1. Hitchens is a FORMER Trotskyist, which would have made him a sort of Marxist, more specifically one that favored spreading the Revolution internationally rather than attempting to build an isolated Socialist state in the way that Stalin and Mao did. Of course, if you connect the dots, it's not hard to see what this has to do with his support of the Iraq War and the neocons' (most of whom are actually also a bunch of former Trotskyists) idea of 'spreading democracy'.

2. Ianras wrote:

"Nietzsche? Nietzsche called for the victory of secularism? The same Nietzsche who wanted to centre existence on classical myths?"

A grand overstatement. Nietzsche was of course enamoured of the symbolic and aesthetic power of the classical myths, but at no point did he delude himself into thinking the gods actually existed. On the other hand, I generally disagree with the author's use of the term 'secularism' as if it were equivalent to 'atheism', which, despite the utter confusion of the right-wing, it is not (case in point, Turkey: a secular nation with a Muslim majority). Atheism is more like what Nietzsche wanted.

3. I suggest that everyone go read the excerpted chapters on Slate before commenting further:

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/

I too thought this was a little over the top and, quite frankly, unnecessary preaching to the choir. But Hitchens' style does still carry a certain charm, so it might be worth reading if you just enjoy well-written polemics.

Cue the comments from Gordon Wagner and the like bashing you for not devoting every megabyte of site space to hard news. Add some mudslinging over the relationship between feminism and sex, and throw in a few references to "Hanoi Jane" from some disgruntled right-wingers. There, I've just summarized the entire letters section that is bound to appear here. Might as well call it a day.

First things first. Anonymous writes:

"As a society we've made the decision that children in utero are not human and are not worthy of protection. Therefore, it's not really "murder" when we kill them, but "choice" and for the good of society and the parents. Seems to me other folks have used this reasoning -I think they were called Nazis."

Why thank you for once again proving the validity of Godwin's law. Your argument doesn't even deserve addressing, but I can't help myself. So by your logic, any decision on what is and isn't considered a 'person' makes us Nazis? I suppose you think that embryos and zygotes are people too? What about sperm cells? No? Why not? You're 'deciding' that they're not human and that flushing them down the toilet isn't 'murder'? Nazi!!!

If you can't see the difference between saying that a Jew isn't a person and that a mass of cells that has no brain and no ability to feel pain until the end of the second trimester isn't a person, then you've got serious problems.

Now, then, I do wish people would stop throwing the E-word around. Dumbed-down postmodernism has thoroughly destroyed our ability to make any claims of value whatsoever. Being deaf is a 'culture'. Having Downs is simply being 'differently-abled'.

Deficiency is not a culture. The idea of 'culture' implies that it is a man-made, non-natural construct, and that there can be cross-cultural interaction and understanding. A British anthropologist can live in Zimbabwe and learn about their culture, and an African immigrant can come to America and assimilate into American culture while choosing to retain or not retain elements of his or her original culture. By contrast, a hearing-abled person could plug their ears, learn sign language, and get some idea of what life is like for deaf people. The reverse doesn't work.

I am going to make a statement that decades ago would have been considered obvious but is now somehow taboo: Certain things are just better than others. To be more specific, I believe in progress. I believe in the improvement of humanity. I believe in the advancement of civilization. I believe in the cultivation of the things that improve life and that make us distinctly human. And I believe that these things can be boiled down to some group of concepts like overall health, happiness, and yes, intelligence. If that makes me a 'Nazi', so be it.

There is a clear difference between the two approaches to dealing with disability. One involves treating disabled people with respect and sympathy for misfortunes that are in no way their fault and making sure that they receive as much care and accomodation as possible to enable them to live a normal life. The other involves completely destroying any and all value judgments and dragging all of society down to the lowest common denominator to ensure that no one can ever feel bad about being in any way inferior (read Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron" for illustration). One of these is simply wrong.