Oops, sorry there Guest 2:45. I just read the screed. Predictable elitist moral absolutism. What an ass. If you had your choice, who would you rather have a few brewskis with, Moore or Hitchens?

Stating that Michael Moore's filmmaking style doesn't match Sergei Eisenstein's or Leni Riefenstahl's is supposed to be a criticism? Give me a break. He criticizes Moore for being scatter shot, when being scatter shot is a hallmark of his film style.

And I suppose this line is intended to be legitimate film criticism too:

"He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction."

Yawn. How terribly British of you there, old chap. Then there's this statement, and what it reveals about Hitchens, not Moore:

"I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either."

That's the moral absolutist Hitchens for you, trying to suck somebody else into his narrow black and white paradigm, where Moore clearly doesn't reside in thought, artistic body of work, or promotional deed.

Apparently, Hitchens is most outraged that there is no outrage against the 9/11 terrorists, as if every polemic against attacks must contain some obligatory oblation to the Gods of American Imperial Patriotism.

I couldn't read the whole bloody thing, and not because I disagree with Hitchens opinion. I couldn't read it, because Slate couldn't be bothered with editing that bloated windbag's mind numbing and eye crossingly long paragraphs.

If the Slate editors can't stand to edit Hitchens, then I fail to see why I should bother myself with wading through his venal, spiteful rants.

I think Hitchens hates Moore because people tend to like Moore as a person, but loathe him.