| Tuesday, October 25, 2005 |
| DEBATING THE POINT |
 I see George Galloway is in trouble again. He isn't guilty. I feel I can say that with confidence because if he was guilty there are so many knives out for him that he would have been convicted by now. The US (like some UK papers and politicians previously) is making a mistake pursuing him - he has a skill at turning situations to his advantage and this probably won't be any different. On the news this morning he told Senator Norm Coleman to 'put up or shut up' and said he is willing to get on the first plane to the US to face perjury allegations in court. As I said, I don't think he is guilty but I wonder if he is concerned that if such a thing happened, the court might not be as impartial as he would hope. 
I watched the recent George Galloway - Christopher Hitchens debate (http://www.democracynow.org/ - scroll down) and was struck most by what a complete waste of time the whole thing was. Hitchens is 'a humbug trying to be a bugbear'[i] and I, like many others have been irate about the volte-face that he has performed in the last few years and wanted to see him brought down a peg or six, but I realised that by tuning in to see things like this I am only giving him what he wants - attention. This is exactly what the US senate are doing with Galloway.
Whilst I don't always agree with him, I sometimes do and I have an amount of respect for Galloway but it concerns me that certain sections on the left are turning into a George Galloway personality cult. The left should not base itself around one de facto leader, because, if that person is disgraced (fairly or unfairly) then a whole number of causes may go down with them. When Scargill was discredited the miners were finished. This also applies to Hugo Chavez, Cindy Sheehan and anyone else you can think of.
The origins of the idea for putting these two together came when Galloway went to the US senate and refused to answer questions from Hitchens. When asked why, he replied, "because you’re a bloated, drink-soaked, former-Trotskyist popinjay[ii]."
The plan was to have two relatively high profile figures to have an open debate in order to raise awareness of what is going on in the middle-east. There was a certain amount of promotion and it was billed as 'the grapple in the big apple'. I assume the two antagonists were paid for their exertions in the debate.
Hitchens attempted to take the intellectual high ground by conceding that he was not as good at abusing people as Galloway and thereby attempted to sidestep this part of the jousting. This was also a sly attempt to appear the 'nice' man of the two and thereby get the audience on his side.
Galloway said exactly what one would expect him to say and attacked where one would expect him to attack... "The vast majority of the people of Iraq are against the American and British occupation of their country...the vast majority of them want it to come to an end...and the vast majority of those fighting to bring it to an end are Iraqi's. Get used to it. Get over it. Understand it or you are fooling yourselves." He also still enjoys his Victoriana, no 'popinjays' this time but he referred to Hitchens as a 'gutter-snipe' and made reference to chimney sweeps.
Hitchens attempted to justify the unjustifiable just as he has been doing for the last few years citing the fact that Saddam is gone as a huge achievement and neatly glossing over massacres at Fallujah and elsewhere. This all went according to form.
Aside from some reasonably good repartee ("you've fallen out of the gutter into the sewer") the reaction of the audience was the only interesting part. Rather than listening to what either of the speakers had to say it was clear that the audience took sides very early on (probably before the doors were opened) and cheered and booed accordingly. Due to this I am not sure any deeper understanding of the issues was achieved by this whole charade and toward the end both of the speakers were visibly bored.
A much more interesting debate of the same kind is Noam Chomsky and Richard Perle which you can get http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm (toward the bottom of page). This debate is conducted between two people who, for entirely different reasons, are big-hitters but do not particularly enjoy the limelight - not two self-promoters. Even though it is from 1988, there is much more of interest mentioned in this debate than in the Galloway-Hitchens.
[i] From 'Moby Dick'
[ii] Popinjay - An early name for a parrot. |
posted by michael the tubthumper @ 12:29 pm  |
|
| 6 Comments: |
-
Hi Michael -
This is a fine blog, sir.
You know, I can sometimes almost understand the hubris of the neoconservatives, deciding to attempt to dominate, rape and loot the entire world...
What I'll never be able to understand is how someone could decide to debate Noam Chomsky:
"Toe to toe with Chomsky in a formal debate setting? Sure!"
The Elites may be fairly bright and thorough and thoughtful - but they obviously have some glaring weaknesses, eh? Madness might head the list...
Keep up this great work, Michael.
- joe, from Mickey's
PS - Yes, I much enjoyed the Orwell interview. In my twenties, I often "interviewed" Jesus. Fortunately, He was always very gentle with me.
-
thanks joe
if you listen to it, Perle tried to subvert the format and in one single line chomsky puts him right down. its v funny.
-
Funny meeting you guys here.
The only problem with Chomsky debating these folks is that Noam has never learned to be concise. He just can't make his point between commercials. Part of this is because when dissidents speak, they require tons of evidence and context. Ann Coulter can step up to the mike and shriek: "America is god's country and Saddam ran rape rooms." No evidence needed. Chomsky often says he thinks if the corporate media were more clever, they'd have him on TV more often so he'd look like a lunatic when he says what he says but has no time to back it up.
-
too true mickey. no evidence required for the right-wing stuff but the research on the left has to be impeccable
galloway gets round this by doing his own tubthumping!, if nothing else, he is good box office.
-
Hitchens is a pompous idiot, making a living pretending to know something profound.
-
yup
was going to try and write something vitriolic about him but then decided he wasn't worth wasting any more time on
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| What is Tubthumping and who is doing it? |
|
Name: michael the tubthumper
Home: Glasgow, Scotland
About Me: Tub-Thumper - 1. A speaker or preacher who for emphasis thumps the pulpit; a violent or declamatory preacher or orator; a ranter. This blog will be a combination of reasoned posting somedays and an occasional rant.
28 years old, I write and research for a couple of websites and also do my own stuff.
See my complete profile
|
| Thumping The Tub Video |
I have made a few short movies. Here are links to free downloads for them all in the order that I made them (as far as I can remember). Please feel free to use, distribute, disagree with, shout at etc etc
Praise The Lord and Pass The Ammunition
This was a REAL song from World War 2. I was so stunned by it I had to make a movie
How Far Is It From Here to Nuremberg
This is my attempt at a video for the excellent, if worrying, David Rovics (see links) song
What You Like
I believe the word for this is "splenetic". Only 20 seconds long.
Imperial Measures
What is going on in Iraq? Some things you knew, some you didn't. A couple of bits of info are out of date now.
Wish You Were Here
Wish You Were Here is a 6 minute film about the unprecendted rate of animal extinction we are currently experiencing
Gorillas and us
I don't like creationism, neither did Douglas Adams
|
| Recent Thumping |
|
| Older Thumping |
|
| Links |
spinwatch
adbusters
internet archive
art not oil
blairwatch
bushflash
camcorder guerillas
corporate watch
campaign for press freedom
noam chomsky
common dreams
counterpunch
cost of war
david rovics
democracy now
dissident voice
the dossier
downing street says
etims
robert fisk
food not bombs
global research
gmwatch
impeach blair
indybay video
killing hope
lobbywatch
mediachannel
medialens
mickey z
mixed up records
george monbiot
mark thomas
john pilger
radio 4 all
schnews
snow shoe films
sourcewatch
tom englehardt
ukwatch
video activist network
howard zinn
|
U.S. MONETARY Cost of the War in Iraq - other people are spending too, and the human cost is much higher
(JavaScript Error)
|
|
| some of the blogs I look at |
|
| Arse of the month |
The inaugural 'Arse of the month' award goes to our very own Scottish First Minister Jack (Joke) McConnell. He seems to spend a lot of his time sucking up to english politicians and yet it appears they don't even know his name. Follow the link to see..
NODOBY KNOWS ME
|
| It's All Gone Scottish |
A list of some other Scottish sites and blogs most of which, if not all, are pro-independence. I don't agree with content on all of them obviously. Some are Scots at home, others abroad.
The Scottish Patient
Kim Ayres
Our Scotland
average tosser
1820
big stick small carrot
J. Arthur MacNumpty
World of Jack McConnell
The Firefox Chronicles
Independence 1st
Radio Free Scotland
Scots and independent
Scottish Independence Guide
TCOAW
Small Nation
Inveresk Street Ingrate
Radical Glasgow
|
| Want to Swot? |
If you like this site and think it is time to start getting informed here are a few real favourites of mine that will help you blow away the corporate and government propaganda you are constantly bombarded with. It is added to every so often.
politics and the english language
Beyond Hope
the gore exception
your tax dollars at work
a cultural chernobyl
choose life (not trainspotting)
shooting an elephant
a war crime within a war crime...
the menace of liberal scholarship
the modern era of law
naming the problem
the four ages of sand
a news revolution has begun
come september
money is the cause of poverty
countering corporate power
|
| Other Stuff |
Who links to me?
Fight Spam! Click Here!
Blogdust
 |
|
Hi Michael -
This is a fine blog, sir.
You know, I can sometimes almost understand the hubris of the neoconservatives, deciding to attempt to dominate, rape and loot the entire world...
What I'll never be able to understand is how someone could decide to debate Noam Chomsky:
"Toe to toe with Chomsky in a formal debate setting? Sure!"
The Elites may be fairly bright and thorough and thoughtful - but they obviously have some glaring weaknesses, eh? Madness might head the list...
Keep up this great work, Michael.
- joe, from Mickey's
PS - Yes, I much enjoyed the Orwell interview. In my twenties, I often "interviewed" Jesus. Fortunately, He was always very gentle with me.