>From one who knows-p.
At 11:49 PM 2/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, pms wrote:
>
>> Ha, I can easily picture Eddie J., being a twitty bore, and Hitchens,
>> especially a drunk Hitchens, having this very conversation with him, much
>> to the amusement of himself, and anyone else in earshot who brought a clue
>> to the party.
>
>How about that "drunk Hitchens" thing? The slanderers of Hitchens
>(including oh so Left Cockburn) keep bringing up his drinking habits.
>I just love Puritanism myself -- can't tell you how much I enjoy
>having humorless Marxists and earnest New Agers tell me why I
>shouldn't have a nip when I want. Cluck cluck.
>
>Funny thing is though, Hitchens has made no secret of the fact he
>likes to drink. (I'm always terribly amused when someone is "outed"
>for behavior they never sought to hide.) I remember seeing him on
>C-SPAN's Booknotes when his book _For the Sake of Argument_ came out.
>Brian Lamb asked him how the interview might be more pleasant to him.
>Hitch said something to the effect that "all things being equal, I'd
>rather be smoking a cig and having a drink while we have this
>conversation." Lamb, of course, displayed appropriate horror at the
>thought and continued to interview H.
>
>> moving back to the admiration mode-p
>
>Well I part company with him on a variety of issues (the most famous
>being his anti-abortion trope), but I find the reponse to his
>betraying his friend (if that is what it was -- I certainly don't
>know) as most interesting indeed. It's right up there with Bernie
>Sanders' (the supposed Socialist) support of the bombing of Iraq on
>the eve of the impeachment vote.
>
>Hitchens is a drunk, therefore don't listen to him. Clinton is
>President, therefore if he fries a few folks to try to divert
>attention from where his other missle has been, well, he's President,
>we need to support our boys (oops! and Girls).
>
>Bullshit.
>
>-j
>
>
>