekte: How George W. Bush and his gang of oil buddies caused the December 2004 tsunamy AND GOT AWAY WITH IT!!

You're pulling our legs.......right???

Gore Vidal seems to be stuck on stupid.

@JamesW
>>Did Vidal get even one fact correct in that interview?

Well, see there would be consequences - like the interviewer's head exploding and whatever is in his skull cavity would be all over Vidal's suit. Can't have that now.

These people are beyond parody.

This is beyond ridiculous! It seems clear to me that the German media is searching for these idiots. Have they missed an interview with ANY prominent leftist anti-American, anti-Bush groupy? If so, I'm sure they're on the party list.

Ick. Whenever I see one of those aging "public intellectuals" interviewed, I feel like I've stepped in a cow-pie. The main thing they can't stand is that nobody in the US other than a few other aging intellectuals gives two farts about them, and all the glorious movements they backed all their lives have crashed and burned. What's left but the hate?

And, dammit, they get beat by those boring, square Red Staters with twangy accents and no consideration for their profound insights into the human condition and the innate poverty of the American spirit.

About Gore Vidal.

He is a brilliant historical writer with half a brain. One half contains a limitless amount of historical facts about the American Civil War and the other half only hates the U.S. and Jesus Christ. Maybe the fact that he is a homosexual has something to do wirh his hatred of judeo-christian principles guiding this nation.

Whatever.

One of the funnier moments occurred because of him on TV during the early 1960ies or late 1950ies. During a political debate with William F. Buckley, Chief Editor of the conservative mag National Review, he called the latter a "Neo-Nazi." Whereupon the latter called Vidal a "fagot" and was ready to punch his lights out.

During subsequent court proceedings, Vidal lost his suit and had to pay an undetermined but high amount of money to Buckley for the unproven fact to have named him a Nazi sympathizer.


USA

@moonfarer, "During subsequent court proceedings, Vidal lost his suit and had to pay an undetermined but high amount of money to Buckley for the unproven fact to have named him a Nazi sympathizer. "

Hee, hee! Now why have I no heard of that before?

I thought Gore Vidal was dead. He has not been heard from for years. When was the last time you saw a Gore Vidal shelf at the local Barnes and Nobel?

Where is William F Buckley when you need him?
I still recall that during the 68 conventions
one network had Vidal as the Liberal commentator
and Buckley as the Conservative.

Vidal made the statement that spitting on the American Flag was not a provocative act,
Buckley (an Ex-Marine) said it was and told
Vidal if he repeated that he would paste him.

Vidal repeated it, Buckley just acted like a Marine. ;-)
Live on Network TV the look on Vidals face was
PRICELESS

This is German government sponsored "Change the subject" programing.

Now the Germans can all turn off their TV's and say well it might be bad here but it sure is better than being in America.

Besides with Gerhard's leadership and his German way we are going to cut the unemployment rate just like he promised... what 7 years ago,

Pass me another beer.

I heard or read (can't remember which), that GORE Vidal and Al GORE were distant cousins. Does anyone know if that is true or not?

MediaCritter
>>that GORE Vidal and Al GORE were distant cousins. Does anyone know if that is true or not?

Nope. Gore Vidal is a distant cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - I THINK by virtue of her mother's marriage to Hugh Auchinloss.

This kind of "yellow journalism" is simply disgusting. In the age of the internet, how do the German people think that Americans won't see this kind of propoganda? I have a lot of German friends and I wonder how they stay silent with this kind of thing going on around them. Are they just being "Good Germans"?

@Thanks Pamela. I knew someone here would know the facts!

@Pamela,

Update: I found this information from "The Independent Institute." It says ....."born at the U.S. Military Academy at West point and raised in the Washington D.C. home of his grandfather Oklahoma Senator Thomas Gore, Gore Vidal is a cousin of Al Gore..." Was he so blatantly anti-American when his cousin was VP? Probably, but not as vocal.

It went on to say that Vidal adopted Gore as his first name sometime in his teens. He also was a brother-in-law of JFK through Jackie's mother's marriage to Hugh Auchinloss.

What a crock of shit.

Since almost all we hear from Germany is anti-American, it's difficult not to hate all Germans. I know that some in Freistat Bayern are not Amihassers, but one never hears their support. Friendships take sacrifice and decades, hatred takes words and weeks.

To bad we cannot fix up an interview with
the Ragin Cajun General Honore he DID set the media straight here! LOL

“You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question” Mind you this is not the ONLY time the Press has gotten chewed out by this man


http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1088203

This is somehow off-topic. It's about Germany.
It happened to me yesterday. I was complaining about the commies in the government, and I got the swift reply from my girlfriend: "You chose to come here yourself" (to Germany, since I am not German).
So I think I'd better not complain. Actually I am tired of trying to convince my German friends of the sad reality.
Obviously the germans don't feel comfortable when confronted. Just "blame it on the US", that will do.
Very dissapointed

PS. what is with Stern TV? Don't they share the same views as the magazine? I saw them yesterday on TV and the wanted to seem without bias. But I think they were not.

@George M: Gore Vidal hasn't published a new novel for some time, but he has published a book called "Inventing a Nation", on Washington, Adams and Jefferson, not too long ago; as well as collections of political essays.

@Pamela and MediaCritter: Hugh Auchincloss married Vidal's mother, and then JKO's, in succession; so Vidal and JKO shared stepsiblings, and both had Auchincloss as stepfather, but were not really related in any way. They were on friendly terms during Kennedy's presidency, which gave Vidal some access to the White House and the Kennedy circle. He also ran for Congress in 1960.

His full name is Eugene Luther Gore Vidal; Gore is his mother's maiden name. Gore Vidal's grandfather was Senator Thomas P. Gore of Oklahoma.

As to being Al Gore's relative: Gore Vidal has consistently claimed that he's Al Gore's distant cousin (as well as Jimmy Carter's); sixth cousin or so. It appears that Al Gore's family also thought so. But I have read a professional genealogy expert say that that's not true. So who knows.

I have read lots of his books and articles, and I still recommend many of them, such as "Julian", "Burr" and "Creation". Politically he used to be on the left and unconventional, but not extremely so; but I agree that lately he very often sounds insane.

@Brock

"I still recommend many of them, such as "Julian", "Burr" and "Creation". "

Agreed. My favorite was Julian, closely followed by Creation. As a teenager, the first book of his I read was "Myra Breckinridge", so when I next read Julian I was surprised to discover he was a serious novelist. As I wrote above, the only one I cannot recommend was "Live From Golgotha", which was tediously silly. Perhaps I was too old.

I read several articles written by Bernard Goldberg, and this Vidal is not on the "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America" list.
On the other hand, what do you, as Americans, think about Goldberg? Do you think he is representative for the "average" American?
What about the parallel Clinton-Reagan-Bush? Was the press biased? (did the unemployed really "come out" in 1980 and dissappearead in 1982, as Goldberg suggests?)

here's the list:
http://www.nndb.com/lists/527/000099230/

@SeanM

I did enjoy "Live from Golgotha", it's meant to be a satyre of all the subjects it touches, but one has to look past the (deliberate) anachronisms. I also found it difficult to read at first but after a while I liked it.

@Brock

"I also found it difficult to read at first but after a while I liked it."

You could be right. I read the first half of Golgotha on a flight from Hong Kong to Singapore and once I'd arrived, with a tired toddler on one arm and a copy of Vidal in the other, that was the end Gore. I still have the book in the cellar, so perhaps on your recommendation I will dig it out once again and give it my best. His latest rantings above color my enthusiasm somewhat.

@neocon

The challenge is to find a current name on the list to replace with Gore Vidal. Vidal faces some serious competition out there but my vote would go for dropping Harry Belafonte (on the grounds that he's just plain silly). That would unfortunately put Gore up there at 79, just behind Normal Mailer, something that might tickle Vidal but disturb Mailer.

Bush apologists running rampant here again.. even a couple of suggestions that Gore Vidal is anti-American because of his homosexuality!
Plus...
More total refusal to accept that US energy policy favoring more oil-burning is damaging the environment and causing bigger hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones - despite the fact that reputable scientic journals are flagging this on a regular - sometimes daily - basis - see http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n01/byer01_.html and Google for as many others as you have strength to read!

The aims of propaganda are accomplished when you believe your local media to the exclusion of foreign viewpoints... The wise will at least seriously consider the outsider view before indulging their gut reactions...

@ SeanM
>>In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. "

Wait a minute. Now the GOP (okay, O'Reilly, but what's the difference) is claiming they spend MORE on welfare than Democrats? Huh, and here I thought the GOP always fought for smaller government. Furthermore, for decades conservatives have said throwing money at problems won't fix them. Wow have things changed. Or maybe O'Reilly has his "facts" wrong again. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200509210010 for more on O'Reilly's "facts." Germany may need more balance in its media, but it doesn't need someone like O'Reilly.

@neocon
>>this Vidal is not on the "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America" list.

That's because he's been irrelevant for over 30 years. I haven't read anything by Goldberg, so can't comment on that part.

@brock Landers
>>As to being Al Gore's relative: Gore Vidal has consistently claimed that he's Al Gore's distant cousin (as well as Jimmy Carter's); sixth cousin or so. It appears that Al Gore's family also thought so. But I have read a professional genealogy expert say that that's not true. So who knows.

Researching American genealogy is a pain. Bad record keeping, no record keeping, records destroyed in fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Additionaly, alot of people just flat-out lied.

@mbl
>>Furthermore, for decades conservatives have said throwing money at problems won't fix them. Wow have things changed

The certainly have. This administration and Congress have been spending money like drunken sailors. Lucky for Bush he doesn't have to run again - he's alienated alot of conservatives for just this reason. The 'No Child Left Behind' initiative is a boondoggle if I ever saw one and the Transportation Bill that was just passed reads like something written by a bunch of pimps visiting their respective bordellos.

@mbl

"I thought the GOP always fought for smaller government"

You're thinking of Reagan. If you really want a smaller government you will have to fight for it - is that what you have been doing? Or are you demanding more programs?

I'm sure there are all sorts of arguments against O'Reilly, which was only one example I gave to counter Vidal's insanity above. However a look over your mediamatters site turns up convenient playing with statistics: notice how they inflation adjust their numbers where it favors their argument, "O'Reilly asserted that the federal government will generate more tax revenue in 2005 than at any point in the Clinton presidency" but they do not inflation adjust the income ranges when they challenge his claim that "the tax rate under Clinton climbed higher than at any point since World War II", where they also ignore what is meant by percentages (ie is 40% a ten percent point increase over 30% or a 33% rate increase). O'Reilly talks loosely as well, but a hell of a lot tighter than Gore Vidal above. In the end, O'Reilly could defend his assertions, because despite some minor statistical problems, his whole argument is completely at variance with Democratic propoganda. Is that why Clinton wouldn't release a spokesman to appear on O'Reilly? You don't want to find yourself arguing that the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure and while it is only 12.7 percent now, halfway through Bush's two terms, that it actually rose from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004. Remember 2001 was the end of the unsustainable bubble economy. Do you think there might have been something a little unusual happening to unemployment and tax revenues at that time? O'Reilly would simply counter that we do not know what will happen between now and January 2009, so why compare an eight year result to a 4 1/2 year one.

Bottom line, like O'Reilly, mediamatters also has an agenda, so neither source is where you would go for the final word on any subject. Most of the people here are more than capable of thinking for themselves and know how to seek out and challenge assertions from both sides of the political spectrum. However I will stand by my assertion above: with contrary voices like O'Reilly instead of the absurd one-sided America haters we get here in Germany, there might be some chance of having a serious debate and avoiding another global conflagration. By the way, compare apples to apples: ie TV programs to alternative TV programs. You might be upset that your leftwing media monopoly is dissolving before your eyes, but you still have Krugman.

Hmmm ………..another problem of defining terms “Expert”

It would seem it does not take much to be an expert in Germany.

neocon

To be truthful, I think very few Americans know who Goldberg or Vidal are.

Goldberg's book, while it sold well, was not accompanied by the rounds of talk show appeareances but rather was sold due to interest on from talk radio and now internet blogs.

Vidal has been invisible from mainstream America for about 30 years. Interest in Vidal today is from a narrow segment of the literati.

Although I can be wrong (and usually am)

Vidal's positions are well-known. What you might find interesting are the following comments from conservative commentators Robert Novak and Andrew Sullivan. Both report on how conservatives are abandoning Bush in droves.

>>"Vidal's positions are well-known. What you might find interesting are the following comments from conservative commentators Robert Novak and Andrew Sullivan. Both report on how conservatives are abandoning Bush in droves."

I wouldn't put Sullivan in an intellectual straight jacket. He's an independent thinker, not a "liberal" or "conservative."

Vidal is probably right about taking his show on the road. His paleo-liberal schtick doesn't play well in the US anymore, even in Peoria. He's basically a classic poor and minorities vampire, someone who exploits human suffering to strike heroic poses from the moral high ground. In the US we've noticed that such people have been remarkably ineffective at alleviating poverty and racism, for the very good reason that they feed on it. If poverty and racism were actually eliminated, they would no longer have anyone to "save." That would be very bad for the vampires, as many of them have parlayed their ostentatious "love" of the downtrodden into lucrative jobs in the welfare bureacracy. If they actually succeeded in eliminating poverty and racism, they would also eliminate their jobs; hence the remarkably ineffective and counterproductive nature of most welfare programs. The idea is to create a permanent underclass of "customers" to save, not to actually succeed in saving them. In the US the disadvantaged themselves have noticed the huge disparity between the fat salaries and government pensions of the vampires and the pathetic ineffectiveness of the bloated programs they've created to "help" their victims. As a result, paleo-liberalism has long been out of fashion here. No doubt it will eventually go out of fashion in Germany as well, perhaps when the Germans stop pretending they don't have a minority problem.

Yes Vic conservatives are just flocking to Hill 08.

Sure hope you guys on the left can secure her top spot on the ticket.

Die Zeit has an interview with a much saner American writer, Tom Wolfe. The interviewers come at him with the official German MSM version of the Katrina disaster ("Bush is bad, Americans are racists, etc."), but Wolfe is having none of it. An example:

ZEIT: Viele vertreten die These, dass Bush schneller eingegriffen hätte, wenn New Orleans vor allem von Weißen bewohnt wäre.

Wolfe: Der Bürgermeister von New Orleans ist ein Schwarzer, der Polizeichef ist ein Schwarzer, die meisten Polizisten und Feuerwehrleute sind Schwarze – ganz einfach, weil der größte Teil der Bevölkerung schwarz ist. Dasselbe passierte in Miami mit den Kubanern. Innerhalb einer halben Generation übernahmen sie viele Ämter und Positionen. Das geht nur in diesem Land und nirgendwo sonst auf der Welt. Wenn eine Gruppe groß genug ist, hat sie früher oder später politischen Einfluss. Eine Frage: Wie viele Türken sitzen im Deutschen Bundestag? Wie viele Algerier sitzen im Pariser Stadtparlament?

http://www.zeit.de/2005/39/Titel_2fWolfe_39

@Helian
>>No doubt it will eventually go out of fashion in Germany as well, perhaps when the Germans stop pretending they don't have a minority problem.

Have you seen this?
-------------------
Across Germany, 220,000 war refugees denied asylum have shared Aferdite's plight. But in a backdrop of public wariness about their perceived drain on the social system and an improved political situation in their countries, the government is speeding their return. "How can a country expel a child who's been here for 13 years, who is good in school?" says Volker Ludwig of the GRISP Theater in Berlin, which staged a play about the deportation of a family. "Such a practice is unique in Europe, and it's outrageous."

This summer, Germany's 16 state interior ministers voted to hasten the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees to Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And in May, the state of Hamburg began repatriating Afghans, saying that stability there had returned

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=130265&D=2005-09-22&HC=2
----------------

My heart goes out to these people, but frankly, I wish the U.S. would get a clue and get just as serious.

@Helian:

"I wouldn't put Sullivan in an intellectual straight jacket. He's an independent thinker, not a "liberal" or "conservative."

What Sullivan is, right now, is a single-issue demogague. The particular issue, or where he stands on it, is not particularly important. What is important is that Sully judges people totally based on their answer to one speicific question. It does't matter how much you may agree with him on everything else; if you fail to answer the one question correctly, then he regards you as an enemy. Bush answered the question wrong, and Sullivan did a total about-face on him in that instant. It's a shame, because Sully can be a brilliant thinker when he has his head on straight.

I don't mean to pick on Helian, though... the statement on the welfare-state mentality was the most brilliantly concise explanation of that I've ever seen.

@neocon:

"On the other hand, what do you, as Americans, think about Goldberg? Do you think he is representative for the "average" American?"

Yep, I think he can fill that role. Bernie is basically what we call a "classical liberal", meaning that he probably thinks that at least some welfare is necessary and that society should in general try to help out poor people, but he's also staunchly pro-American and absolutely opposed to anti-democratic philosophies like Communism or Islamism. He's pretty libertarian, favoring individual rights and liberties as opposed to racial or group identities. (As I understand it, this comes fairly close to the European definition of the word "liberal".) As a libertarian, he has been horrified at the statist, authoritarian turn that American liberalism has taken.

Goldberg acknowledges his responsibilities as an American citizen and as an adult man in a free society. In this he has much in common with the bulk of the American citizenry, and differs from the American liberal elite. Goldberg is one of the few people in media who really believes in the principle of journalistic objectivity, meaning that you let the facts form your opinion rather than letting your pre-conceived notions form the "facts".

You will notice that his list of 100 are not all liberals. Most of them are, but not all (Michael Savage, to name one). He's basically ripping on people who have a naked lust for power over other people's lives, to the point where they are willing to lie through their teeth and destroy democracy and the rule of law to get it. The people he opposes are, to put it bluntly, patrician royalists. They are people who think they should have the right to rule because they are inherently better than everyone else. They are people who refuse to accept responsibility for themselves or their actions. You will notice that Goldberg has basically tried to keep his own politics out of his recent books. That's because he is of the opinion (and I totally agree with it) that reasonable people can disagree on specific issues but still be able to compromise and live together. His 100, on the other hand, are people who cannot be reasoned with and will not tolerate differences. And that is a fundementally anti-American value.

That's who Goldberg is, and who his 100 are. There could have been a lot more, but you know, you can only make a book so big...

@Cousin Dave
>>What Sullivan is, right now, is a single-issue demogague

Not just a single issue. You ever read him on the Catholic Church? His defense of why he is still a Catholic is risible.

And he NEVER attacked the Clinton admin for passing the Defense of Marriage Act.

He's not just a demagogue. He's a hypocrite.

@Thanks, Cousin ;)
I think Goldberg is ok too, just wanted to hear some opinions from over there.

What about Clinton? Why do some people - including from here on the forum- think he was a shame to US?
He is quite popular here in Europe (somehow me included)

neocon
>> Why do some people - including from here on the forum- think he was a shame to US?

Because if he had kept it zipped there's a chance the gov't could have focused on the gathering storm. I too liked some of his policies - especially what he did with welfare - and certainly Newt Gingerich helped him enormously with his own hubris - but Clinton gave his opponents every opportunity to distract the gov't from it's primary duty; to protect and defend.

And you simply cannot - CANNOT - lie under oath.

@cousin dave

"What is important is that Sully judges people totally based on their answer to one speicific question. "

Andrew judges people by their answers to specific questions. And that´s how it should be. He is not afraid to call BS on anybody, and that´s why I enjoy his writings so much. There are far too many partisan hacks out there.

@pamela
"You ever read him on the Catholic Church? ... He's a hypocrite."

The things I´ve read reveal a very profound and deep knowledge. To think that a Catholic is not allowed to disagree with the Catholic Church is a big misconception. As John Paul II said (not exact words): We always have to rely on our individual conscience.

@fuchur
>>To think that a Catholic is not allowed to disagree with the Catholic Church is a big misconception.

To think that debating something I never wrote is worthy of a substantive answer is a big misconception.

Quote "To think that a Catholic is not allowed to disagree with the Catholic Church is a big misconception.

To think that debating something I never wrote is worthy of a substantive answer is a big misconception."

I thought Catholics NEVER missed conception???

I don't quite get the point, yet on the other hand the Catholic Church (actually the pope) is viewed as infallible by all catholics.
See "Papal Infallibility" under Wikipedia or answers.com

@Pamela

>>”Have you seen this?
Across Germany, 220,000 war refugees denied asylum have shared Aferdite's plight.”

Interesting link. The usual suspects are exploiting human misery to promote another one of their really bad ideas. In this case it amounts to annihilating Germany’s cultural and ethnic identity by wholesale importation of alien populations, a process that is already well underway. We have seen where that leads, for example, in Kosovo, which had a large majority Serb population after World War I. In that instance we also saw how quickly the process can take place. The Kosovars succeeded in establishing the legitimacy of conquest by rapid reproduction. The Clinton Administration gave that principle its blessing. I, also, don’t blame the Germans for fighting back. I, also think we should be copying them, not condemning them, in this instance. We also have many advocates for illegal immigration in the US who will never be satisfied until we import the entire population of the third world. They seem to genuinely believe that liberty and prosperity are constants, and that they can never be undermined or overwhelmed by unlimited immigration of populations that have no tradition of or respect for the rights and freedoms we take for granted. To oppose them one must have the courage to be politically incorrect. They will, no doubt, be ranting with virtuous indignation from the “moral high ground” until the Titanic that is western culture slips beneath the waves, carrying them with it.

@Cousin Dave

>>”What Sullivan is, right now, is a single-issue demogague. The particular issue, or where he stands on it, is not particularly important. What is important is that Sully judges people totally based on their answer to one specific question.”

In fact, Sully is an independent thinker, and, as such, a rare bird in this day and age. He has taken the time to understand the phenomena of democracy in America, and has learned to admire it, unlike the great mass of “simplistic” Europeans who, profoundly ignorant about us and unwilling to take the trouble to learn anything beyond the sketchy outlines of the latest propaganda slurs, simply condemn everything about us out of hand. He has strongly defended us in defiance of the prevailing intellectual fashion in his own country and the rest of Europe. I think we owe a certain amount of gratitude to people like that, and should avoid succumbing to the typical modern reflex to demonize him out of hand if he happens to disagree with us.

That said, I think it’s certainly arguable that Sully’s emotional response to what he views as an assault on gay rights has clouded his judgment regarding Bush and the war in Iraq. He was, of course, a passionate advocate of the war before the invasion. Now, in common with the “New Republic Faction,” those former warhawks on the left in the US who loudly advocated going to war, Sully has had a change of heart. His alibi is that, despite being a political wonk these many years with an intimate knowledge of Bush’s record, he was suddenly “shocked, shocked,” to discover the man was incompetent. His preferred “solution” when the going started getting tough in Iraq was to hand over the command to Kerry, a pacifist defeatist who never met an enemy of his country he didn’t like. Sully is highly intelligent, and it’s simply implausible to me that he could have dispassionately concluded that “war hero” Kerry would be more likely to win the war than “incompetent” Bush. It’s implausible even if you didn’t personally experience the Vietnam War years, and see the true face of Kerry and his ilk up close and personal. In a word, I think you’re right, at least in this case, when you claim that Sully’s judgment was clouded by his passionate commitment to gay rights. I just think that, given his record, and a healthy regard for our own fallibility in matters intellectual, we shouldn’t judge him too harshly for that.



You know what I would love to see? A debate between Chris Hitchens and Sullivan.

A drink soaked trotskite athiest warhawk

vs

devout RC capitalist anti-war conservative

I'd pay good money for that one. Odds to Hitch.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30