Keith,
A belated ‘Happy Birthday’ and may you have many more.
Political debate isn’t particularly good over here and –
unless its changed – that includes Canada.
Jeremy Paxman hit Blair with both barrels in a pre-election spat I saw
– yet Blair came back with as good as he got. An entertaining program
with two good debaters.
I gave evidence at a Canadian Senate Committee way back. They tried to
pound me for I was advocating land-value taxation to a bunch of land
speculators. As my Liberal apprenticeship included umpteen hours on the
soap-boxes of London – particularly all
day long Sunday stints at Hyde Park’s
Speakers Corner, I wasn’t an easy mark.
They hit me hard – calling me a Communist among other things
– so I really let them have it.
There was an uproar. I was expected to knuckle down when confronted by
the majesty of the Canadian Senate, but of course I didn’t. Eventually,
some more gentlemanly Senators (including a couple of friends) brought order by
criticizing my interrogators for behaving so badly to a guest.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Of course you can look it up in the Canadian Hansard – or perhaps
you can’t. Unlike the British Parliament, the record is edited. (English
MPS sometimes complain about what Hansard records them as saying. The raw
stenographic material from several stenographers is shown to them and they
agree with each other rather than with the MP.)
Later, I was having lunch with my friends in the Senate restaurant when
I got a message to see the Queen’s Printer.
When I got there, the draft of proceedings was given to me for me to
change as I saw fit. I assume everyone on the Committee had equal access.
When Hansard was printed it revealed a well-laundered version of the
proceedings.
One learns something new every day!
Perhaps “Mr. Conservative” William F. Buckley had some
pretty good debates on television back when he was younger. He is a Georgist
and his opponent – and often moderator – was ‘very’
left-winger Michael Kinsley. Probably at the urging of Buckley, Kinsley read
Henry Georges’s “Progress and Poverty” and declared it to be
the best book of Economics ever written.
Kinsley edited “The New Republic” and
“Harper’s” – was editor of the Economist’s
“American Survey” and managing editor of the “Washington
Monthly”. He has written columns for practically every publication
including the Times of London. He also founded and edited Microsoft’s
publication “Slate”.
He now runs the Editorial and OpEd pages of the Los Angeles Times.
Karen recently sent me a column in which he favorably mentioned Henry George.
His (American) liberal credentials are solid and he hasn’t forgotten
Henry.
How I wish these two protagonists (both Georgists) would come back for
heavy argument. Perhaps then the American public would see some real debate
– and not the watered-down Presidential version.
Harry
*******************************
Henry
George School
of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA
91042
818 352-4141
*******************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith
Hudson
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 12:37
AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] More on
Gorgeous George
Further to George Galloway's bashing of the US
Congressional Committee a few days ago, FWers might like to read what a fairly
extreme right-winger -- and former Tory Minister -- thought of him. Remember
that George Galloway is an ex-Labour Party and even way to the left of most
Labour MPs. I think his political ideas are simplistic -- nevertheless, he
speaks for England!
(The "returning officer" below, by the way, is the guy, usually the
mayor of a town, who stands up after an election count with all the candidates
beside him and announces the winner. Also, Michael Portillo, who was previously
spoken of as a future Tory Prime Minister not long ago, lost his seat two
elections ago -- hence his mention of "gritted teeth"! )
<<<<
GORGEOUS GEORGE BATTERS BUSH'S BEAUTIFUL FAIRY TALE
Michael Portillo
"I would like to thank the returning officer." That clich� is uttered
by election candidates in the moments after the result is declared. Many, like
me, may have said the words through gritted teeth having watched the pedantic
official milk his 15 minutes of fame after taking 4 hours to count a mere
30,000 pieces of paper.
When I heard the victorious George Galloway (in a stunningly graceless
acceptance speech) describe the electoral arrangements in his Bethnal Green and
Bow constituency as a shambles and call on the returning officer to resign, I
had to salute his political incorrectness.
Much though I liked Oona King, whom he defeated, I am delighted that Galloway and two other independents will enliven the new
parliament. This is a good time for charismatic figures espousing popular
causes to get elected. The voters find it deeply satisfying to snub the main
parties.
Galloway's success is impressive. The man who
first entered parliament by defeating Roy Jenkins in Glasgow Hillhead has now
had to change party and country. Even so he defeated a high-profile Labour
incumbent. On paper he is as out of place in London's
East End as Jenkins was on the Clyde. But
thanks to Galloway's opportunistic seizure of
a largely Muslim seat, the Commons will continue to enjoyhis formidable
rhetorical prowess.
Last week, however, it was Galloway's
performance in the US Senate that held our gaze. In the days since he harangued
Senator Coleman's committee there has been a fresh outbreak of British
snootiness about the inferiority of the debating skills of US politicians. That
underplays Galloway's achievement: we have not
always felt so superior.
I have seen MPs on select committees bully their witnesses as, Walter
Mitty-like, they dream of being the young Richard Nixon on the house committee
on un-American activities crushing Alger Hiss. That reputations and lives have
been destroyed before such committees did not faze Galloway.
Indeed it provided him with an opportunity to parody that catchphrase from the
Hiss era: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?" What is it about Galloway
that makes normally cautious people behave recklessly? The Daily Telegraph is �1.35m poorer,
including costs, after a court found that the newspaper had defamed Galloway (it is appealing). The Senate committee accused
him of wrongdoing before giving him a chance to comment, allowing Galloway to claim justifiably that Coleman (a
distinguished lawyer) had a cavalier attitude to justice.
At a time when no documents relating to weapons of mass destruction could be
unearthed within the ruins of Saddam Hussein's ministries, papers bearing
Galloway's name blew into the hands of British journalists within days of the
Americans' arrival in Baghdad.
They were the basis of the Telegraph
story. Did none of the newspaper's newshounds smell a rat? Did Coleman not know
that Galloway had won lawsuits by claiming
that the documents used against him were forgeries? The British MP may have been
evasive in his answers to the committee but it in turn failed to convince us
that we should rely on its new evidence that somehow had reached it.
The committee foolishly gave Galloway a platform in Washington
to berate the US
for the hypocrisy of its foreign policy. Gorgeous George might as well have
been in Hollywood,
because the Americans enabled him to achieve superstar status, as demonstrated
by the adoring crowd that greeted him in Bethnal Green on his return.
One of Galloway's most telling lines was that he had met Saddam only twice, as
had Donald Rumsfeld, the difference being that the US defence secretary had
sought him out in order to sell arms. The gag works because of its simple
juxtaposition and also because it is delivered like machinegun fire and with
conviction. Only later did I stop to think: what arms did the US sell to Iraq (whose tanks were Russian and
whose warplanes were French)? The Senate hearings are not mainly about Galloway
but about the United Nations' oil for food programme, which is thought to have
enriched Saddam's regime by $17.3 billion and lined the pockets of many outside
Iraq.
But Galloway was on to a good point when arguing that another disgrace is America's administration of Iraq following the fall of Baghdad.
You do not hear many claims today that life there is returning to normal, or
that electricity and water are running better than in Saddam's time. I have
never believed that the war was about oil, but the way that regeneration
contracts have been directed towards US companies sullies America's
motives. Also, if we care so much about setting the Iraqi people free, why do
we refuse to keep any record of how many of those we have liberated have been
killed? As one who supported the war, I think it is right that we should be
held to account for what has happened on our watch. It is because the allies
employ double standards that a showman such as Galloway
becomes a popular hero.
As the cabaret was being played out on Capitol Hill, the US administration was framing its first
mealy-mouthed comments on the slaughter of hundreds of civilians by government
forces in Uzbekistan.
Condoleezza Rice managed eventually to call for political reform and the State
Department said it was deeply disturbed, but still its spokesman condemned the
violent protesters who had stormed government buildings.
Maybe America
believes President Islam Karimovs claim that the trouble is caused by Muslim
extremists. Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador to the country, says that
is a lie. The pressure, he says, comes not from militants but from businessmen
in Andijan who want capitalism and democracy. Murray has described a regime that tortures
and murders, sometimes by boiling victims alive. For his pains he was sacked as
ambassador.
The American and British attitude to this former Soviet republic contrasts
sharply with their approach to Ukraine
and Georgia.
George Bush greeted Viktor Yushchenko, the new Ukrainian leader, with these
words: You are an inspiration to all who love liberty . . . an example of
democracy for people around the world.
In Tbilisi Bush's rhetoric was still more grandiloquent: Georgia is
today both sovereign and free, a beacon of liberty for this region and the
world.He recalled that a Georgian crowd had once pulled down Lenin's statue.
You sense that if the Uzbeks did such a thing the State Department would
condemn them for vandalising public art.
Times Online -- 22 May 2005
>>>>
