Regarding the Hitchens-Galloway debate, blogger Tigerhawk attended and provides a comprehensive, first-hand account of all the action, including this scoring of the decision:
In the end, an honest scoring of the debate would have found Hitchens as the clear winner, since most of Galloway's attacks did not respond to Hitchens' substantive arguments. That does not mean, however, that either will change many minds.
Watch it when it comes on. It was a spectacle the likes of which we rarely see in this country.
Earlier I remarked on Hitchens' uncharacteristic absence of response to George Galloway's pre-debate insults. Turns out I wasn't looking in the right place. His latest column at Slate, includes this anatomical dissection:
Galloway's preferred style is that of vulgar ad hominem insult, usually uttered while a rather gaunt crew of minders stands around him. I have a thick skin and a broad back and no bodyguards. He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a "popinjay" (true enough, since its original Webster's definition means a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest). In a recent interview he made opprobrious remarks about the state of my midriff, which I will confess has--as P.G. Wodehouse himself once phrased it--"slipped down to the mezzanine floor." In reply I do not wish to stoop. Those of us who revere the vagina are committed to defend it against the very idea that it is a mouth or has teeth. Study the photographs of Galloway from Syrian state television, however, and you will see how unwise and incautious it is for such a hideous person to resort to personal remarks. Unkind nature, which could have made a perfectly good butt out of his face, has spoiled the whole effect by taking an asshole and studding it with ill-brushed fangs.
The Elder Adds: Jeff from Peace Like A River (another fine MOB blog) has more on the debate, including a round-up of reactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment