Prolific author, regular contributor to wide variety of newspapers, magazines and internet news sites, literary critic, ex-Trotskyist who's fallen out with the whole Z-MAG roll of honour (Chomsky, Zinn, Finkelstein, Cockburn, Herman, etc. ), supporter of Bush reelection campaign who calls him incompetent, polemicist against Kissinger, Mother Teresa, JFK, the Marx brothers. You want more, boyo? I've got more...

Prick.

Hitchens, not you.

CRAP. All the 'Islamofascist' stuff has no links with unquestioning support of Bush, in my book.
This article is most interesting:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15346

Douchebag. Crap.

I know everything that has happened with him, but his writing still has juice. He's one of the 1% of people in his game who doesn't write like a corpse.

And anyway, he could never be CRAP for that Mother Teresa book alone.

N/C

A lot has been made of Bush not being able to cope with Kerry's "nuanced positions." Many in the Left can't cope with a similar (or lesser even) degree of nuance in Hitchens's writing. His motivations seem genuine, and his positions seem entirely consistent. Other than this particular war and his method of supporting it, I can't even disagree with him on a lot of things.

I like him.

i like hitchens

i think he's funny, and when he gets a head of steam built up, it is something to behold. he's passionate, and he knows how to wound people, and he doesn't give a shit.

his _fahrenheit 9/11_ review is a good, over-the-top example. while i didn't concur w/his opinion on the whole, it's hard to argue with most of his individual points. he's usually like that, at the very least.

of his books, i agree that _the missionary position_ is pretty amazing. anything that can get you to thinking that mother teresa may have been a fairly hideous person is an accomplishment.

he's like gore vidal, only maybe more of a drunk

tmidgett wrote: he knows how to wound people, and he doesn't give a shit.

I think that there is a fair degree of truth in this, but he currently seems to have an axe grind, which he is doing very publicly. I can't help feeling that he enjoys a kind of outsider status. It is serving him well judging the column inches his spats are generating. I can't help feeling cynical about it.

i like him, too, and i agree w/ steve in that i think the left can only stand to benefit from the critique of someone like hitchens. his work taken as a whole is definitely N/C, and he raises important points even while his arguments in support of the war are easily refuted (in my view). i bet he'd be fun to hang out with.

his lionization of paul wolfowitz is laughable.

i can't stand watching him debate anyone, because he's such a fucking bully, but i'll always read what he has to say

I like that Hitchens fucks with my brain and my beliefs.

He refuses to let me get away with any broad, political generalizations and in most of his writings (especially his pro-war stuff), succeeds in challenging a good portion of my political ideology. I like that he often doesn't allow for much of a hero/villain split in his world perspective. Of course, without this dichotomy, the world is a lot harder to process, but oh well. I don't think he gives a fuck, nor should he.

I still don't understand his pro-Wolfowitz shit though. Does this mean he supports Project for a New American Century? God, I hope not.

NOT CRAP