Hitchens on Mel Gibson:
I also think that the difference between the blood-alcohol levels—and indeed the speed limits—that occasioned the booking are insufficient to explain the expletives (as Gibson has since claimed in a typically self-pitying and verbose statement put out by his publicist). One does not abruptly decide, between the first and second vodka, or the ticks of the indicator of velocity, that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are valid after all.
Hitchens remains a superb polemicist, whose instinct for opponents’ jugular and turn of phrase continues to delight.
It’s a pity he’s such an extremist by nature – its been awful to watch him swing from one (Trotskyism) to the other (neocon). Along with a penchant for extremism, of course, comes intellectual dishonesty.
in vino veritas
This is the scary thing about Hitchens. Amid his extremist turncoat spleen, he occasionally comes out with some spot-on and perspicacious stuff (particularly, and irrelevantly, about Gibson being a bad actor and director.)
Eh.
*shrugs in Brooklyn Jewish manner*
Hitchens has never attempted to exculpate himself from his own increasingly erratic opinionating by reference to his own bibulousness.
However, it should also be noted that while one can agree with Hitchens that a binge doesn’t change opinions, a lifetime of soaking one’s synapses in a brainpan full of hooch may cause altered perceptions and opinions.
Exhibit A: Christopher Hitchens.
I find some of what Hitchens says to be objectionable, but if you google him along with “Stephen Fry”, you should find one of the best audio clips of all time, regarding the issue of blasphemy. Those two gents are sharp.
I’ve always found him entertaining, interesting and thought provoking even if I don’t agree with his conclusions.
Mel was obviously quite drunk.
Who will put their hand up and say if they were in similar situation they wouldn’t say something as equally objectionable.
Furthermore he has apologised.
It does seem no apology is accepted these days except if it is your own!
What Katz said.
His anti-Clinton book is still a great read. But what dd said.
Katz – your oh-so-true example had me laughing out loud. Well done.
“Who will put their hand up and say if they were in similar situation they wouldn’t say something as equally objectionable.”
Being drunk doesn’t turn people into Jew-haters. But people do lose their inhibitions when drunk, and they say things that they mean, but would have the good judgement not to say when they are sober.
“Furthermore he has apologised.”
That’s one interpretation. Another is that his publicist has released a statement in Gibson’s name in an effort to limit the damage to Gibson’s career.
Well, well. It’s certainly interesting that the presumption of innocence, that sacred right of Afghan terror trainees, must as a matter of moral principle be roundly denied to an angry drunk.
I have no way of knowing what’s in Mr. Gibson’s seemingly unhappy head; nor, really, do I care all that much. But since being a gadfly is kinda-sorta a species of public service, allow me to propose a little thought experiment.
In the course of this fracas, Mr. Gibson is said to have asked one of the arresting officers, ‘Are you a Jew.’ I’m assuming he’s spent enough time in Los Angeles to know that as a simple matter of local ethnography, it’s sort of statistically unlikely for an LAPD officer to be Jewish. His question strikes me as being pretty irrational and detached from real life, quite possibly paranoid; or else it may be the rambling, loose association of a drunk on a tirade.
A plausible alternative explanation for the behavior (though again, I’m certainly not trying to prettify it, just to make a point about skepticism) is that he’s got some species of persecution complex. Given the giant media spanking machine he had to crawl through to explain the artificially-concocted ‘controversy’ surrounding his film “The Passion,” a measure of paranoia is something that could at the very least be on the menu. Artists frequently have crazy hypersensitive minds, and he’s an artist, like it or not. Who knows what hidden aspect of experience he has seized upon and begun to chew compulsively.
To make the leap straight to the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ strikes me as rather doggedly unfair. But it’s so easy to look good when standing next to an imaginary Nazi, isn’t it. Actual crazy people, with their unpleasant actual crazy problems, don’t make for a good moral-superiority photo op. Allow me to suggest that real anti-semites make their views plain, in the sober light of day, in any number of public and premeditated ways; what passes and creeps through one’s mind, and perhaps by-passes the usual rationality filters due to alcohol or anger-management problems, is not necessarily of the same order.
There’s been plenty of times when I wanted to punch somebody, but then I didn’t. Does that mean that, way down deep, I am “really” a violent assailant? No, it means that I am a grown-up who normally exercises self-control. Were I to hit someone during a psychotic episode, what would it mean? Well, at the least, nothing so very plain and simple, I’d assert that much.
It’s certainly interesting how quickly gadflys wag their fingers and tsk-tsk at members of the public expressing an opinion on whether or not he-dunnit, disingenuously conflating such expressions of opinion with whether or not someone is entitled to humane treatment in prison and the presumption of innocence in a courtroom.
Aren’t you ever worried that finger might fall off?
tigtog — nice dodge; well done, but I’m inclined to think it won’t stand up. If the thing is a principle not a mere preference, then so. (Though I do take your point about scale: courtroom and prison procedures are far graver matters, and so of course deserve more care and seriousness w/r/t scale.)
Besides, in this case the thing surely is not a matter of mere harmless ‘opinion,’ under the unusual circumstances of the given identity; surely it’s a materially very important matter for the fellow in question, viz. —
“Reputation, reputation, reputation! O I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial!”
–Othello, II.iii
(Interesting that Cassio spends the rest of the scene bemoaning the perils of drunken behavior! The whole scene is quite worth revisiting.)
Besides, wondering aloud “whether or not he dunnit”, with the emphasis on the ‘whether or not,’ would in fact be the healthy thing; but what I’ve seen thus far are barely any whethers at all, but mostly a lot of blanket condemnations, rather comfortably wrapped in self-righteousness.
w/r/t this… “Aren’t you ever worried that finger might fall off?”
Oh, come now, ma’am.
This sort of business is a mere toot on a tinwhistle. And haven’t I seen a forest of fingers here meself?
If I really were to take the world to task, as the saying goes, it wouldn’t get back for a month.
It’s a principle of the rule of law in countries with legal systems derived from English law, j_p_z. There is no presumption of innocence as a principle of the rule of law in countries with legal systems derived from the Napoleonic Code, as a contrasting example. It has never been otherwise than part of the rule of law, and extending it to common discourse is a matter of manners rather than principle.
As for the fingerwagging gag, I did realise this shot of yours across our bow was only a warming up exercise.
Hitchens has a new book out on Tom Paine’s The Rights of Man. Excerpted here
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1819758,00.html
It’s an OK read though nothing groundbreaking, but I’ve always been both a Paine fan and a Hitch fan so I enjoyed it. Incidentally it’s dedicated to Jalal Talabani (the Pres of Iraq)
tigtog got in before me. Gibson is not accused of a crime, just of being an ass.
Gibson’s definitely an arse-clown, Mark.
It’s astounding to think Hitchens is a Paine fan, Jason. I think they’re world’s apart in every way.
But then again, as Ian Syson once advised me, as much as you admire Orwell, always be suspicious of those who quote him.
We’ve got some thread seepage going on here, tigtog
Actually he probably is accused of a crime – drink driving. But you know what I mean!
I don’t think that’s a fair comment, wg. The pro-war left-liberals are still left-liberals. Whether to go to war to achieve a particular objective is still a matter of complex prudential judgement, not a simple matter of right and wrong. Hitchens’ objectives are purer than some of his bedfellow’s. I am prepared to make allowances for him and Blair.
PS Tony Blair, of course, not Tim Blair
I’m not sure you’ve got Hitchens pinged correctly, Jason. When he was openly identifying as a leftie, I think he used to describe himself as a socialist rather than a liberal. I’m not sure that his shift across to being a liberal didn’t leave behind the left bit…
Good Lord, thanks for qualifying that, Jason. My fingers were clenched over the keyboard…
The Blair thing, that is.
What Mark said.
Also bear in mind he has been a consistent champion of the Kurds, unlike some of the Bushies who tacked them on like an extra argument, hence his dedication of the book to Talabani for instance. I believe him when he claims to have supported the war for the reasons he cites.
I think the threat to Gibson’s career are a bit overestimated. He is beyond that now after directing, producing and funding “Passion” on his own, he made so much money on that deal he doesn’t need the help of any of the Hollywood power players now, he is one himself.
Funny, Mel is found to be OK whilst Hitchens is guilty as charged – but he wasnt driving!
Even if he can afford to fund the entire production of another movie by himself, (which he probably can for two, maybe three films now) it’s only worth it if enough people come to see it that it turns a profit in the long run.
Bums on seats, the movie business is all about bums on seats. All it took to make Tom Cruise movies break-evens instead of blockbusters was one couch-jumping episode. How many investors are lining up to throw money at his next film, I wonder?
Will this incident do the same for Mel?
FYI, j_p_z:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,19983391-953,00.html
Thanks for that link, Augusto. (32 mb of rare entertainment – yes Hitch is intellectually dishonest and I’m guessing emotionally incomplete – but you can’t best him in a cage-fight : altho Georgous George did give him a bit of a touch up last year, but Hitch was on the very shaky ground of Iraq – his career nadir.)
I must have missed the memo about how to take what movie stars say as gospel but the execrable pile of shit that is Christopher Hitchens actually gets paid to pontificate into our faces. This pontius warthog Hitchens has ripped more than a few people off to make his spare reputation as a contrarian journalist – his book on Kissinger was largely from a Greek journalist and Sy Hersh – and Hitchens is a well known serial liar.
For example.
He lied about being a ‘ recovering Marxist’. Around the same time he wrote a sickening arse-licking hagiography about the red fascist Butcher Leon Trotsky.
He lied despicably about Niger and was finally alone with the brownshirt fascist, Michael Ledeen in their ( National- Bolshevic?) smear on Niger.
This was just last year.
He lied about the Neo-con Che Guevara, Ahmed Chalabi describing him as a possible encryption expert. This was pro-war spin delivered outside the AEI stink tank in Washington last year.
He lied about the respected academic Juan Cole whose blog is almost the poster-boy for premature blog triumphalism – at least on the subject of the Middle East. This was just recently and was assisted by that other brit-puke, Andrew ‘ anthrax’ Sullivan.
I do give him some latitude for commenting on drunks, the Italian ‘ liberation’ of Abyssinia and cocksucking but thats about it.
Even then he’s obviously losing it and needs to look into where Mel checks in …to see if they have a large vacancy.
Mark — re yr info update… (SLAPS FOREHEAD) well, whaddaya know. Looks like I’ve got a hat to eat somewhere. Damn lies and statistics, and so forth. Just goes to show that 1) don’t be a gambling man, cuz the odds can always just not deliver, and 2) I should stop trying to infer the entire scenario based only on the sketch in an AP report.
Oh well. Can you recommend a good BBQ sauce that goes nicely with a fedora?
Dunno, j_p_z, but I really want to find a good shop that sells Fedoras! I believe hats for men are back in, but so far that’s only a fashion prediction I’ve read in the papers.
Mark — take my advice, skip the fedora (which anyway has been colonized by Britney) and go with the panama! Much classier, lighter, cleaner lines, and they can still look sharp without being in ironic “quotes.” Also, they go with just about anything. And if you get mistaken for a wealthy cocaine dealer, well, so be it! (although I used to wear a fedora in place of an ice-hockey helmet, so I have a kind of sentimental attachment to them…)
Plus panamas look MUCH better with a good pair of shades, trust me.
Thanks, j_p_z.
Meanwhile on matters Mel, Miranda Devine thinks it’s significant that people haven’t criticised Gibson’s drink driving as vociferously as his anti-semitic remarks:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/reaction-is-as-affronting-as-the-meltdown/2006/08/02/1154198202326.html
But I don’t.
And over at Catallaxy, to the frustration of Andrew Norton, Comrade Bird reveals his feelings about Christopher Hitchens:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=1963#comment-129860
~ Graeme Bird
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=1963#comment-129860
Actually, the rest of Birdy’s comment, especially about Mel’s childhood inculcation under his anti-semitic father and his regressing to that under the influence of alcohol was quite perceptive until he got to the bit which Andrew cut out.
oops, I see Mark beat me to it.
Mark, what’s going on? Miranda Devine writes a column where I agree with about half of it? She ruins it of course with the usual descent into dogwhistling, but she makes strong points about the seriousness of the drink-driving and how much that’s been downplayed in the Gibson incident.
However I agree with you: she’s wrong about what it means. Since everybody knows he’s going to (has been now) charged with drink-driving, and is going to be punished for that by the courts, it’s not made much of because it’s already being handled, not because people don’t care.
The fuss about his bigoted remarks is being made precisely because there is no legal recourse against Gibson for uttering them. Same for the repellent sexism of the “sugar tits” slur – he’s not going to get hauled into court for that either, so he gets plenty of feminist excoriation which also doesn’t much mention the drink-driving.
I do hope he gets banned from driving for a good long while. Think of how much worse this all could have been if he’d killed someone.
That happened to me once too, Tigtog.
You’d better believe it.
Mark – re hats, the husbang’s taken to a nifty dress Akubra. ‘svery fetching.
And Currency Lad has decided Mel mustn’t be so terrible because Hitchens is worse (and you can stop snickering now, PavCat.)
Is Hitchens bad when he’s pro-Bush too?
Snickering? Moi?
Actually, it’s difficult. I was an impassioned, nay drooling, fan of Hitchens before he Turned, and now feel sad and conflicted whenever anyone mentions him — much less posts a classic quotation like the one about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion becoming abruptly acceptable between one vodka and the next.
But I couldn’t follow the link, because for some reason my browser refuses to read CL’s blog any more. And … oh, never mind.
I’m guessing, but I believe the people who are denouncing Gibson for his anti-Jewish comments are the same people who were defending the Danish newspapers for publishing those anti-Mohammed cartoons. To be consistent, shouldn’t we be defending Gibson’s freedom of speech, no matter how offensive his comments were? Or are Jews a special case?
Well, I wasn’t; I thought they were dickheads looking for trouble.
Well, actually, yes. Show me six million of any other demographic who have been systematically slaughtered within living memory, and I’ll call them a special case, too.
PC, you don’t have to defend yourself. You are obviously not one of those people.
Well, I’m certainly appalled by Gibson’s remarks, and have said so somewhere or other. (Oh yes, on my own blog.) But I don’t think your analogy really holds in any case — too many variables.
Actually, I’m also a bit sceptical about freedom of speech. Racial vilification, incitement to racial hatred and other acts of hate speech, IMO, ought not to be granted automatic shelter under that big shabby umbrella.
C’mon silkworm – you know there’s a difference between people’s right to say things without fear of imprisonment, and the right of people to criticise what other people say.
Don’t be a dick.
We are in agreement on this. All I was saying was that there seemed to be a lot of comments by mainly right-wing folks in favour of the publication of the cartoons, and now there is universal condemnation of Gibson’s comments from the left and the right. It just seems there is a double standard operating in the so-called secular West.
However, as to your comment that the Jews deserve special consideration because they were singled out during the Holocaust, I can only agree to this conditionally. While I do agree that the feelings of Jews should be given consideration regarding the Holocaust, we should note that Gibson did not mention the Holocaust in his drunken comments, as far as I know. It was only some rant about Jews starting all the wars, or at least that’s all we’ve been told about. No matter how wrong this comment may be, Gibson still has a right to say it, and maybe it is a bit precious of some Jews to claim offence over this comment because of the Holocaust, or am I being a dick?
I wonder if Gibson had anything to say about the current war in the Lebanon. When he said the Jews started all the wars in the world, was he thinking of this war in particular? We know that Gibson gave a long rant about Jews. Is this rant availably anywhere on the web? Is it proper for us to know what he said, or would Jewish feelings be too hurt by their publication?
If there is a police video recording of the incident, as I believe is current practise for most USA patrol vehicles, then someone with access to it will eventually sell a copy of it, betcha bottom dollar.
I expect a lot of people, Jewish and non-, would be interesting in his exact words, and the bidding for such footage will be concomitantly high.
Just goes to show how very bad it was, if the left and right are agreed on it. But your logic here seems to be that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are simple absolute positions and totally mutually exclusive. I can’t believe you believe this.
The Holocaust was clearly part of the war, and anyway I mentioned it as only as the most recent and extreme example of Jewish history (and I should have mentioned Cambodia as well). I was — I don’t know if the word is ‘lucky’ — enough to be in Vienna in 1999 when they were excavating for the foundations of the Holocaust memorial sculpture in, appropriately, the Judenplatz. The work had been held up because the excavators had found the remains of a 14th century synagogue. You could look down into it from the scaffolding and see the smoke all over the walls, where it had been burned out by the ravening antisemitic hordes; the rabbi had killed a lot of them and then himself to save them from being tortured.
There’s also a plaque on one of the buildings in that square commemorating another ‘purge’ by fire of the ‘Jewish dogs’, this time 16th century. And in the Jewish Museum there’s a big collection of random damaged household objects that got scattered on Kristallnacht — there’s a staggeringly numinous and unbearably poignant power in such things. I saw death masks from the camps, and slides taken by the Nazis in 1942 of stacks of infected, tortured, dismembered and/or eviscerated bodies, dead or alive, all taken clinically in the spirit of ‘science’. I saw a framed enlargement of a letter from one ‘scientist’ to another asking for sime Jewish criminals to test pilot endurance because they have run out of chimps, and ‘It’s very noisy; the subjects tend to scream when they freeze.’
This is the kind of behaviour that hate speech enables, lets out of the genie’s bottle and the Pandora’s Box. ‘Gibson has a right to say it?’ I’m not sure what you mean by ‘right’. But if he has a right to say it then I sure as hell have a right to trash him for it.