Not unexpected, but sad nonetheless. Vanity Fair has a piece on him.
I don't know how you guys felt about him, but I was a fan. His writing definitely had a measurable, positive influence on my life. Just felt like sharing it with someone. Don't feel obligated to say nice things about him if you don't feel 'em; he was an atheist and a brash asshole, so I don't imagine he would mind a blunt, honest opinion of his life.
Anyway, yeah. That's about it. I don't really have anything insightful to add to this. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm totally bummed about this news. Yeah, he could be a real jerk. And I knew it was coming for a while. And things were obviously getting worse recently. But still...this sucks.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, taking the opportunity to re-watch some of his talks and interviews. I'll definitely miss his presence.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Yeah, he was an asshole. But he was a GREAT asshole. Going to seriously miss all the talks he would have given and all the books he would have written.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
As much as I think he lost his way with all that dumb new atheism stuff, and his support for the Bush administration, he led a life well worth living. I think if more people had his character the world would be a much better place.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I thought Douglas Wilson's essay on his life and death in Christianity Today was really quite good.
I found Hitchens bracing, more interesting than many of his compatriots (Dawkins, etc), but ultimately, I'm very saddened by this end.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
From what I've been reading of him over the past couple of days (I knew very little of the man or his work prior, got interested because of am NPR spot), I'd really hesitate to say only 'support for the Bush Administration' without mentioning what seems to me to be the *reason* for that support, a fundamental and personal antagonism for violent Islamic fundamentalists.
I haven't gotten the impression he ever would've supported the Bush Administration if he didn't feel his alternatives were worse.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, as someone who has been reading Hitchens for years, I just want to say I think that is a very accurate assessment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have to admit, his blunt support for many (among moderates and the Left, at least) *very* controversial policies has led me to wonder if I don't underestimate the threat posed to the US in particular and 'the West' in general by violent Islamic fundamentalism.
Often in the past, hearing about things like rendition, military targeting of American citizens, the list goes on, I've frequently been angry or at least troubled for two reasons. One is that when things violate what I feel is the 'spirit' of the Constitution (and I'm far from a constitutional scholar or even well informed layman) it gets my dander up. But the *other* reason is that part of me looks at the threat-violent Islamic fundamentalism-and judges it in many cases overblown.
But I wonder, why do I think that? I mean, a big part of it for me is looking at the damage suffered by the West at the hands of this sort of violence, and deeming it less than many other things which harm us, or we allow to harm us. That seems valid reasoning on the face of it, but thinking about it I wonder: why is this threat so ineffective at harming us on a large scale? Is it because they're stupid, because there simply aren't very many of them? Because our strengths are too powerful against this type of attack? Because they're so far away, because it's a big world? How much of the reason it has had so little success (from their PoV) is because of our own active military/security efforts against *it*? I really don't know, and trying to think critically about it I have to admit I suspect I'm very likely to minimize and dismiss the threat posed by violent Islamic fundamentalists, simply because they're so remote to my life. I know a good deal more about the religion and politics of Muslims around the world than the 'average American', I think, but that still places me very, very far from what I'd say is knowledgeable, much less experienced.
So I'm left wondering, how right, if at all, is Hitchens in his writing about the threat posed by groups such as al Qaeda?
[ December 18, 2011, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Foust, as Rakeesh pointed out, just mentioning something about his "support for the Bush administration" without the context of why he supported it, and what parts of it he supported (aspects of their foreign policy), is a bit disingenuous.
Also, while I disagree with many stances and tactics of the "new atheists", I think dismissing his involvement in the atheist community and his activism as dumb, is well, dumb. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
No, I did mean it it as a blanket statement. When it comes to his opinions on the Bush Admin, I have nothing good to say. He spent ten years lending his prominent voice to the defense of empire.
I praise his style and character. His 21st century views were execrable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But his opinions of the Bush Administration were, from what I've seen, frequently *quite* bad, to say nothing of his thoughts on the man himself. I've read him 'defending empire' only insofar as it worked to directly challenge and combat violent Islamic fundamentalism, and he often called the USA to account for apathy and shortsightedness in our foreign policy.
I'm not entirely clear what your perspective is on his opinions about these matters, but it doesn't sound much like they were actually his opinions. Heck, as late as this past spring he was laying into our friends in Pakistan and Afghanistan, deeply critical of our policies there.
[ December 18, 2011, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Case in point, I'm reading over one of his Slate columns, wherein he describes American policy on torture in the 'War on Terror' quite vividly as stupid, wicked, short-sighted, and hypocritical. Now I'm not saying I've read enough to be well informed on his thoughts on Iraq and Afghnistan-I havent gone back that far yet-but which of his views is execrable, Foust?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, Rakeesh, once again I agree with your assessment of him, and I find it incredibly awesome to hear about you reading him with an open mind.
To add to your points... He also excoriated the Bush admin for the "Axis of Evil" speech, because we trotted out a familiar secular bogeyman (North Korea) and totally failed to mention a wholesale exporter of Islamic fundamentalism (Saudi Arabia), and basically failed to seriously acknowledge the Islamic angle at all in any significant way. Hitchens said he was surprised Bush didn't try to shoehorn in Cuba, but then, of course, a short time after the Axis of Evil speech a representative of the Bush admin (I think it was Bolton) added a few more countries to the Axis, including Cuba and still making no mention of Saudi Arabia.
Hitchens' support of Bush wasn't remotely unconditional, he simply saw Bush as taking the threat more seriously than the alternatives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I don't know how open my mind is. Feels open of course, but don't it almost always? I'm just not sure which of his words could be said to be 'in support of the Bush Administration', plain and simple, without as I mentioned before discussing why, to what extent, and in what ways. I was just reading a *different* article in which he excoriates the CIA for its failures, explains why they were unnecessary, and why radical reform (a demolition and starting from scratch, in fact) is necessary.
[ December 20, 2011, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, as someone who frequently disagrees with you, you've always struck me as someone who keeps a pretty open mind. For what that's worth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So I've gone on to read Hitchens really thoroughly criticizing the Bush Administration's policies on torture, intelligence, nation-building, and diplomacy repeatedly. I mean, in the topical bunch of Slate columns I've read alone, these are themes he touches on again and again, along with his belief that the taking of military action against violent radical Islamic terrorists in general and Afghanistan and Iraq (with a bunch of reasons here, the violent radical bit is relevant but not central) was very necessary and should be supported. But very, very often he writes of being dismayed and angry at the way in which this action was taken, but maintained a belief that even with so many awful f*#k-ups, the alternative might very well have been worse.
I'm not sure if you're still interested in the topic, Foust, or if you've read my posts, but the more I read the more thoroughly I'm convinced that your suggestion of support for the Bush Administration is just plain wrong. Support for particular policies doesn't necessarily equate to broad support.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)