Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens passed away on December 15, 2011, leaving behind a large set of writings. He published books such as God is Not Great and Why Orwell Matters. He wrote for Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, and Slate. His journalism took him to dozens of countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus, and Lebanon. In 2008 he went so far as to allow himself to be waterboarded so he could write an article about it in Vanity Fair, titled "Believe Me, It's Torture." He raises a spirited critique of the practice, which has been prosecuted by the U.S. when done against our citizens.

I've always known Hitchens as an outspoken atheist. But I think atheism was just one one facet of his philosophy. He was mainly against totalitarianism in any form. In his view, religion was one more attack on a human's mind, which yearns to be free. He especially hated Islam and saw it as a form of fascism. I think he was guilty of holding Islamic extremists as typical examples of the faith, for there are many peaceful Muslims, but he was largely correct about the fanatics that want to establish an Islamic empire. In "Stand Up for Denmark!", he writes passionately in favor of freedom of speech, specifically speech to criticize a religion, and against those who would use violence to silence any opposition. The essay commences with a striking analogy:

Put the case that we knew of a highly paranoid religious cult organization witha secretive leader. Now put the case that this cult, if criticized in the press, would take immediate revenge by kidnapping a child. Put the case that, if the secretive leader were also to be lampooned, two further children would be killed at random. Would the press be guilty of "self-censorhip" if it declined to publish anything that would inflame the said cult? Well, yes it would be guilty, but very few people would insist on the full exertion of the First Amendment right. However, the consequences for the cult and its leader would be severe as well. All civilized people would regard it as hateful and dangerous, and steps would be taken to circumscribe its influence, and to ensure that no precedent was set.

The incredible thing about the ongoing Kristallnacht against Denmark (and in some places, against the embassies and citizens of any Scandinavian or even European Union nation) is that it has resulted in, not opprobrium for the religion that perpetrates and excuses it, but increased respectability! ...And nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary: That we stand with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships. Let's be sure we haven't hurt the vandals' feelings.

In an essay in Slate he argues for the French ban on veils, insisting the the law is actually trying to lift a ban on seeing the face of fellow citizens. He actually managed to change my mind, concluding:

My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine. Next but not least comes the right of women to show their faces, which easily trumps the right of their male relatives or their male imams to decide otherwise. The law must be decisively on the side of transparency. The French are striking a blow not just for liberty and equality and fraternity, but for sorority too.

In addition to being well-traveled, Hitchens was well-read. He was friends with writers such as Ian McEwan and Martin Amis. He always has a literary or historical reference to introduce an essay or book review. He was a big fan of George Owell. In the piece "On Animal Farm" he analyzes the book and compares the characters and plot to the actual events of the Russian Revolution. He has essays on Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. He reviews a book on John Brown with a keen insight into the politics of slavery in the mid-Nineteenth century. In "America the Banana Republic", he critizes the philosphy that has allowed the privatization of gains and the socialization of losses.

Hitchens had a anti-imperialist point of view as an Englishman who saw the fallout of the English empire fading over the course of the Twentieth century. He discusses the situation in Palestine as the end result of decisions made decades ago by English aristocrats. In "The Perils of Partition", he looks at the division of Pakistan from India and the religious bloodshed that has resulted. He compares that situation with the creation of Iraq with different ethnicities like the Kurds, and the partitioning of Ireland into Catholic and Protestant sections.

There are also lighter essays, such as "So Many Men's Rooms, So Little Time", about Senator Larry Craig. One essay is about blowjobs, titled "As American as Apple Pie". I was please to discover that he had a similar take as I did on the works of Stieg Larsson and J. K. Rowling, that they are overrated.

There is a wide range of essays in the book, from literary critiques to historical commentaries to short and sharp pieces on modern issues. I confess I skipped some of the reviews of more obscure authors, but the ones I read were good, and I learned about several new authors. I sometimes consider myself well-read, but certainly not compared to a giant like Hitchens. His writing is the most eloquent combination of historical depth, elegant craftsmanship, and fierce rhetoric I have ever read. A

Super Sad True Love Story

Gary Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story is a romance set in a dystopian near future. Lenny Abramov is a nearly forty year old salesman for life extension services, which promises immortality to to High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI's). Yet he has little luck in Italy, except that he meets Eunice Park, a second generation Korean American in her mid twenties. She finds him endearing, despite calling him "nerdface", and he is completely smitten by her. When they return to New York, he pursues her and they become a couple, albeit an awkward couple. He keeps pushing to meet her parents, and she finally relents but introduces him as her roommate. He enthusiastically shows her off to his own parents, retired Russin immigrants.

The romance of Lenny and Eunice takes place against the backdrop of a strange sort of America, where credit poles line the street announcing the credit rating of passers-by, and the Chinese central banker is the most powerful person in the country. The nation is run by the Bipartisan Party, and controlled by a strong American Restoration Authority. American society has become Orwellian, with the eye of Big Brother in the form of a cartoon otter that asks about one's friends and acquaintances, and signs that warn is it a crime to awknowledge their very existence. There is a war in Columbia that no one is sure the cause of, and the soldiers have not gotten their bonuses. Authoritarianism and double-speak have taken over the public discourse, and citizens are trapped in a cycle of borrowing and spending which distracts them from the danger of their own government.

Lenny and Eunice's relationship is fragile. She is shallow and finds his books quaint. He can't quite understand her friends or her lack of ambition. He is eager to please her and do whatever it takes to keep her. Lenny introduces her to his supervisor Joshie, who becomes obsessed with Eunice and her youth. Joshie is in his seventies but determined to stay young through his company's treatments, which he believes will help him achieve immortality. Joshie insinuates himself into Eunice's life and tries to seduce her behind Lenny's back. In many ways he is more suited to her, since they are both shallow and youth-obsessed.

Yet the "super sad" and "true" parts of the story are not so much the romance between the three individuals as the American society that is falling apart around them. Civil liberties are being sold to the corporations, yet Lenny's parents are watching Fox Liberty Prime and worried about gays getting married. People like Lenny are more worried about their bank accounts and becoming LNWI's (Low Net Worth Individuals) like the citizens assembling at the park to protest their treatment. Joshie talks casually about "relocating" the undesirables so that America's new investors could enjoy Manhattan as a HNWI spender's paradise. Lenny seems lost in this rapidly changing world, and is genuinely astonished when his building is taken over by a corporation to be torn down, supposedly because it is in a flood plain.

This novel is a bit different than I expected but I still enjoyed it. The romance between Lenny and Eunice is pretty simple and straightforward, but it speaks volumes about generational differences and how American culture is becoming fragmented and shallow. The two of them have barely anything in common, and their relationship is an analogy for the relationship between generations. Lenny is earnest and sweet; his narrative is told via his diary. Eunice's side of the story is told in her messages to her family and friends, so it is closer to how her generation communicates. The sad, negative vision of America is the main part of the story. We see the country transforming and falling apart, and Lenny's romance with Eunice is a small part of it. A-

Unscientific America

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future is an analysis by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of the communication problem between scientists and the general public in the U.S. today. The authors trace the rise of science during the mid Twentieth Century in the aftermath of the Second World War, and especially after Sputnik. For decades scientific research had strong support from the government and society at large. The authors go beyond the basic scientific illiteracy in the general public and make a case the while the public is not necessarily anti-science, they do not have an appreciation for how important science is in our society and are not enough involved in scientific research and discoveries.

I was a little concerned when they attack Richard Dawkins and other outspoken atheists, which makes me wonder if they have ever read Dawkins. They try to make a valid point about science and atheism not necessarily being linked, and the case for scientific naturalism vs. philosopohical naturalism. They fear that too much attention given to atheist scientists will scare away the religious American public, and they may have a point there. I also found little discussion about how science is under attack by moneyed interests. I expect that is because that subject is covered in Mooney's book The Republican War on Science

The central lament is about how scientists no longer have the ear of the President or other national leaders. There is also concern about how much attention scientists and the scientific community gives to outreach and just communicating with the public. There are important organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but the authors call for a more organized approach, as well as more attention given to communication in science degree coursework. They have some interesting ideas, such as more combination science/journalism degrees. Their big central case is that of Carl Sagan, one of the most well known scientists in the last fifty years, who caught blow-back in the science community for popularizing and "dumbing down" science.

More than an assessment of the public's knowledge of science, this book looks at the ways the two cultures of science and the general public do not even speak the same language. Their call is for more interaction with science and a bigger presence for scientists at leadership levels. It is a worthy goal. B+

God's Politics

I don't usually read a book with "God" in the title unless it is along the lines of God is not Great or The God Delusion. But I had heard of Jim Wallis before so I thought that he might have something different to say about religion and politics. While reading God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It I was struck by what he says and how different his message is from the usual political discourse in America.

Wallis's central theme is that religious voters should vote with the core message of Jesus, namely peace, love, and charity. He is not pleased with the Christian fundamentalists who have taken over religious discussions in the country in the name of Jesus yet seem to have forgotten Jesus's teachings. His critique of the Christian Right is spot on, accusing them of only caring about abortion and gay marriage, and in fact supporting policies that make poverty worse. Wallis urges liberals to open up about their religious views and how they inform their politics. He is against what he calls "secular fundamentalism", the push from the left to keep religion out of politics. I think he has a decent point here, but he forgets President Obama's recent words on this subject: that any call for change in law or policy must have a legitimate secular purpose, regardless of the religious inspiration. What fears liberals and libertarians is the calls for laws based solely on flimsy religious grounds.

Wallis pushes for justice for the poor and underprivileged in the United States and around the world. He labels budgets "moral documents". Where a family or government spends its money is the clearest indication of its moral values. He rightly calls it shameful that our national policies promote wealth accumulation for the wealthy and give little help to the poor. He has been involved with promoting debt forgiveness for developing nations.

A good portion of the book, which was published in 2005, concerns the Iraq war. Wallis slams the politics of fear that followed 9/11. He contrasts the rhetoric for the war with the concepts of just war, which he believes the Iraq war was not. The leaders in England were still discussing alternatives to war while the American administration had already made the decision to invade. He promotes the idea that those who are against war must be able to suggest viable alternatives--which were certainly available for the Iraq war. He also shows that for peace to be a viable option there must be widespread justice and rule of law.

Wallis does make some claims that I find dubious or even misleading. He makes the claim that religious faith has been a driving force for progressive causes (he refers to Martin Luther King often). There may be some truth to this, but the honest assessment is that religion has been more of a hindrance to issues such as abolition of slavery, women's rights, and marriage equality for gays. He does criticize the religious right's support for the death penalty. But he criticizes both sides of the abortion debate, a move that I believe goes too easy on the right. He mentions President Clinton's move to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare", but then dismisses any progress made on the Democrat's watch. The abortion rate going down is a success that should be lauded by both sides. And he completely misses the biggest reasons for the high abortion rate, namely sex education and access to contraception, which religious people are often against. In spite of these critiques, the book is a refreshing look at the real moral issues concerning our country. A-

The Years of Talking Dangerously

Geoffrey Nunberg is a linguist who provides commentary for NPR and national newspapers like the New York Times. The Years of Talking Dangerously is a collection of his pieces on linguistics from the last few years.

Nunberg brings a much needed perspective to our use of words. He reviews several popular words and how their use has grown over the decades. Some of the recent "word of the year" candidates get discussed, such as crackberry or truthiness.

In the second section he talks about politics and language. He brings up issues such as the redefinition of torture, the throwing around of the word socialism, and how the name Joe became symbolic for the average American citizen. An interesting piece compares the words liberal and progressive, trying to define how they are different. His conclusion is that since liberal has become a weapon of conservatives, people have moved to progressive, since their usage really can't be pinned down any better. The coarsening of political, he argues, goes hand in hand with the attitude that anybody who can't take the rhetoric is whining.

A lot of media attention is paid to the Internet (such as whether to capitalize the word itself) and its affect on language. Nunberg comments on the exaggeration around technology's affect on language, going back to the days of the telegraph. It's always interesting to discover that the alarms heard today have been heard before in history. He also talks about how patriotism is used as a weapon. "The less it costs to proclaim yourself a patriot, the less your political adversaries have to do to be accused of being patriotic--it's enough that they question the wisdom of a policy or leave their lapel pins on their other suit." I think it's important to study how words are used, especially in any discussion or argument. It's even more important when words are used to shut down discussion.

I enjoyed the insights that Nunberg brings in his commentaries. The pieces are short and easy to read, while being insightful. Nunberg shows how we come to use certain words instead of others, or why we avoid certain words--like whether the people fleeing hurricane Katrina were refugees or something else. There's a lot of meaning behind our choice of words. B+