When context is unknown, readers do often resort to fanciful etymological explanation. Here is the kind of thing I frequently deal with:

http://www.i-tjingcentrum.nl/serendipit ... am-23.html
Cutting through hexagram 23

Harmen is a generous and meticulous researcher, but misled because of his dependence on etymology.

Caro (at the bottom) is correct. Hexagram 23 (Wen's interpretation) refers to the preparation of soil for growing crops.

Hmmm....I would like to see that backed up by facts and/or proper research, Caro did not give these. Maybe you can give me these by e-mail or pm? Thanks.

Yes, difficulty does arise when one is shifting from the theory of political philosophy towards its relationship to the functional practice of the political movement as unwittingly a disjunction inevitably occurs. Perhaps no small reason why Che is afforded a cult while Trotsky and Orwell are given the trust of dissimulators? Che was never a novelist where as Orwell and Trotsky were never more than intellectual revolutionaries.

This is important as in the cases of Trotsky and Orwell, with regards to the personal dynamism Che, the theory was able to substitute its own frames of references and suggestions without the need for all that detailed of an awareness as to specific sociological and political function within which it would necessarily operate as a emergent process. Functional process was Che's legitimacy.

In this sense, that the political theory of Trotsky and Orwell is a actually a simplified subset of rather particular assumptions opposed to a balanced theory tested in action, the projection of particular features onto disparate types of hypothetical situations based on preceding thought fostered a rather distrusting mutual development. Based on the almost implicit duplexity in creating a moral double standard rather than a more accommodating systems or meta-systems perspective concerning intraspecific competition within a community adopted by the pragmatic Che. Che and Orwell were different from Trotsky in many respects not the least in amount of respect they willingly afforded to alternative fields of thought and reasoning. The distrust of general intellectual reasoning (especially formal philosophy and philosophers) was a trait of Trotsky who saw action only in disregarding moral qualms. This results in a continual requirement for the taxation of a readers sensitivities towards a specific recognition that his works require careful reconsideration in light of its many presuppositions. Ignorance to what Trotsky represents may create an artificially stimulating read, but only through ignorance of the factors I have briefly outlined. To simply make the assumption that defining either Trotsky or Che as distastefully "low on facts" as constructive commentary constitutes an evasion regarding the reasonable nature and significance of association formed effectual responses to particular works, sentences, and words continually and more importantly dynamically as constructed and as identifiable in modern western society.

As well as an amusing critique of miraculous belief, Hitchens muses about the comparison between Marxist theory and the fraudulent claims of Christianity, begging the question of how he sees Marxism against his rather neoconservative current views. The comments on Trotsky, Orwell and Che relate to a discussion with DWill regarding how Hitchens aligns on the Gulf War, and how God is Not Great illustrates the sources of his political ideas.

Robert, I know much less about Hitchens' political views than you do, and perhaps this is why I don't see clear political leanings behind his views on religion. I understand that it's hard not to read an author's politics into any discussion when you are aware of that politics. However, I will just say that if Hitchens' bio said he was still a dedicated leftist, I suspect I would not say,"no, can't be!" while reading his book. Anti-religion and left-of-center politics are still strongly associated in my mind. If you could say (or repeat, if you've already said it) how Hitchens' argument against religion in God Is Not Great aligns with neoconservatism (without extrapolating), that would help me out a lot.