Was he sick? Weird.
Anyway, I may have more to say later. Despite his hawkish turn of late, I’ve always enjoyed his writing. I’ll miss his columns.
Recent Comments
 | Guest (Mitch) on Fellow leftists, please don… |
 | Eric Kirk on Scaramucci predicts that Trump… |
| Eric Kirk on Fellow leftists, please don… |
 | BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Another crazy white male racis… |
| BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Another heroin bust |
| BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Blame the left and downplay wh… |
| BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Scaramucci predicts that Trump… |
| BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Fellow leftists, please don… |
 | W.o.P. on Scaramucci predicts that Trump… |
| W.o.P. on Fellow leftists, please don… |
 | Realitymonger on Fellow leftists, please don… |
| Eric Kirk on Scaramucci predicts that Trump… |
| BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Neo-Nazi online troll hit with… |
| BLUE TIDAL WAVE 2020… on Neo-Nazi online troll hit with… |
| W.o.P. on Blame the left and downplay wh… |
61 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 15, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Hank Sims
Shit.
December 15, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Tom Sebourn
He looked like hell for the last year or so. He had cancer as I recall.
December 15, 2011 at 11:52 pm
AG
Hitch had esophageal cancer, but remained active speaking and debating through his chemo until he lost his voice. Here’s him in a televised debate on the question, “Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?” …watch a bishop getting a classic hitchslap.
December 16, 2011 at 12:14 am
Sonia Baur
He was diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus only after he was forced to seek medical attention because he could eat nothing at all. I think that that was May or June of last year. He apparently underwent chemo. and/or radiation and was actually out lecturing a bit after that. He said at the time that he would be lucky to be alive in 5 years, which seems an upbeat way of expressing the fact that the anticipated “5 year survival” with treatment was less than 20%. RIP
December 16, 2011 at 8:30 am
Erasmus
The question “Was he sick?” puzzles me —- I don’t know of a news source that didn’t cover his illness extensively. Interviews on NPR, many columns in “Vanity Fair,” and all the attendant hoopla that a media personality (which Hitchens became as soon as he turned rightward) attracts. — Apparently, one of his chief regrets at dying so young was that he wouldn’t be able to write Henry Kissinger’s obituary.
December 16, 2011 at 9:44 am
moviedad
The “Left” couldn’t really claim him, and the “Right” couldn’t claim him. Kinda like Michael Moore belonging to NRA. Things are never as “Black’n’White” as the media would like.
Too bad, too young.
I always respected him for speaking his mind. Even during the invasion. Though he thoroughly pissed me off at the time.
December 16, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – I guess I wasn’t paying attention. I do remember seeing him on Bill Maher’s show a few years ago, and he didn’t look well. But that could have been the flu for all I know.
moviedad – Your broader point is true, but Moore’s NRA membership is a bit of a schtick.
Hitchens moved hawkish after 911, but he’s always been an ideological maverick. He was also very direct. The first time I ever saw him was on Crossfire during the 1980s when he was opposite Ed Meese, and right there in the studio, to Meese’s growling face, he said, “you are a liar, and cheat, and a thief.” Pat Buchanan and even the liberal Tom Braden held their breath in that moment, and I think they broke to a commercial early.
December 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Joel Mielke
He was very bright, but not very logical. Typical of Trotskyists, he started out with revolutionary fervor and ended up as an apologist for the status quo.
December 16, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Mitch
AG,
Thank you for sharing that clip of Hitchens. He was a magnificent human being.
December 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Joel Mielke
Magnificent?
December 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Mitch
Yup.
December 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Mitch
From etymonline:
magnificence
mid-14c., from O.Fr. magnificence “splendor, nobility, grandeur,” from L. magnificentia “splendor, munificence,” from stem of magnificus “noble, eminent, splendid,” lit. “doing great deeds,” from magnus “great” (see magnate) + root of facere “to make” (see factitious). As one of the Aristotelian and scholastic virtues, translates Gk. megaloprepeia “liberality of expenditure combined with good taste.”
December 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
AG
Yes, Hitch was a magnificent, brave, logical, deep-thinking individual not afraid to stand up to society and call it out for its immorality.
December 16, 2011 at 6:49 pm
suzy blah blahl
-God rest his soul –anyway.
December 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm
suzy blah blah
-God rest his soul –anyway.
December 16, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Joel Mielke
I hope that Wolfowitz can make it to his funeral. I’m sure that Cheney can hardly remember who he was.
December 17, 2011 at 7:24 am
Mitch
Joel,
You can be a magnificent human being and also be wrong about some substantial issues; in fact, that’s practically inevitable.
When I disagreed with Christopher Hitchens, it made me worry that I was missing something or that I was refusing to see some truth. I still feel that way about his position on the Iraq War. When I disagreed with Wolfowitz or Cheney, I didn’t worry at all or feel any need to think things through more thoroughly.
December 17, 2011 at 8:19 am
Joel Mielke
Hitchens’ goofy neologism, islamofascism, contributed as little to the debate about the invasion of Iraq as his essays did. Michael Thomas summed him up rather well in a Facebook thread:
“… it struck me as decidedly odd that a polemicist of his gifts should live year after year in Washington and yet completely avoid addressing what was being done to this country by people he saw regularly. His enthusiasm for the Iraq war I dismiss. Everyone’s entitled to bouts of lunacy. But to have dwelled so long among the swine, to turn up regularly at the trough … strikes me as extremely incongruous … too many journalists wish to dine with people they ought to wish to dine on.”
December 17, 2011 at 9:24 am
Bolithio
God rest his soul –anyway.
I agree, RIP and all that. Yet that statement is sort of funny considering he was an outspoken atheist.
December 17, 2011 at 9:54 am
Joel Mielke
And, Bolithio, it’s funny how kind people have been to Hitchens when he was so cruel to others in obituaries that he wrote (and in the case of Edward Said, the obit wasn’t sufficiently pitiless, he was an abrasive, sadistic critic while Mr. Said was dying).
December 17, 2011 at 10:28 am
anon
Hitchens was a great thinker and writer, even though i didn’t agree with everything he said…very entertaining and quick, on the TV shows–wonder what Cockburn will say in the next AVA…
December 17, 2011 at 10:47 am
Joel Mielke
Cockburn (another smart, but shrill writer) wrote an obit in Counterpunch.
December 17, 2011 at 10:48 am
Joel Mielke
And I wouldn’t consider “entertaining and quick, on the TV shows” to be a glowing endorsement.
December 17, 2011 at 11:08 am
suzy blah blah
-yes of course, @ Bolithio –thats why suzy said “anyway”.
December 17, 2011 at 11:12 am
suzy blah blah
@ Joel, some of the more spiritual minded among us just cant help it. Our kindness and respect for others overfloweth unconditionally.
December 17, 2011 at 11:58 am
Joel Mielke
You are very sweet, Suzy. And unfailingly droll. I appreciate that.
December 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Plain Jane
Another view of Hitchens;
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/
December 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Jane Fish
God forgive the man or woman who speaks their own truth in this cardboard superficial society.
December 17, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Eric Kirk
In the old documentary about the New York Intellectuals I’m in the process of reviewing, Nathan Glazer reflects upon a conversation with his father in which he told his father that he no longer believed in God. His father responded, “you really think God cares?”
December 17, 2011 at 1:32 pm
suzy blah blah
Joel, thats very well put. may i quote you? — “suzy blah blah’s unfailing drool overfloweth …”
December 17, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Joel Mielke
Hey, that’s droll, Suzy.
Jane Fish’s comment makes no sense whatsoever. Should everyone invent “their own truth” in order to rise above superficiality? Good luck with that.
Alexander Cockburn recalls, “… Noam Chomsky’s crack to me when Christopher announced in Grand Street that he was a Jew: “From anti-Semite to self-hating Jew, all in one day.”
December 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Mitch
And there, Joel, is an example of why Christopher Hitchens is magnificent, and Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn are wannabees.
December 17, 2011 at 2:53 pm
suzy blah blah
-thnx 4 tipping me off Joel, ive upgraded the quote to, “Hey, that’s troll suzy, see her drool overfloweth unfailingly”.
December 17, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Mitch
PJ,
I’m not up on intellectual pissing matches. All I can say is I went to the Glenn Greenwald story you linked to and clicked (with some worry) on the link from the words “celebrated the virtues of endless war.”
What I found was a piece by Hitchens that ends this way:
“We do have certain permanent enemies—the totalitarian state; the nihilist/terrorist cell—with which “peace” is neither possible nor desirable. Acknowledging this, and preparing for it, might give us some advantages in a war that seems destined to last as long as civilization is willing to defend itself.”
I was opposed to the Iraq war from before it began. I think the only letter I ever sent to the Times-Standard was sent shortly after 9/11, saying that I hoped we would get the criminals who committed the crime without ignoring the effects of war on the innocent mothers and children of Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think Hitchens was wrong about the Iraq War. But I think the closing paragraph above is exactly correct, and I admire Hitchens for his willingness to say it. The unwillingness of most of the left to say as much is why I would be disgusted to be called a “leftist.”
December 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Joel Mielke
“And there, Joel, is an example of why Christopher Hitchens is magnificent, and Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn are wannabees.”
No, Mitch, that was an example of how pompous and laughably full of shit Hitchens was. It tells us as well, that Chomsky has a sense of humor.
December 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Eric Kirk
The thing about Chomsky is that nothing he says or writes surprises me. Anything I read, I feel like I’ve read it before. He’s one of those guys who has a cookie cutter approach to politics, and even though I agree with about 80 percent of what he says, I just don’t find him interesting to read. I probably only agree with Hitchens in 40 percent of what he says lately, but he’s more interesting. Cockburn has wit, but he is also fairly predictable.
December 17, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Mitch
Well, Joel, here we can see how two reasonable people can look at the same comment and come away with two different opinions. Let it be a lesson to us all.
December 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Joel Mielke
Ageed.
December 17, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Mitch
On another issue entirely, I am a self-acknowledged abuser of commas.
So, Joel, can you help me understand why are you placing a comma after “well” but not before “as” in “It tells us as well,”?
December 17, 2011 at 5:20 pm
suzy blah blah
Jane Fish’s comment makes no sense whatsoever. Should everyone invent “their own truth” in order to rise above superficiality? Good luck with that.
-intellectual bravery is one thing, but “one’s own truth” is airy fairy new-ageism or post-modern gibberish like, you create your own reality.
December 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Mitch
I think, Suzy, Jane may have been suggesting that Hitchens tried to think each topic through thoroughly from first principles, rather than just lazily coming up with an opinion that fit well with his other opinions or with those of “the right people.”
Perhaps that is why Eric found him more interesting than he found some others.
I am trying to force every comma to justify its existence.
December 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Joel Mielke
Oh no, don’t make me refer to the style manual, Mitch! I just throw in commas, hoping that they’ll break things up in more-or-less the right place and make for easier reading.
December 17, 2011 at 6:20 pm
suzy blah blah
-Mitch, if thats what she was suggesting then she should have said, “speaks his own opinion.
December 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm
anon
well Joel, entertainment is what its all about…i’ve been watching the repub debates, they can be an entertaining circus and i want to predict here and now Huntsman for VP…
December 17, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Eric Kirk
I think Pawlenty will get the VP spot.
December 18, 2011 at 9:38 am
Jane Fish
Thank you Mitch. The notion of “killing the messenger” has extensive roots in western civilization.
December 18, 2011 at 10:22 am
Joel Mielke
Hitchens was no “messenger,” if that’s what you’re suggesting. He wasn’t a hard-working journalist, bringing truth to light, he was a hard-drinking polemicist, a witty and superficial entertainer. If he’s remembered, it will be for style, not substance.
December 18, 2011 at 11:04 am
Mitch
Joel,
In the first video that AG linked, we see Hitchens describing the horrific crimes of the Catholic church. Yes, this may not be that brave in his circles, but it is brave in the world. He also has the decency to do it face to face with a Catholic bishop, not while in hiding.
He concludes that piece with a statement regarding the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is extraordinarily stylish, and FILLED with substance. His wit enables many people to view something in a new light.
You show me a historical document about a hard-working journalist bringing truth to light and I’ll show you a polemicist and a witty entertainer. The hard-drinking is of no relevance, and we disagree about the superficiality. In my opinion, he was anything but superficial.
I think near the top, somebody or some link pointed out what a polarizing figure he was. Too true.
December 18, 2011 at 11:08 am
Mitch
Speaking of polarizing, Joel, what word would you use for a political system that is run by a religious leadership that insists women must be covered head to toe when leaving the home of their spouse/owner, and otherwise treats half the human race as property?
Islamofascism works for me.
December 18, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Joel Mielke
Islamofascism didn’t have legs because, in part, it was etymologically weak. I’ve known middle eastern fascists. They are the Catholic Falangists of Lebanon. They are, for the most, very pleasant people. They would take exception to the sloppy, ignorant term Islamofascist.
Hitchens thought that Clinton’s impeachment was his ticket to stardom (you may recall how often he made the rounds of the Sunday yak shows in Washington during the trial), but it didn’t pan out. Later, he hitched his wagon to the triumphant neocons (Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al) who were leading us to sure victory in Babylon. That didn’t work out so well either, and he didn’t talk about it much in recent years. Coining Islamofascism was just part of his campaign to promote himself.
December 18, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Mitch
There’s always “prophetic fascism,” but it sounds like a prediction.
I am not as familiar as you, Joel, with the various groups in Lebanon. But when any powerful religious hierarchy takes complete or near-complete political control over people’s worldly lives, it certainly sounds like fascism to me. In the case of fundamentalist Muslims, islamofascism sounds reasonable.
If Israel were similarly controlled by its religious minority, and the chief rabbi could have someone crushed under a wall for a homosexual act, Judeofascist would be a reasonable term. And, here in America, if Pat Robertson dictated behavior from the supreme coutr, I think Christian-fascist would be appropriate.
My understanding from my limited reading on the subject is that Islam is much less comfortable than Judaism and Christianity with the idea that the political state can be independent of the religious authorities. It also seems to have a much more powerful group of fundamentalists than the other branches of the Abrahamic religion.
December 18, 2011 at 12:39 pm
suzy blah blah
Jane, its time that you kill your television and question authority.
December 18, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Mitch
Suzy,
If loving you is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
December 18, 2011 at 12:51 pm
suzy blah blah
-ew!
December 18, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Mitch
Don’t hide your love, Suzy. Don’t hide your light under a barrel. Everything’s gonna be all right. Uh huh.
December 18, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Joel Mielke
Sorry, Mitch, but your uneasiness with Islam does not make “Islamofascism” a smart word, and it does not excuse Hitchins’ opportunistic support of our imperial invasion and occupation of Iraq.
December 18, 2011 at 1:28 pm
suzy blah blah
-i like the substance of the message Mitch, but im not sure about the style. Maybe if you make a video for me with those sentiments on hand written cards … Suzy wont mind a few commas.
December 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Mitch
I’m lovin’ it, but you deserve a break today, Suzy.
Have it your way, but a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Be all that you can be, Suzy. Reach out and touch someone. When you got it, flaunt it! Because you’re worth it! Love is all around, no need to waste it.
Between love and madness lies obsession. You’re gonna make it after all.
December 18, 2011 at 2:49 pm
suzy blah blah
-Mitch, Dont bite your nails. Even if theres no rhyme or reason for it, whats a little misplaced punctuation mark among friends? When push comes to shove, hang in there and cross that bridge when you comma to it.
December 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm
moviedad
I love and respect Noam Chomsky, but god! he is sooo boooooring! and I’m hanging on every word?
December 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Eric Kirk
Came across this obit, which contains the following paragraph about the extent of Hitchen’s departure from the left.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-obituary?intcmp=239
But, he insisted, he wasn’t making a complete about-turn. Though no longer a socialist, he was still a Marxist, and an admirer of Lenin, Trotsky and Che Guevera; capitalism, the transforming powers of which Marx recognised, had proved the more revolutionary economic system and, politically, the American revolution was the only one left in town. He remained committed to civil liberties. After voluntarily undergoing waterboarding, he denounced it as torture, and he was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Bush’s domestic spying programme. He never let up in his “cold, steady hatred … as sustaining to me as any love” of all religions.