7:39am
I switched over to the French presidential debate last night from the footie, once I saw how easily Milan would swat away the inept United. It was a wise choice. I can't remember the last time I have been so gripped by a political debate. It was supposedly as stage managed as even the most insipid US presidential debate, with a clock counting the exact number of seconds taken by each candidate and two questioners. But that only goes to show that when two real people want to have a real argument, stage management means nothing.
It really was compelling, Royal and Sarkozy interrupting each other, jabbing fingers, throwing out accusations of lying, and - in Royal's case - losing their temper. Ironic, given that Sarkozy has the fabled temper tantrums. Then when she called him immoral he was able to paint her as someone who doesn't accept the very basis of democracy - debate between opposing points of view.
I thought Sarkozy won, because he looked calm and in control, and was able to patronise Royal precisely because she was trying to patronise him. Her constant smiling looked really false, and when she lost her sang froid over help for the handicapped Sarkozy went for the kill, arguing that she had just shown why she wasn't fit to be President. As he put it: you can't have a President who loses their cool when they get annoyed,
The whole thing was utterly riveting. Not necessarily elevating or a quest of intellectual discovery, but riveting.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
5:23pm
Welcome to my new blog. I’ve been blogging on my own site, stephenpollard.net, since...well, since before anyone had ever heard of the word ‘blog’. I never meant to blog. I started with a site on which I would post articles that I’d written for various newspapers and magazines. Without really knowing that I was blogging, I began to post small items which I’d written just for the site. Things which annoyed or interested me but which were too small for a proper column somewhere. Over time, the site morphed into a fully fledged blog, and I became known as a blogger.
And then the Spectator came along and asked me if I’d join their site as the Spectator’s blogger. It seemed like too good an opportunity to miss. So here I am; and here it is. (My old site will carry on as a repository for various columns, but I'll no longer blog on it. This will now be my blogging home.)
There’s no real theme to the blog, beyond my interests and enthusiasms. On serious matters, I get stirred up by those who either refuse to acknowledge the threat we face from militant Islam or those who are fellow travellers with terror. I get annoyed by the likes of Polly Toynbee and her ‘do what I tell you to do’ leftists. And I get angered by those who fit into the category you’ll probably see most of here: buffoons.
I also get obsessive about horse racing, Spurs and classical music. But if none of that grabs you, I hope there will always be something which does.
I make no claims whatsoever for either this blog or blogging in general. They’re both just one other mixture in the pot. If you’re interested by what I write here, that’s great. But if you don’t, there’s a simple answer. Ignore it. It’s free, and no one is forced to have a look.
Enjoy. Or hate. Or feel indifferent. It’s up to you.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
5:12pm
There's plenty of free speech (see my post below on the Doha Debates) on Iranian TV. Free, that is, so long as you say that the Holocaust didn't happen and rant on about Zionists and the Nazis.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
4:49pm
Daniel Finkelstein links to a wonderful interview with the great Christopher Hitchens. Do read the whole thing, but I loved this:
Do you consider yourself a hawk?
I used to wish there was a useful term for those of us who thought American power should be used to remove psychopathic dictators.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
4:36pm
I'm afraid I don't have a link for this, but I have just been sent a press release on a debate held last night at the Oxford Union:
66% OF OXFORD UNION AUDIENCE BELIEVE THE PRO-ISRAELI LOBBY STIFLES WESTERN DEBATE ABOUT ISRAEL'S ACTIONS
Oxford, UK: 2nd May â“ A series of heated exchanges marked the arrival of the Doha Debates at the Oxford Union last night, where two-thirds of the student audience approved a motion claiming that Israel's supporters are stifling western debate.
This was the first time that the Doha Debates, a unique forum for free speech in the Arab world, have held an event outside Qatar.
The debate, hosted by award winning broadcaster Tim Sebastian, took place amid mounting controversy over the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and accusations that it has suppressed criticism of Israel â“ a charge that the lobby vigorously denies.
Norman Finkelstein, a leading academic critic of Israeli policies, argued in favour of the motion claiming that the Pro-Israel lobby sows confusion to avoid being held to account: "they claim that the conflict is so complicated that it would require rocket science to penetrate its mysteries." Finkelstein maintained that the American people are ignorant of solutions to the conflict that have been available for 30 years due to the "misinformation, disinformation, and sheer fraud which masquerades as scholarship that is validated by mainstream media." The journalist and writer Andrew Cockburn supported this view, claiming there are "red lines" in discussing Israel that no politician or journalist in the US would dare cross for fear of being demonised or driven out of public life.
Dr Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, and Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, argued strongly against the motion, saying that last night's event in Oxford was proof of a lively debate on the subject. He said controversy over a recent book by former US president Jimmy Carter â“ branded anti-Semitic in some quarters â“ was further evidence that criticism of Israel was not being stifled.
His fellow panellist David Aaronovitch, the journalist and broadcaster, dismissed accusations of conspiracy around the lobby, insisting that Americans naturally identified with Israel, a country surrounded by autocracies, because of their belief in democracy: "It wasn't the Israeli lobby that made Egypt, Jordan, or Syria dictatorships," he said. He added that what may be true in the US is not the case in Europe where there is no such movement to sow confusion or stifle debate: "But if debate is stifled it isn't coming from the pro-Israeli lobby as some Danish cartoonists found out to their cost."
The debate will be broadcast on BBC World on Saturday 5th May and on Sunday 6th May.
Do you think any of the '66%' (and I'm deeply suspicious of any vote which has such a neat figure as two thirds) who believe that the pro-Israeli lobby stifles debate has spotted the irony in recording their vote in the Doha Debates, described as "a unique forum for free speech in the Arab world". That's free speech - in which people can debate issues such as, oh, Israel, Hezbollah and anything else they choose to discuss - being "unique" to the Doha Debates as in not existing elsewhere. Debate is oh-so-free in the Arab world, in Iran, and in the Palestinian Authority, isn't it?
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
Previous
