I caught this post over at jackandjillpolitics.com and it is a perfect summation of the arrogant hypocritical posturing of Christopher "White Man's Burden" Hitchens.
I once actually had some respct for Mr. Hitchens and his swaggeringly clever dissections of some of the out crooks, charlatans and confidence men of geo-politics. His analysis of the heart of Mother Theresa's life and beliefs were a scream. He unmasked more of the Clinton I's administartion's skullduggeries and his pean to the necessary trial of Henry Kissinger for war crimes made believe that justice still had a voice. However his poor man's Rudyard Kipling act in the face of US imperialism done me in.
Babatunde over at Jack and Jill lays out in properly furious tones the reason why Hitchens is a not a has been but indeed a never was of the leftism isn't fun anymore school of criticism. Hitchen's tired attempt to use his ideological purity against people that live in the real world and experience complex relationships has grown tired.
The thing that this gaggle of cranks and parasites has in common is the extreme deference with which it is treated by the junior senator from Illinois. In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger—for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan. . . He seems, indeed, to have a real gift for remaining adequately uninformed about the real beliefs of his "mentors.
As Babatunde points out nowhere neither Hitchens nor anyone else has pointed out that in over 20 years of being apart of the Chicago public forum Sen. Obama's belief, support or complicity of any of the extreme views of his mentors. Instead Hitchens uses this space (wasted) to lay into every conservative's favorite racial targets criticism of contemporary Black religious leaders. No doubt there is necessary criticism that must be voiced against all that proclaim "leadership" but Hitchens revels in his superiority by acknowledging his worship at the shrine of "pure" Black leadership, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Once again from Babatunde quoting Hitchens
Dr. King showed most profoundly that in an interdependent world, lasting power grows against the grain of violence, not with it. Both the cold war and South African apartheid ended to the strains of "We Shall Overcome," defying all preparations for Armageddon. The civil rights movement remains a model for new democracy, sadly neglected in its own birthplace. In Iraq today, we are stuck on the Vietnam model instead. There is no more salient or neglected field of study than the relationship between power and violence.
Maybe Hitchens should think about power and violence. But like so many whites of good will, Hitchens celebrates non-violence against white populations (of course that what made King such a treasure) but populations of color should be bombed back to the stone ages. But Babatunde nails him as he tries to wrap himself in King's legacy (for the record I am beginning to suspect that chauvinism is no longer the last refuge for scoundrels--it is Dr. King's legacy). Take it away Babatunde
As for "negating and profaning" the legacy that was left to "all of us," I would suggest that description probably better fits the warmongering Hitchens, who can find no worth, value, or meaning in the faith of a man he claims to admire so much. Hitchens' admiration of King is so much racial posturing, a flimsy pretext for the staggering entitlement he takes in presuming to define the legacy of King for the rest of us, despite having failed to learn its most basic lessons.
My regret is that I hadn't written every word of Babatunde's criticism, but my joy is that it was written. Andrew Sullivan tries to carry a little water for Hitch but the holes too big. It's time to stop listening to this m***********!