So that paragraph was a throwaway for me.

When you finish that, and you would like some type of update, here's the fallout from that piece:

http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2005/05/in-game.html

Two people helped me to polish my natural delivery. The first was Jeff Cohen...

The other person was of course Christopher Hitchens. Our relationship was much more convoluted, but I got so much out of it. Like Jeff, Christopher was a dynamite speaker, but his real talent emerged in debate. Oxford-trained, he knew so many tricks and had encountered every attack in the book. It was one thing to see him dispose of opponents on TV, but you had to see him live to fully appreciate his mastery.

I don't know how many of his debates I watched. But each time I sank into his performance, analyzing the smallest gestures. The bonus for me was that I got to experience Christopher one-on-one. Many times I riffed politically in his kitchen, and he'd watch and either say, "Go Dennis, keep going," or he'd stop me and suggest I look at this or that topic another way. And he was not a first thought/best thought kind of guy. He instructed me to reject the first thing that came to mind. "Flotsam," he'd say. "Go deeper."

Some think that Christopher and I parted over Iraq, which is partly true. But the real rupture came with this. Even though I told him about the piece as I was writing it, and sent him the draft before it was published, Christopher was thrown, and according to people I know, deeply hurt. That wasn't my intention. I wanted to explore and explain the conflicting feelings I had about his support for Bush and the war, and why he became so virulent with those who disagreed. I thought that if anybody could take what I had to say, it was Christopher. He always told me to not shy away from the truth of an issue, no matter what. This I thought I did. To him, however, it was a knife in the back.

I'm saying all this for two reasons. One, I know that nearly two years after my piece appeared, Christopher is still furious with me. He bad mouths me, gets angry when my name is mentioned, and apparently has trashed me on Australian radio. And while he'll sometimes affect a dismissive air when it comes to me, his anger points to something deeper. He really feels betrayed, and one rarely experiences betrayal from a casual acquaintance.

The second reason is that after hemming and hawing for a few weeks, Christopher has declined to publicly debate me. This is somewhat unusual for him. Christopher's long prided himself as someone who doesn't duck a challenge. So long as his fee is met, he'll engage pretty much anyone, including, if I recall correctly, a Holocaust denier.

But not me.

Friends tell me that Christopher has nothing to gain and everything to lose in a debate with me. I suppose that's true. As I've said, I've been out of The Game for a long time while Christopher's profile has risen to statist heights. But with the advent of this blog, which I didn't think would last this long, I'm getting back into fighting shape. I'm also receiving invitations again to speak at universities. I'm lining up a variety of projects, and all lead me back to The Game.

I do this because it's what I do best. Also, I have kids who are growing quickly into a world of mayhem, deceit, mass murder and torture, in a country under reactionary assault, and I simply cannot and will not sit back and wish them the best of luck. If I can help the fight, I will. And from the emails I get, it appears that many of you feel this is what I'm doing and should be doing. I thank you for your encouragement and support.

I'm still open to debating Christopher. Hell, I'll do it for free. I think it would be cathartic for both of us. It would be electric. Everything he says about me in private he can say to my face in public. I can take it. But that's his choice.

Me, I'll keep this little engine humming. And if a warblogger or lib hawk wants to go podium-to-podium, let me know. I'm Game.