A Jigger to Hitchens and a Toast to the Man

January 5, 2012

Vanity Fair February 2012
By Graydon Carter

Christopher Hitchens was a wit, a charmer, and a troublemaker, and to those who knew him well, he was a gift from, dare I say it, God. He died 10 days before Christmas at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, after a punishing battle with esophageal cancer, the same disease that had killed his father. His was a true life of the mind, and, in this respect, he towered over his contemporaries in Washington, New York, and London.

Read more http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2012/02/graydon-201201


Anonymous said...

What preposterous drivel!

DKB said...

Oh come on. If you don't get something out of all things Hitchens surely you have better ways to spend your time Mr. Anonymous., DKB

Anonymous said...

It's good to see that Hitch lives, in this words.

He also lives. I've had two dreams of him since 12/16. In the first, he was scrunched down, trying to avoid facing up to that against which he railed so long (some say that this is hell, if it continues). In the second, he was his full self, healthy (some say that you take on your 30-year old semblance) and working. So, then, he was in heaven (if you would).

We can think of Hitch as an angel in disguise (and what a good one it was).

About dreams, we can show that it's a way to tap into that life which drives us as we're embodied, yet we cannot see it until we drop the body. Hitch's recovery is remarkable in its brevity compared to others that I've seen.

Aside: content requires anonymity, for the time being. Perhaps, Hitch could provide some phrasing that would touch the being of some of those who looked up to him. Only time will tell.

Ever wonder what die-hard atheists would say to you if they could come back and leave a message when they transition to reality?

Lee said...

Ever wonder what silly religious people would say after they die and realize, " oh shit, where's heaven, where's god?".

Anonymous said...


In the former case, they may realize that they have been duped. In the latter case, they might wake up to the realization that they cannot know the unknowable. We do not know.

Now, what was mentioned in the comment that would lead to the use of 'silly religious people' with regard to the post? Well, perhaps there ought not be 'die-hard atheists' used henceforth in discussions. Methinks that the several sides of these contentions have more preconceptions than they allow themselves to notice (which would negatively influence proper scientific insight).

Actually, the question from 1/15/12 4:36 pm might be rephrased like this: how many (of all types of persuasions) beat on the wall between us than them to get our attention after they waken to themselves?

In any case, it's not something with which science (in the public sense) can deal at this time (I'll predict that it will, at some point - who knows how far into the future this will be). In the meantime, it'll be the realm of early workers (Faraday played such a role in his work) who, hopefully, will do a good job.

A whole bunch of issues need to be worked. All of the yelling and screaming of the strident, on all sides, will not be conducive to the necessary progress. But, then, there have always been those who find the steps going forward despite all types of opposition (without glory, recognition - they carry on with what they know).

By the way, is the only way out of the quandary brought to us by the right-most minds (yes, fundamentalists) to flip out to other side (to wit, the Hitch-taken view) as if to have some symmetry? What if one bridges both sides (to be discussed, as necessary)?


Christopher reads from Hitch-22: A Memoir