Sigh.

I'm so over all of this. I've written two lengthy response and deleted both of them as they seem to drag on and on and really... who cares at this point. It's not like we're changing people's minds here in the blogosphere.

If Josh wants to pretend that there's little difference between the amount of Moore's and Hitchens' "intellectual work." Fine. I appreciate his attempt at making a lively blog exchange/war. But that's all it is. I won't deny that there are similarities in the tactics of Moore and Hitchens. They're combative and in-your-face and can play fast and loose with facts and are masters of self-promotion.
But I think it's silly to pretend that Hitchens, worried about his status as an "irrelevant leftist," took his pro-war stance to... what, Josh? Make his name bigger? Get more press?

For fuck's sake it's happening again. I am droning on and on.
I'm about to end this but first--
Josh asked what't the real differnece between Moore and Hitchens. First: I would agree with Josh's assesment that Hitchens "likes facts a little more." In addition, I think Hitchens and his writing is a little more, um, nuanced than Moore's filmmaking.
I would also say this: Hitchens isn't interested in coddeling his audience and playing the shrill "we're always right and they're always to blame" like Moore does. I'd bet that Hitchens' pro-war stance earned him some conservative readers. I wonder what they thought when Hitchens' hatchet job of Reagan's legacy was the lead article on Drudge. Or what Hitchens' readers at The Nation thought when he declared himself pro-war. Is that all stunt-journalism? No conviction?

OK. I'm done. Put a fork in it. Over and out. Bleh.