The first time I heard about his work was in relation to religion. His book was possibly the most confrontational of the recent anti-theist books: God is not great. Compared to Dawkins I didn’t find it easy to read. The way that Hitchens wrote was the way he spoke; he was more erudite and eloquent than I could ever aspire to and I needed to put more thoughtful effort into reading to best understand him. I think I am probably a better writer, reader, and thinker as a result of his work.

As part of the promotion for his book Hitchens took on a number of debates with public figures promoting religion, or specifically Christianity. The arguments he made in these debates were generally the same as those in his book but the way that he delivered them was often quite enthralling. I have never tired of hearing Hitchens speak and hearing him speak has made his writing come alive for me since I can hear his voice and style of delivery in each paragraph I read.

Appreciating his writing led me to his other works. He was a prolific writer. As contributing editor of Vanity Fair he wrote about politics, culture, hollywood, history and anything else he felt the need to opine on. He also wrote essays, many of which are now collected into several volumes. His articles and essays have helped me question a lot of things I might otherwise never have considered and I would encourage anyone to give him some of their time. Although he became particularly well known for his religious opinions this is really only the natural result of his desire to address hypocrisy. He wrote far more widely on other topics both current and historical.

I hope, since you have read this far, you don’t mind if I make a few reading suggestions.

I strongly recommend you read this article on torture which addresses the question of whether waterboarding can really be considered torture. It is one thing to consider the intellectual arguments, as many commentators did at the time, but you can’t help but respect a man who seeks out the experience for himself, so that he might be sufficiently informed to render an opinion, and then freely admits his shame at how quickly he capitulated.

I would also suggest seeking out his book, The Missionary Position which is a comment on Mother Teresa and which serves, whether or not you agree with his assessment, as a brilliant reminder that the world looks very different once you start to examine what you think you know.

My third, and, in fear of producing a never ending list, final, suggestion to you is his article in Vanity Fair, When the King Saved Saved God which explains the impact of the Bible on our language.

In re-reading some of his work a lot of things stand out to me. A lot of the arguments are familiar, although no less powerful as a result of that familiarity, and a lot is still new to me, but there is one thing in particular, one simple quote, that I really like:

We already know the cure to poverty…it’s quite simply, the empowerment of women.

Hitchens opposed all ethical wrongdoing in the world, whomever it was done to or by, and he experienced more of the world and those ethical problems that most of us ever will. He wasn’t an example in all ways but in the ways that matter I think we can all take something from him.

There is little more I can say about Christopher Hitchens that isn’t already being said in publications around the world by people with more wit, eloquence, intelligence and personal knowledge than me. My aim with this post is simply to add one more voice to the collective expression of loss. In a recent article about losing his voice he wrote:

The most satisfying compliment a reader can pay is to tell me that he or she feels personally addressed.

Perhaps the most fitting goodbye is to confirm that he succeeded and that his voice will continue to be heard.

Unlike many others I quite enjoyed Clarkson’s comments, not because I agree that the strikers should be shot, not even because I agreed with the general strike-averse sentiment, but because of the reactions to what he actually said.

What he actually said wasn’t particularly new, fresh, or interesting. It wasn’t a joke as such, just Clarkson’s usual style of amplified emphasis or, as Stewart Lee has put it:

“… outrageous politically incorrect opinions that he has for money to a deadline every week in the Sunday Times, almost as though they weren’t real.”

What it was, however, was amusing, in so much as it punctured perfectly the cloying niceness of the One Show in exactly the same way that Frankie Boyle’s off-colour remarks punctuated the childlike Russell Howard on Mock the Week. Crudeness that becomes unbearably boring when sustained is like fresh air when appropriately juxtaposed, and so it was in this case.

Jimmy Car once said that there is no better sound than an audience laughing automatically and then catching on to how wrong the joke was that they are laughing at. Similarly, the reaction of the One Show presenters was a priceless combination of the desire to toe the corporate line in showing disapproval, while desperately avoiding the laughter that filled the rest of the studio off-camera. The look on their faces is reason enough to have said it in my book.

That isn’t the only reaction that amused me though. The humour of that situation was almost certainly shared by the One Show presenters, but certainly not by Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, who called for Clarkson to be sacked and informed the media that he was seeking legal advice as to whether the comments should be referred to the police.

There is a certain irony in calling for one person’s rights to be curtailed because he speaks out against the actions you take to defend yours. This amuses me a little, but not so much as the complete misunderstanding of the use of obviously overblown hyperbole which is a key feature of almost every anti-government Union statement that has ever been typed, spoken, or chanted.

The reaction from government itself was a tad more muted and realistic with several ministers, including the Prime Minister, stating that he was a bit silly to have said it and that he should apologise so we can get on with our lives.

All of this, however, is just a minor matter compared to the real reason I wish they hadn’t apologised: They did nothing wrong. The idea that other people have a right to impose their reactions on your intent, that because someone is offended what you said must have been offensive, is rubbish.

Clarkson said: “If the BBC and I have caused any offence, I’m quite happy to apologise for it alongside them.” but I take issue with the idea that the offence was caused. Rather I say that offence was taken, and that is an entirely different matter. A great deal of comedy is hilarious until, suddenly, it is about something you care for. Then you are offended, but to everyone else it is no different from ten minutes previous when you weren’t.

Admittedly Clarkson did mitigate the apology by pointing out that, in context, his meaning was clear, but still the apology occurred and I think we are all worse off, just a little, because of this. It  is clearly less serious than Danish cartoons but if opinions can’t be shared on the BBC just in case someone might take offence then the value of the BBC is diminished to a great degree.

There is a great joy to be found in provocation, and great lessons from being provoked, offended, and put in your place (from time to time). When someone enforces on us the right to be cocooned in our own opinions then we really should start to complain.

I used a recipe which is a combination of those I found on the net and my own common sense, so, before I forget it, here is that recipe:

Ingredients:

• 1 tin (400g) mixed Mexican beans (The tin says pinto, navy pea, kidney and black turtle beans)*
• 50g plain flour
• 1 clove of garlic (crushed)
• 1 teaspoon smoked paprika
• 1/2 teaspoon chilli powder
• 1 teaspoon ground cumin
• 1/2 tablespoon of soy sauce
• 1 very heaped tablespoon of sun dried tomato paste
• A healthy dollop of dried oregano
• Salt and pepper
• Chopped chilli (Jalapeno) as desired.

*I chose these as one recipe specified two tins of beans, one of kidney another of Haricot, but made more burgers than I wanted so a mixed tin seemed ideal. Probably doesn’t really matter.

Making them is really easy. Mash up the beans just enough to leave some texture then mix in the rest of the ingredients until it looks and feels like dough. Split the mix into two and make into burger shapes.

Shallow fry in oil for 5 minutes or so each side.

Once cooked I grilled some cheese on top, added a slice of beef tomato and some guacamole and placed the whole lot between two chapattis.

I was quite surprised when I looked into it just how simple it is to make a good chilli and have made a number of variations of it, with and without meat, since. There are a million chilli recipes out there some really quite complex but what really matters is just having a base into which any other content can go.

The base I use is:

• 1 tin chopped tomatoes
• 1 tin water
• 1 chopped onion
• 2 cloves garlic
• 3 tablespoons chilli powder
• 1 tablespoon ground cumin

Into this base you can add any filler you want, whether that is 400g of minced beef, or what I am using:

• 3-4 grated carrots
• 1 tin kidney beans
• 1 tin of other types of bean, e.g. cannellini beans

I have also seen recipes that include celery and sweet corn and used broad beans myself when I had nothing else.

finally, there are the extras, the added zing. I use:

• 3 chopped jalapenos (actually I use half a jar of posh Tesco jalapenos)
• 1/4 teaspoon of smoked paprika
• oregano

Other recipes use Jack Daniels or Red Wine as well but I never really tasted the difference when I included JD.

Cooking it is easy. Fry the onions and contents until soften then add the rest and simmer for 20 minutes or more.

Having figured out this simple recipe I can’t imagine buying chilli again.