Chapter 5 Analysis:
When the author makes reference to Jimmy Porter's statement, "[that there are] no more good, brave causes left" it got me thinking. The author talks about the "brave" and "good" causes of the 1950 and 60s era with the civil rights movement, thermonuclear statism, and the ending of war in Indochina. But it got me wondering what are the "good" and "brave" causes that we can use our first amendment rights for in this era? I came to the conclusion that Christopher Hitchens leaves out the fact that we DO in fact have issues worth speaking up and fighting for. For example, the unequal pay between sexes in the workplace even nowadays, or the fact that gay marriage isn't recognized in all 50 states. I feel as though Hitchens could have included that there are things to speak up for and being "brave" isn't a thing of the past.

I also found the part of the chapter when Hitchens talks about the "as if" lifestyle compelling. Living life "as if" something that hasn't happened in fact has happened is a pretty smart idea. This gives you the optimism to make it happen. However, you are living in a illusion which isn't very healthy or productive.

Chapter 6 Analysis:
In this chapter one thing stood out to me more than the rest. When Hitchens states, "[it] need not mean that we do not reserve the term 'absurd' for the self-evidently irrational or unjustifiable", it got me thinking. Just because something is unexplainable or even irrational does that make it "absurd"? I got to thinking about religion. Many many people believe in different religions. Isn't the thought of, for example, a higher power that watches our every move and loves us dearly (no matter the terrible things the human species does) and will decide where we spend our "afterlife" rather "absurd"? But many people believe it, I believe it. So I would have to say I disagree with Hitchens on this one, I wouldn't consider something unjustifiable absurd.

Chapter 7 Analysis:
In chapter 7, the word "counterrevolutionary" stood out to me. At first I didn't really understand what it meant so I looked it up. By definition it means someone who opposes a revolution or tries to overturn it. This was just interesting to me because I learned a new word that I haven't seen or heard before and because of all the people I can now think of as "counterrevolutionary".

Hitchens cites Orwell in saying, "very often the hardest thing to see is what is right in front of your nose", I think that this is a pretty interesting observation. What makes it even more interesting is when Hitchens supports this by saying: "[that there is] a considerable social pressure not to take note of the obvious". I agree with these statements. Everyone (teachers, bosses, etc.) are looking for the ideas that are "outside of the box", but what about the ideas that are right in front of you? We are trained to look for things that are deep in the picture but maybe sometimes we should just look at the picture as a whole and see it for what it is. I think sometimes people make life more complicated than it needs to be and sometimes its just the same task to look at what is right smack in front of you.