Hunter S. Thompson Interview

Salon.com ^ | 2/3/2003 | Salon.com

[Texian First]

The godfather of gonzo believes America has suffered a "nationwide nervous breakdown" since 9/11, and as a result is compromising civil liberties for what he calls "the illusion of security." The compromise, he says, is "a disaster of unthinkable proportions" and "part of the downward spiral of dumbness" he believes is plaguing the .....

[Psycho_Bunny]

He was a liberal drug pig who could occasionally spin a humorous paragraph or two.

By and large, his writing was boring and I don't think I ever read an idea by him that I remember.

Sure, I remember the funny drug bits........and the horrible way he depicted him and his attorney treating some poor girl in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Other than that, he pretty much just wasted the time and effort that plants exert in creating oxygen.

[CaptSkip]

And, yes, many are Christian.

But that's not what FR is about.

Ok, change it to "Religious Right", same values espoused. You will have a had time convincing, dare I say MOST here at FR, and likely ALL outside FR, of the fact that FR is indeed inexorably intertwined with Religion, Faith, and by far Christianity the leading faith.

[angkor]

Ok, change it to "Religious Right", same values espoused.

Why don't you just cut out the "religious" or "christian" part of it and stick with "conservative", which is the main thrust of FR.

Otherwise you tie yourself up in knots with those who are religious but not Christian (Jews, etc.) or those who are nominally small-c christian but not particularly "religious", or the others who (like me) do believe in God, the Creator, but lean toward a Deist interpretation of things.

Though I strongly agree with you that God and faith inform many conservative perspectives, once you go an iota beyond that simple assertion you are really walking in the minefield.

[CaptSkip]

Not meant to be. Reading some of the posts in this thread reminds me of why FreeRepublic detractors are sometimes correct about the hypocrisy of the "Christian Right" as to compassion, forgiveness, from stone throwing glass house dwellers, and the inability by many here to find absolutely NO redeeming qualities from people with whom they disagree.

Labels, labels, labels.

Change the BOLD above to whatever you like:

Religious Right.

People of Faith.

Good and Decent People.

Regardless the label, that attitude, unfortunately, describes many here.

[WorkingClassFilth]

You are free to hold your opinion of HST the same way I am - ain't freedom grand? You can certainly disagree with me and - WOW! - I won't even hold it against you. After all, you might not like Olive Loaf. I can even understand why - in fact, I'll go even further and admit that it is basically seasoned offal and many don't have the stomach for it. You, OTOH, seem to like your offal in the form of HST. Bon Apetit!

Now despite that, I'm sure we will agree on many things by virtue of the fact that we both are conservative and because of the underlying assumptions, we would probably agree on much about human nature and governance. The very fact that your family loves you says much about you - not OUR g-g-generation. Good for you! I salute the achievement of raising good kids in a bad world. However, your personal achievements and good graces reflect nothing on the collective character of OUR g-g-generation. Thousands of boomers fought and died in Vietnam and, today, many more boomer men and women serve admirably in a thousand different ways. Sadly, they are not the benchmarks that historians will use to weigh our times.

I am speaking about the boomers as a cohort and, like you, I number myself in the same g-g-generation. Unlike you, however, I happen to regard the general character of boomers as the most self-sorbed, selfish, narcissistic generation America has ever produced; the name itself speaks of the distortions we have wrought. In fact, I usually refer to OUR g-g-generation as the 'worst' generation. Against the contrasting backdrop of the 'greatest' generation, we will never equal their character or stature.

Of course, good people are certainly among OUR generation, but that is such an elementary assumption it barely merits mention. What I am speaking of is OUR summation - the mark of OUR times and passing. In that light, the strengths and the lasting achievements of OUR generation are utterly abysmal. Throughout OUR trajectory, WE have been wrong - collectively - about just about everything it is possible to get wrong. The only thing we - collectively - have known for certain is what WE want, what WE feel, what WE like, what WE won't do, etc. Why else do you suppose WE'RE known as the 'ME' g-g-generation?

Now, to be sure, WE can be proud of certain things that no other American generation has taken to the limits as we have done. For example, WE pioneered the sexual revolution and WE have killed 44 million of OUR offspring through the selfish form of murder known as abortion. WE unleashed epidemic STD's and expanded the disintegration of the family unit to the point of normalization. WE started out of the gates with pandemic drug abuse, revolutionary violence and gave birth to the rise of radical feminism and the modern gay lobby. As WE have matured WE have damn near brought about the full realization of a European style socialist state.

Yes, there is much to be proud of and HST was one of OUR favorite chroniclers. Great visions and bold character indeed - hurray for us!

[WorkingClassFilth]

He was for liberty without restraint - in short, avarice and hedonism. I suggest you read what the Founders had to say about unrestrained human nature. The chaos of unlimited human appetite leads to anarchy and will surely lead to more government control. HST never knew a moment of moderation or self-control in his life. Mistaking a dissipated hedonist for a champion of liberty is something you need to rethink - IMHO.

[Texian First]

Hey...I did come of age in the 60's, but...I was too busy working and baking cookies for my kid's school functions to waste my time with a drug addict's dribble!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Good for you.

[complex]

He was for personal expression, personal liberty and personality. America needs more of all three.
By the way, I agree, could everyone please have a little more respect for the dead? At least have the good taste to wait a little while so that the wound isn't quite so fresh.

[TheGeezer]

What will be supremely ironic is the mad rush to 'own' a piece of this 'legend.' Like the good 'experience' seeking hedonists they were raised to be, Boomers will seek fragments of his life to hang on a wall or use as a watch fob. Sotheby, Christie's and other auction houses will soon be hawking the debris of his life that the family didn't want. This is probably why he used a firearm to take off his head - so it wouldn't end up on some Dentist's wall in Hoboken, NJ.

What marvelously lovely and corrosive writing! I have saved it for days when I am feeling blue to cheer me up. Are you Ann Coulter?

[WorkingClassFilth]

"He was for personal expression, personal liberty and personality."

This is completely bogus.

HST never knew, or exercised, and kind of responsibility or restraint in his life. As one FReeper around here said, his final act of self-centeredness, in leaving his messy corpse for his wife and family to find and clean-up, says it all. If you had said "He was for personal expression as a libertine and a defective personality..." you would have been right on the money.

Such as it is, any suicide is tragic for the survivors and I hope things are better for him wherever he is.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness.

[kaitangata]

have you read any of his work?

[WorkingClassFilth]

I read his stuff in Rolling Stone back when, his current columns on occasion, and the usual interviews and film snips that have come out of the popular culture. I readily admit he was manically funny, but that hardly qualifies for the status of cultural titan, let alone a champion of Americanism.

[P_A_I]

Hunter was for America in a way that America needs; -- he was for individual liberty.

He was for liberty without restraint - in short, avarice and hedonism.

I'll grant he was a hedonist in the pleasure loving sense. Avaricious? - I doubt he died a particularly wealthy man. In any case why would another mans pleasures or greediness affect you the point of dissing him at death?

I suggest you read what the Founders had to say about unrestrained human nature. The chaos of unlimited human appetite leads to anarchy and will surely lead to more government control.

I suspect I've read, [and understood] far more about what our founders hoped to accomplish with our Constitutional system that you.. They were far more concerned with insuring individual freedoms than with controlling them.

HST never knew a moment of moderation or self-control in his life. Mistaking a dissipated hedonist for a champion of liberty is something you need to rethink - IMHO.

I've never mistook Hunter as a 'champion'; -- he just fought the good fight against control freaks his whole life.
That he loved liberty, and wrote about it well was enough for me.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Booze, drugs, weapons, international travel, fortified compounds and a place in jet-set society all take money. HST was hardly a homebody content with the wife's apple pie. You are free to continue dissecting my adjectives, but I think you'll continue to fail seeing the forest

As far as dissing him goes, I think not. I simply labeled him for what he was - a dissipated symbol of a dissipated generation. Your characterizations of the man, in a struggle against the man, are a stretch too far IMO. You're certainly free to imagine him as a symbol for some kind of freedom if you choose. In a like kind of freedom, I believe that he was a man enslaved by his own demons and killing himself was the final act of a particularly small and foolish life.

If you were the authority on the Founders that you seem to feel, you'd know that self-control and moral underpinnings were essential to their ideas about liberty. This assertion is no mystery. If you believe they would have seen HST as an embodiment of their ideal freedoms, I'd like to read about it.

If you liked HST, fair enough. I did not. He'll rest no easier if I laud him or condemn him. I won't, however, endorse, or ignore, the romantic myth that boomer culture has granted him. I sincerely hope his family fares better now that he's gone - he must have been a terrible pain.

[P_A_I]

Hunter was for America in a way that America needs; -- he was for individual liberty.

I've never mistook Hunter as a 'champion'; -- he just fought the good fight against control freaks his whole life.
That he loved liberty, and wrote about it well was enough for me.

Booze, drugs, weapons, international travel, fortified compounds and a place in jet-set society all take money. HST was hardly a homebody content with the wife's apple pie.

Who claimed he was a 'homebody'? And sure, he was paid well. -- So what?

You are free to continue dissecting my adjectives, but I think you'll continue to fail seeing the forest

I've seen through your 'forest' my son, and its not a pretty picture.

As far as dissing him goes, I think not. I simply labeled him for what he was - a dissipated symbol of a dissipated generation. Your characterizations of the man, in a struggle against the man, are a stretch too far IMO.

Why do you still "struggle against the man"? He's dead..

You're certainly free to imagine him as a symbol for some kind of freedom if you choose. In a like kind of freedom, I believe that he was a man enslaved by his own demons and killing himself was the final act of a particularly small and foolish life.

I suspect he was terminally ill, and ended life on his own terms. Obviously, that enrages you. How sweet.

If you were the authority on the Founders that you seem to feel, you'd know that self-control and moral underpinnings were essential to their ideas about liberty. This assertion is no mystery.

I'm a student, not an 'authority' attempting to preach to the choir.

If you believe they would have seen HST as an embodiment of their ideal freedoms, I'd like to read about it. If you liked HST, fair enough. I did not. He'll rest no easier if I laud him or condemn him.

So why the condemnation? Your vindictive rhetoric serves no real purpose..

I won't, however, endorse, or ignore, the romantic myth that boomer culture has granted him.

Someone asked you to endorse his lifestyle? Who?

I sincerely hope his family fares better now that he's gone - he must have been a terrible pain.

Might your family have first hand knowledge on the same subject? Your words here give that impression.

[verity]

He will not be missed.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"he just fought the good fight against control freaks his whole life...he loved liberty..."

HST's liberty was in self destruction, illegal snd dangerous use of firearms and chemicals and the glorification of criminals. You seem to know very little about intimate connections between liberty and responsibility.

"Avaricious? - I doubt he died a particularly wealthy man...[later]...And sure, he was paid well. -- So what?"

You either miss the point or you find it convenient to argue two sides. The lifestyle he was addicted to demanded the cash and he could no more enjoy "liberty" as you call it than he could fly. He needed money because he was the slave of an expensive master. Don't kid yourself; his "liberty" was inextricably tied to money.

"I've seen through your 'forest' my son, and its not a pretty picture.

Sigh...

"Why do you still "struggle against the man"? He's dead..."

I don't. I gave an opinion that you and a handful of his libertarian fans disagreed with. Until yesterday, I have never written a word about HST one way or another. After today, I doubt I will again. HST is yesterday's trash.

"I suspect he was terminally ill, and ended life on his own terms. Obviously, that enrages you. How sweet."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't care about his passing other than yesterday's comments on the news. You, OTOH, as an apparent HST insider, Constitutional scholar and right-to-choose enthusiast DO seem to have an emotional interest. How sad.

"I'm a student, not an 'authority' attempting to preach to the choir."

Care to provide the background that demonstrates the Founders were interested in a form of anarchy (liberty is the word you misused) that entailed NO personal responsibility of restraint?

"So why the condemnation? Your vindictive rhetoric serves no real purpose..."

I have condemned him to the same extent that you champion him. For you, my critique has no value. For others, it has seemed to hit the mark and been appreciated. For still more, it will serve to balance the MSM palaver being served. In any event, it's an expression of my freedom - HST would have approved.

"Someone asked you to endorse his lifestyle? Who?"

This is nonsensical.

"Might your family have first hand knowledge on the same subject? Your words here give that impression."

You're witty.

We obviously disagree about a sick man that lived a sick life. Frankly, I don't care what your thoughts are about HST anymore than you do about mine. Go pursue your liberties - given to us by men far better than the wreck you champion.

[P_A_I]

HST's liberty was in self destruction, illegal snd dangerous use of firearms

Good grief, now you're talking like a Sarah Brady type.. Thanks for outing yourself.

and chemicals and the glorification of criminals. You seem to know very little about intimate connections between liberty and responsibility. "Avaricious? - I doubt he died a particularly wealthy man...[later]...And sure, he was paid well. -- So what?" You either miss the point or you find it convenient to argue two sides. The lifestyle he was addicted to demanded the cash and he could no more enjoy "liberty" as you call it than he could fly. He needed money because he was the slave of an expensive master. Don't kid yourself; his "liberty" was inextricably tied to money.

Rave on.

I've seen through your 'forest' my son, and its not a pretty picture.

Sigh...

Sigh on. Your rant here is not a pretty picture.

Why do you still "struggle against the man"? He's dead...

I don't. I gave an opinion that you and a handful of his libertarian fans disagreed with. Until yesterday, I have never written a word about HST one way or another. After today, I doubt I will again. HST is yesterday's trash.

Another pretty picture. You're 'trashing' a man you don't even care about to make a political point.

I suspect he was terminally ill, and ended life on his own terms. Obviously, that enrages you. How sweet.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't care about his passing other than yesterday's comments on the news.

Yet you care enough to continue your diatribe here. Go figure.

You, OTOH, as an apparent HST insider, Constitutional scholar and right-to-choose enthusiast DO seem to have an emotional interest.

I'm a student, not an 'authority' attempting to preach to the choir.

Care to provide the background that demonstrates the Founders were interested in a form of anarchy (liberty is the word you misused) that entailed NO personal responsibility of restraint?

Why should I try to play your 'straw man' game? --- How old are you? Do you really think that such pitiful leading questions are honest debate?

So, why the condemnation of HJT? -- Your vindictive rhetoric serves no real purpose...

I have condemned him to the same extent that you champion him.

He's not my "champion", and your condemnation seems to have no bounds.

For you, my critique has no value.For others, it has seemed to hit the mark and been appreciated.

Dream on.

For still more, it will serve to balance the MSM palaver being served. In any event, it's an expression of my freedom - HST would have approved.
I won't, however, endorse, or ignore, the romantic myth that boomer culture has granted him.

Someone asked you to endorse his lifestyle? Who?

This is nonsensical.

Not in context to your remark; -- "I won't, however, endorse" ---.

We obviously disagree about a sick man that lived a sick life. Frankly, I don't care what your thoughts are about HST anymore than you do about mine. Go pursue your liberties - given to us by men far better than the wreck you champion.

He's not my "champion", and your condemnation seems to have no bounds. You might give some thought about just who here is "sick".