Christopher Hitchens: The last interview

Earlier this month, the New Statesman posted the last interview with Christopher Hitchens, which was conducted by Richard Dawkins in 2011. Some excerpts below:

Richard Dawkins: You debated with Tony Blair[video above]. I’m not sure I watched that. I love listening to you [but] I can’t bear listening to...Well, I mustn’t say that. I think he did come over as rather nice on that evening.

Christopher Hitchens: He was charming that evening. And during the day as well.

RD What was your impression of him?

CH You can only have one aim per debate. I had two in debating with Tony Blair. The first one was to get him to admit that it was not done---the stuff we complain of---in only the name of religion. That’s a cop-out. The authority is in the text. Second, I wanted to get him to admit, if possible, that giving money to a charity or organising a charity does not vindicate a cause. I got him to admit the first one and I admired his honesty. He was asked by the interlocutor at about half-time: “Which of Christopher’s points strikes you as the best?” He said: “I have to admit, he’s made his case, he’s right. This stuff, there is authority for it in the canonical texts, in Islam, Judaism.” 

At that point, I’m ready to fold---I’ve done what I want for the evening. We did debate whether Catholic charities and so on were a good thing and I said: “They are but they don’t prove any point and some of them are only making up for damage done.” For example, the Church had better spend a lot of money doing repair work on its Aids policy in Africa, [to make up for preaching] that condoms don’t prevent disease or, in some cases, that they spread it. It is iniquitous. It has led to a lot of people dying horribly. Also, I’ve never looked at some of the ground operations of these charities---apart from Mother Teresa---but they do involve a lot of proselytising, a lot of propaganda. They’re not just giving out free stuff. They’re doing work to recruit.

RD And Mother Teresa was one of the worst offenders?

CH She preached that poverty was a gift from God. And she believed that women should not be given control over the reproductive cycle. Mother Teresa spent her whole life making sure that the one cure for poverty we know is sound was not implemented. So Tony Blair knows this but he doesn’t have an answer. If I say, “Your Church preaches against the one cure for poverty,” he doesn’t deny it, but he doesn’t affirm it either. But remember, I did start with a text and I asked him to comment on it first, but he never did. Cardinal Newman said he would rather the whole world and everyone in it be painfully destroyed and condemned for ever to eternal torture than one sinner go unrebuked for the stealing of a sixpence. It’s right there in the centre of the Apologia. The man whose canonisation Tony had been campaigning for. You put these discrepancies in front of him and he’s like all the others. He keeps two sets of books. And this is also, even in an honest person, shady.

[snip]

RD I’ve always been very suspicious of the left-right dimension in politics.

CH Yes, it’s broken down with me.

RD It’s astonishing how much traction the left-right continuum [has]...If you know what someone thinks about the death penalty or abortion, then you generally know what they think about everything else. But you clearly break that rule.

CH I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian---on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy---the one that’s absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do. That has secular forms with gurus and dictators, of course, but it’s essentially the same. There have been some thinkers---Orwell is pre-eminent---who understood that, unfortunately, there is innate in humans a strong tendency to worship, to become abject. So we’re not just fighting the dictators. We’re criticising our fellow humans for trying to short-cut, to make their lives simpler, by surrendering and saying, “[If] you offer me bliss, of course I’m going to give up some of my mental freedom for that.” We say it’s a false bargain: you’ll get nothing. You’re a fool.

[snip]

RD Do you think America is in danger of becoming a theocracy?

CH No, I don’t. The people who we mean when we talk about that---maybe the extreme Protestant evangelicals, who do want a God-run America and believe it was founded on essentially fundamentalist Protestant principles---I think they may be the most overrated threat in the country.

RD Oh, good.

CH They’ve been defeated everywhere. Why is this? In the 1920s, they had a string of victories. They banned the sale, manufacture, distribution and consumption of alcohol. They more or less managed to ban immigration from countries that had non-Protestant, non-white majorities. From these victories, they have never recovered. They’ll never recover from [the failure of] Prohibition. It was their biggest defeat. They’ll never recover from the Scopes trial. Every time they’ve tried [to introduce the teaching of creationism], the local school board or the parents or the courts have thrown it out and it’s usually because of the work of people like you, who have shown that it’s nonsense. They try to make a free speech question out of it, but they will fail with that, also. People don’t want to come from the town or the state or the county that gets laughed at.

[snip]

CH The reason why most of my friends are non-believers is not particularly that they were engaged in the arguments you and I have been having, but they were made indifferent by compulsory religion at school.

RD They got bored by it.

CH They’d had enough of it. They took from it occasionally whatever they needed---if you needed to get married, you knew where to go. Some of them, of course, are religious and some of them like the music but, generally speaking, the British people are benignly indifferent to religion...

[snip]

RD Can you say anything about Christmas?

CH Yes. There was going to be a winter solstice holiday for sure. The dominant religion was going to take it over and that would have happened without Dickens and without others.

RD The Christmas tree comes from Prince Albert; the shepherds and the wise men are all made up.

CH Cyrenius wasn’t governor of Syria, all of that. Increasingly, it’s secularised itself. This “Happy Holidays”---I don’t particularly like that, either.

RD Horrible, isn’t it? “Happy holiday season.”

CH I prefer our stuff about the cosmos.

Thanks to Patheos.

Creating jobs in Berkeley---for elite unions---building luxury apartments

From an editorial in the Berkeley Daily Planet:

...the Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board will spend a scant hour considering whether or not an 18-story project which promises to create 250 to 300 union construction jobs for the two and a half year period the project is under construction would be a significant community benefit or a grievous error which would add significantly to global warming. 

The last Berkeley ZAB meeting on this project was attended by a delegation of five or six burly men whose tee-shirts proclaimed that they were members of the Ironworkers’ Union. Their spokesperson, a statuesque African-American woman with a resonant voice and a lot of personal magnetism, spoke of her union’s fervent support for the project in question, and it’s not hard to understand why they’d want it to be approved. 

But is it really a good idea to build an environmentally costly building which will consume copious amounts of energy-intensive concrete, steel and water in order to provide jobs for a relatively small number of construction workers for a relatively short period? 

Is building an unneeded luxury apartment complex a significant benefit for the community as a whole, or just for a couple of hundred well-paid union workers for a couple of years? Especially in a city where our civic built environment (e.g. the Maudelle Shirek Old City Hall, Willard Pool, the Berkeley Rose Garden etc. etc.) is drastically in need of work? 

I’m aware that ironworkers have not been trained to restore existing structures, which is why they want to promote construction of new steel-frame projects. They could be retrained, however, to do more sustainable and more needed construction jobs in areas like restoration and solar retrofitting...

Rob's comment:

All unions care about is jobs for their members. Whether a project is good for the community or environmentally destructive is not their concern.

David Chiu wouldn't get labor's endorsement if he hadn't supported both the Central Subway and the high-speed rail projects.

The Democratic Party, backed by the labor unions, supports the dumb high-speed rail project, because even dumb projects create jobs for the unions.

That's why Supervisor Wiener is proposing more subways for San Francisco. He knows there's no money for that, but it will get him union support for his campaign for the state senate. Wiener of course supports the high-speed rail project and the Central Subway.