How to measure impact? In physics, Newton's second law is what is normally used: The net force is equated to the product of the mass times the acceleration. The initial impact may be easy to compute, but the ripple effects, those that truly change things, are harder to gauge.
Such was the effect of Christopher Hitchens on me; the initial impact was enormous, but I could never have foreseen the ripple effects that were to follow. I first read Hitchens about nine years ago. If my memory serves me, it was a review of Hitchens' 'Why Orwell Matters?' that led me to Hitchens. Orwell was, in my mind, the greatest political essayist of the early 20th century, hence naming a blog in his honor. Hitchens' book was a revelation, a book that simultaneously showed Hitchens's own great reverence for Orwell, but also supplied many keen insights into Orwell's writings and life. Once I had started down the road of Hitchens, there was no turning back. I devoured all of his writings, watched every video I could find and eagerly awaited his next column.
His clarity, intelligence and breadth of knowledge was overwhelming to me, and led me to a number of books, writers and ideas that I may never have found. As I look at my bookshelves I see books on a wide range of subjects that are there thanks to Christopher Hitchens. A short mention or quote in an article would lead me down a glorious path of knowledge that he had mined, but that still contained gold.
I didn't always agree with his views, particularly those on abortion or even the conduct of the Iraq War. The brilliance of the man was that when one disagreed with his views, one gained a greater understanding of what was one against and had to reach deeper to fortify one's own position. If one was on the same side, it was like having a massive armored division behind you, ready to blast the enemy into oblivion.
To say he was the natural heir to Orwell is entirely unoriginal, but nevertheless true. He stayed true to his principles and, like Orwell, confronted the hypocrisy of the left and right. The thoughts and principles that he stood for and that most inspired me are summarized in this paragraph from 'Letters to a Young Contrarian':
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the "transcendent" and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."
I will greatly miss Christopher Hitchens. I will miss his writings, his opinions and his arguments. Most of all I will miss his ability to make ME think. The world is a little more dim without him.
Thank you Mr. Hitchens. Thank you very much.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Friday, June 01, 2007
Someone we all will miss.
I had planned to write a comment on the day that Tony Blair announced his plans to step down as leader of the Labour Party and as Prime Minister, but found that I didn't know how to express my disappointment at something I knew was inevitable, and had known it, like many others, for a long time. He has certainly been my main political hero for the last ten years, and I had fervently hoped that he would stay in office long enough to break Margaret Thatcher's record. Sadly, it was not to be.
I have had the privilege of seeing him 'live' and in person once in my life and, despite the fact that I was already a huge fan, was amazed by his speaking ability, political reasoning and incredible charm. He is, quite simply, the best politician I have ever seen, and I have met Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and George W. Bush. Tony Blair was better and more impressive than all of them.
It is rare to come across a leading politician where one finds that one agrees with the vast majority of their beliefs. Such was, and is, my relation to Tony Blair. It is only on the spiritual question where I would say our paths diverge. Critics would no doubt pose the question: How can you be a fan of his policies when so much of their design is based in Blair's Christian beliefs?
I would answer that his ideas of communitarianism are grounded not only with his Christianity, but also in my beliefs in secular humanism and the joint belief that human values and rights are universal. There is hope for a meeting of the minds when it comes to shared values between those who believe and those who don't, and, in my opinion, Blair is where they met.
As I thought of what I would want to say about his time in office, I found that the posting would be too long. Leave it to the man himself to write a piece in the Economist that covers his ideas far better than I ever could.
Tony Blair will be missed and I suspect far more than his detractors would ever believe. Regardless of who wins the next election in the UK, there will be a noticeable void in British politics. I hope that Tony Blair takes an influential global role that suits his abilities. He may not be Prime Minister for much longer, but the world still needs him.
I have had the privilege of seeing him 'live' and in person once in my life and, despite the fact that I was already a huge fan, was amazed by his speaking ability, political reasoning and incredible charm. He is, quite simply, the best politician I have ever seen, and I have met Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and George W. Bush. Tony Blair was better and more impressive than all of them.
It is rare to come across a leading politician where one finds that one agrees with the vast majority of their beliefs. Such was, and is, my relation to Tony Blair. It is only on the spiritual question where I would say our paths diverge. Critics would no doubt pose the question: How can you be a fan of his policies when so much of their design is based in Blair's Christian beliefs?
I would answer that his ideas of communitarianism are grounded not only with his Christianity, but also in my beliefs in secular humanism and the joint belief that human values and rights are universal. There is hope for a meeting of the minds when it comes to shared values between those who believe and those who don't, and, in my opinion, Blair is where they met.
As I thought of what I would want to say about his time in office, I found that the posting would be too long. Leave it to the man himself to write a piece in the Economist that covers his ideas far better than I ever could.
Tony Blair will be missed and I suspect far more than his detractors would ever believe. Regardless of who wins the next election in the UK, there will be a noticeable void in British politics. I hope that Tony Blair takes an influential global role that suits his abilities. He may not be Prime Minister for much longer, but the world still needs him.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
To believe, or not to believe, that is the question.
I’ve been having a number of interesting debates with a friend of mine about the nature of religion, science and whether there is a God or not (I am an atheist; he is a man of faith). The result of these discussions has not convinced either of us that the other person is right, but, speaking for myself, they have been very illuminating about the thoughts of someone who believes in the ethereal. The discussions have also been very illuminating on the conceptions, and misconceptions, of the nature and role of science. Not only have I had to think hard about why I think the way I do, but I have also had to sharpen my ability to convey, what I think, are self-evident truths about science’s nature and purpose.
I have recently read ‘God is not Great’ by Christopher Hitchens and am in the process of reading ’40 Days and 40 Nights’, which is book describing the events of the Dover, Pennsylvania trial concerning whether intelligent design, or ‘ID’ should have been allowed to be taught in High School science class. Hitchens’ book is a fascinating read and a well-written treatise against religion. I doubt that it would change the mind of anyone of faith due to its basic hostility towards all things religious, but Hitchens makes a brilliant case against the claims of religion as a basis of ethics and morality. I also think he makes the best case of all the recent atheist books (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) that religion is truly a man-made concept.
’40 Days and 40 Nights’ illuminates the divide of those who rely on science as an ongoing explanation of the world and those of faith who are tied to a static tale of the creation of the world. Some passages describing the view of some on the Dover school board are truly frightening in the sense of how the individuals reveal their hatred of science, modernity, and a seeking of truth and knowledge. Equally frightening are their mistaken assumptions and beliefs about the historical origins of the United States, which are used as arguments for bringing faith into the classroom.
It would seem, judging from the arguments presented by those who were in favor of introducing ’ID’ and from my discussions, that there is a general feeling of a static nature to science and the, not entirely mistaken, belief that some who follow science grant it a religious type of fervor. While there are many who do so, I would argue that they are also missing the nature of science which is that it evolves and that a theory is a collection of facts that have been tested and are observable, experimentally speaking. Most importantly, however, a theory is only as good as the information that supports it. That is, if new information comes along that does not fit the theory and a better theory can be created the old theory is thrown in the dustbin. There is the fundamental difference between science and religion. If there was a theory that could explain our development as a species better than evolution, scientists would abandon evolution quickly. Such is the nature of science.
I end this with a link to an excellent commencement address recently delivered that illustrates the problem of ignorance and the mistaken views of science and of truth.
I have recently read ‘God is not Great’ by Christopher Hitchens and am in the process of reading ’40 Days and 40 Nights’, which is book describing the events of the Dover, Pennsylvania trial concerning whether intelligent design, or ‘ID’ should have been allowed to be taught in High School science class. Hitchens’ book is a fascinating read and a well-written treatise against religion. I doubt that it would change the mind of anyone of faith due to its basic hostility towards all things religious, but Hitchens makes a brilliant case against the claims of religion as a basis of ethics and morality. I also think he makes the best case of all the recent atheist books (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) that religion is truly a man-made concept.
’40 Days and 40 Nights’ illuminates the divide of those who rely on science as an ongoing explanation of the world and those of faith who are tied to a static tale of the creation of the world. Some passages describing the view of some on the Dover school board are truly frightening in the sense of how the individuals reveal their hatred of science, modernity, and a seeking of truth and knowledge. Equally frightening are their mistaken assumptions and beliefs about the historical origins of the United States, which are used as arguments for bringing faith into the classroom.
It would seem, judging from the arguments presented by those who were in favor of introducing ’ID’ and from my discussions, that there is a general feeling of a static nature to science and the, not entirely mistaken, belief that some who follow science grant it a religious type of fervor. While there are many who do so, I would argue that they are also missing the nature of science which is that it evolves and that a theory is a collection of facts that have been tested and are observable, experimentally speaking. Most importantly, however, a theory is only as good as the information that supports it. That is, if new information comes along that does not fit the theory and a better theory can be created the old theory is thrown in the dustbin. There is the fundamental difference between science and religion. If there was a theory that could explain our development as a species better than evolution, scientists would abandon evolution quickly. Such is the nature of science.
I end this with a link to an excellent commencement address recently delivered that illustrates the problem of ignorance and the mistaken views of science and of truth.
Monday, May 07, 2007
What history doesn't tell us and why we can't predict anything
Another book tip for readers. I am in the process of finishing 'The Black Swan' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I have to say that it is one of the most enlightening books that I have read in many years. The premise of Dr. Taleb, a former derivatives trader and current part-time professor at the University of Massachusetts, is that we are fooled by randomness in the world. That was in fact the name of his previous book, 'Fooled by Randomness'.
The 'Black Swan' is a reference to those large events, good and bad, that no one sees coming and that defy all prediction. The common view is that people simply miss the causal events that lead up to the unexpected. Dr. Taleb makes the compelling case that this is merely a reconstruction of a narrative that never existed. The events were impossible predict and that our need as humans for linkage and narrative forces us to recreate events and find connections where none exist. It is impossible to make accurate predictions about basically anything, but in particular about things that involve economics and the social sciences.
At first, one gets very disheartened by his argumentation, but Dr. Taleb writes well and humorously and also manages to come with remedies for how one should approach this problem of randomness. A very, very interesting book.
The 'Black Swan' is a reference to those large events, good and bad, that no one sees coming and that defy all prediction. The common view is that people simply miss the causal events that lead up to the unexpected. Dr. Taleb makes the compelling case that this is merely a reconstruction of a narrative that never existed. The events were impossible predict and that our need as humans for linkage and narrative forces us to recreate events and find connections where none exist. It is impossible to make accurate predictions about basically anything, but in particular about things that involve economics and the social sciences.
At first, one gets very disheartened by his argumentation, but Dr. Taleb writes well and humorously and also manages to come with remedies for how one should approach this problem of randomness. A very, very interesting book.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Scoop
Finally, after many years of intending to, I have read the classic comic novel "Scoop" by Evelyn Waugh. It was as good as advertised. An excellent and quick read about journalism and mistaken identity. I believe that many of the characterizations about ways and wills of journalists are as true today as when Waugh wrote it in the 1930's.
Great satirical Easter holiday reading.
Great satirical Easter holiday reading.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Good listening from Oxford
The Times (UK) has a page full of interesting podcasts from the Oxford Literary Festival. Of particular interest are the podcasts from Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
Well worth a view and listen.
Well worth a view and listen.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ghosts of Vietnam destroy logic, Part II
It seems like every week I am forced to comment on the same inane protestations of Sweden’s involvement in Afghanistan. In SVD this morning, former Minister of Defense and Palme biographer, Thage G. Peterson wonders when the Swedish government and the Social Democratic opposition will protest against the US’s brutal war.
Once again a relic from Vietnam invokes the ghost of Olof Palme as an argument against “US imperialism”. I have commented previously on the empty rhetoric of comparing the actions of the US following 9/11 to Vietnam, but to no avail to some apparently. Mr. Peterson delights in reliving the well-worn fantasy that Olof Palme had more influence on US policy than was actually the case in the 1970’s. Mr. Peterson also commits the fallacy of lumping together the actions in Afghanistan with Iraq, thereby insinuating that both of these actions are in violation of the UN, when, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent security force, ISAF, have a UN mandate and the occupation of Iraq is justified by a number of UN resolutions following the formation of an Iraqi government.
The argumentation of Mr. Peterson displays his flailing sense of being on the wrong side of this debate. In one part of his article, he decries the fact that it is shameful that there has not been more of a debate concerning the egregious behavior of Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe. Obviously, Mr. Peterson in his elderly years has not followed the recent statements by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. It is also about time that a representative of a number of Swedish governments who sponsored Mr. Mugabe with aid money from Swedish taxpayers for many years in the 1970’s and 1980’s has now come to a realization about his true nature. A realization he still can’t seem to face regarding Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
One can also wonder why this complaint of silence about Mr. Mugabe appears in a piece dedicated to poo-pooing US intervention against other despotic regimes. Is it to innoculate himself against the complaint that he is soft on dictators? Such a throwaway comment does nothing to dispel that well-established notion.
One wonders what is more pathetic; a former member of the government reliving his glory years of opposition to the Vietnam War and his knee-jerk pacifism or that many who will read the piece will agree with his delusions?
Once again a relic from Vietnam invokes the ghost of Olof Palme as an argument against “US imperialism”. I have commented previously on the empty rhetoric of comparing the actions of the US following 9/11 to Vietnam, but to no avail to some apparently. Mr. Peterson delights in reliving the well-worn fantasy that Olof Palme had more influence on US policy than was actually the case in the 1970’s. Mr. Peterson also commits the fallacy of lumping together the actions in Afghanistan with Iraq, thereby insinuating that both of these actions are in violation of the UN, when, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent security force, ISAF, have a UN mandate and the occupation of Iraq is justified by a number of UN resolutions following the formation of an Iraqi government.
The argumentation of Mr. Peterson displays his flailing sense of being on the wrong side of this debate. In one part of his article, he decries the fact that it is shameful that there has not been more of a debate concerning the egregious behavior of Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe. Obviously, Mr. Peterson in his elderly years has not followed the recent statements by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. It is also about time that a representative of a number of Swedish governments who sponsored Mr. Mugabe with aid money from Swedish taxpayers for many years in the 1970’s and 1980’s has now come to a realization about his true nature. A realization he still can’t seem to face regarding Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
One can also wonder why this complaint of silence about Mr. Mugabe appears in a piece dedicated to poo-pooing US intervention against other despotic regimes. Is it to innoculate himself against the complaint that he is soft on dictators? Such a throwaway comment does nothing to dispel that well-established notion.
One wonders what is more pathetic; a former member of the government reliving his glory years of opposition to the Vietnam War and his knee-jerk pacifism or that many who will read the piece will agree with his delusions?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)