1. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #222126 by ScarSick on July 30, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Correct, that was from Counterpunch.

However, the argument that Epstein has a good memory does not trump or disprove the testimony of two highly respected editors (one from a magazine where Cockburn works - who by the way was on the verge of being fired until Mr. Hitchens - while he was still at the magazine - threatend to re-sign over if Cockburn was fired).

The explanation that Wintour and Mcnally are loyal does not equate evidence or support the claim by Epstein. If it does anything, it should sneak doubt into the claim by Epstein.

It should be pointed out that Cockburn and Hitchens had a falling out. This has led to a bitter grudge on both sides (though, Cockburn seems to take it a lot farther than Hitchens. Cockburn has publicly said that he eagerly awaits Mr. Hitchens' death - Hitchens is the Godfather of Cockburn's son, I believe).

Also, Perrin is an individual who used his brief relationship with Hitchens into a career. This is according to Hitchens in a book just released by Professor Thomas Cushman and Simon Cottee.

I repeat: Nothing that you posted proves or substantiates that Hitchens is a holocaust denier (a charge that the Anti-defamation league deems incorrect in regards to Mr. Hitchens.) It's all a bunch of heresay by Clintonoids' (Epstein) and the Left who believe Hitchens is a traitor (Cockburn/Chomsky/Finklestein/etc).

Alan Dershowitz (a Jew and a staunch supporter of Israel) has himself called the allegation absurd in the most extreme degree (paraphrasing)

One last thing, if I seem to be directing attacks on you personally, I apologize. I realize you are just puting forth the claims by other men, so no hard feelings.

2. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #221938 by ScarSick on July 30, 2008 at 10:34 am

Here is Hitchens speaking on the manner:

"1) Edward J. Epstein himself gave the names of Anna Wintour and Brian
McNally as the only witnesses he could recall, to a statement that I never made.
And indeed, they were the only other guests I could remember at a dinner-table
that he attempted to crash. So their affirmative statements on my behalf
seemed to decide the matter.
2) The same allegation surfaced a few years later, in the mouth of Henry
Kissinger, and it has crossed my mind that Epstein may have been the
foul-mouthed whisperer in that case also. Be that as it may, anyone with the patience
to visit my website can read the ensuing correspondence between my lawyers and
Henry Kissinger's lawyers. They withdrew the allegation and promised not to
repeat it. Cockburn's standards are more relaxed: any old stick will do.
3) My long account of my view of, and experience of, David Irving is to be
found in my latest collection, entitled Love, Poverty and War and published by
Nation Books."

3. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #221932 by ScarSick on July 30, 2008 at 10:21 am

Yes, defend free speech. But, if I'm not mistaken, CH has also called Irving a "great historian."

Your cherrypicking. The full quotation is: "Irving is not just a Fascist historian. He is also a great historian of Fascism" Hitchens said this due to Irving's insight into the Churchill-Hitler relationship.

Those comments were made many years ago (1995?) at some formal dinner. According to author Edward Jay Epstein ,in an MSNBC interview, he overheard Hitchens question the Nazi Holocaust. Edwards also said that CH referred to the gassing of Jews as "Stalinist propaganga, dear boy."

Those comments were never substantiated, and Mr. Hitchens threatend to file a lawsuit against Epstein who Hitchens called a "demented liar".

Also: "AUTHOR Edward J. Epstein, a friend of Blumenthal, told MSNBC that four years ago, Hitchens questioned whether the Holocaust had ever taken place. The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors anti-Semitism around the world, says Hitchens is not a Holocaust denier, and now Hitchens, a caustic critic of President Clinton, is accusing Epstein of launching a plot to destroy his reputation. "Why now?" Hitchens said in an interview. "I suspect it is an effort by the Clintonoids to change the subject." The White House denies it had anything to do with Epstein's charges. The public falling-out between Hitchens and Blumenthal occurred earlier this month when Hitchens swore in an affidavit that the senior White House aide had passed on to him Clinton's description of Monica Lewinsky as a "stalker" over lunch last March. Because Blumenthal recently testified that he did not mention the "stalker" to any reporters or friends, he now faces possible perjury charges."

and: Anna Wintour, who as at the dinner when Epstein alleges Hitchens said these remarks, claims that she never heard them.

and: Hitchens' [former] editor at The Nation, Victor Navasky. Navasky confirmed in an interview that Epstein had told him about Hitchens' alleged remarks at the time, but he said they did not trouble him and he never brought up the subject with Hitchens. "I never took it seriously as a charge," Navasky said

4. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #219184 by ScarSick on July 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Well, Mr. Blumethal seems to have put a political hit job on Mr. Hitchens (probably for his political hack father, Sidney Blumenthal).

Hitchens had Irving over for dinner ONCE (and has since cut all ties with Mr. Irving, as Mr. Irving acted inappropriate to his family).

Hitchens does not endorse what Irving has to say on the Holocaust or the Jews (partly because it is wrong and partly because Mr. Hitchens' own mother was Jewish), but does respect his right to say it.

As pointed out by a commenter on the YouTube video: "Hitchens does see merit in Irving's uncovering of the true nature of the Churchill-Hitler relationship." That is the basis for Hitchens saying that Irving has potential to be a worthy historian.

If you want to know all of the details between Hitchens and Irving, read "The Strange Case of David Irving" it's an essay published Hitchens and also reappears in "Love, Poverty, and War" by the same author.

5. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137453 by ScarSick on March 2, 2008 at 11:29 pm

It's always good to see the Hitch.

On the subject of Maher - I find him quite disagreeable.

His pathetic defence of the Clintons and his disgraceful statements on child rape is growing tiresome and offensive to human integrity.

6. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114487 by ScarSick on January 22, 2008 at 9:45 am

6. Ron Paul is behind in the polls

Is that some sort of sick joke?

We should all be thankful that he is behind in the polls and has no shot of winning.

7. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107835 by ScarSick on January 5, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Does anyone know if this resoultion has a 'good' chance of passing through the legislation process?

8. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107632 by ScarSick on January 4, 2008 at 9:37 pm

The Rabbi is terrible.

I just watched the Q&A period...The Rabbi further illustrates his absurd beliefs and justifications for his religion. He avoids and misrepresents each question he is asked by throwing out red herrings. It gets to the point that Sam Harris, at least on one occasion, had to respond to one of the questions that the Rabbi was suppose to answer.

Also, his arguments throughout the debate are pitiful.

9. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104047 by ScarSick on December 27, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Very good article.

On the subject of Thomas Jefferson, I would recommend Christopher Hitchens' fantastic book, "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America". Great read.

10. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102374 by ScarSick on December 22, 2007 at 2:13 pm

On the subject of 'Atheistic fundamentalism', I would highly suggest A.C. Grayling's "Against All Gods". He tackles this very incoherent claim by religious apologists.

"It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist". What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.) Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?"

If someone wants to read further on Grayling's comments on 'atheist fundamentalism', you can check out his webpage: http://www.acgrayling.com/atheist/atheist1.html

This paper is also in Christopher Hitchen's "The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever". I highly recommend it.

11. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102372 by ScarSick on December 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm

the Barna Group also claims that 8% of atheists and agnostics accept the story of Eve and the serpent!

This is quite remarkable when that the very story is believed by 56 percent of total respondents. (the second lowest percentage of biblical stories believed in the bible, according to this study).

Also, an earlier poster made a valid criticism of this poll, when questioning the reliability of the poll. Based on the rather small number of respondents, it would be a mistake to draw any conclusions from this study. Clearly, this poll is not represented properly given the misrepresentation of the American population.

12. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100485 by ScarSick on December 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Dawkins did well, but the interviewer was dreadful, as was the production of the interview.

13. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100478 by ScarSick on December 18, 2007 at 5:26 pm

The Evangelical Alliance's Thacker noted, "I think the atheists will love it because it's bashing Christians around the head. It's another thing to take a Christian festival and abuse it.

"Borders wouldn't do this to any other religious festival. Borders [has] made a strategic mistake and Christians will boycott it."

So, Thacker is claiming that this is religious persecution, and Borders should be boycotted for making a CHRISTMAS CARD

Can it get more absurd?

14. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95295 by ScarSick on December 7, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Espadre: Thanks for clearing that up.

Apologies for the mistaken interpretation.

15. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95093 by ScarSick on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 am

Check out Christopher Hitchens response here: http://www.slate.com/id/2179404

I love it when Hitch stays on topic and target. Unfortunately, it seems to be a rare occurrence these days. Latley, he tends to wield his razor-sharp wit rather like a blunt butter knife. He does some damage - but it takes forever and the wounds are pretty shallow. I am beginning to think the man is stricken with self-loathing and may even have a death wish. Or maybe it's all that whiskey he's purported to consume...

I'm a little puzzled by these comments. Hitchens' was quite good, I thought. He raised some valid criticisms about Romney and his shady tactics.

Can you clarify what you actually mean by 'shallow' and 'self-loathing'? Perhaps I'm misreading you or misunderstanding, but I get the impression that you believe Hitchens criticisms were out of bounds.

I don't believe that to be the case, and I think you should elaborate more on this before you make such personal attacks.