I like reading Media Lens. Here, they are defending George Galloway and the left in general, against New Labour (British spelling) and neocons, etc.
Read the whole Media Lens article. There's plenty of food for thought -- more on that below.
George Galloway's stunning victory in last week's Bradford West by-election afforded a rare opportunity to witness naked imbalance, establishment scorn of any challenges, and blatant anti-Muslim propaganda in the corporate British media.
So, my title is: "What do you think of George Galloway?" So, what do I think of him? I've read him. I watched scores of hours of him on the Internet. Here's my brief take.
I agree with him about 90+% of the time. Where I leave off or am not sure due to not hearing enough to know either way concerns Islam, homosexuality, and never hearing the other person.
On the first, George Galloway has made clear that he doesn't like totalitarians, whether Muslim or not. However, perhaps for the same reason that I think he's too quick not to hear the other side (sometimes one can't because the other side isn't saying anything or is saying too much that's wrong; so I don't fault him for that), he seems to avoid raising the dark side unless it's put before him. I mean the dark side of "Islam." That's in quotes because what constitutes Islam is debatable and debated by Muslims and non-Muslims too.
This may be pushed on him more than anything. He seems to be attacked by a great many rather stupid people in "high" places, so he appears always ready to fire back rather than searching or probing to see if there's any capacity for grasping or changing, etc. Okay, the people who know me may be thinking this is the pot calling the kettle black, and they'd have a point to a degree. I'm thinking out loud about myself too, even though I do believe that over the years I've eased up on firing back George Galloway style.
So, that covers number 1 and 3: Islam and never hearing the other person. On homosexuality, well, he's openly supportive of it. At least that's how it appears. Whereas, I hold that it's an error, always. I'm not coercive about it, but that doesn't stop those who love to roll out the trite commentary, as if I haven't heard it all before and as if the "barbs" of people who can't discuss things honestly get to me. I mean, when I say that penises don't belong in anuses (fact) and hear back that, that means I hire male prostitutes (wow, do they really think they win a debate with that? It's not about that though, is it; it's about "acting out" and silencing the intelligent conversation), it's too the point where I wonder why people aren't willing to be honest anymore. Do they understand what cognitive dissonance is?
George Galloway is right to be anti-war. He's been right to help get aid into Gaza. He's been right to continue to speak out against Zionism, although he doesn't use the term much that I can tell. He's also been right to care about the working class and poor.
What I'd like to see is more probing from him rather than instantly "cutting off heads" or quickly setting others up for the "kill." I don't think that's asking too much. I think he'd probably be good at it and that doing it would expand his reach.
I like George Galloway more than I don't, but I'm sure he and I would argue (if he does that, if he sticks around and doesn't get offended and say who needs such friends...). There are limits. I have them too. Don't huff off to easily.
I think it's good for England and the UK that George is back in Parliament. They need someone to challenge them on their terrible policies and practices.
I wish him well. May God bless him in his attempt to know and to speak truth.