Charlie Rose

Sallie  10/04/2008 01:47 PM Report

I like this interviews for its sacrilege - although Mr. Hitchens tends to have the same snotty atheism/agnosticism as Bill Maher.

I would like to share an incredible sacrilegious film I found on the internet and which you can see for free at http://www.comingsoon.cz!

The film is called COMING SOON and is a faux-documentary (at least I think it's faux) about the world's first zoophile-rights organization.

Fear not, however, although the film is very controversial it's more about faith and tolerance than about zoophlia per se. And hilarious to boot!

sock puppet  09/19/2008 05:06 PM Report

Populating current conversations with this comment at risk of irritating some, which for those (types) so inclined my profit will compound. This is another (wildly) vivid case for regulation. Even Kosher meat processing is dishonored. Religions don't temper our baser instincts - from carnage to egregious greed. Corporate greed via their lobbying pimps and Congressional venal whores promote the human debasement depicted in the video cited below. Corporate greed to maximize profits dehumanize employees (they of necessity have to overcompensate with an anger at their dumb victims) abuse, torture the dumbest yet the most innocent amongst us. Other earthlings. All slaughter houses need regulating and oversight - particularly corporate ones. They mock Kosher proceedings, but most of all they mock and dishonor common decency. Please pass it on. Why hell if we would do this to dumb animals we might even justify torture of humans, err I mean water-boarding err sensory deprivation err . . . . I repeat, please pass it on. A kernel of humanity towards the humbler (but nobler?) among us might help transfer similar sentiments to ourselves. (A variation of Pogo's revelation.) The link: (it ain't pretty - largely because our values are refracting (magnified) right back at us.) Thanks for your time. N.B.: It's important! _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967&hl=en _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Attribution and kudos to "Marilyn!"

Dan Whitesell  09/11/2008 09:11 PM Report

I basically agree with Farida's critique of Hitchens (posted on July 29).

There is a lot in Hitchens' book that I agree with, but I reject his framing of the topic and the underlying apologetics for particular Western crimes against humanity.

Here are a couple of examples from the second chapter "Religion Kills"

Hitchens makes the following claim with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute: "The solution was, obviously, to create two states side by side. Surely something so self-evident was within the wit of man to encompass? And so it would have been, decades ago, if the messianic rabbis and mullahs and priests could have been kept out of it." He goes on to say that "hysterical clerics on both sides ... stoked by Armageddon-minded Christians ...have made the situation insufferable..." (p.24) To completely ignore the historical and documentary record of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine carried out by the Zionist movement with crucial British support and then to ignore the later thirty-year history of U.S.-Israeli refusal to allow a peaceful settlement is disingenuous and adds to the confusion that has been created to cover up the roots of the conflict. It is not just rabbis, mullahs and priests who are inflicting the suffering; it is powerful states and concentrated power.

When he reviews the horrendous history of Saddam Hussein's rule (pp. 25-26) he just happens to leave out a very crucial point: the United States supported the Butcher of Baghdad through many of his worst crimes. The secularity of the United States government seems to have rendered invisible to Hitchens their role in Hussein's crimes against humanity.

Philip Margolis  09/07/2008 02:26 PM Report

Commenter’s like Farida are a dime a dozen. They stink from coconut oil and the Pope. I am a well educated American with a North American “accent”. Does this mean that if I moved to say Alabama or Kentucky, where there is a lot of uneducated White Trash, that the people in those states should “automatically” think that I am a “snob”, or that if I offer an opinion with strong grammar that “I think who the hell I am”? What should I do? Should I hide my education and my command of English in fear of offending an inbred southerner or some spiteful spic? There are so many mistakes on Farida’s post that it would take up too much time to go over them all. Let’s just go with Farida’s first sentence:

I think Hitchen's is using this book as a political tool to somehow justify the U.S. intervention in Iraq, by suggesting that we need to be reminded that we should fight the ideology of faith (Islam), because it somehow breeds terrorism and that Saddam Hussein was the ringleader of terrorists.

The word “somehow” appears twice in this grammatically incorrect sentence. What the reader must do in order to make sense of the run-on is find a reason for what “somehow justify” actually means. What it implies is that we, “somehow”, went into Iraq without giving it any thought. I.e. that the Pentagon “somehow” decided “OK, let’s go in, and see what happens”, all because we are so adventurous in our actions; that we had nothing else to do, essentially, we were bored. “Somehow” our foreign policy and military decisions are based not an analysis of global events (mainly Russian and Chinese expansionism), but on a sort of irrational stupor and lies that no one can account for. I am tempted to explain here how America’s interests abroad are defended, but upon finishing Farida’s post I realized any attempt would be futile. Monkeys can’t do algebra.

Does Catholicism breed pedophiles? Does Judaism breed cheap Jews? Do blacks breed high crime neighborhoods? Does being Irish breed alcoholism? Does being Islamic breed terrorism? Hmm, there is always a grain of truth to these stereotypes. However, Islam is incapable of reining in their terrorists by themselves as American, British, Israeli, and German societies are successful at doing. This is because in Islam there is no Central Leadership: they never had that Reformation scholars have been suggesting. We never declared war on Islam. In fact, we have people all over the world trying to help Islamic clergy and secular types gain some control over the potential terrorists within their ranks.

Well Farida, I’ll just tell you straight up that the reason why America occupies Iraq is to defend the southern portion of the Middle East from Russian and Chinese expansionism. You wouldn’t like the Russian tongue Farida, trust me, you can hardly speak English.

Preston  08/25/2008 11:23 AM Report

St. Nick, why you dun sound like a born-again atheist. Oh!... I guess since I said that, that makes me a stupid "non-believer"! hehehe... WELL, I'm sorry "GOD!", but first you want us to believe in you, and now you're saying not to. Make up your mind! hahahahahaha!

Nicholas Sullivan  08/24/2008 07:47 PM Report

Lmao at MarkyMark's comment. Very silly. He doesn't miss the point, he gets the point. Anybody who believes in God for 'spiritual' reasons as if it helps them through certain issues is a moron. It's a physchological crutch for weak-minded people, you'd be hard pushed to find a seriously intelligent, self-aware believer. There may be a few, who have kept the slug of it due to child indoctrination, but they're rare. Anybody with half a brain sees what ridiculous shit it is. Zero proof, zero logic, zero everything. It was an answer to a question everyone was asking; A short-term one, when we were lesser humans in terms of our intelligence, genetically. But now we know how we at least got to this stage, we evolved. So get rid of the first draft, it's embaressing. The Bible is like a drawing a kid brings home from school, you sort of pretend it's good to their face but deep down know it's rubbish.

Nicholas Sullivan  08/24/2008 07:43 PM Report

Christopher Hitchens is a very intelligent guy, inspiring enthusiasm and charisma in his beliefs. Some strongly opinionated but the beliefs about God and religion, as some may claim; Are not extreme, they're logical. Anyone who believes in any sort of God or supernatural being is an idiot.

markymark  08/15/2008 04:08 PM Report

I think Hitchens is talking a bit of rubbish about religion. I think he is an absolutist as much as any other evangelical is. (and he is an evangelical atheist if thats not an oxymoron.) I don't think he really understands the value in faith, and as such misses the point. I believe those who are using religion to commit acts of terror or barbarism are as Godless as Hitchens.

Preston  08/10/2008 11:05 AM Report

The existence of religion and God, and their good and not-so-good consequences, can be intellectually discussed and emotionally argued over until the end of time. But at the end of the day, the cup is still half empty and half full; and as far as we really know, the chicken and the egg still comes before the chicken and the egg. The survival of human beings in this age is to ironically try to contain and minimize fanaticallism with true, sober intelligence which cannot be sustained without a fanatical societal commitment to morality and ethics. Which sounds like another cliche' and leads to the never ending Catch-22... Oh I'm so confused! (hehe, not really) America needs to stick to it's guns.

Peter Muer  08/10/2008 01:32 AM Report

Christopher Hitchens is the rare combination of

a person who can be right on some issues and

completely wrong on so many others. This guy

is absolutely maddening with his ridiculous

atheistic arguments.

C. P.   08/02/2008 02:13 PM Report

This is a rare conversation, where Charlie interrupts way too much. Hitchens is a magnificent interviewee. Sometimes even the best interrogator has to shut up and listen.

Jamian  08/01/2008 04:48 AM Report

Farida, I'd love to hear your views on Hitchens, particularly what you said about his book being a personal means to an end for his views. Interesting stuff.

Dudein3D@aol.com

Farida   07/29/2008 01:16 AM Report

I think Hitchen's is using this book as a political tool to somehow justify the U.S. intervention in Iraq, by suggesting that we need to be reminded that we should fight the ideology of faith (Islam), because it somehow breeds terrorism and that Saddam Hussein was the ringleader of terrorists. The title of the book is a protest to the mantra of Muslim’s “God is Great” or “Allah akabar” which might be compared to the mantra often heard in Christian churches that “Jesus is our Savior and the Lord!” If he had titled his book, “Jesus is not Great!” he would have been censored by now and would be paid to not go on tour.

In my understanding of Islam, Jihad (Holy War) must be declared by an Imam which it hasn’t because every single Muslim in the world would be required to go fight, which would be nearly a billion people, and is declared when an outsider (U.S. or Russia) decides to invade their country and inhibit their ability to practice their faith. If the Chinese invaded the U.S. and bombed any of our Christian churches and imposed some kind of warped communist religion on us all, I think you might be inclined to resist too. American foreign policy is hypocritical and currently directed by oil executives who have no idea how to justify this invasion. I think they pay Hitchen's a pretty penny to sound off these views. I suppose he has to look out for his own retirement plan so this is about money for him! haha. And Charlie interrupts him only because he couldn't remain objective and felt personally insulted by the book. What is the point of having him on if you won’t let him mouth off. And everyone who is impressed with Hitchen’s is just impressed with his English accent and his vocabulary and ego in delivering his views. American’s are so dumbed down by television that they think listening to him is like getting an education. Haha. It’s nice to hear alternative views but don’t get seduced by the English air of superiority, ok?

Brian Margolis  06/28/2008 03:25 PM Report

Oil is only one reason among many why the US must maintain a military presence in the Middle East. Since WWI the Russians have resented the Brits and the Yanks for signing prime oil contracts with the Arabs. We are not there to “take” anything from anyone. We defend what is already ours: the southern portion of the region. Please DO NOT misunderstand my meaning here. When I say “already ours” I mean the West in general, and Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Furthermore, I mean that we are on THE SAME SIDE; that stability and peace in that part of the world MUST BE MAINTAINED so that we can continue the life that we know. (When they seek the tongue of the enemy it is time for change. Liberals should be careful what they wish for. Then again their naiveté is a precious resource that we’ve learned to harness and use as a commodity. ‘Tis not without risk however). The Russians and Chinese infiltrate the northern Middle East indulging in expansionism and further complicating the geopolitical picture there, and also in Africa and South America. The Russians have, understandably, been seeking revenge against America at least since the CIA-funded Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980’s. Some analysts have suggested that the Soviet loss in Afghanistan in 1989 is what led to their economic collapse; and having no laws to prevent insider trading. One of the key questions that should be asked is who the American counterpart of Michael Khordokovsky is, and what should be his fate here in the states? Hopefully it is not too late to adjust some laws. Have we not also fought communism by proxy in Korea and Vietnam? So who do the Russians blame for their losses? America. The Russians supplied the Iraqis with anti-tank weaponry and satellite jamming equipment during the Gulf War; Saddam Hussein owed Vladimir Putin over 9 billion dollars. Saddam threatened to “Burn half of Israel” in 1991, and then conducted a military incursion into Kuwait. Saudi Arabia sits directly below Kuwait, and the rest, as they say, is history. But what do a bunch of but-slamming split at the heel liberals, neo-Bolsheviks, and homeless and treasonous Yids know about how the game is ‘really’ played? The White flight up north has already begun on both coasts. It is going to be a tight squeeze right below the Canadian border. You guys are in for a wild ride, but this time I am not going to help you pick up the pieces … I’m sure you’ll think of something.

Brian Cuffari  06/26/2008 11:21 PM Report

The neo-conservative philosophy of bullying the rest of the world in order to serve its own interests and pillage and scrounge for resources has had close to eight full years to show the people what type of world it would create. What they will be leaving is a Middle Eastern region in which our interests are in severe danger, a North Korean agreement that was reached by doing the opposite of what they advocate and I haven't even mentioned the irrational economic policies. We sold Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of weapons so they could arm the Sunnis against the Shia in Iraq. Meanwhile, we are paying the Sunnis to work for U.S. soldiers rather than attack them. The economic policies of this administration are literally irrational. One cannot cut taxes unless one curbs spending. We have serious domestic issues, like healthcare, but our government spends a ridiculously unbalanced amount of money on our military. They will accuse people like me of wanting to "jeopardize the safety of our citizens," but they have already done that. Not only from international threats, but also from domestic threats.

Anyone who still supports the decision to invade Iraq is either irrational or a coward. It is bringing us to our knees economically and militarily. What a disaster!

Brian Margolis  06/26/2008 05:16 PM Report

Christopher Hitchens’ voice is one of reason in an otherwise unreasonable world. However, ‘reason’ is not always competent enough of a faculty to remedy problems of human volition. Within this context logic does not imply “truth”. Logic itself can become a sort of “religion” used to lessen the pain of existence, while carelessly slicing through the knotty subjectivity of human behavior. It is wise not to become addicted to the reasoning process for the wrong reasons. On the other hand reason may often be used to illuminate situations where irrational behavior can make a bad situation worse. Irrationality is hard wired in the human condition and sometimes answers to problems come in the same form. It is for this reason, among others, that man uses “religion”. If we can at least acknowledge this inherent irrationality, then it is plain to see that a sudden pull out from Iraq would be, well, irrational. So we must pose the question anew: how “irrational” is it, really, to defend our corridor to the natural resources of the Middle East, while preventing the Russians and the Chinese from moving in? It would seem that it is quite the ‘rational’ thing to do.

My liberal friends are full of hubris and in the dark about how the world really works and what makes people tick. Their understanding is mostly of an academic and theoretical nature. It’s funny how things get inverted upon further analysis though – how republican conservatives and military people ‘literally’ defend our freedom(s) that liberals just enjoy talking about. I often ask them this question: what makes you think that your personal privacy is more important than the security of the rest of the country? Surely you are not suggesting that three hundred million people sacrifice themselves just for you so that you may continue those homosexual rendezvous and not be seen. Nobody really gives a shit that you take it up the ass anyway … except maybe that you look good in pink.

Fresco  06/10/2008 01:39 AM Report

Entertaining.

Disagree  06/10/2008 01:36 AM Report

I do.

Brian Cuffari  06/07/2008 05:31 PM Report

By virtuous, do we mean that he supports the Bush doctrine of preemptively invading rogue nations? Or do we mean virtuous by his arrogant disrespect for the beliefs of others, even if the beliefs he attacks may be misguided. He is a trouble maker who uses his "virtuous" intellectualism to bash beliefs that are different from his own, rather than attempting to win over religious people by spreading awareness of why his beliefs make more sense. When he attacks religious people (who I also think are misguided), he only causes them to dig more deeply into their beliefs as a result of a defense mechanism these people have to defend the beliefs they have tried to mold throughout their lives. I know it is much harder to admit I am wrong when people rub it in my face.

David Dzidzikashvili  06/06/2008 08:37 PM Report

Large words, but he does make a point. He is a virtuous intellectual. No one can disagree with this.

cjhfdjcvhf  05/14/2008 01:35 AM Report

this sucks

John  05/12/2008 02:05 PM Report

I thought the LIBERALS were supposed to be the Elitists!! That's why George W is such a folksy kind of guy...

Now it is apparent that the Republicans are the snobby elitists with their wine and cheese and drinking tea with their pinkies in the air...

Arnie  04/13/2008 01:36 AM Report

"Large" words are good. "Large" words are more specific than "small" words, on the whole, and less subject to interpretation, i.e., "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

Brian Cuffari  04/12/2008 10:42 AM Report

I watched the interview several times. My comment referring to people using unnecessarily "large" words was not directed towards the interview, but rather many of the elitists that Hitchens' beliefs embolden. It is a common method used by the highly educated to confuse the less-educated with language they don't understand. I'm not discouraging people from attempting to learn how to better their vocabularies (of course I wouldn't do that), but I'm rather encouraging people to speak simply when possible. Why wouldn't we want to reach the largest about of people possible with our speech? If you reach them initially, then you can possibly make them feel included enough to desire improving their vocabulary and educating themselves. The less-educated and/or more simple folks out there are not dumb. They just focus their minds and hearts to other areas, and the educated classes should not belittle these people, even when they cling to religious beliefs that may seem "silly" to others. There is nothing wrong with speaking someone's language in an attempt to reach them. This is hardly "dumbing down," but more like a sound strategy for recruiting people into the wonderful world of intellectualism.

kadene  04/12/2008 08:14 AM Report

Brian should listen to the interview again. I cannot find any "large words." Hitchens is speaking as he has been taught to, and his use of English is according to his exposure. I really think it is patronizing to puncture the even flow of your normal speech trying to find words to match the size of some minds. It's called "dumbing down".

Let them who need to know the meaning of a new "large" word, do what my 12 year old does. Just look it up!

That said, whether or not I agree with Hitchens regarding the Iraqi incursion, or his conclusion that religion "poisons everything", I can say he does present compelling arguments, in both respects, though sometimes he posits his anti-theistic views with something approaching religious fervour.

Brian Cuffari  04/09/2008 08:57 PM Report

I consider myself an intellectual, but why on Earth do so many people insist on making what they say more complicated with the use of unnecessarily large words? One can reach so many more people by speaking plainly, bluntly and politely. Hitchens does nothing but breed divisiveness. Charlie does a great job with the very difficult task of keeping this arrogant jerk on topic. There is no need to crap on the beliefs of others, even if they are silly at times. Atheists seem just as silly as Christians to me. They are both completely devoted to concepts they believe give them the answers to things they won't know the answers to until they die. Why gamble your whole life with beliefs you'll never know until you die? Doesn't make much sense to me. Charlie, you're great!

Ken Stevens  04/08/2008 04:18 AM Report

I think that the most important thing to remember is that when push comes to shove, we must all take a deep breath and look for the garden hose....After all, there will be a fundamental reorganization of the societal graces once the children of the corn have come home to roost...Bravo for Charlie as usual, and for Christopher for doing so many interview shows while wearing such tight underwear....

Dan Daniels  04/08/2008 04:15 AM Report

Id just like to say that I agree with everybody...

Marcel Macro  04/08/2008 04:12 AM Report

Id just like to say that in the abstract, one has to acknowledge that the highest form of belief can only be understood by those who take their renditioned views seriously, but also can hum a tune and take pleasure in simple things like oatmeal and cream cheese...Lets ask Charlie and Christopher to do this again, but with some breakfast croissants, and a pitcher of oj....Much more to the point....

Fred Ferm  04/08/2008 04:09 AM Report

I think that Steve is right on....Who can really say that Christopher has superior shoes or that Charlie can dance the choo choo....In the endgame, all doggies and cats should share in the jumbalya of the day.....

Steve Wallisberg  04/08/2008 04:07 AM Report

It seems as though a good breakfast muffin is really the common ground for configured agreement...Lets all just take a deep breath, and have a bite of our muffin...Then we can begin to loosen the ruffles of the ridges, and create the protocalm that gumbi deserves....thanks and paco biscum...

anonymous  04/05/2008 04:26 AM Report

I would appreciate it very much if you would take the time to read this. Thank you if you do. And I understand if you do not. If you do, free your head and try to pick out which parts resonate you, for good or bad, and why. If you do this, you will be doing me the greatest service another human ever could.

Suddenly, things are making sense to me. Suddenly, I am grasping the morals from stories I read back in middle school and high school.

I am not endorsing any one presidential candidate because the truth is I think itâ??s a shame we have to pick between any of them. We have three people who have gone through immense struggles in their lives, perhaps the three archetypical forms that struggl has taken in America: A Woman, An African American, And a Former Prisoner of War.

All of them understand the importance of listening to the other side. They are all mavericks in their own rights.

If you consider yourself a staunch liberal, and cannot trust McCain to listen to your side, watch the frustration with partisan politics he showed in his days as senator. I believe that he has seen first hand how indecision can cause more harm than any sort of decision could.

If you consider yourself a staunch conservative, and cannot believe that Barack will listen to you, go back and listen to his speeches where he acknowledges the Republican party as a party of ideas.

If you are a man who cannot imagine a woman commander-in-chief, just stop and consider whether youâ??re listening to society or to yourself.

What I want is to see all three of these people in office, running our country as the three beacons of hope for any person who has ever struggled in America. The only thing stopping that is tradition.

But Damn tradition! Damn our desire to do what is suggested simply because it is looks hard. Damn our fear of letting ourselves down. Damn our fear of the struggle!

â??The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!â??

I am not telling you what to do, but I am hoping that you do the things you need to that will give you the trust in yourself to make your own decision. But please, when you are doing it, try to separate what you have been taught with what you feel. What you are a afraid of an what you hope for. Make the decision to either stick with tradition and shut out progression, or to move forward based on what you see, hear, feel, and think.

Stand back. Look at where you are. Take the gift of perspective for your own. We could all learn something from the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the â??one book,â?? Ernest Hemingway said, from â??which all modern literatureâ?? came. I believe that I know why that is, and would appreciate it you listened to my reasoning. It is fine if you do not.

The story of Huck Finn is one of a young human finding free will. He must leave the two comfortable entities: Miss Watson, who is a devoted Christian and constantly tries to â??civilizeâ?? Huck, and his Pa, an alcoholic who takes Huck away from civilization in seclusion in the woods.

This is the struggle of every American youth today. The struggle to stay with their parents and do whatever they prescribe, or to go towards the things that distance themselves from others, like drink(in the sense of EXTREME alcoholism, where the point is to lose consciousness), or to set out down the river on their own, trusting that they will find whatever it is they need to find.

Fortunately, Huck chooses neither of these socially prescribed ways of living. He leaves off on his own, to be taken wherever the river takes him. He DECIDES FOR HIMSELF, and relinquishes himself to an uncontrollable force(not God, but his own impulses and intutions, which I take from here-on out as my own redefinition of God: a persons ability to listen to their pure impulses and intentions).

In the end, Huck is faced with a decision he must struggle with. He must decide to see Jim as his society sees him, or to see him through his experiences on the river. He chooses experience, and succesffully sets aside his compulsion to do what society says, in order to see the humanness in a person he could not before.

He looks around him, sets aside the rights and wrongs prescribed by society, and judges for himself..

This is not a judgement of Miss Watson. It is not a judegement of Pa. Christians and alcoholics, just like the slaves of the past, are humans.

Thank you for continuing to listen to me. By doing so, you have done me the greatest service another human ever can for another.

In the past, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr. all preached this message. And they were killed. They had to stand up on podiums and give these speeches and serve as the figurehead of the most beautiful ideas of all: compassion, unity, and the struggle against society for free will.

It has never worked. But I hope that technology will help this work. With itâ??s help, I have been able to deliver this message to you without making myself the possible target of attacks. This is not a person telling you what to do. It is not a person delivering an idea to you. It is an idea. If this has been the case, then I dare say that this is the ultimate beauty of technology and its real purpose: The ability to give your idea to millions of others without fear of reprecussions. It is the thing that will make you look to every person that you see on the street and wonder if they are the person who wrote this. And that is the beauty. It really could be anyone. It could be you. All you need is trust in others, confidence in yourself, and the patience to separate what you have been told to feel and what you do feel.

Forget Democrat. Forget Republican. Forget Woman. Forget Man. Forget trying to find differences to make us more polarized. Listen to everyone. Listen to George Carlin. Listen to Dave Chappelle(who, in the same move as Huck, went to Africa to find the humannes in things). Listen to Kurt Vonnegut. Listen to Mark Twain. Listen to Hunter S. Thompson. Listen to Christopher Hitchens. Listen to Tom Wolfe. Listen to the Cohen Brothers. Listen to Charlie Rose! Listen to anyone trying to make sense for themselves where we are and who we are. But don't believe everything they say verbatim. Internalize it as one part of the debate.

This sounds cliche, but America needs to improve, and but it can only start with yourself. Go back and think about the last time you felt truly free, when you weren't worried about what others thought about you. Think about it hard and try to find the event that changed it all. Come to terms with it. Struggle with it. Write it down and wrastle with it on the ground like Huck. I had to go back to when I was 14, and it was a hard few days when I pinned what it was. But it is the aftermath now and I feel freer than ever, because I am living my life based on two principles, one given by a person whose identity I do not know, and the other is Hunter S. Thompson:

"Know thyself"

&

"The self-taught man has a fool for a master"

That being said, allow me to share my thoughts on Iraq.

I have seen personally that freedom cannot be imposed on a person. The only thing we can do is destroy what is opressing them. As Hitchens says, we did that by doing away with Saddam, which should have been done years ago. But we didn't do it years ago, because we didnt listen to ourselves. We had waited for reasons outside of ourselves, which ended up being faulty. We saw the face of opression and we waited. Now we are the opressors, trying to bring freedom from out of the guilt of inaction. But we failed them, and now I believe it is too late. We must let the Iraqis build their own government, to realize their own free will. We must pull out and let them fight for what is theres. Even if they die, they will die fighting for themselves. Perhaps this is wrong. I am not telling you this is the truth, or even the right way, I am just telling you what I see. George Bush had good intentions, and if he apologized for what he has done, I think the American people would accept it. I feel like it's necessary, but I would never ask him to apologize. I would never put shame on him. He was doing what he thought was right, but it wasn't based on the truth of free will. I think this ordeal has shown him that. And if this is true, I would like him to talk about it openly and honestly with the American people, so that we might all learn from this terrible thing and move forward. The longer we wait, the more WE become the opressor. Our indecision is hurting them more than any decision ever could.

But the realization of the struggle for understanding free will will not be over with Iraq. The struggle for free will is every moment. it is not a state. You must constantly decide to be free in every moment. You must follow what you see is important. You must look at your surroundings and let yourself be drawn to the things you are drawn to, but you must also have the discipline to have the presence of mind to ask yourself why.

That is why I am posting this on the Charlie Rose show. It is conversation. It is listening to another person and contrasting viewpoints, not in order to see what is right, but, rather, just to see. Susane Cohon's comment from way back on May 5 is a beautiful one.

I see a huge opportunity coming up for America. We have 3 beautiful candidates, all with the capacity to listen to others and say things themselves. I only hope that the competitive nature of our election system does not make any of them forget this. Unfortunately, I see it happening in all of them, and all I can do is have confidence in them to resist, and have the confidence in the American people to look for the good in each candidate, and not scrape the bottoms of the most forgotten barrels for the bad, as our media seems so inclined to do.

Thank you so much for coming this far with me. I apologize for my lack of eloquence, but I am slightly panicking. I have never felt this way before in my life. Nothing has ever felt so clear. I am so happy and feel so free that I am afraid my earthly body might shatter, and I want to get this out to you, knowing that even if it does, the one thing I feel I wanted to say my whole life has been said. And I feel ecstatic. I will be revising what I have written till I die, because I know that my viewpoint on the human condition is the most imporant thing to me.

With all this being said, I would like to share with you one thing I have learned for myself. You do not need to believe it, but I want to tell you what I have found through my own reasoning. You do not need to take it, and if it scares you, that is fine because the central message is that as long as you are alive you have the decision to turn it around.

There is no Afterlife.

But there is Heaven and Hell.

Heaven is where you find yourself when, int he last few moments of your life that will seem like eons, since time won'y matter anymore, you thnk back on your life knowing that you did everything to connect with the person next to you, that you didn't back down from the struggles. That you made an honest attempt(which is a term that can only be defined by oneself) to enjoy the beauty of this earth and all of the beings on it.

Hell is where you find yourself when, in the last few moments of your life that will seem like eons, since time won't matter anymore, you think back on your life and can only come up with the times you listened to society and shut out the people around you; all the instances you gave into the temptation of comfort instead of struggling to get up and go out and talk to other people. You realize that you had you're one chance for that, and it is gone.

But, like I said, you can always turn it around. But you do this by confessing to yourself before you can confess to another.

I am no longer afraid of death, because I have come to understand why living on this earth is so hard, and I have managed to share my story with you, and I will be in Heaven before I go back to the enigmatic sleep of the unborn child.

If you want to be truly free, you need to come to terms with what you've done and find a way to overcome it and make sure that you will be surrounded by the beauty of existence and not its harsh attempts to isolate you. And I know you can do this. I have faith in you and I would love to listen to you. But keep in mind that this is all that I can do.

Thank you.

hirnlego  04/02/2008 04:39 PM Report

No he does not known for a fact

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack\ will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

What? Is he completely unaware of the neocon PNAC plans for the middle-east?

Mark  03/31/2008 02:47 PM Report

Interview too unfocused.

Brian Cuffari  03/31/2008 02:47 PM Report

Charlie has the very difficult task of trying to keep this belligerent man on topic. His interruptions are not done with the intention of being rude, but to rather maintain some sense of order with a belligerent ego maniac. If anyone has noticed previous interviews with guests who were more coherent and articulate, then one would have noticed less interruptions on the part of Charlie. I don't think you all are fair to him. It's not his job to simply sit and listen, but also to guide the conversation and strike topics that are more important to viewers.

Daleth Aponte  03/31/2008 02:47 PM Report

I totally disagreed with Amir and his remarks. Take is very offensively. Sounds like as if you have a different faith and cannot cope with the real issue. Whatever is your background, please yield to the facts that they messed up and the war is not reconcileable. Iraq is in turmoil due to oil. Saddam was a madman. The political struggle is winding down and the streets are in total havoc. Civil unrest is the result of the philosophical unreconcileable differences. This is not over and far from over.

Amir  03/31/2008 02:47 PM Report

I believe his "God is not Great" or Dawkin's "God's delusion" are some populistic stuff which are not well confronted in debates. Christopher or Richard DO have Great difficulties answering philosophical or Very Basic questions of their new belief. They're just dealing with symptoms rather than the disease itself, which they dont have any SCIENTIFIC answer for that yet!!!

Ayokunle Adeyemi  03/31/2008 02:47 PM Report

I can't stress enough my hunger to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak to the significant issues that she continues to champion (human rights, women's rights, democracy). Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have dedicated the entire earnings from DVD sales of 'The Four Horsemen', an epic conversation on religion, to funding Ali's security. The issues that she champions resonate strongly with the zeitgist of this 21st century; and it is, for me, imperative that Ali's courageous voice be heard, and heard here, as she represents so strongly the spirit of Charlie Rose.

Sharon  03/31/2008 02:46 PM Report

I am absolutely appalled by this man. Hitchens is a psychopath--far worse than Bush or even Cheney. It is the U.S. that is the pathological aggressor. We do not have the right to Iraqi oil. The CFR and other elite groups always prefer that sectarian violence destroys the countries the U.S. invades. It was always the plan to decimate Iraq from within and there is no plan to ever leave. The U.S. will never leave. This is a 50 year fight for oil and for Israel, which is just as psychopathic as the U.S.

Darryl Youzefowich  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

You know, I live here in Turkey and I was a secular man with little faith until I started to meet religious people with deep faith. The situation is a lot more complex than I thought, so I listened to Hitchens to see if he grasped that complexity. Of course, he would say the path is clearly marked for an atheist world, but I think the minds of saints and poets are not what Hitchens can grasp at this point in his life. Those are my suspicions anyway. Hitchens has some interesting points to think about as well - I don't claim that he is a fool. For instance, we all have to admit that the failure of the Iraqi society might come to bite us with or without Saddam being there. It is certainly wishful thinking to say everything would have been rosy if we left Saddam behind. But to say that the West has to invade every country with a dictator that has expansionist aims! It really is a very simplistic view of international relations that only a journalist can pass as deep thinking.

Steve Brown  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

Indeed the tug-of-war over the interview table was unfortunate. Christopher Hitchens gave me the impression that he is his own god, but he has no more ability to control the forces of nature or morality as anyone else. When Mr. Hitchens remarks that people of God, or God believers, are ruining the world and society, which scale is he using to measure this demise? The scale of morality and justice used in the Western World is derived from religion. Can you logically use a â??god-scaleâ?? to determine success or failure and deny the existence of a god at the same time?

The evolutionary argument of survival of the fittest would lead us to believe that any individual or group attempting to eliminate others is an essential part of the non-god scheme and not the other way around. Do the relatively small percentage of people claiming to kill under a godâ??s orders exemplify a non-god-like evolutionary pattern or a more controlled pattern of law and justice as provided in the religious texts? I would dare say that if we broad brushed a particular race, gender or nationality as being ruinous because a significantly small portion of the same committed a crime, we would certainly be admonished by the intellectual free thinkers.

JF  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

I echo many comments below. Charlie brought Hitchens on to grill him, and not to discuss the book. The show is clearly all about him.

lorna doone  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

as far as I am concerned anybody who can put a cork in hitchens gets a cookie.

Cindy  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

Every time Charlie tried to interject or ask a question, Mr. Hitchens raised his voice and kept talking. I found it annoying. He could be interesting if he wasn't so arrogant.

J.C.  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

Man has used the concept of a creator to control and subjugate men and women. All organized religions place women in a role of slaves and dumb slaves at that. We are discouraged from leading lives outside of motherhood and body slaves, where a religious doctrine is in place. I do agree with Mr. Hitchens that God does not monitor our behavior. She gave us the gift of life to do with as we please with a basic understanding not to hurt one another. She is smart that way. We chose to ignore her.

Jason LaRiviere  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

Charlie is such an establishment bootlicker. Hitchens makes Rose look like an intellectual pygmy.

Rich  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

Fantastic interview. Charlie never fails - I have been a fan of his since his late nights on CBS. I think it is a hard thing to do to let go of God. I was raised a Catholic and when you are indoctrinated at a very early age as I was it is difficult to think otherwise because you feel as if you are betraying someone (God). God for me was and still is a great friend but I look at the whole thing much differently now. If you are serious about getting to know the truth you must first begin by reading about Science and Philosophy and words from the greatest minds of history. When you do this your awareness is greater and eventually you almost have to come to the rational conclusion that "God" is most likely a construct. I am not saying that there is no God - God may be a giant computer or something - I do not know and no one knows. To lead your life on just blind faith though is wrong. Hitchens is my kind of person, intellectually curious and brave.

Susane Cohon  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

What an AMAZING interview, and I'm religious. I would definitely want to purchase the transcript of this show. How can I do that? Christopher Hitchens blows Bill Mahr out of the water because of his amazing hard work to find out for himself and not just re-gurgitate what "he feels" is true. He knows it for a fact. Great show!

John D. Stone  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

In regard to the interview with Christoper Hitchens, may I suggest reading the preamble to

all the State's Constitutions and the DOI as well as the documented history of what transpired when the delegates meet to create our

Constitution. Also, read how they dated the

Constitution at the end of the document. Gosh,

one could go on and on. The Constitution is

permeated with the Christian spirit.

Phyllis Bouldin  03/31/2008 02:45 PM Report

I have read some of Mr. Hitchens' essays, but until tonight had neither seen nor heard him speak. He is a fascinating individual, and I would be interested in hearing more of what he has to say, particularly about our involvement in the war in Iraq and our policies in the region. Please have him back soon.