The bon mots of Christopher Hitchens
I met Christopher Hitchens once. He was foul-mouthed and graceless. The lecture he’d just given was rambling and at the Q & A session afterwards he’d shown barely disguised contempt for the paying audience. It didn’t make me want to read his books and I’m sort of puzzled as to how he’s as acclaimed as he is, particularly of late.
His latest piece, in which he gives us his theory as to why alpha males like disgraced governor of New York Eliot Spitzer enter politics, is a corker:
Hitchens [...] has written the obituaries of more than a few political careers, and he has a theory about the ones with poor coital judgment: They just don’t see illicit sex as an obvious threat to their political survival. In fact, they see it as a primary reason to seek higher office in the first place.
“You wouldn’t be doing any of this if one of the objectives was not to increase the amount of pussy that was available to you. That is what you do,” Hitch says. “You don’t do it to be, ah, the most approval-rated governor of New York, for fuck’s sake.”
Not even I’m this cynical or simplistic and God knows I try. I can’t think of many mere bloggers who are. But there sits Christopher Hitchens, wit, polemicist and intellectual.
(Via Aarowatch)
Posted on March 25th, 2008 at 8:47pm under US Politics
| Related posts... • Talking out of his… • Hitchens • Unspeak: Some percentage |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 5 Comments |
But Hitchens is utterly wrong! If Spitzer entered politics for the pussy he has failed lamentably because he ended up having to pay a small fortune just to get his end away.
I’ve never been the governor of New York but even I have never had to PAY for sex!
I’m sort of puzzled as to how he’s as acclaimed as he is, particularly of late
It’s like those bands whose critical reputation rests on innovative, exciting work they did earlier in their career but who have since gone mainstream and picked up an enormous audience as a result. Like Pink Floyd except with more enthusiasm for war.
Bons mots. Unlike Christopher Hitchens, adjectives in French must agree with their nouns in number and gender.
If he’s showing contempt for people who pay to see him, perhaps he isn’t entirely beyond redemption.
Bugger off.
I’m sort of puzzled as to how he’s as acclaimed as he is, particularly of late.
Simple – because he’s prepared to try and make a liberal, humanitarian case for bombing the shit out of the enemy de jure. He’s a war-monger that Guardian readers can stomach, because he reflects both their professed liberal ideals, and their secret desire to remake the world in their own image through massive state violence. It’s really not an easy trick to pull off, and you have to admit that he does it pretty well. Who else could write that shit with a straight face?
However, on this subject I’m afraid I have to say I think there’s something to it… The acquisition of power is largely about social status, and social status is largely about getting laid. He didn’t have to pay money for it, he chose to – probably because, for a certain type of person, the mere physical thrill of sex pales into insignificance compared to the power trip of being able to rent a human being. If they have sex with you willingly, they might be doing it because they want to, rather than because you have power over them. How do you know you have power over others, if the objects of that power are having fun? The only way to really enjoy power over others is to make them do things they wouldn’t do otherwise.