Book review: Hitch-22

Christopher Hitchens is a man it is easy to find likable or to despite, depending upon whether you agree with him or not.

On the matter of religion, I agree with Hitchens. On the matter of politics, and especially the Iraq War, I really, really disagree with him. Still, overall, I find him likable, and his memoir, Hitch-22, has not changed this, though it has vividly demonstrated some of Hitchens' blind spots to me (but more on that later).

As mentioned, Hitch-22 is Hitchens' memoir, covering his life from his childhood and youth through to present time. Not all of Hitchens' life is given equal coverage - much of the book is devoted to his childhood, and to his college years and his start as a book reviewer and journalist. There is also some focus on recent years, with only brief forays into the intermediate years.

The book gives an interesting insight into the mind of a man who has crossed pretty close to the entire political spectrum, leaving many former friends behind as enemies, and who has never been afraid to speak out and stand by his principles, no matter how unpopular. And make no mistake, even though Hitchens has crossed the politcal spectrum, it doesn't mean that he doesn't, largely, stand by his earlier convictions, as the following quote demonstrates.

I had expected the newly elected Labour government to withhold British support for this foul war [Vietnam] (and the amazingly coarse and thuggish-looking American president who was prosecuting it), and when this expectation was disappointed I began, along with many, many of my contemporaries to experience a furious disillusionment with "conventional" politics. A bit young to be so cynical and so superior, you may think. My reply is that you should fucking well have been there, and felt it for yourself.

Hitchens movement across the political spectrum was, in other words, not because of a change of heart on his former convictions. Rather it was as a result of Hitchens growing disagreement with his then-political allies on issues such as intervention in the former Yugoslavia and, later, the threat of Islamic Fascism, as Hitchens coined it.

Hitch-22 is well written, as one could expect from Hitchens, but it is surprisingly uneven - there are several times where chapters gets sidetracked, and never really get back on track. It also suffers from Hitchens focus on the famous people he used to, and to some degree still, hang out with (this flaw reminded me of Robert Graves' Goodbye to all that!, which suffers from the same problem).

And then there is of course the matter of Hitchens' pig-headedness on the Iraq War.

OK, that might sound harsh, but let me try to explain.

Hitchens was an early supporter for the war on Iraq. He was that well before 9/11, and for reasons unrelated to the Bush Administration's first reasons for going into Iraq. Hitchens thought that Saddam Hussein was an evil monster who had to be stopped.

Agree or disagree with him, at least it makes sense, given the premise.

In Hitch-22, Hitchens spend some time going into his reasons for his support, and the spends time attacking the left for their stance against the war.

Well, I am not particularly left-winged (by European standards I am quite right-winged), and unlike those people that Hitchens criticize, I am not a dove or pacifist - I frequently back military interventions (like ex-Yugoslavia), and I even think that invading Afghanistan was appropriate under the circumstances. But I was, and still am, against the Iraq War. The reasons for this are where Hitchens appears to have a blind spot.

When the Iraq War was being sold to the general population, it was being sold under false premises. Not only did the Bush Administration, and the coalition partners, link Saddam Hussein with Al Quaeda without evidence, they also lied blatantly, and repeatedly, about things such as WMD (which, contrary to Hitchens' claims in the book, hasn't been found). This was obvious to many of us back then, and that was the reason why I opposed, and still oppose, the war - the lies demonstrated, to me, that there were no justifiable reasons for the war. Had there been any such, there would have been no need to lie.

What Hitchens doesn't seem to take into consideration, is that the Iraq War wasn't fought for the reasons Hitchens wanted it fought. This means that people might object to the other reasons, rather than his reasons. But this should probably not surprise us, as Hitchens seems unaware that the conspiracy to get the US into war with Iraq, that many people has mentioned, is not Hitchens and his ideological allies on this subject (though one of them, Ahmad Chalaby, did play an important role), but rather the much more influential Project for the New American Century.

Having gotten this out of my system, I should probably say that despite the books flaws, and the blind spots it displays, it is still very much worth a read. The parts on Iraq is only a small part of the book, and other parts of the book easily makes up for this - especially Hitchens' description of his mother and her suicide is very powerful and moving writing.

So, all in all, Hitch-22 is a book which annoys and impress, but most importantly, makes you think. Much like its author.

Finally some substantial criticism of atheist books

We all know that there has been a bunch of succesfull so-called "new atheist" books out in recent times. Hitchen's God Is Not Great, Dawkins' The God Delusion, Harris' The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation etc.

There have been numerous criticisms of these books, but so far they've been less than impressive. One insipid type of criticism of Dawkins' book became so widespread that PZ Myers made a counter-example based upon a classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen: The Courtier's Reply.

I've read the books that I've mentioned above, and I do have some problems with parts of them, especially Harris' The End of Faith, which is why I was pleasantly surprised when I came across a substantial criticism of some of the atheist books, that dealt with the actual points in the books.

I have a problem with the title of the article, since this sort of atheism isn't "new" in any meaningful way, especially not outside the US. However, it's still worth reading.

The New Atheism

Note that the author of the article, A. J. Chien, starts off with making clear that the central argument of the books is quite valid, and that most criticism of them is meaningless. The author writes

Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens have been widely reviewed, but it seems to me these few central points have scarcely been addressed. One common criticism, for instance by Terry Eagleton, is that Dawkins overlooks the many variants of Christian belief. But any variant that maintains an interventionist God is subject to Dawkins’ arguments; if there’s any that doesn’t, then it isn’t what Dawkins is addressing. So the criticism is pointless. Criticism like Tanenbaum’s is likewise typical: simply asserting the existence of moderate believers is easy, but just repeats what has been granted and ignores the argument about them.

I think the points made here are well worth repeating.

Now, on to the criticism. The author, rightfully in my opinion, objects to the attribution of terrorism to Islam, which is made especially by Harris and Dennett (who I haven't read), ignoring the other quite possible reasons, such as wanting revenge. This was something I also felt was lacking in Harris rather simplistic explanation for terrorism. It's true that religious fundamentalism makes terrorism much easier, but an additional motivation would seem necessary to me.

There is also some quite reasonable criticism of Harris' claims of good intentions by the US (and its allies) as something distinguishing from e.g. Islamic countries.

The only thing I feel is missing from the criticism, is a denouncement of Harris' implicit (and nearly explicit) endorsement of torture. Reading that part of The End of Faith nearly made me throw it away in disgust.

All in all, interesting to read a review of atheist books that actually deals with the content.

Why religion and hospitals don't mix

Recently I read Christopher Hitchens' excellent The Missionary Position - Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, which pretty much explains how Mother Teresa's religion got in the way of good health care. The book's main points are summed up in this '98 interview, but basicly, the part relevant to health care is this:

Indeed. I was even sort of thinking, hmmm. . . maybe I should fumble for some money. And with a gesture of the arm that took in the whole scene of the orphanage, she said: you see this is how we fight abortion and contraception in Calcutta. And I thought: Oh I see—so you actually say that do you? Because it had crossed my mind that part of her work was to bear witness for the Catholic creed regarding the population question, to propagandize for the Church’s line. But I hadn’t realized it was so unmediated. I mean, that she would want to draw my attention to the fact that this was the point.

I don’t know Calcutta terrifically well, but I know it quite well. And I would say that low on the list of the things that it needs is a Christian campaign against population control. And I speak as someone who’s personally very squeamish on the abortion question. People who campaign vigorously against contraception, I think, are in a very weak position to lay down the moral law on abortion.

So in other words, the fight against abortion and contraception is more important than the health of people they treat.

Now, Abbie at ERV has a post up that shows that the same can be said about Catholic (and other religious) hospitals in the US.

What Abbie also points out, is that religious hospitals in the US are primarily state funded, yet they are allowed to refuse to give people proper treatment because of religious dogma.
So, when can we expect hopsitals run by Jehova's Witnessses refusing blood transfusions?

My message is simple - if you don't want to provide proper health care because of religious reasons, you have nothing to do in the health care industry.