h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I second Ictoan's comment about antidisestablishmentarianism. Well done!

He styles himself a 'contrarian'. While he still (I think) considers himself a Trotskyite, he refuses to tow the left-liberal line. He means to provoke, and we need people like him to react against. I disagree with him on an awful lot. Nevertheless, Hitchensweb is in my Bookmarks, and he's one of my fantasy dinner party guests. (since you ask, he others are Jessica Mitford, Carrie Fisher and Quentin Crisp)

Interestingly, Hitchens has recently become a US citizen. As a resident, he decided to show his commitment to America democracy, for all its faults.

A chance to advertise once again his discussion session with Stephen Fry and Joan Bakewell:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/05/08/listen_to_steph.html
The drink-soaked popinjay was really on form that night!

Okay Edward I listened to about one third of that link you've given of the discussion between Fry and Hitchens.. I managed about one third, and got bored by the lack of any real intellectual meat.

Several points.

1. I found myself feeling incredibly irritated by the wordy plumby voices by all, including Joan Bakewell. She begins by praising the 2 men as brilliant minds. Well after 10 minutes I was still waiting to get excited by the creative brilliance of their minds.

2. If Hitchens can be so insufferably wordy and pompous on this debate, for radio 4, why does he use such simple minded sound bites in the Vanity Fair article?

3. I'm well aware I maybe jumping to unfair conclusions, because I really respect your opinions Edward. But to be honest, I found myself shouting at the computer, for efs sakes get on with it and say something without going all around the houses. And why do you all speak in those silly voices?

And... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4935138732025185923

Ah well, diff'rnt strokes. I really enjoyed that podcast. Especially when it became apparent that they were simultaneously playing chess.

Hi Edward

I was in a bit of an impatient irritable mood yesterday. I'm going to try and listen to it again later. I even found myself feeling irritable with Fry, and yet he is normally a favourite of mine. I really should stop being so prejudiced about certain accents....

Actually...I think that Fry is overrated myself.

Don't get me wrong about Hitchens, either. I'm not a worshipper. But it's useful to have someone intelligent to yell at.

A selection of his other stuff:
http://www.hitchensweb.com/

Hi Fanny,

>> How did a nation move from cricket and fish-and-chips to burkas and shoe-bombers in a single generation?<<

Simple we pushed them into a corner and then beat them about the head until they finally reacted.

The entire middle eastern debacle was caused by Western Greed and Stupidity over several decades. If I had to point one time in history which set the present course it would be the post-WW2 partition of the region and the allowing the formation of a state of Israel.

We installed, supported and nourished as rascally a band of brigands as you can imagine in order to secure our oil supply. When they got uppity, or just plain embarassing, we bombed them into submission or invaded.

And then we get all hurt and confused when the people at the bottom, with no hope left, react like cornered weasels.

Ever get the feeling that we are reaping what we sowed?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Eddie

Sorry for the delay in replying but vitae interruptus again

I ask again - what democracy? The fact that we can whine about our lot in public doth not a democracy make (and note the number of laws that have been introduced to limit that last 'right' of late).

I don't believe in Dark Forces or Byzantine Conspiracies. I do believe in the power of human self-interest and stupidity though. Just taking Britain as an example, we have always been ruled by a small, powerful elite.

In pre-Roman times this was by a Chieftain and his Warband. In Saxon Times it was through a Thegn, with some distant duty to an unstable monarchy. In come the Normans and introduce the full feudal obligation system which essentially was unchanged up to Charles II getting his head cut off. Then we became a 'parliamentary democracy' - except you had to have land to vote.

As the franchise widened the types of people getting into parliament didn't change. Highly educated nobility and landed middle classes continued to dominate right up to the 1960's. Then we had a succession of failed Labour governments, until the elite came back in with first Thatcher and now New Labour. If you don't believe me look at the front benches and count the Barristers, Lawyers, Old Etonians, and many others who studied by the Cam or the Isis.

If you do get a common man up there occasionally he is universally loathed by the media and brought to heel as soon as possible (i.e. Blunkett and Prescott).

We live in a society where the gap between the rich and poor widens by the decade, and where the legislature, the judiciary and the government is firmly in the hands of the well-off, not the hoi-poloi - just as it has always been.

Democracy is a myth. Our government doesn't serve the people, it serves itself. This is the stupidity of man and will be his curse forever.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I don't think that's *quite* Hitchens' position, though. Yes, he sees the connection between faded economic dreams and fundamentalism. Elsewhere, he's also spoken about religion feeding tribal aggression (not, you'll note, *creating* it as others say). But in that article he (rightly) points out that the very worst offenders in Islamicist terrorism are not those who are the most disadvantaged or dispossesed.

Reading through that article again, I feel its one of his poorer efforts. He lays it on a bit thick - as if multicultural Britain is collapsing around us. He's also guilty of accepting the modern misperception of multiculturalism as akin to cultural apartheid. It *used* to be understood as meaning a melting-pot approach to life.

Where I *do* agree with him 1000%, though, is on the mistake of privileging the views of religious leaders. I'd be happier if those being consulted were the likes of David Shepherd, Hugo Grin or Zaki Badawwi. I'm less convinced that O'Connor, Sachs or Sacranie have anything useful to contribute.

Math,

OK. You win. We're going to hell in a handbasket. Doomed, I tell you, doomed, dooooomed...





So - what are we going to do about it?

<>

I understood that, post WW2, there was quite a narrowing of the gap. Is that why Labour failed?

Math, I think you're confusing how a country is run with its outcome. Whatever..

Even if he isn't...assuming that we agree that democracy is A Good Thing, and allowing Math's premise that we don't presently have democracy - how are we going to get it?

a) Armed insurrection (with all the pitfalls that can entail)?
b) Working away at the cracks, by democratic means?
c) Howling at the moon?









(btw - I believe, pedro, that the rich/poor gap *is* increasing. Certainly globally, but also locally. Locally the baseline has gone up - ie the poor have got slightly richer, while the rich have got incredibly richer. Also, social/economic mobility has *decreased* under Labour.)

c) Howling at the moon.

Final answer.

b) for sure.

(btw - I believe, pedro, that the rich/poor gap *is* increasing. Certainly globally, but also locally. Locally the baseline has gone up - ie the poor have got slightly richer, while the rich have got incredibly richer. Also, social/economic mobility has *decreased* under Labour.)

Yeah, I should have been more specific and said Old Labour. Nevertheless, there was a large narrowing during the 40s - 70s, I think. Which was reversed by Thatcher and Blair.

Who were both voted into office in a dem...

Hi Y'all

Yes the rich-poor gap narrowed, particularly in the 60's and 70's. This is now considered to be a result of the punitive tax policies of successive Labour (and some Tory) governments. Simply put the rich went offshore as Income Tax went up to 90% for the rich. This ended in 1979 when Thatcher came to power, and the rich came back as the taxes receded.

Despite my seemingly pessimistic analysis of the present situation I still campaign vigorously on a range of subjects, so I'd choose Plan B.

One of the things I have found myself doing since I discovered the interweb is discussing with and showing younger people how to campaign. It is literally a lost skill to an entire generation who grew up in the 80's and 90's. Thank you Lady Margaret - evil @@@@@!

This is one druid who does not intend to go quietly into this good night!

I consider it one of my anchors that I have no romantic illusions about the state of our nation nor its 'masters'. There are no scales on my eyes, but I also use logic, reason and our old friend Occam to prevent me spilling into paranoia and madness.

Our world suffers more from short-sighted self-interest than from grand conspiracies. By highlighting this self-interest, and informing people about how they can overcome it, we may perhaps be able to move more towards Eddie's utopian belief in democracy

Blessings,
Craig .

How exactly would you define democracy, Math? I'd define it (broadly) as people voting for their government.

If their government acts in the interests of an elite (won't really argue with you there), what has that got to do with democracy?

>>Eddie's utopian belief in democracy

Now steady on, old legume. I never once implied that it had had delivered utopia, nor indeed that it was perfect. You 'went off on one' without stopping to think about whether I might actually agree with you on some of our current malaises. Your knee was too busy jerking.

Beware of what Dawkins calls 'The Tyranny of Discontinuous Thinking'. It's reasonable (I think) to suggest that we have a certain measure of democracy. I'm not sure I would *quite* agree that we live under a totalitarian system. Entirely. Yet. Certainly there have been and still are less democratic systems around.

Which is why I agree with you entirely about the campaigning approach. We should work with whatever degree of democracy we have to push it in directions of our choosing. And just thank f- that we still have options open to us short of shooting.

Hoooowwwwwwwl!

Hi Pedro

My definition of democracy is a state where the people have the opportunity to participate in the decision making process for all key aspects of their governance. We are approaching a level of technology that allows us to achieve that.

Obviously the people must be educated to understand the consequences of various decisions, and must be given objective advice by subject experts.

Yes I am a utopian, to a degree. But it is better to reach for the stars and fall a little short than lie in the gutter and stare into the sewer.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

No one is against reaching for the stars, as opposed to the sewer, Math. I think people disagree when you claim lying in the gutter is abject failure, when in fact previously we were in the sewer, behind a grate, dreaming of the freedom the gutter afforded...