I just thought I should get that out the way. I'm sure someone was going to say it.

I should write something about his opinions on women, like I did over at TAPPED, but he really doesn't seem worth the energy any more. He reminds me of Ann Coulter-- saying more and more outrageous things in a desperate bid to get more attention.

By his own "rules of humor" let's see if his "Sable Sapphist" rip works on his own community." How bout... hmm.... "The Limey Ladylover." Nah. Applying it to a straight white male, you have your audience wondering why you're bringing identity crap into the piece.

But let's take a step back here. To Hitch, Sykes was never going to be funny, because women are never funny. (Do you remember that you wrote that article, Chris?)

I'm not sure, but whatever you do, don't mention The War.

I also saw the Notre Dame speech today. Obama displayed every virtue Hitchens' book was about. The USA has an intellectual President now, and one that is also charming, cool and witty. However, it seems to be impossible for Hitchens to admire him. Instead he comes up with this I-can-still-say-banana-attitude. It's just sad.

Sometimes this can be thought provoking, whether you agree with him or not. Other times , like this time, he can be nasty just for the sake of being nasty.Then it is not thought provoking, only tiresome.

I find this in many British opinion writers today. If Maureen Dowd wrote for the London Times , she would be the LEAST catty writer on the staff.This is why the London Times is great to read much of the time. Sadly, It is also why it often becomes tedious after a while.

When Hitchens gets nasty it is a waste of skill.He can write great articles when he wants to.Some of his best articles are ones that I disagreed with.I still had to admire his debating skills. Sadly, not this time though.

Magic Wanda? Your mama, Chris Hitchens. Isn't that when you get right down to it, half or more of Chris Hitchens' so called wit? Something is happening, and you just don't know what it is; do you, Mr. Hitchens? I won't mention alcohol, cause it's mostly a case of bad vinegar.

How many idiotic things does a guy have to say before we stop taking him seriously?

The Black Dyke comment was very weak indeed, i thought that he would come up with something more erudite and obscure.

Could we have a sense of perspective, please?

EDIT: And unbanned. We all have our days...

Forgive my attitude. This isn't theoretical, or abstract for me.

Edna warned us, though, so I won't even visualize The Cape. 'No capes!'

Please. He's wrong five ways like Cincinnati chili--didn't go after her own? did he miss the 'mulatto President' joke while getting his drink topped off--and slamming her race and orientation wouldn't support an argument if he were right.

Hitchens deployed power of a very old, very bad kind, knowing perfectly well that there was no possible symmetrical response.

I hope his liver fails.

Over the last few years, however, the deterioration in the quality of his writing has been distressing. This latest nonsense makes him sound like Michael Savage with a thesaurus. I can't even call it intellectual dishonesty, because there doesn't seem to be much intellect involved.

I hope he snaps out of it, whatever it is.

Look, as we arm-wrestle our ideas in the public square, the voices on every side of the argument will come from people who are flawed and who sometimes speak unwisely and/or intemperately. I just think it's worth remembering that for all his flaws, CH has come out *relentlessly* against enemies even a lot of liberals (and certainly the news media) have gone soft on over the years. Ronald Reagan. Jerry Falwell. Richard Nixon. Henry F*cking Kissinger, whom most of the media have kind of given a pass, as if the entire Nixon regime was just a tizzy he had. Not to mention having penned the best rhetorical beat-down of Sarah Palin ever, when a lot of other liberals were tying themselves in knots trying to be "objective" (i.e. not calling her the dumb bunny she actually is).

Even on the Iraq war, where I thought he was wrong, he at least did his readers the courtesy of making serious arguments rather than just waving a flag and blurting some nonsense about anthrax.

So yeah, CH was tacky and wrong on Sykes. But Laird is right -- a little perspective might not go amiss.

What an incredible strawman. The Iraq War has come up precisely once in this thread--as a joke. Do the people here commenting the justice of commenting on what they wrote, not what you've mind-read.

The mark of a strawman is the lack of a single direct quote. Point to what you disagree with, precisely, and then counter it. If you're going to sub in the argument that you'd prefer to be having for the argument that's actually being made, there's really no reason to debate. No one should take your argument seriously, if you're not going to do the work of taking their argument seriously.

I'm going to repeat this again--I have no idea why anyone who thinks calling someone "a black dyke" is merely "speaking intemperately" is reading this blog. I'm not interested in explaining bigotry. I'm not tolerating a defense of those who dispense intolerance.

Given that the guy has been known to associate with scholars and intellectuals, and teaches university regularly, there's no excuse for his ignorant swagger.

Still, why did you ban that guy? Bigotry isn't theoretical or abstract for most of us. For instance, among other shortcomings, I'm fat. But, Wanda Sykes opined on the administration of an impressive, smart, popular, black president. Surely we can take a stupid hit as well as anybody.

BTW, I propose calling Rush Limbaugh a white junkie. Not that I have anything against white people or junkies.

It's not the actual reasoning of that paragraph that bothers me, although the suggestion that the voice of a multi-millionaire who is also considered to be a "spokesperson" for one of the most powerful political parties in world history is being silenced by government sponsored comedy in the form of Wanda Sykes is weird at least.

It's the insinuation that sensitivity in racial matters is contradictory to free and independent thinking. This claim has a tradition, and it's not a glorious one. You end up believing that calling someone a "black dyke" is an act of intellectual bravery. You end up thinking that the injustice is done to you and not to all the people you're offending. You end up attracting all sorts of friends who defend you against the "PC-police". You end up being the person you despised when you were a young contrarian.

That said: As a fat honky cracker, I resent being put in the same class as Rush!

As an alcoholic (in AA for 15 years), well, Hitch is a type familiar to me. Sad to see the deterioration.

I get the feeling he's trying to achieve a similar thing here (at a smaller scale), but the effect is different. Now, all that I'm re-evaluating are my previous assumptions about Christopher Hitchens.

Black Dyke signing off.....

Forgive me, the use of the term "black dyke" was another piece by Hitchens not in the Slate one. I got now.

I think you're letting your (justified) anger at CH's comment blur things a bit. No one's trolling here. Looking back at what I wrote, I genuinely don't see anything inflammatory. I believe I said I get the sense of disproportionate anger whenever the topic of Hitchens comes up -- and I expressed an opinion on what the cause could be. I never said that the people on this topic board shouldn't take him to task for the "sable sapphist" comment (I agree with Sime in that I can only really address what showed up in writing). In fact, I as much as said that taking him to task is perfectly fair and that I would hope he'd have been taken to task no matter what his position on the war was! I can't see how that reads as trolling or making straw-man arguments.

More to the point: having been born with a black skin, I'm not asking you or anyone else to "explain bigotry" -- I know what it is, thanks.
I've already made peace with the fact that some people whose thinking and/or achievements I respect will also sometimes say or think things I find distasteful. If that's flamebait, then flame away.

Sime summed it up better than I did, referring to CH as a "moral intellectual". That's how I see him too -- about 80 to 90 percent of the time he comes down on what I'm guessing the average reader here would consider the correct side of history. I can and do deplore what I consider the tackiness and wrongness of a particular statement that he's made while respecting the overall quality and moral soundness of his thinking on important issues.

To answer your implied question: the reason I read and occasionally comment on this blog is because I find your writing interesting and compelling more often than not, and I think there's a vibrant intellectual climate in the comments section. I hope that's okay with you.

I have been in the Niger-Congo, and I didn't meet a single person who spoke only one language...Inarticulacy is not the problem. Black English...is the product of the Babel effect of slavery, of pidgin and Creole, and of what [James] Baldwin rightly calls the 'unprecedented tabernacle' of the black Church. Without it, we would be shorn of innumerable vigorous and humorous expressions. But it is only a tributary of English and can never substitute for it. That's why the cadences of black American oratory are imperishable, and why its greatest pulpit practitioners drew from the same well that Baldwin described, and eventually silenced their white audiences into thoughtfulness.

I've read the entire article in question, and while you may disagree with his premise, citing this as an example of him being "awful on race" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

TNC implied that I was "defending those who dispense intolerance". Here's Hitchens in an essay defending gay marriage:

This is an argument about the socialization of homosexuality, not the homosexualization of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays.

and later in the same essay:

I know that homosexuality is innate in our species, and perhaps in other species also, and thus that it is nonsense to speak of it as an offense to "nature," and nonsense on stilts to speak of it as an offense to any presumable Creator (belief in whose intentions is Andrew [Sullivan]'s problem and not mine). I know that homosexuality is a form of love, not just a form of sex, and thus that it deserves respect if not reverence. I know that our theocratic enemies are, and that our former totalitarian enemies were, ugly and paranoid on the point...Why are the advocates of the one and only and immemorial man-woman marriage apparently so chronically insecure? On the same floor as the Hitchens family live two chaps, who are as clearly spliced as any couple I know. They hold responsible Washington jobs, they take an interest in the civic health of the city, and they help raise the children of a previous marriage into which one of them had entered...In any domestic emergency involving my wife or daughter, I would probably turn first to these neighbors. The only discomfiting thing I find about their domestic arrangements is their practice of clasping hands for grace before meals. I can't make myself feel that my own marriage is undermined, or rather would be undermined, if they could legally tie the knot. Would I dance at their wedding? Undoubtedly, and always assuming I would be asked. Would my tenderly nurtured daughter go into shock? I can't see it happening.

Now I'm sorry -- two stupid comments (only one in writing, the other hearsay mind you) referring to someone's race and sexual preference don't automatically turn this guy into "Michael Savage with a thesaurus", as someone else commented here. That kind of comment is what I mean when I talk about the need for perspective.

That said, the specific charge is the idea that the beef here essentially amounts to just another charge against Hitchens because of the War. If you're going to say that, then it's nice to find evidence--within the thread--supporting it.

People deserve to be taken on the merits of their actual argument. It may be that the War is at work elsewhere. But, even in your response, you've yet to cite any evidence of it in this thread.

You mentioned that you like the intellectual climate here. Part of the reason it appeals to you is because people extend a basic respect to each other's arguments. You wouldn't want me saying, "The only reason CarbonMike said this was because Hitchens is British." Mostly, because I don't have any evidence of that. It cuts both ways. If you truly believe that this critique is motivated by Hitchens position on the War, then the least you can offer is some evidence.

And yet in your reply, I still don't see any...

In the first entry to the comments you state you know Hitchens and he is not a racist.

Now you tell us you don't know him, not to call him out for his racist comments about Sykes, and to avoid mentioning the real reason for his decline as writer, the fact that he drinks -- no, that he is a drunkard. He appeared to be drunk during his recent appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher," where he came onstage carrying his tumbler filled with his liquor of choice (it appeared to be scotch, but who knows?)

Hitchens recently had the crap beat out of him, while he was drunk. The after photos appeared on Huffington Post. He's had numerous other run-ins, fights, shouting matches, etc., while drunk. Vanity Fair makes fun of their "star" writer in the chronicles of the fictional "Ed Coaster, VF Contributing Editor" constantly getting himself in scrapes and forcing Graydon Carter to bail him out figuratively (and literally?)

The only thing Hitchens has said of value recently is that waterboarding is torture.

The problem with being a public figure and a public drunk -- or should I say being drunk in public -- is that people will talk. And when you say something outrageous and contrcversial, you're inviting comment on both what you said and the state of your sobriety when you said.

Perhaps Hitchens finds the courage he needs to spew his racist homophobic and otherwise idiotic remarks from the bottom of the bottle.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/lame-sauce.php

I hear you. When I say that I think lefties in general (not just on this board) are pissed at CH for supporting the war, I'm not so much leveling any kind of formal accusation as I am making a guess. Certainly the post from permazorch:

What happened to Christopher Hitchens?

I'm not sure, but whatever you do, don't mention The War.

made an impression, but that's hardly an ironclad case. What I'm mainly doing is guessing.

The question I'm trying to come to grips with is, why are a lot of us so upset with someone who -- most of the time -- is our most forceful and eloquent ally on the issues that matter? Again, I hope my post has made clear that I'm not limiting this just to people in this comments section. Go and do a casual survey of online writing about CH, and you'll find that negative opinion about the guy from people on the left shoots up right around the time he comes down in favor of Bush & Co. in the runup to Gulf War 2 -- and stays up thereafter. Many of the people who worked with him at The Nation magazine swore up and down thereafter that he became a Republican.

Elsewhere in this section (in my reply to Josh) I cite a couple of places where people have made some dead-wrong characterizations about his ideas; there seems to be a disconnect between where folks think he is on important issues and where he actually comes down in writing.

Keep in mind that what I'm alleging (lefties being mad at the guy because we think he's sold out) isn't any great moral failing. I'm not accusing people of anything egregious, and so I feel freer to employ guesswork and supposition than if I were making some sort of accusation or direct attack. There are plenty of thinkers who'll get a bit of slack from me on the occasional wrongness, plenty others who don't because of something they wrote or said that raised my hackles semi-permanently.

Why do I care so much about this? A couple reasons:

It's actually not as much about Hitchens (he's a grown-ass man and can defend himself) as it is about our intellectual habits on the left. I'm struck by how many people on the right, for example, can't stand a Lincoln Chafee or an Olympia Snowe or a Colin Powell (google RINO) because they came down for the other side in a crunch, even though in every other respect they're loyal players and good for the team. It would be a shame for us to get into purging our heretics instead of tolerating and even engaging them, as every vibrant intellectual movement should do. Even if they say some weak and/or stupid sh*t occasionally.

The other reason is that we're fighting some large and important internal battles in this country and we need all the allies we can get.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/christopher_hitchens_on_obama_and_rev_wright_when_all_else_fails_blame_women.php#comments

I don't believe in sacred cows. If he thought she was unfunny and hand't been harsh enough on the president, he should make that case. (As it stands, he didn't even understand the joke he critiqued) Calling her a "a black dyke" or a "sable sapphist" is so damn lazy. There's nothing provocative or courageous about it (as one might say of his take on Mother Teresa or Bill Clinton or even The War). It's just, in a word, a dick-move.

I know I am coming late to this discussion but I wonder if you have seen the film Mephisto – it documents the unwitting but steady and often adamant, slide towards fascist collaboration by a left cultural figure bent on maintaining his public profile despite dangerous changes in the political winds in Germany. I have thought of it more than once whenever I read the rising pitch of Mr. Hitchens columns. I think I mentioned this many months ago somewhere else.