Talk:Christopher Hitchens/drinking

Hitchens often appears drunk or drinks heavily:

• When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink."[1]
• His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably."
• In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule."
• In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker."

He justifies this:

• He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind."
• Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's .12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing."

Criticism of his drinking:

• Oliver Burkeman writes, "Since the parting of ways on Iraq, though, Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker 'because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.' He drinks, he says, 'because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.'"

preferred version

Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol. In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind." In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker." His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably." Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's .12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing."

When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink."[2] Oliver Burkeman writes, "Since the parting of ways on Iraq, though, Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker 'because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.' He drinks, he says, 'because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.'"

Discussion

On the "by whom" -- obviously, Galloway says it in the paragraph above; other notable figures who have noted Hitchens' problem with dismay include Juan Cole, Andrew Cockburn, Helena Cobban, Jack McCarthy. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it though? As Cobban notes, Cole mentions Hitchens' problem in an exculpatory way (to explain his poor arguments) rather than an accusatory manner. Now, Cole and Cobban are published in their own blogs, which means that certain editors will not permit these to be cited in the article (even though they have a double standard when it comes to blogs they agree with). Cockburn and McCarthy, on the other hand, published very critical commentary in Counterpunch, which is not a blog but is a partisan source. I see no reason to exclude cites from this source as long as it is clear that we are citing the source as evidence that Hitchens' opponents criticize him, rather than as a WP:RS for some other statement of fact. csloat 21:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cole's comments, by the way, have been republished by Alternet, so perhaps this source will be acceptable if Informed Comment is not. csloat 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)