Amazingly intelligent interview.

"You have figure like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who are religious illiterates and bigots whose right wing policies do not differ in any way from the christian fundamentalists they attack. They're all chanting for war in the middle east and demonizing muslims in the name of western civilization rather than in the name of satan."

Wow... not sure what to say here.

Edit:
Just learned that Hedges is the only person that Sam Harris will no longer speak to or shake hands with, because of his vehement dishonesty and hatred for those who possess a difference of opinion. Again wow.

^Hitchen's was a neocon back in the Bush days. Not sure if he is still. Sam Harris made some comments in his debate with Hedges that painted Muslims with a very broad brush, and were arguably racist. I think Sam's comments were more ignorant than actively racist. Most Americans (myself included) lack a real understanding of Islamic culture, so it's easy for us to categorize them as a bunch of crazy fundamentalists that like to mutilate female genitals and will kill you for making cartoons. Hedges made the point that most Muslims are just regular people trying to get by, and that the proportion of angry, violent Islamic fundamentalists was equal to that of angry, violent American fundamentalists. (Mini editorial: I think fundamentalism is a bigger problem than any individual religious or group, be that group Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. When you believe your personal philosophy to be the living embodiment of goodness, holiness, liberty or perfection, you lose the ability for critical thought.)

Hedges is to be respected. We could use more like him.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

@dystopianfuturetoday I respect this guy too, he's definitely a heavyweight in the field, that's why this threw me back so much. I would argue that Harris and Hitchens were merely attacking the faith of the Muslims as much as they attack the faith at home. Faith being so ingrained in the Muslim community I can see how this would be racist in a sense, it almost has to be. To say they are religious illiterates though... that smacks of saying they're illiterate only because they refuse to drink the kool-aid.
As far as Hitchens being a neocon, if he is an old school neocon a la Wolfowitz, I could kinda see why though I still don't like it. Since then the neocon doctrine was highjacked by the Bush administration and now is far less palatable obviously.

Edit: I also believe that no one of Hedges intellect can defend religion without 'vehement dishonesty'.

Dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm not looking to debate anything here, I'm just curious as to your reasoning for considering Hitchens as an (at least) one time neo-con. What information led you to this opinion? As it seems distinctly opposed to what I've read in his memoirs and other writings.

I think he basically means that anybody who dismisses religion as nonsense is a bigot, and somehow illiterate on the subject if you aren't a believer who went through seminary school.

Edit: Was in a bit of a rush earlier, but I like just about everything he has to say, from reasons for Nixon allowing liberal policies, to Clinton being the beginning of the liberals selling out to the conservatives, and basically failing to be the safety valve they should be. And I really like how he calls out the christian fascists for their war mongering, greed, and disdain for those in need. Not very christian of them.

Wow. That's all you glean from this? Hedges is a smart, well spoken fellow. How can you not be at least a bit curious as to his reasoning on the subject before dismissing him in a grossly oversimplified way?

>> ^Barbar:

Dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm not looking to debate anything here, I'm just curious as to your reasoning for considering Hitchens as an (at least) one time neo-con. What information led you to this opinion? As it seems distinctly opposed to what I've read in his memoirs and other writings.


ill answer for ya @Barber
hitchens was all for the iraq war and went even as far as to say waterboarding was not only NOT torture but necessary.
in his defense he did step down from both those positions.it should also be noted that hitchens actually allowed himself to be waterboarded and immediately (and i do mean immediately) changed his position that waterboarding was most certainly torture.which to me was a tribute to this mans intelligence.a true believer would never change his ideology but the intelligent person,when confronted with incontrovertible evidence,will change.

one final note @Enzoblue
neo-conservatism was anything BUT conservative.the neo-conservative philosophy began in the 1940's by leon strauss from the university of chicago.the basic premise is to use america's military might to secure american interests globally.this small fringe group of intellectuals had very little influence until the late 70's when they co-opted the christian right for their cause.

and so began the conflation of the christian right and american nationalism in the form of the republican party.
oh the delicious irony.

so when you say "old school neoconservative" what you are really referring to is the time the neo-cons had minimal influence (still there though) rumsfeld and cheney being big players during the reagan administration.which of course was made possible by the christian rights entering the political sphere (up till then most churches stayed out of politics).these same players brought in their fellow neo-cons during the bush administration and that administration read like a who's-who of prominent neocons:rumsfeld,cheny,pearl,wolfowitz,amratige,addington,woo.the list is massive.
so it wasnt so much about a change in philosophy but rather this fringe group (catapulted by the naive christian right) as having come into their own in terms of power and influence.

and all i have to say to that merry bunch of fucks is: THANKS DICKHEADS.