Funny lady Sarah Silverman as Amy Winehouse? At least she’s not doing Britney Spears’ “lips” on national TV. The Matt Damon philanderer joins SNL types like Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kristin Wiig, and Maya Rudolph, and Chelsea Handler, Wanda Sykes, and Sandra Bernhard in April’s Vanity Fair to defend against the argument from the magazine’s scribe Christopher Hitchens that women aren’t funny. See how Graydon Carter is making a publicity stunt out of his own publicity stunt? That’s why he’s paid the big bucks. [Popbytes]

Because what we all needed on the Internet was more hate speech, Vanity Fair is creating a digital hub for all things Christopher Hitchens. It will be called “Hitch Bitch” and is not, actually, a place for Hitchens to spew his vitriol. (He already has at least one online home for that.) Rather, it’s a dumping ground for reactions to Hitchen’s writing; complainers are encouraged to submit responses to hitchbitch@vf.com for a chance at publication. And pageview whoring.

Although we can’t always shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.

With Halloween just around the corner, it’s time to start thinking about last-minute costume ideas. And this year, instead of frantically hunting through the on-sale rack at Ricky’s for that elusive half-priced garment that says “Slutty, yet sophisticated,” why not be creative? There are plenty of do-it-yourself costumes* that require minimal effort on your part and are guaranteed to please potentially capable of suiting your needs.

Moderately intrigued? Read on, anyway! After the jump, a complete rundown of the scariest media personalities around with useful tips on how to capture their “essence” without breaking the bank or sacrificing your unique rebelliousness.

CONTINUED »

Christopher Hitchens (better known as the drinker with a writing problem) continues to do groundbreaking research for his three-part Pulitzer Prize caliber series on self-improvement. This week’s homework assignment? Going into the J. Sisters salon and having his “sack” waxed. [P6]

Naturally, our first reaction to Christopher Hitchens sort-of nude photo spread in Vanity Fair is sheer disgust, which is almost immediately followed by acute and pronounced nausea. However, we quickly recover well enough to actually read the article (something about Hitch getting an “extreme makeover) which only seems to exacerbate each of our aforementioned symptoms. Fortunately, there’s hope! A well-timed article in “Meet The Press” manages to take the words (though, unfortunately, not the almost-vomit) right out of our mouths.

“Screw the Kurds!” writes ETP contributor Katherine Thomson. “Hitchens describing sack-waxing sounds like the stuff on which next year’s Ellie win will be founded.”

Sadly, however, it turns out we’ll actually have to wait for the next issue to hear about Hitchen’s award-winning scrotum. Meanwhile, the piece is not without its merits. For example, the picture of a balding, pot-bellied Hitchens smoking in the shower is just about the funniest thing we’ve seen all week.

And to think this portly adonis once remarked that women had no sense of humor.

Chris Hitchens manages to make Conrad Black’s trial all about him. Shocker, right?

In the wake of Reverend Jerry Falwell’s death earlier this week, we’ve been lying awake at night, tossing and turning as we tried to make sense of it all. Thankfully for us, the calm and always prescient Christopher Hitchens puts Falwell’s passing into proper perspective, with a thoughtful tribute the Moral Majority leader, neutrally entitled, “Faith-Based Fraud: Jerry Falwell’s foul rantings prove you can get away with anything if you have ‘Reverend’ in front of your name.”

CONTINUED »

Have you read George Tenet’s new book, “At The Center Of The Storm” yet? Christopher Hitchens has, and he’s already called Tenet a “portentous, self-justifying disgrace.”

And now, Bob Woodward has, and it seems that his number one objection is Tenet’s failure to enlist Woodward’s help in crafting his autobiography.

In Sunday’s Washington Post (May 6), Bob Woodward penned a lengthy appraisal of George Tenet’s book, “At The Center Of The Storm,” about his tenure as George Bush’s CIA director. But it’s not really a review of the Tenet book; it’s more like an explanation of how Tenet could have been a better intelligence chief and written a better memoir if only he had listened to Bob Woodward…

Naturally, that’s just the beginning.

CONTINUED »

Yesterday, we found ourselves uncharacteristically in agreement with—or at least on the same side as—pot-stirring loudmouth, Christopher Hitchens. Today, not so much.

At a Monday lunch sponsored by the American Society of Magazine Editors, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens did what everyone seemed to expect, even hope, he would do: He insulted everyone in the room — many of whom made him a finalist for their Ellie award this year, some of whom dole out his paychecks. He compared the unanimous vote for ASME’s new officers to that of North Korea’s, and, asked about reaction to his arguing that women aren’t funny, replied that he’d heard from plenty of “humorless bitches.”

Yep, there’s nothing like starting out your day with a piping hot mug of (hazelnut!) coffee, an egg and cheese breakfast sandwich in hand and VF blowhard Christopher Hitchens calling your mom a “humorless bitch,” and referring to Anna Nicole Smith as “that fat slut who died.”

Welcome back, Hitch.

When Christopher Hitchens calls your book a disgrace, it probably means you’re onto something.

Either that, or you really, really screwed up.

In the case of former CIA director (and current Georgetown professor/author) George Tenet, it seems to be a case of the latter.

Tenet, though best known for his lengthy tenure as the head of the CIA, will forever be remembered for not preventing September 11th, for personally attesting to the validity of intelligence reports accusing Saddam Hussein of harboring WMD, and for his well-documented** assurances—to President George W. Bush—that the case against Saddam would be a “slam dunk.”

And while we don’t find ourselves agreeing with Christopher Hitchens very often (mainly due to his propensity for brash, offensive and generally unsubstantiated shitshow rants) today we’d like to applaud his efforts, and praise him for handing Tenet the literary equivalent of an “old school bitch-slapping.” And alhough not all of Hitchen’s adversaries are deserving of his wrath, Tenet certainly has a lot to answer to in today’s Slate manifesto.

CONTINUED »

Christopher Hitchens. You may remember him from such literary coups as “Blow jobs: As American as apple pie,” “Women: They’re just not very funny, are they?” and “Mother Teresa: Total Fraud.”

And in his latest work, Hitchens tackles yet another controversial subject, aiming to discredit a know-it-all braggart with a “me first” mentality, commonly referred to as “God.”

But is there a God? Not according to Chris Hitchens, there isn’t!

And whatever your respective religious beliefs, Hitchens is sure to offend in his anti-spiritual rant, that asserts the Koran is laughable, Islam a mask for insecurity, and Ghandi a misguided guru whose advice would have starved millions of people.

CONTINUED »

Christopher Hitchens – Vanity Fair columnist and the man who told Rachel Sklar she wasn’t funny – couldn’t possibly pass up the opportunity to aim his cannon at those behind Saddam Hussein’s hanging. Or, as Hitchens calls it, “lynching,” though that’s usually a term we reserve for people like Emmett Till — you know, men and women who didn’t deserve a noose around their necks.

The shabby, tawdry scene of Muqtada Sadr’s riffraff taunting their defenseless former tyrant evokes exactly this quality of hysterical falsity and bravado. While Saddam Hussein was alive, they cringed. Now, they find their lost courage, and meanwhile take the drill and the razor blade and the blowtorch to their fellow Iraqis. To watch this abysmal spectacle as a neutral would be bad enough. To know that the U. S. government had even a silent, shamefaced part in it is to feel something well beyond embarrassment.

Correct: Not embarassment. Hilarity is what you should be feeling. With no women around, it sure was a hoot, eh Chris?

Ah, Christopher Hitchens. Our favorite unintentional offender. When he’s not comparing American women to blow job machines, he makes it up to society by defending the honor of Jewish people everywhere. In yesterday’s Slate he even went so far as to bash that despicable Mel Gibson into the ground.

Not only has Gibson made his fair share of anti-Semitic remarks in his day, but the actor/slash producer has also (according to Hitchens) lamented on and on about his hatred of gays. Hitchens speculates the common theory, that those who hate gay people so furiously often have a few homosexual tendencies of their own, may possibly apply to Gibson in this case. Well, we should really let Hitchens explain:

There’s a lot to dislike about Gibson. He is given to furious tirades against homosexuals of the sort that make one wonder if he has some kind of subliminal or “unaddressed” problem.

Hold up. Did Christopher Hitchens just call being gay (in the context of theoretically and closeted) a “problem?” We think he did. That’s the thing. Blatantly offending people is bad. Bad, bad, bad. But this deep rooted bigotry (in the media!) — which is so ingrained that it goes unnoticed — is what really makes us most nervous of all.

Mel Gibson’s Meltdown [Christopher Hitchens, Slate]

Every wish you could you watch Jessica Simpson give head? Yeah, us neither. However, we do find this version of her slobbering all over an ice cream cone in the fashion of fellatio a bit telling. Too bad Star never clued us in on this troubled aspect of her and Nick Lachey’s marriage.

And while our heart goes out to Nick for seemingly having to endure this himself for a few years, we would also like to take this opportunity to disprove Christopher Hitchens‘ theories about all-American gals and blow jobs.

We devoted our morning to the desperate search of Christopher Hitchens‘ Vanity Fair article which promised to teach us all about the history of the blowjob. Ok, not exactly, but we were awfuly interested in reading the article, As American As Apple Pie in which the writer discusses the patriotism of sucking dick.

Basically, Hitchens tells us how the blowjob started, and answers the age old question, to blow or to suck? by defnining Souffler (”to blow”) and fellatio (”to suck”). But, his analysis is specifically on the blowjob in America. Hitchens makes sure to fully stereotype sex, examine this subject from a strictly heterosexual male view, praise pornography, and objectify women to the fullest all in one essay. He did throw in a few examples of guy on guy as well (using the term “faggoty”) but immediately turned away from the subject with discomfort to focus on the straight man’s peril of not being able to give himself oral pleasure.

Well done, Hitch. After the jump, our full (slightly feminist and reactionary) take on this less than informative and wholly disappointing essay. Oh, and we used some of the PG 13 quotes the Daily News wouldn’t print.

CONTINUED »

Either Lloyd Grove is nuts, or we are morons, because for the life of us we can not find the Vanity Fair article referred to in the Lowdown online. But, apparently, Christopher Hitchens has a column, not suitable for a family paper, focusing on the ancient art of blowjobs.

Calling head “as American as apple pie,” Hitchens gives detailed historical analysis. Again, we tried to find the dirty parts (we’ll print them! We don’t let our family read this!) we honestly can not drudge up the article. So, please take in this niced up version for now, until we can either wake up enough to properly function, or Katherine Thomson sends us this alleged link.

“The United States is par excellence the country of beautiful dentistry. As one who was stretched on the grim rack of British ‘National Health’ practice, with its gray-and-yellow fangs, its steely-wire braces,its dark and crumbly fillings, its shriveled and bleeding gums, I can remember barely daring to smile when I first set foot in the New World. Whereas when any sweet American girl smiled at me, I was at once bewitched and slain by the warm …” Better stop there.

Grr. We totally apologize. We know this has to be more frustrating than watching Silk Stalkings in your parents’ basement.

Hitchens shifts into oral drive [Lloyd Grove, Daily News]

You know Christopher Hitchens from his regular diatribes in Vanity Fair and Slate. You probably don’t know Christopher Hitchens from his work in Tango magazine. Yes, “the magazine about relationships.”

But in the April/May issue – on newsstands April 11 (that’s Tuesday) – the guy who’s “been married twice, and a father three times” takes a break from bouncing around the Middle East, finishing next year’s iconoclastic God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion, and family therapy with younger bro Peter to lament on his biggest fault: his inability to lose an argument.

Arguing is my life. It just happens to be what I do for a living. Being up to speed with a quick riposte, or a very long, slow, measured, patient explanation, is everything to me, and more. This has not always been delightful (to my partners, I mean), though it has been good practice. Looking back, I can sometimes see where another man might have decided to give way gracefully, or at least quickly. Not moi. For what do you take me? I have a posiition to maintain here.

Now, this type of reasoning sounds perfectly suited for, say, debating energy policy or that new immigration bill. But keep in mind Tango is a relationship magazine. Hitchens is talking about his approach to relationships. Which begs the question: The Brit is only on wife number two?

(NB: Christopher turns 57 on April 13, so be sure to send him some birthday wishes.)