> Speaking of restroom poetry contests, the most fragrant new fallout from
> Christopher Hitchens' self-imposed Sidneygate has been a flash point in the
> Anglo-Irish Cold War Hitchens has long waged against The Nation colleague
> Alexander Cockburn. In his latest gas bomb, Cockburn accuses his arch-enemy
> of being a drunk and then Falwells him with references to Hitchens' attempts
> to kiss men on the lips.
Oh, puleeez! Cockburn did not "Falwell" Hitchens (or Hitch the Snitch, as AC now blithely calls him). For those who did not get a chance to read Cockburn's entertaining article in the otherwise execrable New York Press, here's what he actually wrote thereon:
"Many people go through life rehearsing a role they feel that the fates have in store for them, and I've long thought that Christopher Hitchens has been asking himself for years how it would feel to plant the Judas kiss. Indeed, an attempted physical embrace has often been part of the rehearsal. Many's the time male friends have had to push Christopher's mouth, fragrant with martinis, away, as, amid the welcomes and goodbyes, he seeks their cheeks or lips."
I loved that last sentence. Now one can argue (as some already have on this list) against other aspects of Cockburn's article, such as his attempt in part to tie Hitchen's act to acoholism, as in:
"A woman who knows Christopher well and is inclined to forgive has suggested that the booze has finally got to him and that his behavior exhibits all the symptoms of chronic alcoholism: an impulsive act, dramatically embarked upon and, in the aftermath, only vaguely apprehended by the perp."
One could argue that by ascribing Hitch's act to addictive behavior, AC is maligning addicts everywhere. But does anyone out there have a better explanation for Hitch's snitching? Or even think he did the right thing? It is simply ridiculous, however, to accuse AC of engaging in Falwellian innuendos. As a long-time reader of Cockburn's pieces I could accuse him of holding many stupid opinions and conceits, but it's absolutely clear to me that gaybashing and Falwellian innuendo-dropping are not among them.
For me, that sentence about CH's martini-fragrant mouth is one the main reasons (perhaps not a great one) why I continue to read and look forward to Cockburn's pieces, in spite of the fact that I often think he's full of crap, such as when he accedes to the right on the unconscionable brutality of "partial birth" abortions, when he's sure he knows better than the most scientists about such matters as global warming or the authenticity of cave paintings, and his Ahab-like quest eternally to denounce the perfidy and hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders (at least the latter examples still make me laugh). When AC comes up with such phrases as "the poxy doxies of the right," perhaps I'm supposed to be offended as a feminist, but instead I'm cheered. And since I get little enough cheer from my political outlook, I will no doubt continue to read AC.
My one big question about the Cockburn/Hitchens feud (maybe I should have checked out the Suck piece) is this. Does this mean they're not going on a book tour together? I certainly hope not!
> Those who are nostalgic for the glory days of lefty
> intellectual feuds had been hoping for such a cat fight at the increasingly
> leaden Nation - a barricade of catnip to hold the doughy revolutionaries
> together until, in Churchill's phrase, "those who had been half awake were
> half ready." But really, if Cockburn wants to pick a fight, he could do
> better than this. With his Tartan background and Hibernian upbringing,
> Cockburn is no stranger to a night on the tiles, and his innuendoes sound
> odd coming from a man who has written in Grand Street about his own
> experiences in drag. The truth is the feisty columnists have more in common
> than they know, especially the fact that both of their last names make us
> giggle like schoolgirls.
> - --------------------------
> Am I only the only one who's bothered to notice that Suck likes to press
> feminists buttons with comments like "giggle like shoolgirls."
What's wrong with my darn button? It just won't press when it's supposed to, dammit.
I expect to have some free time over the next two weeks, so I'll have time to defend my feminism, which I suspect I'll have to, discuss "girl culture," good and bad tv ("The PJ's" is fantastic, and "Law and Order" sucks, for starters), and weigh in on all manner of important issues.
Cheers,
Ingrid