Since I was erroneously compared to Hitchens, I feel an obligation to lay some flowers here too. My overly-enthusiastic concern for officer and citizen safety is rooted in the belief of a merciful Creator. Hitchens’ profound compassion had no such foundation. And in absolutely no way am I near the extraordinary intellect Hitchens possessed. I’m playing middle school-intramural ball compared to his professionalism. The progressive left felt betrayed by Hitchens throwing his lot with the Dark Side that foisted this ineffective, retaliatory war on the planet. Perhaps Hitchens’ allegiance to an idea he believed in outweighed whether the idea actually works. I’m confident the merciful Creator has a full understanding of Hitchens’ intent. Hitchens’ contributions were great and may he rest in peace.

This article is a great example of the effect of Hitchens’ marketing, and the dearth of actual ideas put forth by the man.  We have our obligatory picture of him smoking with his shirt off.  We have the mandatory story of his drinking.  And a certain fan-boy perspective that can only be described as disturbing.  You had a drink with Christopher Hitchens?  *Thee* Christopher Hitchens?  Wow!  This seems almost as important as playing bingo with Betty White.  Almost.
 
I for one hope this ridiculous fascination with Hitchens will now end.  He’s supposed to be an intellectual, yet I struggle to name one major, orginal idea he put forth into the intellectual community.  That women aren’t funny?  That religion causes wars?  That most economic problems can be explained by Marx?
 
Sorry, I’m still not buying it.  More troubling, however, is the easy acceptance of Hitchens’ intellectual credentials without any serious analysis of said credentials.  Again, this article is a great example.  The author spends hundreds of words on fan-boy praise to only pull out when the conversations turns to Iraq, and actualy debatable position.  Suddenly we don’t have any time for a summary of Hitchens’ disturbing and flat-out wrong position on this crucial issue of our time.  Instead we get to hear that his “groupies” have their feathers ruffled because our “rebel” is choosing a drink over God bashing (for the time being).
 
Hitchens’ most famous debate was with Noam Chomsky, and a contrast with that man is probably appropriate here.  When Chomsky dies, will we suffer through long descriptions of someone meeting him at a bar?  Will we need to be exposed to Chomsky smoking a cigarette in his bathroom?  I doubt it.  The conversation will be, as it always is, about his ideas.  About his work.  His appearance, and his consumption patterns are irrelevant - as they should be.
 
But with Hitchens it’s all about the booze, the cigarettes, and the pseudo-intellectualism.  It’s rarely, if ever, a discussion of his ideas because there are so few ideas to discuss.  Yet Hitchens is considered the rebel because he smoked, he drank, he embraced misogyny, and he hated religion.  About as rebellious, really, as shopping at Hot Topic instead of Abercrombie.
 
He was a lot of things, but he wasn’t a rebel and he wasn’t an intellectual.  More in common with PT Barnum than Sartre.

“as if I was talking to Trotsky at a Vanity Fair party in Dupont Circle”

I broke out laughing at this part and had a difficult time finishing.

The decent parts of this piece are wrecked by the pretentious nonsense quoted above.

Thanks to Rob McColley for making my point.  Why was Hitchens right about Iraq?  Because he lived there!  Did I live there?  Nope!  I wrote my comment in a coffee shop, so what do I know?
 
I’d bet Hitchens also smoked a lot of cigarettes in Iraq, and drank a lot of bourbon.  Probably in his bathroom with his shirt off.  What else do we need to know?
 
Nine year war, thousands of Americans dead, hundreds of thousands of people dead, all in the name of dethroning one of the many dictators currently in power. Hitchens and his buddies, including Chalabi, assured us that Hussein was a huge threat with massive stockpiles of WMD, and minutes away from The Bomb.  Turned out none of it was true.  The reasons for invading Iraq were false.
 
But no matter.  He hated Christians, and he smoked a lot.  Oh, and he liked to swear.  And drink - did anyone mention how he liked to get drunk, and didn’t care if you approved?
 
For a touch of truth:
 
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/chomsky-1.htm

“Most people who have any amount of curiosity will get bored surrounding themselves with, or reading books by, only those who share the same perspective.
I thought that was an obvious thing for most thinking folks.”
 
Except you wrote about the superficial aspects of the interaction. Reread, and you’ll see what I mean. I think that might have been what Vladimir Lenin was referring to. I do like the part about hipsters being needy, vulnerable puppies, as that would encompass at least half of the people who write and post here (especially in the music section).

A cursory google search of “hitchens wmd” will bring up a long list of articles dealing with these claims.  Moreover, a careful reading of the Chomsky/Hitchens debate linked above should show fairly conclusively that Mr. Hitchens was little more than a lightweight thinker who did a masterful job of fooling everyone into believing he was a brilliant rebel.  His thinking is muddled, contradictory, and often bizarre and immature.  I personally respected him as a journalist, but when he shifted gears and began the emphasis his intellectual credentials he lost me.
 
Actually, Alex Cockburn said it better than I:
 
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/16/farewell-to-c-h/
 

Most people who have any amount of curiosity will get bored surrounding themselves with, or reading books by, only those who share the same perspective.  <br style=“padding: 0px; margin: 0px;” >I thought that was an obvious thing for most thinking folks. 

 
I have no idea where this is coming from.  My criticism is with the tone of this piece, and it’s underlying assumption that Hitchens was somehow a leading intellectual.  He wasn’t - just a master of marketing and a bloviator of contrarian opinions.  Like Cockburn (linked above), I find the cult of Hitchens that has sprung up in the past few years to be mysterious, at best. 

#14, you choose to not give your name, but it’s important that you note your unhappiness with Mr. Voris’ piece, and your belief that it’s underlying assumption that “Hitchens was somehow a leading intellectual.” 
Clearly you are more educated than I, as I didn’t come away from this peice with that perspective.  What I drew was Mr. Voris’ personal interactions with Mr. Hitchens gave life to the written works and persona of Hitchens.  Well written, Andrew.  Can’t wait for your Dick Joke expose, but not as much as your exposed joke dick.
 - Rich Wentz