Merged Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

[angrysoba]

This I would have some contention with. I suspect that your analysis is due in part to your bias. You could be right but I doubt he was depressed about his stance. But it's worth considering. His position was a sincere one. Wrong? I think he likely was. The rest? Not so much.

It must be my bias of course.

Actually, I think that some of this came through from his actual writing.

Do you not think there is even a hint of being depressed and/or bothered in this?

"Somewhere along the way, he changed his mind. His family says there was no epiphany. Writings by author and columnist Christopher Hitchens on the moral case for war deeply influenced him … "

I don't exaggerate by much when I say that I froze. I certainly felt a very deep pang of cold dismay. I had just returned from a visit to Iraq with my own son (who is 23, as was young Mr. Daily) and had found myself in a deeply pessimistic frame of mind about the war. Was it possible that I had helped persuade someone I had never met to place himself in the path of an I.E.D.?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711

Of the raft of books about the calamitous mismanagement of the intervention in Iraq, Patrick Cockburn's little volume The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq is probably the most readable and certainly the only one that—even if only in the driest possible way—manages to be amusing. Cockburn has been covering Iraq for three decades, knows most of the players, provided several exposés of the Saddam regime, and displays exemplary courage in continuing to travel the country despite his polio (the subject of another excellent book of his in the shape of a memoir: The Broken Boy). Turning his pages, I got the feeling that I have sometimes had before: the slightly ridiculous but unshakeable sensation that there is some kind of jinx at work. One strives, in other words, to think of a blunder that could have been made and was not.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/01/the_iraq_jinx.html

 

[RandFan]

I don't know what Hitchens said about the Patriot Act, actually. If he even said anything at all then I have either forgotten or I am unaware of it.

As it happens, for non-Americans like myself, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretappings and "trampling on" the American constitution are of quite minor interest.

I do remember him saying a couple of times about being a "named plaintiff" in the wiretappings thingy. I think he often said this when it was charged that he had gone along with Bush's rough and ready approach to the constitution.

On the Patriot Act, though, I have no idea. Similarly he showed little to no interest in Guantanamo Bay although he did mention a few times that some who had been released from Guantanamo Bay had gone back to wage jihad. It certainly left me with the impression that it is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to incarcerating some of those in Guantanamo Bay without charge.

Well, okay then. But I was talking mostly about his Iraq War thing in response to a request about that. I think it is perfectly acceptable to talk about only one aspect without having everything else discussed at the same time. In fact, I think it makes it easier to do so. If I asked you about his stance on Mother Teresa and you told me about his stance on Mother Teresa and I then asked you what that has to do with the Iraq War then you would probably tell me that it doesn't have anything to do with the Iraq War.

Well, I suppose you could tell me what the grand scheme of things consists of. It is likely that you are far more interested in other aspects of Hitchens than the Iraq War. I know that he became far more famous and popular in his late "New Atheist" phase but he was well-known before that for his politics.

Anyway, would you rather discuss something else now that we have (hopefully) got the Iraq War thing out of the way?

Talk about anything you like as it relates to Hitch. I've only wondered as to the significance of the specifics you bring up. I think it more nuanced than you. And that's fine. I'm just offering my opinion. In any event I provided a source regarding his differences with the Bush admin. I think that important. I don't feel a need to belabor the discussion.

Thanks

 

[Muldur]

Forget the woo side of your quote, just the smug condescension was offensive enough. Why the hell ANYONE would seemingly take pleasure in the misery of another person is repulsive.

And it was just as repulsive when people like Hitchens did it in the case of Falwell, among others.

"Sauce for the goose", and all that...

 

[qayak]

And it was just as repulsive when people like Hitchens did it in the case of Falwell, among others.

"Sauce for the goose", and all that...

Actually, it wasn't repulsive when Hitchens wrote the truth about Falwell. I just wish people would afford him the same courtesy. If Hitchens was really as bad as theists say shouldn't they be able to dig up some dirt without having to resort to making up lies?

 

[RandFan]

It must be my bias of course.

I'm not sure how "I suspect" equates to "must be". You will have to explain that to me. FWIW: I concede I could be biased. I'm trying to reconcile my understanding with yours. At the moment that seems the more likely explanation.

Do you not think there is even a hint of being depressed and/or bothered in this?

I'm happy to grant the premise. I think any reasonable person would be bothered by either supporting the invasion or allowing Saddam to oppress his people. I know that this is far from a black and white issue for me. You can search this forum and find me agonizing over my support for the invasion and then agonizing over my reversal in position. I'm not sure what you can glean about my mental state from that fact other than inhumanity bothers me no matter who is carrying it out.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not sure how "I suspect" equates to "must be". You will have to explain that to me. FWIW: I concede I could be biased. I'm trying to reconcile my understanding with yours. At the moment that seems the more likely explanation.
I'm happy to grant the premise. I think any reasonable person would be bothered by either supporting the invasion or allowing Saddam to oppress his people. I know that this is far from a black and white issue for me. You can search this forum and find me agonizing over my support for the invasion and then agonizing over my reversal in position. I'm not sure what you can glean about my mental state from that fact other than inhumanity bothers me no matter who is carrying it out.

Randfan, as you have seen fit to have another pop at this cherry, I think it only fair that I link to you this post which gives a pretty comprehensive overview of Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War.

Even this one doesn't do it justice but I think it might be worth you reading it anyway.

http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/12/not-on-their-own-merits-but-according.html

Now, I don't want to be rude, but can I ask you how long ago it was that you first started reading Hitchens because you give me the impression that this information is some kind of astoundingly bad taste swipe at a hero of yours. Are you really this surprised at what you are reading here? Did you know anything of Christopher Hitchens prior to 2007?

 

[zooterkin]

The Pod Delusion podcast has a Hitchmas Special:

Obit (0:49) by Dave Cole
Hitch and religion (8:40) by Cory Hazlehurst
Hitch the Historian (15:46) by Rich Godbehere 6:36
Post-9/11 Hitch (23:42) by Mohammed Fahad (read by Alex Foster) 5:36
Regime change? (30:03) by David Eastman 4:14
Twitter Censorship? (35:40) by Dave Cross 6:12

Including readings of some the tweets sparked by the #GodIsNotGreat hashtag.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, as you have seen fit to have another pop at this cherry, I think it only fair that I link to you this post which gives a pretty comprehensive overview of Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War.

Even this one doesn't do it justice but I think it might be worth you reading it anyway.

http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/12/not-on-their-own-merits-but-according.html

Now, I don't want to be rude, but can I ask you how long ago it was that you first started reading Hitchens because you give me the impression that this information is some kind of astoundingly bad taste swipe at a hero of yours. Are you really this surprised at what you are reading here? Did you know anything of Christopher Hitchens prior to 2007?

I don't mind reading the link but I have to say that I have a very deep contempt for arguing via link. I find it dismissive and lazy to say the least. However, let me hasten to add that I don't find you to be one who simply resorts to simplistic devices. And perhaps, you are simply trying to offer me additional information assuming that I'm sincere and would want to be disabused of false notions. If so, then I could accept that. Still, it really doesn't sit well with me. I expect for people to provide a summary of the article, make an argument and post a pull quote to show that they understand the information and that they've done more than read something they thought was compelling and expect others to find it compelling also. I tire of spending my time reading dreck and having to sift through the nonsense and out of context quotes.

To answer your question. I've been very political since I attended the university in the early 80's. I regularly watch Sunday morning talk shows and it was there that I became familiar with Hitch. Didn't like his politics but I found him sincere. The first book of his that I read was about a decade ago. I had moved from a visceral hatred of Clinton to begrudging respect. But I still had my doubt so I read "No one left to lie to". I found it quite convincing. I don't like Clinton personally but respect the hell out of him as a politician. Not long after that I borrowed The Trial of Kissinger from a friend while on vacation. I didn't finish the book but that cemented me on Hitchens. Up until that point I was a Kissinger fan. I haven't been since. After that I read Why Orwell matters and letters to a young contrarian. The latter was a bit disappointing to me. Not sure why. I next read God is Not great, twice all the way through. The first time I read the book, I think, was shortly after the first printing but I could be wrong. It was at this time that I became quite drawn to him. I then read missionary position and found and watched every youtube video I could find of him speaking.

Okay, I've indulged you but I have a favor to ask, please don't ask me these kinds of questions during a discussion such as the one we are having. I don't mind it if one is just curious but, and I apologize, I do find the question impertinent as it really has no bearing on the discussion. It strikes me as patronizing. Yes, I live in a glass house. But, if you will try to afford me the principles of charity I will likewise do so for you. Fair enough?

 

[RandFan]

http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2011/12/not-on-their-own-merits-but-according.html

I have some questions to ask of you, I wish I had led with them and waited before writing my post previous to this one, did anything in the article set off your skeptic senses? How exactly does the article address what I said or advance the discussion? What's the point? And FTR, I've now read the article twice. I revisted it after following the thread of our discussion for a few posts back and I'm a bit confused.

 

[aviolet4u]

My favorite, this short video quickly proves his wit and genius. Also how much he is needed here on earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBkB_0xdz4&feature=related

about Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITsYUjv_aEA&feature=related

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Christopher Hitchens
saw Saddam and flipped a switch thence
Support the war or be pro-fascist
So said the great polemicist

... Too early?

 

[LondonJohn]

My favorite, this short video quickly proves his wit and genius. Also how much he is needed here on earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBkB_0xdz4&feature=related

about Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITsYUjv_aEA&feature=related

Sure, he offered a sharp, incisive, sometimes stinging and sometimes witty counterpoint to many important issues. And I'm somewhat proud that it took an Englishman to go to the US to lead the intelligent side of the atheist and sceptical debate in the mass media there.

But let none of us ever forget that he was, after all, a commentator: a writer, speaker, journalist, polemicist. He was never in the challenging position of being responsible for people's lives, livelihoods or beliefs, and he revelled in the luxury of being able to say and do what he pleased without consequences. I happen to oppose the Iraq invasion on many grounds - political, legal and ideological - and I also happen to oppose organised religion and dogmatic religious faith. But I also strongly think that it's far, far easier to formulate and articulate strong opinions in areas such as these if you are not bound by the consequences of those opinions. For example, many politicians (and I'd include our Tony Blair explicitly here) have enacted policies out of strong personal convictions and beliefs that have had real consequences on people's lives and on populations' livelihoods. That's a far bigger cross to bear (no religious pun intended!) than writing a newspaper column or giving a TV interview.

The UK satirical magazine Private Eye - itself a natural haven for the likes of Hitchens - encapsulated the position very succinctly in my eyes, when it pointed out in its recent edition that the UK press devoted more space to the death of Hitchens than it did to the death of Vaclav Havel - who, after all, was one of the major architects of reform in the former Eastern Block, and whose ideals and actions had a direct and indirect positive influence on millions of people's lives. I'm not saying I don't deeply regret the death of Hitchens, and I firmly believe that the world needs plenty more people like him as a proper counterbalance and voice of scepticism/reason. I just think that his life and death perhaps need to be put in context against those of people who really do change the world, and who have to live with the consequences of doing so.

 

[Resume]

But let none of us ever forget that he was, after all, a commentator: a writer, speaker, journalist, polemicist. He was never in the challenging position of being responsible for people's lives, livelihoods or beliefs, and he revelled in the luxury of being able to say and do what he pleased without consequences.

How do you imagine many come to conclusions about politic, social concerns, religion? Maybe, I don't know, perhaps by reading something thought-provoking. Examining issues from another perspective, multiple perspectives and sometimes changing your own. This stuff happens you realize.

 

[RandFan]

But let none of us ever forget that he was, after all, a commentator: a writer, speaker, journalist, polemicist.

How do you imagine many come to conclusions about politic, social concerns, religion? Maybe, I don't know, perhaps by reading something thought-provoking. Examining issues from another perspective, multiple perspectives and sometimes changing your own. This stuff happens you realize.

Mark Twain, Robert Ingersoll, T. H. Huxley, Marting Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Carl Sagan, Asimov, etc. (yes I know Sagan was a scientist). The list is long but the ability to move the zeitgeist through speaking, commentating, writing, etc, is IMO, far more important than you suppose LJ. A person such as Hitchens could be argued to be far more important than many and perhaps most politicians. Social and moral progress is important to the flourishing and well being of humans. Whatever gets us there is all I give a damn about.

 

[LondonJohn]

How do you imagine many come to conclusions about politic, social concerns, religion? Maybe, I don't know, perhaps by reading something thought-provoking. Examining issues from another perspective, multiple perspectives and sometimes changing your own. This stuff happens you realize.

I absolutely agree. And I'm note trying to belittle the important role that Hitchens - and others like him - played and play in the debate. What I was trying to say was that it's a lot easier to take positions and offer criticism/scorn when there are no real-world consequences to your actions or views.

In politics, this is all too visible in any adversarial multi-party system which operates on a first-past-the-post system. It's a well-worn (and totally true) maxim that it's very easy for the opposition party/parties to criticise government policy, because the opposition party/parties have no executive power and thus no executive responsibility. When there is a change in government, the party formerly in opposition suddenly has to live with the consequences of its executive power, and often even ends up adopting the very policies of its opponent which it had criticised while in opposition.

So what I'm trying to point out is that if one has to make decisions that affect real lives and livelihoods, there is a very different set of pressures and responsibilities that shape one's thinking than if one is merely intellectualising an opinion. And these additional pressures and responsibilities often have an impact on opinions and policies that change things in ways that might not even be apparent to someone with the luxury of a bystander's perspective.

 

[LondonJohn]

Mark Twain, Robert Ingersoll, T. H. Huxley, Marting Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Carl Sagan, Asimov, etc. (yes I know Sagan was a scientist). The list is long but the ability to move the zeitgeist through speaking, commentating, writing, etc, is IMO, far more important than you suppose LJ. A person such as Hitchens could be argued to be far more important than many and perhaps most politicians. Social and moral progress is important to the flourishing and well being of humans. Whatever gets us there is all I give a damn about.

I completely agree. I just wanted to point out that I think it's sometimes too easy and too convenient to give even brilliant thinkers like Hitchens a "free pass" in his attacks on certain constituencies, without taking fully into account the additional factors affecting those constituencies' actions or beliefs.

With that in mind, I can say that without reservation I applaud Hitchens' stance on religion, and it should be an absolute given that religious dogma should never, in a modern democratic society, impinge upon politics or daily life in an imposing or uninvited way. But I think that the situation is different when it comes to politics or business. Yes, of course commentators and polemicists such as Hitchens are a vitally important part of the "checks and balances" in such arenas, but I also think that most politicians and businesspeople (with some odious exceptions) do have altruistic, utlitarian, humanist elements to their makeup, and do try to do things for the "right" reasons. Sometimes, criticism of them can be a) too easy, and b) too one-dimensional. And I still reserve most of my admiration for politicians - of all colours - and businesspeople who are actually prepared to nail their colours to the mast and put their beliefs into practice (and into true public scrutiny as a result).

To reiterate: I very much admired Hitchens, and what he stood for, and I believe his death is a sad loss in very many ways. But, to be honest, I'll probably be sadder when Richard Branson, Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill or Lech Walesa die (not because I share beliefs with any of them in particular, but because they DID rather than WROTE).

 

[RandFan]

I completely agree. I just wanted to point out that I think it's sometimes too easy and too convenient to give even brilliant thinkers like Hitchens a "free pass" in his attacks on certain constituencies, without taking fully into account the additional factors affecting those constituencies' actions or beliefs.

I don't know of anyone saying Hitchens should be free of criticism. Not me that's for sure.

With that in mind, I can say that without reservation I applaud Hitchens' stance on religion, and it should be an absolute given that religious dogma should never, in a modern democratic society, impinge upon politics or daily life in an imposing or uninvited way. But I think that the situation is different when it comes to politics or business. Yes, of course commentators and polemicists such as Hitchens are a vitally important part of the "checks and balances" in such arenas, but I also think that most politicians and businesspeople (with some odious exceptions) do have altruistic, utlitarian, humanist elements to their makeup, and do try to do things for the "right" reasons. Sometimes, criticism of them can be a) too easy, and b) too one-dimensional. And I still reserve most of my admiration for politicians - of all colours - and businesspeople who are actually prepared to nail their colours to the mast and put their beliefs into practice (and into true public scrutiny as a result).

We could debate the morality of politicians, I'm likely more skeptical than you, but I don't see the relevance. As for "easy", try being a writer or speaker by just attacking politicians one dimensionally. I think you will find that it isn't as easy as you suggest. Hitchens was paid very well and in high demand simply because he was damn good at it. There is an actual reason why there are orders of magnitude more janitors than media fellows at the Hoover Institution.

To reiterate: I very much admired Hitchens, and what he stood for, and I believe his death is a sad loss in very many ways. But, to be honest, I'll probably be sadder when Richard Branson, Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill or Lech Walesa die (not because I share beliefs with any of them in particular, but because they DID rather than WROTE).

Thanks. The only quibble I would have is that the word write is a verb. It connotes action. I'm far, FAR, less enthralled with politicians than you but I am not sure why that would matter either way. You are entitled to your preferences but what do those have to do with this thread?

Your argument sounds like that old saw, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

I think that is a load of BS. To teach or to write is to do. The words are verbs. Yes, I get that the point doesn't turn on semantics but it is fatuous. Writing is what Hitchens DID. I understand that there is a distinction in your mind but I really don't see any significance. Don't politicians write legislation and make speeches? What is it that they do that is special to designate their work as doing?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know of anyone saying Hitchens should be free of criticism. Not me that's for sure.

I wasn't suggesting that some people thought Hitchens either was or should be free of criticism. I just think that sometimes one can take a simplistic view of issues which can play into the hands of a sideline critic. As a perhaps slightly trite example, the mass opprobrium voiced against Margaret Thatcher in the UK in the early 1980s was often badly-aimed and ill-conceived, yet "Thatcher Out!" became the received wisdom amongst virtually everyone under the age of 30 in those years. Ironically, many of the most vociferous chanters of such slogans (in the media and in music) are those who have either adopted a libertarian right-wing position in later life or who have directly benefited from many of Thatcher's reforms.

We could debate the morality of politicians, I'm likely more skeptical than you, but I don't see the relevance. As for "easy", try being a writer or speaker by just attacking politicians one dimensionally. I think you will find that it isn't as easy as you suggest. Hitchens was paid very well and in high demand simply because he was damn good at it. There is an actual reason why there are orders of magnitude more janitors than media fellows at the Hoover Institution.

The last part of your argument here is, in my opinion, logically extremely unsound. There is also a reason why there are orders of magnitude more car factory workers than there are champion pole vaulters like Sergei Bubka. Just because someone has a rare talent for something doesn't mean necessarily that they enhance the lives of others in rare and amazing ways. Personally, I could give or take watching the pole vault. But I would far less like to be without a car.

And regarding your second sentence about the ease (or otherwise) of being a one-dimensional attacker of political ideologies, may I refer you to PJ O'Rourke, Michael Moore, Tony Parsons (in the 1980s), or any political works of the singer/sonwriters Joan Baez or Billy Bragg. All of the above made pretty good livings (the last time I checked) by launching one-dimensional attacks on political ideologies.

Thanks. The only quibble I would have is that the word write is a verb. It connotes action. I'm far, FAR, less enthralled with politicians than you but I am not sure why that would matter either way. You are entitled to your preferences but what do those have to do with this thread?

Your argument sounds like that old saw, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

I think that is a load of BS. To teach or to write is to do. The words are verbs. Yes, I get that the point doesn't turn on semantics but it is fatuous. Writing is what Hitchens DID. I understand that there is a distinction in your mind but I really don't see any significance. Don't politicians write legislation and make speeches? What is it that they do that is special to designate their work as doing?

I take your point. But I would view teaching/education - a critical and utterly fundamental part of any society - as slightly different from journalism or activism. I would heartily agree that a healthy society benefits greatly from a healthy (and entirely free) press and polemicists/activists. And, as others have pointed out, such institutions and individuals are often agents of (or catalysts for) societal change. But I still think there's a strong intellectual validity to ascribing a higher value to political leaders and business leaders than to journalists or commentators. Please don't take that to mean that I don't value the latter category, because I value them highly. Just not as highly as the former category (on the whole, and discounting corrupt or mendacious politicians/businesspeople).

 

[RandFan]

I wasn't suggesting that some people thought Hitchens either was or should be free of criticism. I just think that sometimes one can take a simplistic view of issues which can play into the hands of a sideline critic.

Hmmm... Okay. Yeah. That's possible.

The last part of your argument here is, in my opinion, logically extremely unsound.

LJ, this isn't meant as a slight I promise, but, dude that's funny. Reminds me of Lt. Weinberg's quote in A Few Good Me:" "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

Sometimes less is more.

There is also a reason why there are orders of magnitude more car factory workers than there are champion pole vaulters like Sergei Bubka. Just because someone has a rare talent for something doesn't mean necessarily that they enhance the lives of others in rare and amazing ways. Personally, I could give or take watching the pole vault. But I would far less like to be without a car.

Okay, let's accept your premise for sake of argument. Writing pays really good money.Why? Is the only barrier a shortage of jobs? Isn't there a shortage of politician's jobs?

And regarding your second sentence about the ease (or otherwise) of being a one-dimensional attacker of political ideologies, may I refer you to PJ O'Rourke, Michael Moore, Tony Parsons (in the 1980s), or any political works of the singer/sonwriters Joan Baez or Billy Bragg. All of the above made pretty good livings (the last time I checked) by launching one-dimensional attacks on political ideologies.

I don't accept your characterization of the writers but I don't wish to get side tracked. Let's accept the premise. Writing pays really good money. Isn't that an indication that you need some talent and ability? Isn't it true that the better you are at something the more you can get paid? Would you be willing to admit that some tallent is necessary?

I take your point. But I would view teaching/education - a critical and utterly fundamental part of any society - as slightly different from journalism or activism. I would heartily agree that a healthy society benefits greatly from a healthy (and entirely free) press and polemicists/activists. And, as others have pointed out, such institutions and individuals are often agents of (or catalysts for) societal change.

I don't necessarily agree but that's fine.

But I still think there's a strong intellectual validity to ascribing a higher value to political leaders and business leaders than to journalists or commentators.

I respect your opinion but we will have to disagree. I see no value in comparing and judging these groups.

Please don't take that to mean that I don't value the latter category, because I value them highly. Just not as highly as the former category (on the whole, and discounting corrupt or mendacious politicians/businesspeople).

That's fine.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, this isn't meant as a slight I promise, but, dude that's funny. Reminds me of Lt. Weinberg's quote in A Few Good Me:" "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

Sometimes less is more.

Oooooo....kayyyyyy. Thanks for the errr........ style instruction

Okay, let's accept your premise for sake of argument. Writing pays really good money.Why? Is the only barrier a shortage of jobs? Isn't there a shortage of politician's jobs?

I don't accept your characterization of the writers but I don't wish to get side tracked. Let's accept the premise. Writing pays really good money. Isn't that an indication that you need some talent and ability? Isn't it true that the better you are at something the more you can get paid? Would you be willing to admit that some tallent is necessary?

No, no. I think you're missing my point entirely (note lack of superfluous second adverb ). My point is not about talent per se. I absolutely agree that it takes talent and application to be a consistently brilliant journalist or writer, and that in a competitive marketplace the top exponents of their trade are (by-and-large) worth the money they are paid. No: my argument is specifically that one should not equate talent linearly with equivalent admiration or recognition of some sort of social good. Some people are inordinately talented at a certain skill or profession (top magicians, for example), and they are sometimes extremely well-paid for their skill (Seigfried & Roy or David Copperfield might spring to mind). But their undoubted talent and prowess - and their consequent remuneration and public profiles - obviously don't translate into a proportionate amount of admiration (if admiration is defined here in its "social good", "philanthropy" or "benefit of mankind" sense).


Other than that, I assure you we're not far apart in much of our thinking. I am just trying to slightly temper the sometimes-verging-on-hagiographic praise being heaped upon Hitchens. Sad that he's gone, though, and will enjoy reliving his acerbic attacks on deserving targets in print and video.