Invective as Perhaps Only the Brits Can Do It

by Liberty and Power

The Guardian carries an amusing account of the debate between George Galloway, the British MP, and Christopher Hitchens, the dual national journalist, on the Iraq War at Baruch College, New York City. It seems as if it generated some entertainment, if little enlightenment on the issues.

“In a debate that drew as much from the culture of the playground as the traditions of parliament, no hyperbolic stone was left unturned.

“In response to one of Galloway's answers Hitchens said:"Beneath each gutter there's another gutter gurgling away." Galloway later shot back:"You've fallen out of the gutter into the sewer."”

Reading the story reminded me: Is there any chance of a debate between Tom Palmer and Justin Raimondo on the same subject? Queensberry Rules, of course, as befits two of the libertarian movement’s best known gay men.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Justin Raimondo - 9/19/2005

Hmmmm, well I _am_ a little on the dark side. Now, if only I could command West's lecture fees!

Roderick T. Long - 9/19/2005

Yes, I have outed you as a black man.

Justin Raimondo - 9/19/2005

I take it I'm Cornel West ...

Justin Raimondo - 9/17/2005

Lighten up, Tom. (Although I'm certain such an appeal is, uh, futile ....) And you too, rod. Palmer should be flattered being compared to Hitchens, but he's so brittle and touchy that he doesn't recognize a compliment when there's an opportunity to take offense.

Palmer's call for militarily defeating the insurgency is the same as Hitchens, with one difference: Hitchens is coherent, albeit wrong.

Roderick T. Long - 9/16/2005

If you'd said "Let's see a debate between Thomas Sowell and Cornel West -- to be adjudicated by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney," would you be mystified if people had taken this amiss?

Mark Brady - 9/16/2005

It may have been a weak joke but I fail to see that it is either offensive or bigoted or inappropriate. The principal idea in the final paragraph of my original post was that a debate between Tom Palmer and Justin Raimondo would see the sparks fly. Each identifies as a gay man (and, I might add, why not?) and this characteristic is part of each person's public persona. So what's offensive or bigoted or inappropriate about my concluding remarks?

Roderick T. Long - 9/16/2005

Yes, I know who Queensberry was (despite my misspelling his name).

So your saying the relevance of "Queensberry" is not that it contains the word "Queen" but that it refers to a participant in the court battle that eventually landed Oscar Wilde in prison for being gay. Um, okay ... but I have a hard time seeing how that helps very much. What do Tom's and Justin's being gay have to do with the topic of your post to begin with?

Mark Brady - 9/16/2005

Rod: "Queen" in "Queensbury rules" is not per se a reference to gays either, but in each case a play on words is implied.

Queensberry (not Queensbury) is a reference to the ninth Marquess of Queensberry whom Oscar Wilde sued for libel and who was responsible for the Queensberry Rules in boxing, which term is now used in other contexts. The OED 2nd edition (1989) gives the following quotation from The New Yorker of June 13, 1977: "An at last complete love affair with a married woman..was in the Queensberry rules; she could not object." Hence the links in my post to the Marquis of Queensberry and the Queensberry Rules.

A pun on "queen" was not in my mind. It didn't occur to me, even after reading Tom's post.

Roderick T. Long - 9/16/2005

To Mark: I'm afraid I have to say that your comment did indeed strike me as quite inappropriate.

To Chris Pettit: Of course Tom knows what "niggardly" means, and you've (deliberately?) misunderstood his point. "Queen" in "Queensbury rules" is not per se a reference to gays either, but in each case a play on words is implied. Come on.

chris l pettit - 9/16/2005

Tom, I am really curious to know in what context you were using niggardly...my first impression is that you were trying to use it in a derogatory sense referring to race, as you utilize Sowell and West. What is hilarious is that you are either too stupid or worked up to realize the actual definition of niggardly - cheap and petty with regards to spending money...which I seriously doubt can be claimed about West (and possibly Sowell as well)...and the circumstantial evidence definitely points to you not using that definition since it would not exactly fit your purpose.

and you call yourself a scholar...as usual, what a joke...

CP

Mark Brady - 9/16/2005

Lest I'm accused of posting anonymous messages, I wish to claim authorship of the previous post from which I inadvertently omitted my name.

- 9/16/2005

Huh? As I'm sure ninety-nine point nine nine percent of L&P readers would realize, I was not gay baiting. And, just for the record, neither do I think nor was I implying that Tom and Justin advocate the respective positions embraced by Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway.

tomgpalmer - 9/16/2005

How charming of Mr. Brady to stae that my sexuality is relevant to how I would engage in a debate. The remark about "Queensbury rules" is pure viciousness, no different from suggesting that the list of rules governing a debate between Thomas Sowell and Cornell West should be "niggardly." Furthermore, by comparing me to Mr. Hitchens in such a debate, Mr. Brady clearly implies that I would take the same position on the wisdom of going to war, a position I in fact did not take and do not take.

Is it a normal practice of Liberty & Power bloggers to engage in misleading insinuations and gay baiting? Mr. Brady should be ashamed of himself.