(no subject)
listening to 'the grapple in the big apple' for the past hours, i'm struck by how well it encapsulates the problem of anti-war politics regarding iraq. actually, it illustrates the problem of the left altogether. i should first say that i'm thankful for having been delivered from an almost certain fate of remaining in ranks of this current anti-war left. it was primarily by virtue of my geographical shift that i was permitted--or, shall i say, required to rethink my thinking on the subject of this war. it occurs to me that i was lucky enough to be faced with a dilemma of allegiances because the i found that most of the qualities i despised about the conservative majority in virginia were alive and well in the liberal majority here in new york. cheap demagoguery: legions of devotees looking up to ignorant pundits who play sides and spout rhetoric rather than engage in critical analysis. in virginia, you can find at least one joe on every street corner who can parrot the arguments they've had handed to them by sean hannity or bill o'reilly. in new york, the carnival-colored bird sounds more like michael moore or naom chomsky. remarkably, none of them sound like they are the result of a sustained investigation on the part of the speaker. in other words, it sounds like laziness and such laziness simply will not do when it comes to your feelings about such grave issues.
i no longer feel at home amongst the left majority in new york or, for that matter it seems, in most of the u.s. and europe. listening to hitchens and galloway debate, i hear a remarkable difference...in the crowd. hitchens was right to shun the 'zoo' noises emanating from the galloway camp. i had to wonder to myself how many of those booing find themselves behind a bullhorn in union square beside a banner that reads 'the bush regime engineered 9-11.' while hitchens' crowd was enthusiastic, they most applauded his correct points and kept quiet as galloway squawked on and on. galloway's camp, on the other hand, saw fit to boo and hiss over hitchens' speaking. i say saw fit, i should say were content. because, for them, it's not about actually hearing what he has to say. their minds are made up, the lines drawn, sides chosen.
the most crucial thing was how little INFORMATION and ARGUMENT galloway brought to the table. and, when challenged, hitchens would respond directly to allegations with information and some genuine humility when he conceded to past errors (which, incidently, galloway could never bring himself to do). you didn't necessarily have to agree with hitchens to see that there was a great deal more real thinking and logical activity going on in what he said. logicians distinguish between a valid argument and a sound argument. valid simply means that the mechanical operations of logic are correct. galloway said little that could even be analysed in such terms. 'you've moved from the gutter to the sewer'--that's not making a case for anything.
naom chomsky's logical muscle works fairly well. how sound are his arguments? none of this is value-free. chomsky's case may be strong if you sympathize with one of his unspoken and primary assumptions: that capitalism is the greatest threat to humanity. if you agree with hitchens that it's religion and fascism, you'll be more inclined to agree with him. i happen to agree with both of them, but i think hitchens' argument feels more sound. i'm not sure what comforts people in an argument like galloway's if it isn't simply the comfort of knowing you have a team, and a voicebox for your team that will save you the trouble of developing a case of your own.
i no longer feel at home amongst the left majority in new york or, for that matter it seems, in most of the u.s. and europe. listening to hitchens and galloway debate, i hear a remarkable difference...in the crowd. hitchens was right to shun the 'zoo' noises emanating from the galloway camp. i had to wonder to myself how many of those booing find themselves behind a bullhorn in union square beside a banner that reads 'the bush regime engineered 9-11.' while hitchens' crowd was enthusiastic, they most applauded his correct points and kept quiet as galloway squawked on and on. galloway's camp, on the other hand, saw fit to boo and hiss over hitchens' speaking. i say saw fit, i should say were content. because, for them, it's not about actually hearing what he has to say. their minds are made up, the lines drawn, sides chosen.
the most crucial thing was how little INFORMATION and ARGUMENT galloway brought to the table. and, when challenged, hitchens would respond directly to allegations with information and some genuine humility when he conceded to past errors (which, incidently, galloway could never bring himself to do). you didn't necessarily have to agree with hitchens to see that there was a great deal more real thinking and logical activity going on in what he said. logicians distinguish between a valid argument and a sound argument. valid simply means that the mechanical operations of logic are correct. galloway said little that could even be analysed in such terms. 'you've moved from the gutter to the sewer'--that's not making a case for anything.
naom chomsky's logical muscle works fairly well. how sound are his arguments? none of this is value-free. chomsky's case may be strong if you sympathize with one of his unspoken and primary assumptions: that capitalism is the greatest threat to humanity. if you agree with hitchens that it's religion and fascism, you'll be more inclined to agree with him. i happen to agree with both of them, but i think hitchens' argument feels more sound. i'm not sure what comforts people in an argument like galloway's if it isn't simply the comfort of knowing you have a team, and a voicebox for your team that will save you the trouble of developing a case of your own.