Decoding Hitch's Bitching

I knew when Christopher Hitchens penned his ugly Slate screed re Rick Sanchez and Jewry's unseen tentacles it was bound to show up in the National Post a day or two later, and indeed it has. To review: it is Hitch's contention that Sanchez deserves to be reinstated because "liberal Jews" do indeed wield tons of influence and because Jews refuse to admit that the "holy state" (as Hitch calls Israel, acidly, refusing to even dignifiy the "holy" with a capital letter) is really sucky. Here's his wrap up:

In the manner in which Sanchez spoke, also, there was something like a buried resentment. He didn't descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media, but he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity. Still, there is nothing criminal about this, and the speed of his firing, like the other recent abrupt disappearances of Laura Schlessinger and Octavia Nasr, seems to suggest a network system that cares only about playing safe and avoiding "offence." The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez's reinstatement. If it then didn't happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.

Funny, I thought it neo-Conservatism that could be linked to a single ethnicity, and that that was the problem. But, really, when Jews are condemned for being both liberal and neo-Con, Communist and capitalism, rootless cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists, you know that the "problem" is not what Jews do or do not do but what the Jews are, i.e. Jews.

As for Hitch's contention about Sanchez's non-desecent, that, too is a complete crock. Here's a transcript of the comments on the Pete Dominick radio show that led to his dismissal:

Dominick was not just a radio show host – he is a CNN contributor who has a regular gig on John King, USA (more on that below), and he formerly was the warm up comic at The Daily Show. Which is why when Sanchez says “I think Jon Stewart’s a bigot” early in the interview, Dominick pushed back:

Dominick: How is he a bigot?


Sanchez: I think he looks at the world through, his mom, who was a school teacher, and his dad, who was a physicist or something like that. Great, I’m so happy that he grew up in a suburban middle class New Jersey home with everything you could ever imagine.


Dominick: What group is he bigoted towards?


Sanchez: Everybody else who’s not like him. Look at his show, I mean, what does he surround himself with?

A few minutes later, Sanchez takes back the word “bigot,” changing it to “prejudicial” and “uninformed.”

Later in the interview, Dominick brings up the fact that Stewart is Jewish, so is a minority himself. Sanchez laughs this off:

I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.

If that wasn’t clear, the “yeah” was sarcastic. “I can’t see somebody not getting a job somewhere because they’re Jewish,” says Sanchez.

If there's any "implication" there that Liberalism is "tied to a single ethnicity," it must be something only clever Oxford-educated atheists can detect--in the same way that only dogs can hear a dog whistle. On the other hand, the "implication" Hitch says is not there--that "there was Jewish control of the media"--comes through loud and clear.

As for Hitch's final sentence--the best way for Jews to demonstate their "hidden influence" is to call for CNN to reinstate Sanchez, and, if their request had no effect, it would show they had no hidden influence--well, now I'm thoroughly confused. Hitch just expended lots of verbiage in an effort to show that "hidden" Jewish influence is obvious. At the last minute, though, he seems to be backtracking. Maybe.

Oh, hell, I may as well admit I haven't a clue what Hitch is on about--and I have a feeling neither does he.