Hitchens + Maher (!) on C. Rose this PM

I get to see Maher's HBO extravaganza a week or so late - IMO he's gotten more concise, with better timing (and just the right soup-mix of subordinate clauses.. when ~singing the list of Capitol offenses of the junta) .. maybe not quite as good as the least of Messrs. Gilbert & Sullivan's unmatchable patter songs.. Saw the HBO hour earlier, then the Charlie Rose interview.

Hitchens + Charlie obv have a many-years relationship, though that did not blunt a few pointed "some are saying ..." queries - regarding The Fiasco and, Hitchens' latest. The v.simple book cover looks ~like:

god

Is Not

GREAT

why religion poisons everything

He opens by pointing out that no 'secular' group would ever destroy a Shrine (inseparable from its artistic beauty, whatever the religious significance == my words, not a quote.) Points out that the bombing of such a shrine began the {current Official civil war == again, my summary.} Goes on to justify his characterization of the bombers in our newly-created Disneyland for the Scurrilous {mine / not his} - in a perfectly reasonable way, via this auditioner's def'n of reason-able.

Etc.

Hitchens' argument for NOT abandoning the fledgling democracy of the Kurd regions - the accomplishments of whom.. (in the face of the utter ineptness elsewhere South) he describes rapid-fire - is cogent; is a reasonable counterargument to the standard lazy Murican black/white casting of our next options -- the usual half-vast slogans standing-in for ... vast arrays of possibilities; options we/Muricans are too insouciant to be able to discuss, surely not from any informed knowledge of Their centuries-old tribal vendettas.

H. mentions someone's prepping Shrub - during. the. invasion! about "there being Sunnis and Shiites / what the words might mean," etc. The iggerant motherfucker had No Clue about W.T.F. the Tar Baby's form would soon take..

(H. did not offer an opinion re. if the term 'Tar Baby', itself would register? in the dry drunk's Jesus-besotted jelloware, amidst the excitement of fresh pretzels in front of the Tee Vee + Shock n'Awe, uninterrupted by truss ads. Either.)

He has a cute summing-up of the consequences of the scum-of-the-earth-God-Is-Great troglodytes: next to be expected. Pity that any effort to reduce a one hr. broadcast into ez-quips: would beg the issue of black/white simplicities already negatorily referenced.

Ah well, sorry y'all missed it .. dunno about C. Rose transcript$ either.

Ashton

Post #283,963 by Ashton 5/5/07 6:53:58 AM Reply	Hitchens + Maher (!) on C. Rose this PM I get to see Maher's HBO extravaganza a week or so late - IMO he's gotten more concise, with better timing (and just the right soup-mix of subordinate clauses.. when ~singing the list of Capitol offenses of the junta) .. maybe not quite as good as the least of Messrs. Gilbert & Sullivan's unmatchable patter songs.. Saw the HBO hour earlier, then the Charlie Rose interview. Hitchens + Charlie obv have a many-years relationship, though that did not blunt a few pointed "some are saying ..." queries - regarding The Fiasco and, Hitchens' latest. The v.simple book cover looks ~like: god Is Not GREAT why religion poisons everything He opens by pointing out that no 'secular' group would ever destroy a Shrine (inseparable from its artistic beauty, whatever the religious significance == my words, not a quote.) Points out that the bombing of such a shrine began the {current Official civil war == again, my summary.} Goes on to justify his characterization of the bombers in our newly-created Disneyland for the Scurrilous {mine / not his} - in a perfectly reasonable way, via this auditioner's def'n of reason-able. Etc. Hitchens' argument for NOT abandoning the fledgling democracy of the Kurd regions - the accomplishments of whom.. (in the face of the utter ineptness elsewhere South) he describes rapid-fire - is cogent; is a reasonable counterargument to the standard lazy Murican black/white casting of our next options -- the usual half-vast slogans standing-in for ... vast arrays of possibilities; options we/Muricans are too insouciant to be able to discuss, surely not from any informed knowledge of Their centuries-old tribal vendettas. H. mentions someone's prepping Shrub - during. the. invasion! about "there being Sunnis and Shiites / what the words might mean," etc. The iggerant motherfucker had No Clue about W.T.F. the Tar Baby's form would soon take.. (H. did not offer an opinion re. if the term 'Tar Baby', itself would register? in the dry drunk's Jesus-besotted jelloware, amidst the excitement of fresh pretzels in front of the Tee Vee + Shock n'Awe, uninterrupted by truss ads. Either.) He has a cute summing-up of the consequences of the scum-of-the-earth-God-Is-Great troglodytes: next to be expected. Pity that any effort to reduce a one hr. broadcast into ez-quips: would beg the issue of black/white simplicities already negatorily referenced. Ah well, sorry y'all missed it .. dunno about C. Rose transcript$ either. Ashton
Post #283,971 by Another Scott 5/5/07 9:33:53 AM Reply	I saw parts of it (for the first time in years). I was surprised how much Rose interrupted them when they were trying to answer a question. I don't remember him being like that. It was a good show, but would have been much, much better if he'd let them say more than a few words before he started talking again. I would have been pulling my hair out if I had been sitting at the table (and both of them seemed to me to be frustrated with the interruptions as well). Flash 8 videos of the segments are at [link\|http://charlierose.com/home\|CharlieRose.com] "broadband required". Maher's is 23:41, Hitchens's is 28:26. I haven't seen any transcripts yet. Cheers, Scott.
Post #283,978 by a6l6e6x 5/5/07 10:29:02 AM Reply	Thanks for the link, Scott! Alex When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis

Welcome to IWETHEY!