Evil terrorists?
No, they're just solitary drug-crazed losers
Peter Hitchens
Mail on Sunday
If I ever feel the need to have several nice cold buckets of slime tipped over my head, I point out that most of the supposed terrorist attacks in this country are, in fact, the work of solitary drug-crazed losers.
The drug involved is most often marijuana, though steroids are also increasingly implicated, as are some prescription medications. But it is mainly marijuana, which is just now the subject of a huge billionaire-backed campaign to allow it to be advertised on TV and sold in supermarkets. Yes, that is what legalisation means.
Within seconds one choir of morons will be yelling that I am ‘an apologist for Islamic terror’. No, I am not. I hate terrorism of all kinds and wish we did not give into it so often.
As I turn to deal with them, a second choir of morons will begin to howl that marijuana has no links with mental illness or crime, is a valuable medicine, and how dare I damage its chances of being legalised?
They have half a point. It should not be legalised, and I will do all in my power to prevent that happening. But that is because there are mountains of evidence of its connections with mental illness and with violence. This danger is getting harder to contest every day.
So here comes the slime, the dimwit screeches and the self-interested squawks. Because the official claim that the dreadful slayings in a Reading park last weekend were ‘terrorism’ is so absurd that it simply has to be countered. This belief actually leaves us in more danger, not less, because it means we look in the wrong direction and take precautions against the wrong menace.
Showing posts with label Peter Hitchens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Hitchens. Show all posts
Friday, 3 July 2020
Monday, 29 June 2020
A Silly Mime
Not the Real Thing
I've seen hamsters more intimidating than this mob who shouted at me - but what is frightening is their intolerance of all other opinions
Peter Hitchens
The Mail On Sunday
A person wearing a face-muzzle, a baseball cap and socks adorned with the words ‘Hotter than Hell’ appeared at my side. He or she (I had better be careful not to assign a gender) spoke sharply to me, like someone with power: ‘Why have you chosen to stand here?’ For a moment, I was taken in by the air of authority, but recovered myself and asked: ‘Who are you?’ To this I received no useful reply, but the person continued: ‘A lot of people would prefer it if you did not stand here.’
The last time I looked, nearly two million people had viewed the resulting internet video of me strolling along through some ugly shopping streets, being shouted at by a small mob at my heels. It has even been set to music by some wag. To which I replied that I was – for the moment – a free man and would stand anywhere I liked on the streets of my home city, thank you very much.
I had gone out on Tuesday afternoon in Oxford to observe the second of two recent demonstrations calling for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes. It is probably because I used to be a foreign correspondent in Moscow and Washington that I feel I should take a close direct interest in events that are happening in my home town.
I can remember clearly taking part in Left-wing demonstrations, some of them pretty unruly, on these same streets more than half a century ago, when I was myself a revolutionary Marxist. I was fascinated to see how things had changed. Basically, the causes I supported in the 1960s have won. Our 1968 protests were demonstrations of powerlessness, which is why they were rowdy. Today theirs are laps of honour.
On both recent occasions I’d fallen into perfectly civilised conversations with demonstrators, who had recognised me, knew I disagreed with them and wanted to talk about it. I’d also noticed what sort of people they were – overwhelmingly young, ethnically mixed, generally middle class.
And I was amused and a bit disturbed to see a rather stately middle-aged figure, with whom I’ve often had good-natured chats, transforming himself into a slogan-chanting, fist-pumping rabble-rouser. I am now not sure which is the real one, and which is the act.
Both demonstrations were supposed to be about the image of Rhodes, which, for the moment, still stands over Oxford High Street. But I don’t think they were really about that, for who can get genuinely worked up about a puny sculpture 50ft above the pavement that you have to crane your neck to see?
But for a short and amusing few minutes, last Tuesday’s event became a demonstration against me.
I've seen hamsters more intimidating than this mob who shouted at me - but what is frightening is their intolerance of all other opinions
Peter Hitchens
The Mail On Sunday
A person wearing a face-muzzle, a baseball cap and socks adorned with the words ‘Hotter than Hell’ appeared at my side. He or she (I had better be careful not to assign a gender) spoke sharply to me, like someone with power: ‘Why have you chosen to stand here?’ For a moment, I was taken in by the air of authority, but recovered myself and asked: ‘Who are you?’ To this I received no useful reply, but the person continued: ‘A lot of people would prefer it if you did not stand here.’
The last time I looked, nearly two million people had viewed the resulting internet video of me strolling along through some ugly shopping streets, being shouted at by a small mob at my heels. It has even been set to music by some wag. To which I replied that I was – for the moment – a free man and would stand anywhere I liked on the streets of my home city, thank you very much.
I had gone out on Tuesday afternoon in Oxford to observe the second of two recent demonstrations calling for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes. It is probably because I used to be a foreign correspondent in Moscow and Washington that I feel I should take a close direct interest in events that are happening in my home town.
I can remember clearly taking part in Left-wing demonstrations, some of them pretty unruly, on these same streets more than half a century ago, when I was myself a revolutionary Marxist. I was fascinated to see how things had changed. Basically, the causes I supported in the 1960s have won. Our 1968 protests were demonstrations of powerlessness, which is why they were rowdy. Today theirs are laps of honour.
On both recent occasions I’d fallen into perfectly civilised conversations with demonstrators, who had recognised me, knew I disagreed with them and wanted to talk about it. I’d also noticed what sort of people they were – overwhelmingly young, ethnically mixed, generally middle class.
And I was amused and a bit disturbed to see a rather stately middle-aged figure, with whom I’ve often had good-natured chats, transforming himself into a slogan-chanting, fist-pumping rabble-rouser. I am now not sure which is the real one, and which is the act.
Both demonstrations were supposed to be about the image of Rhodes, which, for the moment, still stands over Oxford High Street. But I don’t think they were really about that, for who can get genuinely worked up about a puny sculpture 50ft above the pavement that you have to crane your neck to see?
But for a short and amusing few minutes, last Tuesday’s event became a demonstration against me.
Wednesday, 24 June 2020
Silly Folk
Hitchens Enjoys Leisurely Stroll While Being Abused by BLM Protesters
Laughter and Mockery the Best Riposte
Victoria Friedman
Breitbart London
Black Lives Matter activists verbally abused journalist Peter Hitchens as he strolled through the streets of Oxford to observe the far-left protest. Footage shared on social media showed one Black Lives Matter protester with a microphone chanting, “I don’t know what I’ve been told, Peter Hitchens’ got to go,” while the hundred or so others echoed the lines back to her.
Mr Hitchens, a self-confessed reformed member of the “left-wing mob”, was undisturbed by the chants, saying later that he was “less troubled by these pale copies of the 1960s than I otherwise would be”.
“I just followed the march, as any journalist (or indeed anyone else interested in it) is entitled to do. There was a feeble attempt to (I assume) intimidate me by chanting my name, but I wasn’t bothered. I remain my usual 5 ft 9 in,” he said. Tweets flooded in in support of Mr Hitchens casually carrying on the duty of a journalist whilst young left-wingers chanted his name.
Brexit campaigner Darren Grimes congratulated the writer for being “unapologetically hard arse”. He continued: “Not everyone could do this, not everyone could refuse to bend the knee to a baying mob of people arguing an entire ethnic group must flagellate themselves over a murder in the USA, but he did. More power to him.”
Educator and Free School founder Katharine Birbalsingh said: “What is this madness?! Peter Hitchens, we love you.”
Laughter and Mockery the Best Riposte
Victoria Friedman
Breitbart London
Black Lives Matter activists verbally abused journalist Peter Hitchens as he strolled through the streets of Oxford to observe the far-left protest. Footage shared on social media showed one Black Lives Matter protester with a microphone chanting, “I don’t know what I’ve been told, Peter Hitchens’ got to go,” while the hundred or so others echoed the lines back to her.
Mr Hitchens, a self-confessed reformed member of the “left-wing mob”, was undisturbed by the chants, saying later that he was “less troubled by these pale copies of the 1960s than I otherwise would be”.
“I just followed the march, as any journalist (or indeed anyone else interested in it) is entitled to do. There was a feeble attempt to (I assume) intimidate me by chanting my name, but I wasn’t bothered. I remain my usual 5 ft 9 in,” he said. Tweets flooded in in support of Mr Hitchens casually carrying on the duty of a journalist whilst young left-wingers chanted his name.
Brexit campaigner Darren Grimes congratulated the writer for being “unapologetically hard arse”. He continued: “Not everyone could do this, not everyone could refuse to bend the knee to a baying mob of people arguing an entire ethnic group must flagellate themselves over a murder in the USA, but he did. More power to him.”
Educator and Free School founder Katharine Birbalsingh said: “What is this madness?! Peter Hitchens, we love you.”
Friday, 26 July 2019
The Lunatics Are Running the Asylum
We’re destroying the Armed Forces
The last great institution that Britain has left
Peter Hitchens
Mail on Sunday
Having wrecked the schools, the police, the courts and the Civil Service, destroyed the married family and debauched the economy, the slow-motion British Revolution now plans to ruin the Armed Forces, the last truly conservative institutions left standing after 60 years of upheaval.
At the end of this process, the Army, Navy and Air Force will still exist in outward form, but they will be useless for the purpose for which we have them – fighting the enemy. Instead, they will produce plenty of annual reports showing how sexually equal and inclusive they are.
The appointment of officers will be made on the grounds of subservience to dogma rather than on the grounds of known bravery or competence, and also of course on the basis of sex, with women preferred over men. If ever such disembowelled, politically corrected forces come up against the fighters of any country which still puts national defence before political fashion, then I do not think there is much doubt of the outcome. I am amazed there has not been more fuss about the grotesque ‘report’ claiming that the Forces have ‘unacceptable levels of sexism, racism and bullying’ and are led by ‘a pack of white middle-aged men’.
The last great institution that Britain has left
Peter Hitchens
Mail on Sunday
Having wrecked the schools, the police, the courts and the Civil Service, destroyed the married family and debauched the economy, the slow-motion British Revolution now plans to ruin the Armed Forces, the last truly conservative institutions left standing after 60 years of upheaval.
At the end of this process, the Army, Navy and Air Force will still exist in outward form, but they will be useless for the purpose for which we have them – fighting the enemy. Instead, they will produce plenty of annual reports showing how sexually equal and inclusive they are.
The appointment of officers will be made on the grounds of subservience to dogma rather than on the grounds of known bravery or competence, and also of course on the basis of sex, with women preferred over men. If ever such disembowelled, politically corrected forces come up against the fighters of any country which still puts national defence before political fashion, then I do not think there is much doubt of the outcome. I am amazed there has not been more fuss about the grotesque ‘report’ claiming that the Forces have ‘unacceptable levels of sexism, racism and bullying’ and are led by ‘a pack of white middle-aged men’.
Tuesday, 4 June 2019
It's All About Being Virtuous
It Starts With Screeching Lefties Calling Us Nazis...
It Ends in a Police State
Peter Hitchens
Mail On Sunday
I am sick of the self-righteousness of the Left. Their nasty demonstrations about climate change, and their screeches of ‘Nazi!’ at any opponent, are not just wrong, but warnings of a police state to come.
When they gum up London, stopping other people getting to work or going home, with beatific smirks on their faces, they are punishing us for not being as fanatical as they are or – worse – not even agreeing with them.
Their protests are not against the Government, which long ago caved in to the Green fanatics, and goes around blowing up perfectly good coal-fired power stations to please them. They are against us, for not being keen enough on their intolerant cult.
When they gum up London, stopping other people getting to work or going home, with beatific smirks on their faces, they are punishing us for not being as fanatical as they are or – worse – not even agreeing with them .
Pictured, climate activists at an Extinction Rebellion demonstration in Parliament Square, London.
They aren’t as stupid as they look. They know that if their policies are adopted we will be reduced to severe poverty, living cold, dark and limited lives as the power fails and half the transport system packs up. Many of them will admit in private that, if they are by any chance right and the world is really doomed, the measures they keep calling for will not in fact save us. This is perfectly true. China’s huge coal-burning economic expansion completely cancels out all the economy-destroying measures this country has ever taken to reduce its carbon footprint.
They don’t care. Like every other ‘End of the World is at hand’ cult, they yearn for the wrath to come and want to see non-believers suffer. They think their self-assessed goodness will save them, while the rest of us deservedly drown, or are perhaps eaten by polar bears fleeing ever southwards.
It is all about being virtuous, and better than other people, so they can look down on them.
It Ends in a Police State
Peter Hitchens
Mail On Sunday
I am sick of the self-righteousness of the Left. Their nasty demonstrations about climate change, and their screeches of ‘Nazi!’ at any opponent, are not just wrong, but warnings of a police state to come.
When they gum up London, stopping other people getting to work or going home, with beatific smirks on their faces, they are punishing us for not being as fanatical as they are or – worse – not even agreeing with them.
Their protests are not against the Government, which long ago caved in to the Green fanatics, and goes around blowing up perfectly good coal-fired power stations to please them. They are against us, for not being keen enough on their intolerant cult.
When they gum up London, stopping other people getting to work or going home, with beatific smirks on their faces, they are punishing us for not being as fanatical as they are or – worse – not even agreeing with them .
Pictured, climate activists at an Extinction Rebellion demonstration in Parliament Square, London.
They aren’t as stupid as they look. They know that if their policies are adopted we will be reduced to severe poverty, living cold, dark and limited lives as the power fails and half the transport system packs up. Many of them will admit in private that, if they are by any chance right and the world is really doomed, the measures they keep calling for will not in fact save us. This is perfectly true. China’s huge coal-burning economic expansion completely cancels out all the economy-destroying measures this country has ever taken to reduce its carbon footprint.
They don’t care. Like every other ‘End of the World is at hand’ cult, they yearn for the wrath to come and want to see non-believers suffer. They think their self-assessed goodness will save them, while the rest of us deservedly drown, or are perhaps eaten by polar bears fleeing ever southwards.
It is all about being virtuous, and better than other people, so they can look down on them.
Monday, 17 September 2018
Revising The Official Story
Things Are Not As We Have Been Led to Believe
We didn't win the war! Like us all, Peter Hitchens grew up on stories of Britain’s heroic victory over Hitler... but now, without questioning the bravery of our troops, he’s written a book challenging all we think about WW2
By Peter Hitchens
Daily Mail
In a chilly, high-ceilinged room in a Sussex preparatory school in the winter of 1959, I work intently on my model of the destroyer HMS Cossack. Such models come in lurid cardboard boxes illustrated with pictures of aircraft, tanks and warships, amid scenes of fiery melodrama, guns emitting orange streaks of flame, and the smoke of battle. With these and our imaginations, we seek to recreate the thrill of the war we have just missed, in which our fathers fought and our mothers endured privations.
This is a war just over the horizon of time in which we wish we had taken part, and which dominates our boyish minds above all things. Courage in pursuit of goodness, in the face of a terrible enemy, was what we most believed in. Even the Crucifixion grew pale and faint in the lurid light of air raids and great columns of burning oil at Dunkirk.
But the Second World War, like all events that have become myths, has become a dangerous subject. As a nation, we are enthralled by the belief that it was an unequivocally ‘Good War’, a belief that has grown with extraordinary speed. Yet I did not have to look far to see a rather different picture. My parents were brought together by the tempest of that war and were marked by it for the rest of their lives.
My father, Commander Eric Hitchens, who served in the Royal Navy for 30 years, was never wholly sure who had won. He neither felt he was living in a victorious country nor felt it had rewarded him justly. I remember well how, sometimes, late in the evening, he would look thoughtfully into the middle distance and say: ‘Ah, well, we won the war… or did we?’
We didn't win the war! Like us all, Peter Hitchens grew up on stories of Britain’s heroic victory over Hitler... but now, without questioning the bravery of our troops, he’s written a book challenging all we think about WW2
By Peter Hitchens
Daily Mail
In a chilly, high-ceilinged room in a Sussex preparatory school in the winter of 1959, I work intently on my model of the destroyer HMS Cossack. Such models come in lurid cardboard boxes illustrated with pictures of aircraft, tanks and warships, amid scenes of fiery melodrama, guns emitting orange streaks of flame, and the smoke of battle. With these and our imaginations, we seek to recreate the thrill of the war we have just missed, in which our fathers fought and our mothers endured privations.
This is a war just over the horizon of time in which we wish we had taken part, and which dominates our boyish minds above all things. Courage in pursuit of goodness, in the face of a terrible enemy, was what we most believed in. Even the Crucifixion grew pale and faint in the lurid light of air raids and great columns of burning oil at Dunkirk.
But the Second World War, like all events that have become myths, has become a dangerous subject. As a nation, we are enthralled by the belief that it was an unequivocally ‘Good War’, a belief that has grown with extraordinary speed. Yet I did not have to look far to see a rather different picture. My parents were brought together by the tempest of that war and were marked by it for the rest of their lives.
My father, Commander Eric Hitchens, who served in the Royal Navy for 30 years, was never wholly sure who had won. He neither felt he was living in a victorious country nor felt it had rewarded him justly. I remember well how, sometimes, late in the evening, he would look thoughtfully into the middle distance and say: ‘Ah, well, we won the war… or did we?’
Monday, 5 March 2018
Radio NZ and Peter HItchens
Kim Hill talks to Peter Hitchens about Brexit
. . . And lots of other matters
https://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/rnz-saturday-kim-hill-talks-to-peter-hitchens-about-brexit/
A fascinating and entertaining discussion.
JT
. . . And lots of other matters
https://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/rnz-saturday-kim-hill-talks-to-peter-hitchens-about-brexit/
A fascinating and entertaining discussion.
JT
Friday, 9 February 2018
Pulp Fiction
Chatterley on Trial
Peter Hitchens has written a latter-day review of D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. He reflects upon the literary worthlessness of the book and considers it in the post-modern context of amorality in which we now live.
It turns out that Chatterley has not improved over time. In fact, it has made the contribution to Western Civilization that Lawrence probably intended--that is, the dismantling of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the West. But it has not been successful in building a Brave New World.
Readers can access the full review and attendant social commentary upon the court case that failed to ban Chatterley at First Things. The piece is entitled "Chatterley on Trial".
Hitchens's concluding paragraph may serve to whet your appetite:
Peter Hitchens has written a latter-day review of D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. He reflects upon the literary worthlessness of the book and considers it in the post-modern context of amorality in which we now live.
It turns out that Chatterley has not improved over time. In fact, it has made the contribution to Western Civilization that Lawrence probably intended--that is, the dismantling of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the West. But it has not been successful in building a Brave New World.
Readers can access the full review and attendant social commentary upon the court case that failed to ban Chatterley at First Things. The piece is entitled "Chatterley on Trial".
Hitchens's concluding paragraph may serve to whet your appetite:
The liberation of pornography from dingy shops in seedy quarters has not led to the death of repression or an outbreak of sexual health, but to even more pornography, to the commodification of flesh, and to a society deader in the loins and in the head than anything Lawrence knew. This is what the Chatterley trial was about. Some of those who championed the book must have known what they were doing. But their campaign succeeded because so many people did not take words and language as seriously as they should have. They thought they could take a brief, sunlit Mediterranean holiday from morals and restraint, and then return comfortably to the old, secure ways. In fact, they said goodbye to them forever. It takes centuries to create a taboo, and an afternoon to destroy it.
Friday, 12 August 2016
Peter Hitchens's Letter from the UK (About Justice)
The Church In Retreat--From Ignominy
Peter Hitchens
The Mail Online
As the vast Goddard inquisition lurches off the rails, are we finally recovering our sanity about child abuse? Terrible as this crime is, it is not an excuse for losing our heads and trampling on justice. This week I record a small victory in one such case of injustice, that of the late, saintly and much-loved Bishop George Bell. He was publicly smeared as a paedophile without a hearing by the Church of England – on the basis of a single, ancient uncorroborated accusation.
I am pleased to say that, under cover of a cloud of holy smoke, the C of E has retreated. The Church doesn’t understand English law (hence the kangaroo court) and has a nasty habit of using the anonymous complainant, an elderly lady known as ‘Carol’, as a human shield. Any criticism of the Church’s injustice is falsely alleged to be an attack on her.
The current Bishop of Chelmsford, The Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, recently said in the House of Lords that defenders of George Bell had ‘made hurtful comments’ about ‘Carol’. It was a nasty thing to say, and it was not true. I have been pursuing Mr Cottrell, helpfully pointing out to him what the Bible says about bearing false witness, and about owning up to wrongdoing. He is, after all, a modern sort of Bishop and can’t necessarily be expected to be well-versed in such things.
Peter Hitchens
The Mail Online
As the vast Goddard inquisition lurches off the rails, are we finally recovering our sanity about child abuse? Terrible as this crime is, it is not an excuse for losing our heads and trampling on justice. This week I record a small victory in one such case of injustice, that of the late, saintly and much-loved Bishop George Bell. He was publicly smeared as a paedophile without a hearing by the Church of England – on the basis of a single, ancient uncorroborated accusation.
I am pleased to say that, under cover of a cloud of holy smoke, the C of E has retreated. The Church doesn’t understand English law (hence the kangaroo court) and has a nasty habit of using the anonymous complainant, an elderly lady known as ‘Carol’, as a human shield. Any criticism of the Church’s injustice is falsely alleged to be an attack on her.
The current Bishop of Chelmsford, The Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, recently said in the House of Lords that defenders of George Bell had ‘made hurtful comments’ about ‘Carol’. It was a nasty thing to say, and it was not true. I have been pursuing Mr Cottrell, helpfully pointing out to him what the Bible says about bearing false witness, and about owning up to wrongdoing. He is, after all, a modern sort of Bishop and can’t necessarily be expected to be well-versed in such things.
Friday, 29 April 2016
Au Contraire
Contrarian Peter Hitchens Confirms What The Wise Already Know
The United States Has Always Been Self-Interested
Now will we grasp that the United States is not our friend, but a foreign country whose interests are often different from ours? President Obama’s blatant intervention in our internal affairs is not a sudden breach of a soppy ‘special relationship’. The USA’s only real special relationship is with Saudi Arabia, a 70-year-old hard pact of oil, money and power, welded together with such cynicism it ought to make us gasp.
Barack Obama’s open desire for us to stay inside the EU is by no means the first or worst example of White House meddling here in these islands. Bill Clinton forced us to cave in to the Provisional IRA in 1998 and his successor, George W. Bush, continued the policy by making us do Sinn Fein’s bidding afterwards.
Washington came close to scuppering our recapture of the Falklands in 1982. And with the current state of our Armed Forces, which can nowadays do nothing without American support, I often wonder how the White House and the Pentagon would behave if Argentina once again seized Port Stanley. If anyone thinks Hillary Clinton is a great friend of Britain, they’re in for a big surprise.
But surely the Americans fought with us shoulder to shoulder against the Kaiser and Hitler? Not exactly.
Friday, 18 September 2015
Letter From the UK (About A Relic That May Revive)
Peter Hitchens Shouldn’t Give Up the Fight Just Yet
Peter Hitchens, Twitter
It is true that Peter Hitchens is one of the last public conservatives allowed to exist in Britain. The establishment is apparently willing to tolerate him as a relic, but eagerly waits to consign him to history and prevent any successors from reminding us of the inconvenient foundations of politics in philosophy and ideology, rather than the pointless pursuit of power and status quo.
I was surprised to see him appear in Owen Jones’s latest attempt to wheel out curiosities who have not yet conformed to the metropolitan liberal consensus.In speaking to Jones and the Guardian, Hitchens is somewhat guilty of putting pearls before the swine, he seems to justify it in cheerfully acknowledging his relaxed acceptance that Britain is finished in anything other than name anyway, and he may be right. But that doesn’t mean conservatism is finished, in fact it is engaged in a global culture war that many more in Britain are capable of taking part in, if they had the basic tools to engage with the debate.
Hitchens is now reduced to reminding us in his sadly seldom
screen appearances of the definition and basic concepts of liberalism,
socialism and conservatism. Not because that is all he is able to do,
but the political debate in Britain has become so debased it is
necessary for serious commentators to have to walk Guardian
columnists through the ABCs of political theory while their eyes bulge
in shock to learn that David Cameron is not a conservative.
Saturday, 5 July 2014
Dangerous Ideas
Deathly Silence
An anonymous commentator called our attention to a piece from the Briefing at Matthias Media, commenting upon the "Festival of Dangerous Ideas" held recently at the Sydney Opera House.
An anonymous commentator called our attention to a piece from the Briefing at Matthias Media, commenting upon the "Festival of Dangerous Ideas" held recently at the Sydney Opera House.
We had a talkfest here in Sydney recently called ‘The Festival of Dangerous Ideas’, at which participants could experience the frisson of discussing daring and explosive concepts with a soy latte in hand. Most of the ideas were in fact rather conventionally dangerous in a green-left sort of way, although gay activist Dan Savage received special marks for his dangerous idea that abortion should be made mandatory for 30 years to make a dent in the worldwide population problem. (The audience, having escaped the womb safely themselves, felt confident to clap.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)