Pic of Hitchens during his “trying to look like Martin Amis” period. Oh wait..That is Martin Amis!
Here’s Hitchens
If you didn’t get to see yesterdays Jon Stewart show with Christopher Hitchens, you missed an incredible spanking. Hitchens had his ass handed to him over his position concerning the Iraq war (hint: he’s a big fan of it). Worse was Hitchens inability to realize he was ambushed on the show and his further inability to defend himself. It got so bad that he lost his train of thought once and mumbled through it and tried to use his old tricks of snide comments to get back on top of the argument. At one point he called Stewart “Sunshine” which was supposed to be insulting I think. Nothing worked and at one point Stewart began to toy with him like a cat with a mouse. Stewart wouldn’t even help Hitchens get back his lost train of thought when he easily could have. He let Hitchens swing in the wind. It was hilarious. I’ve never seen anyone do this to Hitchens before. I’m certain that Hitchens was upset over his fumbling performance.
I do think Hitchens is a great wit, but his act needs upgrading. It’s deteriorated to lame asides and berating people with clever phrasing and not much else. His overall arrogance and condescending attitude is also out-of-control.
Catch a rerun if you can.
The winner
TRD….okay, I looked up (answers.com) the definitions of Liberal/Progressive…and, HECK YES…I like the words!!!
lib·er·al (lĭb’ər-əl, lĭb’rəl) pronunciation
adj.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
pro·gres·sive (prə-grĕs’ĭv) pronunciation
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope:
progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar. A progressive verb form.
meetsy, your referencing the big “liberal” dictionary and not the one that is allowed in Conservative Republican homes..
The conservative Republicans use a different dictionary than the rest of the world. It’s obviously a very small one (probably carved into a stone) since they constantly use the same word (liberal) that they understand as an insult …over and over..ad nauseam. A Republican dictionary that evidently also spells potato with an E at the end. (Dan Quayle reference)
I suppose that it’s appropriate that they identify with the word Jesus but more appropriately it should be ‘Jeez Us’ because it has to be the most common comment uttered after most of them speak.
As for the Daily Show, I find it disconcerting when people simply view it as a funny comedy show. Yes, it’s entertainment but the humor originates from the problems and situations that exist around us and if you simply laugh without being a bit disturbed by many of the underlying issues or points then you aren’t quite “getting it”. Political (news) humor is like John Wayne Gracy in a clown’s costume. It’s not just about the funny clown, there is an underlying problem under that funny shell that needs to be contemplated.
As far as the debate, it’s like most in that their are two going on at the same time. The one between the actual issue points and the one between the debater’s personalities or showmanship. As a result, you can “debate” forever about who won or lost. It’ll likely be the one you wanted to win in the first place anyway.
Meetsy/TRD – You can call it what you want guys, but it’s still crap.
Wow,
If you didn’t think that Hitchens resembled a drunk without a shred of moral or intellectual integrity, then you should probably volunteer to join the military and fight in our war on . . . oh, yeah, it’s tough keeping track of who we’re at war with.
Mr.E
Support our Troops — Draft Republicans
Everyone defending Hitchens appears to be overlooking the fact that Stewart made cogent critiques of the rationale for the war and its bungled execution while Hitchens was left flailing at strawmen.
To JJE,
Hitchens never denied Stewart of his critiques. Neither did those who defended Hitchens.
This is Stewart’s show. He can’t afford to look bad on his own show, so he didn’t let Hitchens make him look bad. The fact that 85% of the audience doesn’t know shit about politics, and just want to see the show because 1) they’re bored New Yorkers with nothing better to do at 5 PM 2) they think Stewart’s funny, doesn’t help Hitchens at all. In fact, it might have been the biggest reason why he lost.
Not a lot of people, “Dvorak Uncensored” included, seem to really know what these two men are saying. They, like the audience on the show, blindy support whichever one they favour (in this case, Jonathan Stewart Leibowitz).
The reason why Jon won on “Crossfire,” is because the audience was on his side (obviously “Daily Show” fans), and because he knows how to debate (see, “talking louder than your opponent to try and sound more important”), having spent a lot of time in show business.
Hitchens agreed with some of the things that Jon was saying, yet the audience still clapped. It just seems unfair, since there was no real ‘battle’ or ‘debate’ to begin with. I love both Jon and Hitchens. But, Jon has writers, and was expecting a ‘debate’ with Hitchens (why else would he immediately start talking about Iraq?), while Hitchens was just appearing on the show to promote his new book, like on normal television shows.
I would personally like to see a conservation or debate between Mr. Stewart and Mr. Hitchens. No audience, no writers, and no special editing. Just see what would have truly happened without the confused army of “The Daily Show.”